Duration: 10/01/2004 to 09/30/2010

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Pecan (Carya illinoinensis (Wang.) K. Koch ) is the most economically-important native nut crop in the U.S. It provides annual farm gate revenues > $300 million to diverse producers; most with < 100 acres and some with > 1000 acres. Uncultivated native stands are managed in river valleys that empty into the Gulf of Mexico but also in vegetatively propagated and seedling orchards across the south-central U.S. Growers rely on arthropod pest management strategies that are developed through regional entomology research dispersed across the pecan growing region. Regional coordination increases the feasibility of completing multiple research projects. Pecans are produced in 18 states but only GA, AL, LA, TX, OK, KS, and NM conduct research to control pecan pests. However, regional cooperation among pecan entomologists has provided research-based strategies for pest management in all states by effectively pooling resources, coordinating research and testing new technologies. Success of the regional research project is measured by the creation of new pest management tools and successful adaptation of new technology into IPM strategies widely used by pecan producers. Improving systems to manage pecan arthropod pests requires regional research that includes: improved systems to monitor pests, improved control systems for pests and development of pest biocontrol systems. Technical feasibility to complete this research is high given past regional accomplishments. Non-renewal would negatively affect our stakeholders by diminishing collaborative research between regions and limiting opportunities for direct transfer of information between scientists. This replacement proposal is directly related to Goal 4 (Greater harmony between agriculture and the environment) Part F (Integrated pest management systems, including biologically-based tactics) of the SAAESD Programmatic Plan priority areas for multistate research activities. Pecan production differs across states requiring validation of monitoring and control techniques at different locations. In improved southeastern orchards, the pecan weevil (PW), HSW, aphids, and kernel-feeding hemipterans are important pests and minimized pesticide sprays during the early season conserves beneficial insects. In improved western orchards, pecan nut casebearer (PNCB) and aphids are important pests but others, e.g., PW, are not established. Insecticides may be applied to southwestern orchards for early season PNCB control, mid-season for PNCB and August for PNCB plus aphids. Management of native groves emphasizes control of PW and PNCB; one early application for PNCB and 2-3 fall applications for PW. Pecan pest management changed considerably in the past 5 yr due to improved monitoring and chemical controls. The Circle trap improved PW detection and spray application. Pheromone monitoring of PNCB, HSW, and Euschistus spp. stink bugs was refined. Development of pheromones may allow for mating disruption to manage lepidopteran pests. Advances in biocontrol were made against aphids, pecan leaf scorch mite and PW. Orchard IPM was advanced by testing and recommending reduced-risk insecticides targeting specific pests but conserving natural enemies. However, rising costs of monitoring and control demand optimized management strategies. Aphid and mite resurgence remains a problem when broad spectrum insecticides are used against nut pests. Thus, implementation of more economical, target-specific insecticides and biocontrol measures are needed. Non-chemical control of PW is needed. Carbaryl sprays for PW are often amended an insecticide to prevent aphid and mite resurgence because carbaryl destroys their natural enemies. Alternative control tactics include: biocontrol with nematodes and fungi, early nut harvest, improved trapping, soil moisture control, host plant attractants and cultivars with low vulnerability to oviposition. Regional research efforts are needed to integrate such new tactics into an overall IPM strategy. The importance of this research to agriculture is in innovation to improve pest controls that protect and conserve this important native tree nut crop. The value to science is in using basic research to solve practical problems. Basic chemistry elucidated insect pheromones now used to monitor pests. Basic ecology developed aphid population models, predatorprey interactions and energy budgets for pest populations. Basic entomology delineated trophic relations between aphids and aphidophaga, lepidopteran pests and parasitoids, and weevils and pathogens. Insect behavior research led to better trap designs and alternative control tactics.

Related, Current and Previous Work

Related and Current Work: The Current Research Information System (CRIS) of the USDA was searched and 156 research projects were found that currently or recently involved some degree of research or association with pecan research. The search revealed that 64 of these projects were at least loosely related to pecan and insect research, whereas, 26 projects were more tightly linked to research on pecan and arthropod problems by scientists in the USDA and the SAES systems. The following narrative cites projects, by author and agency, for pecan research projects more-relevant to pecan entomology that were active during 1998 and afterward. Pecan cultivar resistance to insect damage has been and continues to be an important part of a pecan breeding program in Texas (Thompson and Grauke, ARS 6202) and in Georgia (Conner, CSREES GEO). Biological control of pecan insects is being carried out by several disparate projects (Shapiro-Ilan, Cottrell and Wood, ARS 6606; Ellington, CSREES NM; Dutcher, CSREES GEO; Mizell, CSREES FLA; Hunter, CSREES ARZT). Development and implementation of the Circle trap in pecan orchards for monitoring pecan weevil has proved successful by assisting in timing application of insecticides (Mulder, CSREES, OKL). Trapping Euschistus spp. stink bugs with pheromone-baited traps showed the seasonal occurrence and vertical distribution of two different species in pecan orchards. In addition, improvements were made to the trapping system that enhanced stink bug catch (Shapiro-Ilan, Cottrell and Wood, ARS, 6606). Use of pheromone traps to refine timing application of insecticides against the HSW and PNC has been done resulting in enhanced control and cost savings to growers (Mulder, CSREES OKL; Harris and Ree, CSREES TEX). Reduced-risk insecticides (e.g., imidacloprid) are available for certain pecan pests thus allowing for pest management strategies that focus on increasing natural control by minimizing the impact of chemical insecticides on beneficial species. Implementation of these reduced-risk insecticides into pecan pest management also will help to meet future grower needs as more broad-spectrum insecticides are lost due to the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (Harris and Ree, CSREES TEX; Dutcher, CSREES GEO, Ellington CSREES NM, McVay, CSREES ALA). In addition, trap crops have been tested and can provide relief to pecan from stink bug damage and other kernel-feeding Hemiptera thereby further reducing insecticide usage in pecan orchards (Hall, SAES LA.B). Pecan insect management strategies are being developed for native pecan groves (Reid, CSREES KAN). Many of the projects are authored by S-293 technical committee members and the biological control group has expressed interest in developing cooperative work through the new regional projects. Previous Work - Pest Monitoring Advances: New techniques for monitoring and control have been improved through regional research. Most recently, effective control and monitoring systems for pecan nut casebearer, stink bugs and black pecan aphids have been developed, field tested, and implemented in commercial orchards. A highly effective monitoring and control system was developed for pecan nut casebearer by combining a pheromone monitoring system, a sequential sampling plan, a prediction model, and insecticides (Harris 1995, Harris et al. 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1997). Important factors in pheromone trap catch were dose, lure age, and trap design (Knutson et al 1998). Research has found ways of replacing broad spectrum insecticides with tebufenozide (Confirm 2E, Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN), a biorational pesticide for pecan nut casebearer control. Pecan nut casebearer monitoring has been adjusted to predict first nut entry for different areas of pecan production (Davis 1993, Layton 1993, Mulder 1997, Ree 1995). Biological research continues to improve our understanding of oviposition and nut entry behavior of pecan nut casebearer (Aguirre et al 1995) and the interaction of pecan nut casebearer, pecan weevil and masting of pecan (Chung et al 1995, Harris et al 1996). Pecan nut casebearer spray timing has been linked to geographic information systems (GIS) to generate maps with isoclinal lines showing when to make control decision dates; maps are updated weekly during the first summer generation. Prediction models for first nut entry have been developed for use in Georgia and Texas. Evaluation of both models in Oklahoma by Grantham et al. (2002a, 2002b) showed that the Texas model performed best for Oklahoma orchards. Additionally, pheromone trapping across the southern U.S. validated the Texas model (Stevenson et al., 2003). Stink bug monitoring was improved with a new trapping technique. A pyramidal pecan weevil trap was painted yellow and a screen trap was affixed to the top (Mizell and Tedders 1995, Mizell et al., 1997). An aggregation pheromone, attractive to brown and dusky stink bugs, was used in conjunction with this yellow pyramidal trap. Seasonal occurrence of brown and dusky stink bugs was monitored (Yonce and Mizell 1997). Using this trapping technique, differential trapping of brown and dusky stink bugs was discovered in orchards; more brown stink bugs near the ground and more dusky stink bugs in tree canopies (Cottrell et al. 2000). Stink bugs cause damage in pecan in the fall and anytime when droughty conditions surround the orchard area. At these times alternate host plants in adjacent border crops are harvested or senesce, these areas become less desirable for stink bugs and the stink bugs migrate into the pecan orchard. The influx of stink bugs from harvested peanut fields into pecan can last 30 days (Mizell et al 1997). Irrigated pecan orchards are highly attractive to stink bugs and feeding before shell hardening can cause the nut to abort within 7 days (Wood and Tedders 1996). A sampling technique for black pecan aphid was developed to detect low population levels and give the growers an early warning for each infestation. The sample unit was changed from the compound leaf to the terminals and complete enumeration of the aphids is replaced by rating the terminals as having 0, 1 or 2+ aphids and whether or not nymphs are present. The older sampling technique underestimated small populations and overestimated large populations. By noting the presence of adults and/or nymphs, a lag period can be identified between the appearance of the first adult aphids and exponential population growth (Dutcher 1997a). In addition, insect monitoring and prediction systems have been improved for other very important arthropods, including pecan weevil and hickory shuckworm. A pheromone mixture of the male pecan weevil was identified (Hedin et al 1997) that is attractive to female pecan weevil. Pecan weevil mating is diurnal, peaking in the mid-afternoon (Collins et al 1996). Pecan weevil trapping has been improved with pyramidal cone traps (Tedders and Wood 1994, Tedders et al 1996) and circle traps (Mulder et al 1997) and a pheromone trapping system is in development (Hedin et al 1996, 1997, Collins et al 1996). The activity of pecan weevil adults after emergence from the soil is better understood from recent research (Cottrell 2001). This research indicates that pecan weevil emergence rate increases at dusk each day to nearly double the rate during the day, night or dawn. When weevils emerge, 60% crawl on the ground to the tree trunk and 40% fly to the trunk before ascending into the tree crown. After ascending into the large (15 m in ht.) trees in this study, weevils oviposited in a higher percentage of the pecans in the lower third of the canopy than in the middle or upper thirds. Weevils were also easily intercepted with traps set between trees at 5, 8 and 12 m indicating frequent flight of weevils between trees. A pheromone for the hickory shuckworm is commercially available and researchers have been developing pheromone based monitoring systems. This research has revealed two new compounds with attractiveness to male moths (M. T. Smith et al. 1994). In controlled field experiments, male moth response to the new components was mixed (M. T. Smith 1995a). Analysis of trap catch data indicates that the populations have a clumped distribution that becomes more uniform as the population size increases. These results indicate a need for more traps per orchard to measure moth flight accurately. The current recommendation is 1 trap/10 acres (M. T. Smith 1995a). However, hickory shuckworm pheromone trap catches are lower than black light trap catch (Collins et al 1995), especially during the mid-summer, even though adults are present and larvae cause significant nut drop (Yonce and McVay 1994). Research continues to identify and evaluate additional pheromone components (M. T. Smith et al 1994, M. T. Smith 1995a), trap design and placement (McVay et al 1995), emergence patterns and population trends (McVay et al 1994, Yonce and McVay 1994). In controlled field experiments, male moth response to the new components was mixed (M. T. Smith 1995a). Biological studies have measured the response of hickory shuckworm larvae and larval parasitoids to cold temperatures (Nava-Camberos et al 1996, Yonce et al 1996). Current Chemical Control: Chemical control of pecan insects is a critical issue in pecan production. Many insect problems are solved with chemical controls. Cancellation of the registration of principal pecan insecticides, development of insecticide resistance in aphids, and a reduction in the number of new registrations has reduced the chemical control options for pecan growers. Many growers rely on biological controls of early season insect problems, but the high investment in the crop has to be conserved with effective late season insect controls, especially for nut protection. Chemical control of pecan weevil, hickory shuckworm and kernel-feeding hemipterans is the most effective way to conserve the crop. Chemical control of black pecan aphid is the most effective way to conserve the foliage through the season and reduce alternate bearing. New chemical controls continue to be evaluated for control of pecan insect pests. A reduced-risk insecticide, imidacloprid, is currently used on pecan for control of pecan aphids. However, control of the seriously-damaging black pecan aphid is less than control of the blackmargined or yellow pecan aphids. Biorational materials such as tebufenozide have been used against pecan nut casebearer and hickory shuckworm on pecan. Usage of phosmet, methidithion, and formulations of B.t. toxins, has increased due to the canceling of the registration of phosalone (Harris 1998). Phosmet and methidithion are the only two insecticides with high efficacy against black pecan aphid that are readily available to pecan growers. Reduction in spray frequency by growers is a result of improved insect monitoring techniques. The number of carbaryl sprays for pecan weevil management has been reduced through improved trapping methods for pecan weevil. New traps and trunk sprays of carbaryl are being tested yearly (Mulder et al. 2003, Cottrell and Wood 2003). A pyrethroid, zeta-cypermethrin, looks promising for control and is currently registered. All other chemicals have to be sprayed out once per week to be as effective as carbaryl for three seasons and then Dipel for hickory shuckworm control during late season of the fourth and fifth seasons is effective in reducing pecan weevil. The two year hiatus from carbaryl allows natural controls to reduce aphid and mite infestations. Weevil damage was less than 2% damage in untreated pecan trees. These results indicate that pecan weevil may be locally controlled with reduced spray frequency for several seasons after a three year intensive control program (Dutcher 1997b). Pecan nut casebearer can usually be controlled when the monitoring system is used with one well-timed spray. Hickory shuckworm still requires two sprays of a contact insecticide, timed by monitoring pecan nut phenology and black light trap catches. Pecan aphids were found to develop insecticide resistance in the field within two seasons of the introduction of use of pyrethroids or organophosphates. Combinations of insecticides were also losing efficacy over time (Dutcher 1997c). Black pecan aphids have shown some tolerance to insecticide applications and populations are increasing across the southeast (McVay and Estes 1995). More specific aphid insecticides were found to effectively control the aphids and resistance development studies are underway for these new insecticides (Dutcher 1997b). The impact of pesticides on beneficial insects and aphid pathogens was determined in field and laboratory experiments (Hurej and Dutcher 1994a, 1994b, 1994c) and indicated that ladybeetles were not tolerant to any insecticides tested and lacewings were tolerant to certain insecticides. A pesticide usage survey in Texas indicated a reliance on organophosphate insecticides and strong participation in IPM approach to control (Harris et al 1993). Characteristics of concentrate and dilute spraying techniques were compared (Harris 1997). Integrated Control Measures: Research has developed pecan pest management programs for control programs of pecan weevil, hickory shuckworm, pecan nut casebearer and the aphid complex based on integration of chemical and biological controls (Harris 1983). Alternatives to broad spectrum insecticides for pecan pest control were developed (McVay and Hall 1998). In addition to control of pecan nut casebearer, tebufenozide effectively controls gregarious caterpillars and hickory shuckworm without destroying predacious insects of aphids and mites (Dutcher 1996). Pecan weevil control is still reliant on sprays of carbaryl to the foliage as an adulticide (Tedders and Wood 1995). The specific aphidicide, imidacloprid (Provado 1.6E or Admire 2E, Bayer Chemical Co., Kansas City) effectively controls pecan aphids that tend to increase rapidly after carbaryl is applied for weevil control during the late season (Dutcher 1994b, 1995a, 1996, 1997a, 1997b). New biological controls such as a rickettsiella-like organism (Adams et al 1997) may be a potential biological control agent against pecan weevil. Habitat diversification techniques have been identified as effective in pecan production. Trap cropping has been shown to be a viable alternative to chemical control for reducing the incidence of hemipteran kernel damage on pecan (M. T. Smith 1996); trees adjoining trap crop areas had an overall reduction in damage of 55%. Research in the area of trap cropping in pecan is a major initiative and is a recommended practice in some IPM programs. Differences in the seasonal occurrence of brown and dusky stink bugs may be important to the effectiveness of trap crops. Brown stink bugs are trapped more readily on the ground than dusky stink bugs that are more abundant in the tree canopy (Cottrell et al 2000). Intercrops of warm and cool season legumes have shown promise as sources of alternate prey aphids for aphidophaga that also feed on pecan aphids. Intercrops stimulate an increase of populations of alternate prey aphids and aphidophaga in the orchard and a decrease in pecan aphids in the tree crown. When coupled with control of secondary predation of aphidophaga by red imported fire ant, the pecan aphids are further reduced (Dutcher 1993, 1995b). Pecan aphid control was demonstrated with conservation of aphidophaga by intercropping with summer crop of sesbania, controlling secondary predation by red imported fire ant and spraying predator attractants (Bugg and Dutcher 1993, Kaakeh and Dutcher 1992, 1993c, Dutcher 1993, 1994a, 1995b, 1998). Reductions in the frequency of fungicide sprays conserve entomophagous fungi that regulate pecan aphid populations (Pickering et al 1990). Pecan arthropods were influenced by cool season intercrops (M.W. Smith et al 1994, 1996a, 1996b) and methods were developed for screening potential intercrop plants (M.W. Smith et al 1996a, 1996b). Native pecan production was found to be profitable with limited insect control (Reid 1993, Reid and Mulder 2003). Organosilicone surfactants were found to control pecan aphids for a short time (Wood et al 1997). Higher action thresholds and inundative release of aphidophaga was an effective and economical control for pecan aphids in New Mexico (LaRock and Ellington 1996). Blackmargined aphids and associated honeydew attracts aphid predators to the pecan foliage and may ameliorate biological control of aphids (Harris and Li 1996). Red imported fire ant commonly occurs in pecan orchards and is an important predator of pecan weevil (Dutcher and Sheppard 1981) as well as certain aphidophagous insects (Tedders et al 1990, Dutcher et al 1999). The environmental factors affecting pecan aphid population dynamics were determined (Kaakeh and Dutcher 1993a, 1993b); the aphids have a wide range of tolerance to high temperature and are temporarily reduced by rainfall. The Texas pecan IPM program has been evaluated and found IPM oriented producers experienced cost savings in excess of $1 million/annum (Harris et. al 1998, Harris 2001). An excellent resource that integrates and updates information on new biologically oriented management methods for pecan production is the National Center for Appropriate Technology (Diver and Ames 2000). Biological Control: Biological control in pecan production can offer alternatives to the use of broad spectrum insecticides (Ellington et al. 2003). Accomplishments of ongoing biological control projects include: identification of virulent strains of entomopathogenic nematodes active against larval and adult pecan weevil (Shapiro-Ilan, 2001 a, b, Shapiro-Ilan 2003, Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2003a, b, Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2004a); efficacy of trunk-perimenter applications of an entomopathogenic fungi against pecan weevil (Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2004b); discovery of differential susceptibility between a native lady beetle species and an exotic lady beetle species both important to pecan aphid control (Cottrell and Shapiro-Ilan 2003); documenting differential predation on native versus exotic lady beetle species eggs in the laboratory (Cottrell 2004); efficacy of application of predatory mites to manage damaging pecan leaf scorch mites; established biological control in the Mesilla Valley of New Mexico in pecan orchards; investigated heat tolerant species of lacewings for biological control of pecan aphids in Arizona and developed and tested intercrops, ant controls and predator attractants as enhancements for aphidophaga in Georgia pecan orchards. Host Plant Resistance: Significant advances have been accomplished in host plant resistance of pecan insects on pecan cultivars. Resistance of Pawnee and Navajo cultivars to blackmargined aphid has been demonstrated in greenhouse and field evaluations (Thompson and Grauke 1998). These cultivars are not immune to aphid infestation but resistance enhances current recommended control techniques. These results are consistent with lab and field research in Georgia (Kaakeh and Dutcher 1994) where blackmargined, black pecan and yellow pecan aphids were found to have lower reproductive rates and altered probing behavior and lower infestation levels on Pawnee and Cape Fear cultivars. Black walnut, butternut, pecan and several hickory species were investigated as potential sources of resistance factors to aphids (M. T. Smith et al 1993, M. T. Smith 1995b). Blackmargined aphid adults lived longer and had higher reproductive rates on pecan, water, scrub, shellbark hickory, and hican than on black walnut, butternut, and several other hickory spp. Percent survival of blackmargined aphid nymphs to the adult stage was lower on most hickory and walnut species than on pecan, hican or water hickory. Yellow pecan aphid adults lived longer and had higher nymph survival on pecan than on hickory or walnut. Black pecan aphid had similar adult longevity over all tree species but reproduced and developed from nymph to adult only on pecan. Pecan cultivars have variable susceptibility to black pecan aphid feeding damage as measured by the amount of chlorosis. Certain cultivars have a water-soluble antibiotic factor on the leaf surface that suppresses black pecan aphid populations (Wood and Reilly 1998). Two new cultivars - Kanza and Creek - have some resistance to hickory shuckworm and Kanza" is highly resistant to phylloxera species (Thompson 1996a, 1996b). A leaf disc bioassay was developed to evaluate pecan cultivars for host plant resistance to black pecan aphid (Estes 1995). Pecan cultivars differed significantly in susceptibility to hemipteran kernel damage in a recent evaluation over four seasons (Dutcher et al 2001). The majority of the cultivars in the experiment that had consistently low levels of kernel spot also had highly desirable horticultural characteristics and these cultivars were recommended for planting. Most cultivars with consistently high levels of kernel spot were also not recommended for planting (Worley and Mullinix 1997, Thompson 1996a, 1996b).

Objectives

1. Improved Systems to Monitor Pecan Arthropod Pests 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) b. Improved models for predicting pest occurrence and implementing control decisions.
   
2. Improved Control Systems for Pecan Arthropod Pests 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. b. Develop pest management strategies that incorporate host plant resistance.
   
3. Development of Biological Control Systems for Pecan Arthropod Pests a. Selection of superior strains of insect-pathogenic nematodes and fungi to attack pecan insect pests. b. Field tests to evaluate efficacy of biological control agents against pecan arthropod pests. c. Enhancement of natural enemies against pecan pests using habitat manipulation, attractants, and conservation.
   

Methods

Methods for field research on pecan insect bionomics and control are difficult to standardize due to the diversity of orchard conditions from native groves with low inputs and moderate yield to improved orchards with high inputs and high yield. However, certain methods have been found to be acceptable for most applications in pecan entomology and are commonly used by entomologists. Pecan nut casebearer monitoring procedures included searching the limbs and nut clusters for hibernacula, eggs and larvae. Adults are collected with pheromone traps. Control is aided by a sequential sampling plan for eggs to estimate density and a degree-day model to predict first nut entry. Hickory shuckworm monitoring procedures include nut inspection for oviposition sites, gravity traps for nut drop, light traps and pheromone traps for adult flight periods, nut dissection and larval counts to determine the infestation after shell hardening. Overwintering larval survival and adult emergence from the shucks can be monitored by placing infested shucks in field cages. Pecan weevil larval density is monitored by soil sampling. Adult emergence is monitored with cone, Tedders pyramidal traps and Circle traps. Samples of infested pecans are used to detect the oviposition and larval development of pecan weevil and hickory shuckworm. Aphids, leafminers and mites are monitored by direct enumeration from foliage samples. A mite brushing machine aids the counting of eggs and mites of the pecan leaf scorch mite and its predators. Predaceous insects are sampled by direct counts from pecan foliage, ground covers, and in overwintering sites under the tree bark. A larger amount of foliage needs to be searched for predators in the pecan tree crown so the terminal (stem and foliage of the current years stem growth) is a good sample unit to estimate abundance. Sample size for all the methods is dependent on pest abundance available for sampling and the resolution level required by the experiment though some guidelines can be taken from experience. A good idea of the insect activity on the foliage can be found by sampling 5 sample units (i.e., terminals or compound leaves or midleaf leaflets) per tree and sample every fourth tree in every fourth row of the orchard. Early in the season, damage by nut-feeding insects can be determined by examining 200 nut clusters from each variety in each 50 acre section of the orchard. Pecan weevil emergence can be accurately monitored with 48 cone traps or 12 Tedders pyramid traps in the infested areas of every 50 acre section of the orchard. Pecan nut casebearer damage can be estimated with the inspection of 200 nut clusters per replication per treatment, soon after the larva has caused the damage. Damage estimation at the end of the season for pecan weevil and kernel-feeding hemipterans can be estimated with a 200 nut sample from each replication of each treatment. Hickory shuckworm infestation has to be estimated before shuck split to record the larval population that causes damage. Infestations near and after shuck split, though often high do not cause damage. Pecan is attacked by over 54 insect and mite pests each season and certain regions have a unique complement of these pests. Pecan entomologists have developed expertise and resources for research on a unique subset of the overall pest complex. Therefore, not all states will cooperate in every experiment due to state-by-state differences in the importance of pecans and each pest. Objectives will be addressed by researchers at state and federal institutions throughout the pecan production regions of the U.S. Collaborative projects (interregional and intraregional) will be used to complete objectives. Annual meetings will provide a venue for information exchange between researchers, establish collaboration and prevent duplication of research experiments. Additionally, producer surveys will be conducted by state as needed to document producer adoption of management practices.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Output from this multistate regional project will be measured by peer-reviewed manuscripts, trade journal articles and state or regional pest management guides.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• The outcome of this multistate project will be to enhance pecan pest monitoring and improve pecan pest management via chemical, biological and integrated control measures. The projected impact is to improve profitability of pecan production to growers while promoting environmental stewardship and providing a safe, high quality product to consumers.

Milestones

(1): Evaluate candidate pheromones for pyralid pests of pecan; b) test pecan nut extracts as attractants for hickory shuckworm moths; c) describe the distribution of black pecan aphids in susceptible pecan cultivars to improve the ability to predict black pecan aphid outbreaks; d) monitor weevil emergence based upon diel periodicity and also by orchard soil type; e) refine economic thresholds for pecan weevil based upon various trapping methodology; a) Improve pesticide management strategies to conserve and optimize pesticide efficacy for current and research phase pesticides emphasizing stink bugs, hickory shuckworm and pecan nut casebearer; b) continue to integrate reduced-risk pesticides into pecan pest management systems; c) pursue registration of safer biorational insecticides for control of pecan weevil and pecan nut casebearer and black pecan aphid; d) continue long-term interaction with the USDA-ARS Pecan Breeding Program at Snook, TX to examine cultivars under development for resistance to pecan pests; e) determine the efficacy of systemic insecticides and kaolin sprays for control of vectors of XLBs that cause pecan leaf scorch; f) evaluate trap crop species for attracting stink bug pests of pecan. a) Laboratory testing of genetic improvement methods and potential chemical synergists with insect-killing nematodes; b) evaluate community effects of management practices including selective pesticides on natural enemies and impact on overall pecan production; c) field attractant assays for aphidophaga and augmentation/conservation of aphidophaga populations through orchard floor covers in pecan orchards.

(2): Verify efficacy of new pyralid pheromones; hickory shuckworm moths; c) begin development of a new blacklight trap for easier detection and collection of hickory shuckworms during midsummer; d) continue to refine monitoring weevil emergence based upon diel periodicity and by orchard soil type; e) continue evaluation on distribution of black pecan aphids in susceptible pecan cultivars; f) refine economic thresholds for pecan weevil based upon various trapping methodology; g) field trials to evaluate plant volatiles for monitoring stink bug pests of pecan. a) Continue evaluations of current and research-phase insecticides, emphasizing stink bugs, hickory shuckworm and pecan nut casebearer; b) deliver pest control technology to producers as results accumulate, evaluate producer adoption and economic and environmental impacts; c) same as d on year 1; d) determine the efficacy of systemic insecticides and kaolin sprays for control of vectors of XLBs that cause pecan leaf scorch; e) further evaluation of trap crop species for attracting stink bug pests of pecan. a) Continue laboratory testing of genetic improvement methods and potential chemical synergists with insect-killing nematodes; b) field test strain and formulation effects on efficacy of insect-killing fungi; c) evaluate community effects of management practices including selective pesticides on natural enemies d) same as C on year 1.

(3): Integrate new pyralid pheromones into pecan IPM through day degree model testing and sequential sampling plan development; b) develop trapping system for HSW using pecan nut extracts; c) use data on distribution of black pecan aphids to develop and test a prediction model (based upon pecan cultivars) to improve ability to predict black pecan aphid outbreaks; e) begin field studies to determine percentage of newly-emerged adult weevils using different routes into pecan canopy; f) formulate and begin testing model to predict weevil emergence by soil type; g) field trials to evaluate plant volatiles for monitoring stink bug pests of pecan. a) Same as A on year 2; b) same as d on year 1; c) same as d on year 2; d) evaluate orchard perimeter and interior trap crops for stink bug management. a) Further laboratory testing of genetic improvement methods for strain enhancement; b) field-testing of synergist

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Information obtained from research projects will be disseminated to peer researchers and stakeholders through professional and grower meetings, trade journal publications (e.g., Pecan South and Pecan Grower), and scientific journal publications (e.g. Journal of Economic Entomology). Examples of professional meetings include the annual meeting for this multistate project, annual meeting of the Entomological Society of America and numerous regional and local meetings. Meetings involving stakeholders include regional meetings such as the Western Irrigated Pecan Meeting and the annual meeting of the Southeastern Pecan Growers Association. State meetings are abundant (e.g., Texas Pecan Growers, Georgia Pecan Growers, Oklahoma Pecan Growers, Louisiana Pecan Growers) as are local meetings with stakeholders (e.g., Fall Field Day for the Georgia Pecan Growers and numerous county update meetings). Extension entomologists play a critical role in disseminating information to stakeholders through previously mentioned venues (e.g., trade journals and various meetings) but also by direct interaction with stakeholders and maintaining pest alerts.

Organization/Governance

Committee governance is by the chair, chair-elect and secretary each with responsibilities as described in the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities. Current officers (2004) are listed as follows: Chair: Dr. David I. Shapiro-Ilan, USDA-ARS; Chair-elect: Bill Ree, Texas A&M University; Secretary: Dr. Jim Dutcher, University of Georgia The Development Committee to write a replacement proposal for the expiring S-293 multistate research project is composed of the following S-293 members: Dr. Ted Cottrell, USDA-Agricultural Research Service; Dr. Jim Dutcher, University of Georgia; Dr. Joe Ellington, New Mexico State University; Dr. Marvin Harris, Texas A&M University; Dr. William Reid, Kansas State University; Dr. David Shapiro-Ilan, USDA-Agricultural Research Service

Literature Cited

Adams, J. R., T. B. Clark, G. J. Tompkins, W. W. Neel, R. F. Schroder and P. W. Schaefer. 1997. Histopathological investigations on rickettsiella-like sp. and nonoccluded viruses infecting the pecan weevil, Curculio caryae, the squash beetle, Epilachna borealis, and the Mexican bean beetle, Epilachna varivestis. J. Invertebrate Pathol. 69: 119-124. Aguirre, L. A., M. Tucuch and M. K. Harris. 1995. Oviposition and nut entry behavior of the pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella Nuenzig. Southwestern Entomol. 20: 447-451. Bugg, R. L. and J. D. Dutcher. 1993. Sesbania exaltata (Rafinesque-Schmaltz) Cory (Fabaceae) as a warm-season cover crop in pecan orchards: effects on aphidophagous coccinellidae and pecan aphids. Biological Agric. and Hortic. 9: 215-229. Chung, C. S., M. K. Harris and J. B. Storey. 1995. Masting in pecans. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 720: 386-393. Collins, J. K., G. H. Hedger and R. D. Eikenbary. 1995. An update on hickory shuckworm research. p. 5-9 IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp. Collins, J. K., P. G. Mulder, M. W. Smith and R. D. Eikenbary. 1996. Mating behavior and peak mating activity of the pecan weevil Curculio caryae (Horn). Southwestern Entomol. 21: 479-481. Cottrell, T, C. E. Yonce and B. Wood. 2000. Seasonal occurrence and vertical distribution of brown (Euschistus servus) and dusky (E. trisigmus) stink bugs in pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 93: 94-97. Cottrell, T. E. 2001. Pecan weevil emergence and dispersal ? can emerging weevils be stopped at the trunk. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 94:73-77. Cottrell, T. E. and D. I. Shapiro-Ilan. 2003. Susceptibility of a native and an exotic lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to Beauveria bassiana. J. Invert. Path. 84: 137-144. Cottrell, T. E. and B. W. Wood. 2003. Pecan weevil management: past, present and toward a future strategy. Southw. Entomologist. Suppl No. 27. 142 pp. Cottrell, T. E. 2004. Suitability of exotic and native lady beetle eggs (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) for development of lady beetle larvae. Biol. Cont. (in press). Davis, J. H. 1993. Casebearer, shuckworm confirmed in New Mexico. Pecan South 26(2): 25-26. Diver, S. and G. Ames. 2000. Sustainable pecan production. Horticultural Production Guide. Available on website: www.attra.ncat.org. Dutcher, J. D. and D. C. Sheppard. 1981. Predation of pecan weevil larvae by red imported fire ants. J. Ga. Entomol. Soc. 16: 210-213. Dutcher, J. D. 1993. Recent examples of conservation of arthropod natural enemies in agriculture. IN R. D. Lumsden and J. L. Vaughn eds. Pest Management: Biologically Based Technologies. Conference Proceedings Series, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. Dutcher, J. D. 1994a. Cover crops and intercrops for pecan orchards. The Pecan Grower. 4(1):21. Dutcher, J. D. 1994b. New aphidicides for pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 87: 117-120. Dutcher, J. D. 1995a. Chemical control of pecan aphid on pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 88: 42-45. Dutcher, J. D. 1995b. Intercropping pecan orchards with legumes: entomological implications. p. 10-24 IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp. Dutcher, J. D. 1996. Chemical control of pecan insects. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89: 155-158. Dutcher, J. D. 1997a. Bionomics and control of black pecan aphid in Georgia. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 70-73. Dutcher, J. D. 1997b. Current trends in insect control - nuts, Georgia. p. 290-291 IN Meister, R. T., ed. Insect Control Guide. Meister Publishing Company. Willoughby, Ohio 442 p. Dutcher, J. D. 1997c. Loss of pyrethroid efficacy in blackmargined aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) populations on pecan. IN K. Bondari. ed. New Developments in Entomology, Research Signpost, India. pp. 195-204. Dutcher, J. D. 1998. Conservation of Aphidophaga in Pecan Orchards. Chapt. 16 IN P. Barbosa, ed. Conservation Biological Control. Academic Press. NY 396 p. Dutcher, J. D., P. M. Estes, and M. J. Dutcher. 1999. Interactions in entomology: aphids, aphidophaga and ants in pecan orchards. J. Entomol. Sci. 34(1): 40-56. Dutcher, J. D., R. E. Worley, P. Conner and S. Dove. 2001. Pecan varietal differences in hemipteran kernel damage. J. Entomol. Sci. 36:445-452. Estes, P. M. 1995. Bionomics of the black pecan aphid on pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 88: 48-51. Grantham, R.A., P.G. Mulder, G. W. Cuperus and J. D. Carlson. 2002. Evaluation of pecan nut casebearer Acrobasis nuxvorella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) prediction models using pheromone trapping. Environ. Entomol. 31: 1092-1070. Grantham, R.A., P.G. Mulder and G. W. Cuperus. 2002. Comparisons on the efficacy of different trap types in capturing pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella. Southwest. Entomol. 27:21-30. Harris, M. 1983. IPM of pecans. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 28:291-318. Harris, M. K. 1995. Challenges to pecan nut casebearer eradication. Pecan South 28:24, 25, 28. Harris, M. K. 1997. Concentrate and dilute insecticidal spraying of fruits and nuts. Proc. West. Pecan Growers Assoc., Las Cruces, NM. Harris, M. 1998. Loss of Zolone impacts Texas pecan producers. Pecan S. 31:16-28. Harris, M. 2001. IPM, what has it delivered? Plant Disease 85:112-121. Harris, M. K., C. S. Chung and J. A. Jackman. 1996. Masting and pecan interaction with insectan predehiscent nut feeders. Environ. Entomol. 25: 1068-1076. Harris, M. K., J. Jackman, B. Ree, A. Knutson, R. Lacewell and J. B. Storey. 1993. Chemical usage casts perspective on pecan industry. Pecan South. 25: 15-16. Harris, M., J. Jackman, B. Ree and A. Knutson. 1994. Pecan nut casebearer. Proc. 2nd National Pecan Workshop. ARS-3: 28-31. Harris, M. K., J. A. Jackman, B. Ree and A. Knutson. 1995a. Pecan nut casebearer update. p. 28-30. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp. Harris, M. K., J. A. Jackman, A. E. Knutson and W. O. Ree. 1995b. Pecan nut casebearer management. Proc. 29th Ann. Western Pecan Conf., Las Cruces, NM pp. 95-103. Harris, M., B. Ree, J. Cooper, J. Jackman, J. Young, R. Lacewell and A. Knutson. 1998. Economic impact of pecan IPM in Texas. J. Econ. Entomol. 91: 1011-1020. Harris, M. K. and T. Li. 1996. The blackmargined aphid as a keystone species: a predator attractor redressing natural enemy imbalances in pecan systems. pp. 112-117. IN: Dynamics of Forest Herbivory, USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-183. Hedin, P. A., D. A. Dollar, J. K. Collins, J. G. Dubois, P. G. Mulder and R. D. Eikenbary. 1996. Identification of the male pecan weevil pheromone. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89: 88. Hedin, P. A., D. A. Dollar, J. K. Collins, J. G. Dubois, P. G. Mulder, G. H. Hedger, M. W. Smith and R. D. Eikenbary. 1997. Identification of male pecan weevil pheromone. J. Chemical Ecology. 23: 965-977. Hurej, M. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994a. Indirect effect of insecticides used in pecan orchards to larvae of Chrysoperla rufilabris (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 29: 450-456. Hurej, M. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994b. Indirect effect of insecticides on convergent ladybeetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in pecan orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 1632-1635. Hurej, M. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994c. Effect of esfenvalerate and disulfoton on the behavior of the blackmargined aphid, black pecan aphid, and yellow pecan aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 187-192. Kaakeh, W. and J. D. Dutcher. 1992. Foraging preference of red imported fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) among three species of summer cover crops and their extracts. J. Econ. Entomol. 85: 389-394. Kaakeh, W. and J. D. Dutcher. 1993a. Survival of yellow pecan aphids and black pecan aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) at different temperature regimes. Environ. Entomol. 22: 810-817. Kaakeh, W. and J. D. Dutcher. 1993b. Effect of rainfall on population abundance of aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) on pecan. J. Entomol. Science. 28: 283-286. Kaakeh, W. and J. D. Dutcher. 1993c. Population parameters and probing behavior of cowpea aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae), on preferred and non-preferred host cover crops. J. Entomol. Science. 28: 145-155. Kaakeh, W. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994. Probing behavior and density of Monelliopsis pecanis, Monellia caryella and Melanocallis caryaefoliae (Homoptera: Aphididae) on pecan cultivars. J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 951-956. Knutson, A. E., M. Harris and J. G. Millar. 1998. Effects of pheromone dose, lure age, and trap design on capture of male pecan nut casebearer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in pheromone-baited traps. J. Econ. Entomol. 91: 715-722. LaRock, D. R. and J. J. Ellington. 1996. An integrated pest management approach, emphasizing biological control, for pecan aphids. Southwestern Entomologist. 21:153-166. Layton, B. 1993. Pecan insect management in Mississippi. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 86: 103-106. Layton, B. 1993. Pecan insect management in Mississippi. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 86: 103-106. McVay, J. R., R. D. Eikenbary, R. D. Morrison and C. A. Kouskolekas. 1994. Adult emergence patterns, population trends and activity patterns of the hickory shuckworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Olethreutinae) in pecan orchards. J. Entomol. Sci. 29: 526-533. McVay, J. R. and P. M. Estes. 1995. Biology and control of black aphids. Proc. Western Pecan Conf. 29: 91-94. McVay, J. R. and M. J. Hall. 1998. Preliminary investigations of a biorational approach to pecan insect management. Proc. SE Pecan Growers Assn. 91: 78-85. Mizell, R. F., III and W. L. Tedders. 1995. A new monitoring method for detection of the stinkbug complex in pecan orchards. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 88: 36-40. Mizell, R. F., III., W. L. Tedders, C. E. Yonce and J. A. Aldrich. 1997. Stinkbug monitoring method - an update. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 50-52. Mulder, P. G., R. A. Grantham, W. R. Reid, J. K. Collins and A. E. Knutson. 1997. Evaluation of trap design and pheromones for pecan weevil monitoring. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 58-63. Mulder, P. G. 1997. Controlling pecan nut casebearer on pecan in Oklahoma. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 64-68. Mulder, P.G., W. Reid, R.A. Grantham, S. Landgraff, L. Talleferro, M.E. Payton, and A. Knutson. 2003. Evaluation of trap design and pheromone formulation used for monitoring pecan weevil, Curculio caryae. Southwestern Entomol. Suppl. 27: 85-99. Nava-Camberos, U., M. K. Harris and B. Ree. 1996. Hickory shuckworm, Cydia caryana (Fitch), larval response to two low temperatures. Southwestern Entomol. 21: 225-228. Ree, B. 1995. Overview of pest management in the West. p. 25-27. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp. Reid, W. and P. Mulder, Jr. 2003. Insect pest management for native pecans. Southwestern Entomol. Suppl. 27: 39-44. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I. 2001a. Virulence of entomopathogenic nematodes to pecan weevil larvae Curculio caryae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the laboratory. J. Econ. Entomol. 94: 7-13. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I. 2001b. Virulence of entomopathogenic nematodes to pecan weevil adults (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 36: 325-328. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I. 2003. Microbial control of the pecan weevil, Curculio caryae. Southwestern Entomol. Suppl. 27: 101-114. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., R. Stuart, and C. W. McCoy. 2003a. Comparison of beneficial traits among strains of the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema carpocapsae, for control of Curculio caryae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Biol. Contr. 28: 129-136. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., W. A. Gardner, J. R. Fuxa, B. W. Wood, K. B. Nguyen, B. J. Adams, R. A. Humber, and M. J. Hall. 2003b. Survey of entomopathogenic nematodes and fungi endemic to pecan orchards in the southeastern United States and their virulence to the pecan weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environ. Entomol: 32(1):187-195. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., M. Jackson, C. C. Reilly, and M. W. Hotchkiss. 2004a. Effects of combining an entomopathogenic fungi or bacterium with entomopathogenic nematodes on mortality of Curculio caryae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Biological Control 30: 119-126. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., T. E. Cottrell and W. A. Gardner. 2004b. Trunk perimeter applications of Beauveria bassiana to suppress Adult Curculio caryae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Entomol. Sci. (in press). Smith, M. T., B. W. Wood, C. C. Reilly, W. L. Tedders, R. C. Gueldner and R. F. Severson. 1993. Pecan aphid pest management: searching for sources of aphid resistance in plants. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 86: 133-144. Smith, M. T., S. Galindo, J. R. McVay and M. J. Hall. 1994. Pecan insect pest management: recent investigations of the hickory shuckworm sex pheromone. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 87: 77-88. Smith, M. T. 1995a. Recent advances in hickory shuckworm pheromone research. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 88: 52-59. Smith, M. T. 1995b. Aphid-host plant interactions in pecan. p. 38-40. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp. Smith, M. T. 1996. Trap cropping system for control of Hemipteran pests in pecan: a progress report. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89: 71-81 Smith, M. W., R. D. Eikenbary, D. C. Arnold, B. S. Landgraf, G. G. Taylor, G. E. Barlow, B. L. Carroll, B. S. Cheary, N. R. Rice and R. Knight. 1994. Screening cool-season legume cover crops for pecan orchards. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 9: 127-135. Smith, M. W., D. C. Arnold, R. D. Eikenbary, N. R. Rice, A. Shiferaw, B. S. Cheary, and B. L. Carroll. 1996a. Influence of ground cover on beneficial arthropods in pecan. Biol. Control 6: 164-176. Smith, M. W., D. C. Arnold, R. D. Eikenbary, N. R. Rice, A. Shiferaw, B. S. Cheary and B. L. Carroll. 1996b. Influence of ground cover on phytophagous and saprophagous arthropods in pecan trees. Southwestern Entomol. 21:303-316. Stevenson, D. E., A. E. Knutson, W. Ree, J. A. Jackman, A. Dean, J. H. Matis, J. McVay, M. Mesbitt, R. Mizell, J. D. Dutcher, W. Reid, M. Hall, D. Barlow, M. T. Smith, P. Mulder, M. W. Smith, J. G. Milar and M. K. Harris. 2003. Pecan nut casebearer pheromone monitoring and degree-day model validation across the pecan belt. P. 57-74. In Dutcher, J. D., M. K. Harris, and D. A. Dean. (Eds.) 2003. Integration of Chemical and Biological Insect Control in Native, Seedling, and Improved Pecan Production. Southw. Entomologist. Suppl. No. 27. 142 pp. Tedders, W. L., C. C. Reilly, B. W. Wood, R. K. Morrison and C. S. Lofgran. 1990. Behavior of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in pecan orchards. Environ. Entomol. 19: 44-53. Tedders, W. L. and B. W. Wood. 1994. A new technique for monitoring pecan weevil emergence (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 29: 18-30. Tedders, W. L. and B. W. Wood. 1995. Update on pecan weevil. p. 31-37. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp. Tedders, W. L., R. F. Mizell, III and B. W. Wood. 1996. Effects of color and trunk wrap on pecan weevil catch in pyramidal traps. J. Entomol. Sci. 31: 414-419. Thompson, T. E., W. D. Goff, M. L. Nesbitt, R. E. Worley, R. D. O?Barr and B. W. Wood. 1996a. ?Creek? pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89:180-184. Thompson, T. E., L. J. Grauke, W. Reid, M. W. Smith, and S. E. Winter. 1996b. ?Kanza? pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89:185-188. Thompson, T. E. and L. J. Grauke. 1998. Field resistance to yellow aphids in pecan. J. Amer. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 123: 85-90. Wood, B. W. and C. C. Reilly. 1998. Susceptibility of pecan to black pecan aphid. HortScience 33: 798-801. Wood, B. W. and W. L. Tedders. 1996. Stink bug feeding costs massive nut dropping in orchards. The Pecan Grower. 7(2): 14. Wood, B. W., W. L. Tedders and J. Taylor. 1997. Control of pecan aphids with an organosilicone surfactant. Hortscience 32: 1074-1076. Worley, R. E. and B. Mullinix. 1997. Performance of pecan cultivars at the Coastal Plain Experiment Station. Univ. Ga. Agric. Exp. Sta. Es. Bull. Yonce, C. E. and J. R. McVay. 1994. Hickory shuckworm pheromone trapping in Georgia and Alabama. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 87: 178-182. Yonce, C. E., W. L. Tedders and B. W. Wood. 1996. Cold tolerance of hickory shuckworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) larvae and associated parasites. J. Entomol. Sci. 31: 13-19. Yonce, C. E. and R. F. Mizell. 1997. Stink bug trapping with a pheromone. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 54-56.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AR, FL, GA, KS, LA, OK, TX

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

USDA-ARS/Georgia