Duration: 10/01/2007 to 09/30/2012

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Statement of Problem:

The growing emphasis on environmental and food safety issues has intensified interest in the development of biological controls as a means for controlling pests. The effective use of natural enemies in biological control programs is contingent upon understanding their ecology and that of their targets, their interaction with production practices, and the most effective means of using them. Further exotic pests continue to pose threats to American agriculture and well being, making continued efforts in importation biological control relevant and necessary. At the same time, target and non-target effects of these introductions must be documented to assure the continued value and safety of importation biological control. Resident populations of natural enemies do not always provide adequate levels of pest suppression. In such circumstances, it may be necessary to release native or introduced natural enemies. Success of this option, however, is dependent on effective production, distribution, and release technologies for the natural enemies to be so used (Ridgway, 1998). This proposal addressed each of the aspects of biological control noted above and places them in the overall context of the Southern Region.

Justification:

A component of the Southern Region Strategic Plan is to: Discover and develop effective pathogens, parasites, predators, and other biologically based techniques such as host plant resistance, naturally derived pesticides, and male sterility techniques to mitigate or manage pest populations (SAAESD 2000, NAS 1996). Furthermore, the Plan recognizes the need to: Create biocontrol techniques and integrate them with crop protection chemicals. The Experiment Station Directors ranked biologically based pest management technologies as the second most critical need for Agriculture in the Southern Region, underscoring the importance of work in this discipline. The mild climate of the southern U.S. supports a great diversity of pest arthropods and plants. Moreover, a moderate climate coupled with extensive international exchange in the Region creates ideal circumstances for the incursion and persistence of injurious invasive species.

The need for environmentally and economically sustainable production systems is growing as social pressure for safe food and fiber increases. In 1993, the Clinton Administration announced its goal of having integrated pest management (IPM) practiced on at least 75% of the production acreage in the U.S. by 2000. Biological control constitutes a cornerstone of IPM, and its use must be broadened and fine-tuned to effectively achieve widespread IPM implementation (Lynch et al. 1996). In addition, the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996 is requiring progressively more detailed review of existing pesticides, and will reduce the variety of pesticides available for use. Simultaneously, the more target specific pesticides now being developed are costlier than their broad-spectrum predecessors and will add economic burdens to growers as they will have to use combinations of more expensive insecticides to achieve results comparable to those formerly attained with conventional broad-spectrum materials. Therefore, the need for developing biological control programs for pests in a wide variety of situations is more acute than ever.

The Southern Region has a strong record of research and implementation in biological control. The four predecessors of this proposed Multistate Research Project tackled a variety of these problems and successfully effected various target pest populations in this region. The proposed project will build on this history and continue the work as well integrating it with novel and expanding technologies relative to crop production and environmental protection.
Coordinated regional efforts will be fundamental to the success of this work, because many of the issues, which will be, addressed span large geographic areas and the extent of biological control efficacy may likewise vary across the region. Both formal and informal collaboration is inherent among the project participants, many of whom have worked together in previous regional projects for most of their careers. Examples of their collaboration include joint research projects and publications, grant and project reviews, information and equipment exchanges, extension and other kinds of training activities, and symposia at scientific societies.

Pest management research in the Southern Region has a strong historical emphasis on biological control, and this is reflected in the associated expertise and excellent facilities. This emphasis continues today and is reflected in the number of active projects addressing biological control of arthropods and/or plants. Further participation in the project will be encouraged and likely achieved through direct contact with participants. Thus, there is considerable work on biological control under way in the Southern Region that underscores the continuing need for regional cooperation and coordination. The proposed project would provide an effective mechanism for continuing and expanding such integration efforts as has previously been established. It could also provide a means for surveying and communication the extensive range of ongoing research and extension activities.

Invasive species can be exceptionally destructive in the Southern Region. Many high profile invasions have occurred with severe economic and ecological effects. Included in this lengthy list are the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta; the B and Q biotypes of the sweet potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci; the tropical soda apple, Solanum viarum; hydrilla, Hydrilla verticillata; and the Formosan termite, Coptotermes formosanus. In addition, the threat of new invasions in this region is persistent.

The full extent of damage by many of the invasive species is difficult to document (Pimentel et al. 2000). For example, the red imported fire ant invades many habitats, disturbing wildlife and native ants, damaging crops, disrupting extant biological control, and inflicting physical harm to humans and animals. The complete ecological and environmental costs of this ants damage have yet to be fully ascertained, but it is widely acknowledged that they are substantial, with estimates in excess of US $1 billion dollars per annum (Pimentel et al. 2000). Similarly, tropical soda apple is currently found in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and extensively in Florida (NAPIS 2000). This spined plant is highly disruptive in grazing areas and is spreading across the southeastern U.S. Although its spread has been slowed by herbicide based eradication efforts, this work is dependent on the ability of individuals across the region and beyond to find and correctly identify the plants. Because tropical soda apple can also grow in uncultivated and isolated areas, there is reason to suspect that the plant is more widespread than is presently acknowledged. Such a situation with dispersed targets with risk of being undetected, is well suited to the use of biological control agents that have the capacity to locate plants independent of human intervention.

Non-invasive native pests also cause extensive damage in crops and other habitats. Management of these pests by natural enemies can provide benefits ranging well beyond the locations of immediate human concern, as well as providing more proximate assistance for pest managers. This can be particularly important for highly mobile and polyphagous species such as the tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris, or the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua. Further chemical or other treatment of infestations of natural areas by pests may not be economically or environmentally feasible. In these circumstances, biological control may be the only possible means of control.

The advent of new technology, most notably transgenic insect resistant crops and increasingly selective herbicides, has created numerous opportunities to more adequately integrate biological control into crop production systems. It has also enhanced the need for biological control, as new pests have emerged. For example, although the widespread use of Bt-transgenic cotton varieties has contributed to reduced insecticide inputs, it has also increased the problems with heteropteran pests (e.g., stink bugs, plant bugs, leaf-footed bugs) in the southeastern U.S. as insecticide spraying for lepidopteran pests has declined (Williams 1998). Thus, cotton producers are by necessity increasing their spray regimens to handle this new and difficult suite of pests. In addition, currently available selective insecticides are more costly and growers cannot always afford to target each individual or closely related species when the pest complex is diverse. Development of biological control in low or targeted spray environments would be an invaluable component of IPM in these systems and would strengthen the sustainability and adoption of environmentally sound tools.

The proposed project will evaluate the effects of established natural enemies on non-target organisms and will enable the development of a significant database to support meaningful risk assessment protocols for future biological control programs. It is anticipated that natural enemies will be discovered and targeted for control of melaleuca, Brazilian peppertree, kudzu, tropical soda apple, water hyacinth, Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, tarnished plant bug, brown citrus aphid, bromeliad weevil, red imported fire ant, muscoid flies, mole crickets, and weevils. Understanding the interactions between pest management technology, conventional and novel, and natural enemies will lead to a more effective integration of biological control in pest management systems. Assessing lethal and sublethal effects of pesticides at the individual and population levels will permit effective integrated use of pesticides and biological control. In addition, quantifying the effect of indigenous natural enemies will permit the development of biologically based IPM programs for crop/animal systems.

Related, Current and Previous Work

Various current Multistate Research Projects address aspects of biological control, some of which overlap with the Southern Region. The two projects most closely related to the one proposed here are the midwestern NCERA-125 (which succeed NCR-125) and western W-1185 (which succeed W-185). The emphasis of NCERA-125 is similar to that of this project, but with a stronger extension component. Likewise, W-1185 covers very similar objectives to those presented here, and there is considerable overlap in orientation. However, the issues of concern, e.g., pests, cropping systems, climatic issues, natural enemy complexes, in W-1185 and NCERA-125 differ substantially from those encountered in the Southern Region. Thus, although the objectives may be similar, the targets will differ. Historically, there have been numerous linkages between workers in the Southern Region and those participating in W-1185 and NCERA-125. It is expected that these collaborative efforts will continue, thus minimizing potential overlap between the projects. In addition, S-303 (SDC-319) members frequently attend W-185 (W-1185) and NCR-125 (NCERA-125) annual meetings.

Several other Multistate Projects include a minor biological control component, with most of these focused on plant pathogens (e.g., SDC-314). Having several related projects limits participation in S-303 (SDC-319), but provides efficient linkages because some members traditionally attend more than one RRP. In addition to these regional projects, there are several annual meetings which focus on biological control and the management of insects and pathogens including SERA-003 (Southern Information Exchange Group for IPM), SERA-007 (Biology and Management of Pecan Insects and Other Arthropods), SERA-012 (Southern Forest Insect Worker Conference), SERA-026 (Fire Ants), and SERA-033 (Current Issues in Weed Biology, Weed/Crop Interactions, and Weed Management in the Southern Region (S-183)).

The objectives of the current proposals predecessors are listed in Table 1. The initial projects (S-192 and S-238) were focused primarily on importation biological control. The objectives of S-267 were broadened to reflect the widening interests in conservation and augmentation biological control in the Southern Region. The objectives of S-303 were expanded to incorporate novel technologies (e.g., transgenic varieties, cultural practices, selective pesticides) and needs (e.g., suppression of invasive species, alternative pest management tools, cost-effective and environmentally sound pest management) in the Southern Region. The current project will build upon the past successes of past projects on biological control in the Southern Region and continue to focus on new technologies and emerging needs.

This regional project is not duplicative of SDC-314 (Discovery of Entomopathogens and Their Integration and Safety in Pest Management Systems) or NCERA-125 (Biological Control of Arthropods and Weeds). Each of these projects emphasizes biologically based pest management in ways that complement rather than compete with each other. This project focuses on insect/plant interactions of particular importance to the southern U. S., with its unique cropping systems and pest challenges. Control of invasive weeds is also emphasized in this project. Use of entomopathogens is investigated as a component of some classical biological control research in the project, but is not the primary emphasis. The biological control agents of interest are primarily predators and parasitoids of arthropod pests or herbivorous insects in the case of weed biological control.


Table 1. Objectives for the three consecutive Southern Regional Multistate Research Projects, S-192, S-238, S-267, S-303 and Current Proposal

________________________________________________________________________

S-192

Obj. 1. Survey and import biotic agents.

Obj. 2. Release, establish and evaluate introduced natural enemies.

S-238

Obj. 1. To survey for and import natural enemies to control scale insects, whitefly, aphids, fruit and leaf-feeding Lepidoptera, stalk boring Lepidoptera, fruit flies, muscoid flies, mole crickets, aquatic weeds, thistles, and other target pest groups having regional scope.

Obj. 2. To conduct biosystematic research to determine the suitability of the natural enemies for consignment from quarantine.

Obj. 3. To colonize and biologically evaluate the selected introduced natural enemies of arthropod pests and weeds.

S-267

Obj. 1. Assess biological control approaches using native and exotic natural enemies for implementation in pest management systems.

Obj. 2. Enhance augmentation of natural enemies and colonization of introduced natural enemies through improved rearing, distribution and release methods.

Obj. 3. Evaluate effects of exotic natural enemies on non-target organisms.

Obj. 4. Quantify the effect of natural enemies on the pest species.

S-303

Obj. 1. Cooperatively survey for, import, and assess natural enemies for invasive pests.

Obj. 2. Assess integration of exotic and indigenous natural enemies with current and novel pest management approaches, to improve environmental and economic sustainability.

Obj. 3. Evaluate effects of introduced natural enemies on target and non-target organisms.

Obj. 4. Characterize and quantify the role of indigenous natural enemies in suppressing pest and beneficial species.

Obj. 5. Improve colonization and efficacy of natural enemies through habitat manipulation for resident species and improvement of rearing, distribution, and establishment of released exotic or native natural enemies.

Objectives

1. Characterize and evaluate the effect of established natural enemies.
   
2. Exploration, importation, and assessment of natural enemies for invasive pests.
   
3. Implementation, evaluation, and enhancement of biological control.
   
4. Evaluate the benefits and risks of natural enemies.
   

Methods

OBJECTIVE 1: Characterize and evaluate the effect of established natural enemies. Procedures: Project participants will meet annually to refine research coordination. Biological control of exotic and invasive pests has long been viewed as an ideal, non-toxic approach for mitigating economic losses due to weed and insect pests that previously and routinely have been controlled by the use of toxic pesticides. It has been hypothesized that host-specific natural enemies are environmentally safe relative to those that attack a wide range of hosts and prey. Current trends indicate that the practice of biological control by the introduction of natural enemies, or classical biological control, will increase worldwide to address new pest problems created as a result of liberal free trade. However, the general acceptance of biological control as a safer alternative to chemical pesticides has been challenged by recent concerns raised by stakeholders about the efficacy and safety of natural enemy introductions on target and non-target species. Clearly, it is the responsibility of the biological control community to objectively address these concerns. Stringent protocols for establishing the safety of plant-feeding organisms to control weeds have been in effect for many years. Quantitative evaluation of introduced natural enemies on target species will be accomplished using established manipulative experiments that incorporate accepted elements of experimental design, replication and statistical analyses. Effects of introduced biological control agents on target organisms will be separated from other sources of variation by comparing biological control treatments to experimental units, e.g., cages or plots, where biological control organisms have been excluded mechanically, chemically or biologically. The potential for long-term damage to non-target organisms sets classical biological control apart from chemical control. The ecological consequences of these non-target effects may run the gamut from temporary or sustained attack on individuals, suppression or extinction of populations and suppression or extinction of a species to community-level disruptions. Post-release monitoring programs will focus on state or federally listed threatened and endangered species, species that are critical to ecosystems and others. Insect and weed biological control researchers will collaborate during the screening of natural enemies of insect pests to ensure they will not attack established or candidate weed biological control agents. Expected outcomes: Host range limits of introduced natural enemies will be documented across appropriate geographical areas. Alternate, non-target hosts will be identified, both plant and animal (arthropod). Geographic spread of introduced biological control agents will be documented. The evaluation of the effects of established natural enemies on non-target organisms will enable the development of databases to support meaningful risk assessment protocols for future biological control programs. The constantly changing databases list associations of exotic natural enemies and non-target hosts that will be used and updated over the life of the project and made available internationally through the internet. OBJECTIVE 2: Exploration, importation, and assessment of natural enemies for invasive pests. Procedures: Project participants will meet annually to refine research coordination. There is an ongoing need to discover, import, and assess new biological control agents for both new and established invasive pests. The long-established working hypothesis is that there are natural enemies in the country of origin that can be imported and used to control non-indigenous pest species. Examples of established pests requiring additional research are red imported fire ant, mole crickets, thrips, muscoid flies, water hyacinth, kudzu, Chinese privet, Chinese tallow, melaleuca, and Brazilian peppertree. Examples of newly invading pests are the bromeliad weevil, mealybugs, brown citrus aphid, citrus psylla, old world climbing fern, giant salvinia, and tropical soda apple. A policy by USDA, APHIS, PPQ was put in place which better facilitates the importation of natural enemies. To meet this need, foreign exploration and surveys will be conducted cooperatively to identify biological control agents in the home range of the pest species. The regional project will serve to coordinate surveys and share information regarding planned foreign explorations, and to make the most efficient use of existing quarantine facilities. Modern molecular methods using standard procedure will be used to identify countries of origin and biological control agent biotypes to maximize the likelihood of successful discovery and establishment of new natural enemies. Promising natural enemies will be imported into quarantine facilities in the region for pre-release risk assessment and evaluation of production and biological characteristics. Risk assessment for weed control projects will follow the guidelines established by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for Biological Control of Weeds. Risk assessment for projects with arthropod targets also will be conducted, and will include host range studies, screening for pathogens, and evaluation of potential interference between arthropod and weed pest biocontrol agents. Only those natural enemies that have undergone risk assessment will be released from quarantine. Teams of scientists working within the project will coordinate releases from quarantine and distribution of biological control agents. Expected outcomes: It is anticipated that a range of insect pests and weeds will be targeted, and natural enemies will be sought, and upon discovery and adequate testing, will be pursued as potential agents. The insect pests and weeds include: melaleuca, Brazilian peppertree, old world climbing fern, kudzu, tropical soda apple, water hyacinth (including pathogens), Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, tarnished plant bug, brown citrus aphid, cotton fleahopper, bromeliad weevil, red imported fire ant, muscoid flies, mole crickets, and weevils. The efficiency of foreign exploration is enhanced by regional cooperation. Improvements in identifying home ranges of newly arrived invasive species will increase the likelihood of discovering biological control biotypes that are adapted to the target pest. The conduct of rigorous risk assessment will improve the acceptance of classical biological control by the regulatory and environmental communities, as well as the public. OBJECTIVE 3: Implementation, evaluation, and enhancement of biological control. Procedures: Project participants will meet annually to refine research coordination. Integration of pesticides and natural enemies is becoming increasingly important, which necessitates the development of specific data on natural enemy-pesticide interactions. The hypothesis is that pest management will be most effective and economical if a variety of compatible technologies are developed and employed, rather than attempting to use a single option. Current and novel pesticides will be assayed in the laboratory, greenhouse and field. Assays will vary because of the diversity of the plants, pests, and natural enemies in the tests. Greenhouse studies will permit examination of pesticides and natural enemies under more natural, yet controlled circumstances and provide insights into population level studies conducted in the field. Field evaluations will characterize effects of pesticides on natural enemy populations and biological control efficacy in relevant production systems. The interactions of natural enemies with transgenic crops are becoming increasingly important as new products are developed and released throughout the Southern Region. It is critical that these interactions be quantified to minimize secondary pest outbreaks. Spatial and temporal patterns of natural enemy abundance and diversity in relation to transgenic crops will be characterized through detailed surveys of natural enemies in transgenic and non-transgenic crops. The influence of transgenic plants on natural enemy dynamics at the regional level will be evaluated by manipulating spatial patterns and ratios of transgenic and non-transgenic plantings and examining the population dynamics of the natural enemies within the manipulated system. Movement of natural enemies between transgenic and non-transgenic plantings also will be studied. The effects of the transgenic crops on the fitness of natural enemies, directly and through the hosts or prey, will be examined by measuring relevant life-history traits, such as longevity, fecundity and host finding. Various cultural practices have become more popular and gained grower acceptance in the Southern Region. Among the most prominent of these are conservation tillage, cover crops, multiple cropping and crop rotation. These practices affect microhabitat, seasonal distribution of resources within the field, field architecture and microclimate. All of these factors affect the efficacy of natural enemies, as well as the abundance, timing and distribution of pest species within the field. Understanding how cultural practices interact with biological control also may yield opportunities to manipulate habitats to increase suitability for natural enemies. Expected Outcomes: Understanding the interactions between pest management technologies, conventional and novel, and natural enemies will lead to more effective integration of biological control in pest management systems as well as the enhancement of biological control. Characterizing effects of transgenic plants on natural enemies will help clarify the effects of these plants on ecological and agricultural systems, and minimize secondary pest outbreaks. Determining effects of cultural practices on natural enemies will expose beneficial or detrimental consequences of adopting such practices, aiding growers in their production decisions. OBJECTIVE 4: Evaluate the benefits and risks of natural enemies. Procedures: Project participants will meet annually to refine research coordination. Evaluation of indigenous natural enemy efficacy is a key component of biological control programs. The hypothesis is that to be efficacious, natural enemies must have significant individual or additive effects in reducing pest populations. For natural enemies to be used effectively and efficiently in pest management systems, researchers must have a better understanding of how indigenous natural enemies affect the population dynamics of pest species. The role of existing natural enemy complexes in reducing pest populations must be explored thoroughly. Studies will measure host/prey suppression by natural enemies in selected commodities and assess the effect of existing natural enemies on the efficacy of introduced biological control agents. Expected outcomes: Knowledge of the effect of existing natural enemy complexes will enable an informed evaluation of the need for new natural enemies or other technologies to control pest species. Quantifying the effect of indigenous natural enemies on introduced ones also will document progress in implementing agents in new areas and will explain less-than-expected control by an introduced biological control agent. This information will help direct resources to further release and redistribute introduced agents. Finally, quantifying the effect of indigenous natural enemies will permit the development of biologically based IPM programs for crop/animal systems.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Host range limits of introduced natural enemies will be documented across appropriate geographical areas and reported. Alternate, non-target hosts will be identified, both plant and animal (arthropod). Geographic spread of introduced biological control agents will be documented. The evaluation of the effects of established natural enemies on non-target organisms will enable the development of databases to support meaningful risk assessment protocols for future biological control programs. The constantly changing databases list associations of exotic natural enemies and non-target hosts that will be used and updated over the life of the project and made available internationally through the internet.
• It is anticipated that a range of insect pests and weeds will be targeted, and natural enemies will be sought, and upon discovery and adequate testing, will be pursued as potential agents. The insect pests and weeds include: melaleuca, Brazilian peppertree, old world climbing fern, kudzu, tropical soda apple, water hyacinth (including pathogens), Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, tarnished plant bug, brown citrus aphid, cotton fleahopper, bromeliad weevil, red imported fire ant, muscoid flies, mole crickets, and weevils.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Effective production, distribution, and release technologies for natural enemies of invasive pests developed by this Multi-state Project will be implemented by state and federal labs.
• Biocontrol measures for new invasive species of insects and weeds developed by this Multi-state Project will be transferred by extension to end-users.
• Improvements in classical biological control strategies made by this Multi-state Project will be accepted by the regulatory and environmental communities, as well as the public.
• Biologically based IPM programs and cultural practices will be developed to maximize effectiveness of natural enemies on invasive species of insects and weeds.

Milestones

(2006): Research and outreach efforts previously conducted under the five objectives of S-303 will continue under the four objectives of the current project. In addition, working groups will assess the progress that has been made under the four previous Southern Regional Projects (S-192, S-238, S-267, and S-303) and develop 5-year plans for the objectives outlined in this project. A writing committee will integrate specific research and outreach goals from throughout the Southern Region and complete the development of a revised Regional Project. A revised Regional Project on Biological Control of Arthropod Pests and Weeds will be submitted.

(2007): A symposium will be organized and sponsored by SDC-319 at the Southeastern Branch Meeting of the Entomological Society of America to communicate the current issue of "hand" transporting new biological control organisms across international and state lines to quarantine facilities under the new federal guidelines. Project participants will meet and discuss past and upcoming project activities. Research and outreach efforts will continue under the four objectives of the current project. An Editorial Committee will be selected for a cohesive publication of the significant project activities within a single bulletin or journal.

(2008): Project participants will meet and discuss past and upcoming project activities. Research and outreach efforts will continue under the objectives of the project. A selection of a publication outlet will be made. A site will be selected for a joint 2009 meeting with NCERA-125 (Biological Control of Arthropods and Weeds) and/or the successor of W-1185 (Biological Control in Pest Management Systems of Plants).

(2009): Project participants will meet and discuss past and upcoming project activities. SDC 319 will meet jointly with NCERA-125 and/or the successor of W-1185. Research and outreach efforts will continue under the objectives of the project.

(2010): Project participants will meet and discuss past and upcoming project activities. Project activities will be submitted for a cohesive publication. Research and outreach efforts will continue under the objectives of the project.

(11):oject participants will meet and discuss past and ongoing project activities. Project activities will be published.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Research results generated from this and subsequent projects will be transmitted to the user community by extension and other delivery methods (e.g. publications, websites, etc.).

Organization/Governance

Research under the proposed project will be planned and directed by the regional technical committee. The membership of the regional technical committee will include the regional administrative advisor (non-voting); one technical representative for each participating SAES, appointed by the directors; technical representatives from 1890 Universities, each participating USDA laboratory, and other research agencies appointed by an appropriate administrator; and a non-voting CSREES representative. Each participating SAES, 1890 University, and USDA, Agricultural Research Service laboratory and other cooperating research agencies are limited to one vote on matters of major importance regardless of the number of representatives that each agency has on the technical committee. All representatives are allowed to vote on matters that the voting members feel should be decided by all. The administrative advisor may invite non-voting consultants, as appropriate.

All members of the technical committee are eligible for office, regardless of sponsoring agency affiliation. The chair, in consultation with the administrative advisor, will notify the technical committee members of the time and place of meetings (according to the suggestions of the technical committee members), prepare the agenda, and preside at meetings of the technical committee and executive members. The chair will be responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of an annual report of the regional project. The secretary will assist the chair and preside in the chair's absence, record and distribute the minutes, and perform other duties as requested by the technical committee or the administrative advisor. The secretary will be elected by the voting members of the technical committee and will succeed the chair.

Technical coordination among states and agencies will be accomplished by having subcommittees as needed for appropriate research areas, e.g., field crop pests, whiteflies and scales, glasshouses, livestock pests, weed pests, etc. The proposed administrative structure of the technical committee will be:

1. Experiment Station Administrative Advisor,

2. CSREES Representative,

3. Executive Committee: The Executive Committee will be composed of the past chair, chair, secretary, and administrative advisor.

The technical committee will meet at least once each year and summaries of the past year's research will be exchanged, research plans outlined, the next meeting location (and time) discussed, and a secretary elected. When possible and of benefit, annual meetings will be held jointly with related regional technical committees. The executive committee has authority to conduct business between annual meetings and perform other duties as assigned by the technical committee.

Literature Cited

Lynch, S., C. Greene and C. Kramer-LeBlanc. 1996. Proceedings of the Third National IPM Workshop, Broadening Support for 21st Century IPM. USDA, ERS, Misc. Publ. 1542. Washington, D.C. 300 p.

NAS, NRC. 1996. Ecologically Based Pest Management, New Solutions for a New Century. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 144 p.

NAPIS (National Agricultural Pest Information System). 2000. Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey & NAPIS' page on Tropical Soda Apple, Solanum viarum. URL: http://ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/tsa/.

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. BioScience. 50:53-65.

Ridgway, R. L., M. P. Hoffmann, M. N. Inscoe and C. S. Glenister. 1998. Mass-Reared Natural Enemies: Application, Regulation and Needs. Proc. Thomas Say Publ. in Entomol., Entomol. Soc. Amer. Lanham, Maryland. 332 p.

SAAESD (Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors). 2000. Southern Strategic Research Plan. URL: http://msstate.edu/org/saaesd/soplan/soplan.htm

Williams, M. R. 1999. Cotton insect losses: 1998. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Res. Conf. 2:785-808. National Cotton Council. Memphis, Tennessee.



Project Participants:

Arthur G. Appel -Alabama - Auburn University (ALA)
Entomology 334-844-2562 aappel@acesag.auburn.edu

R. M. Baranowski-Florida - University of Florida (FLA) Homestead
305-246-7001 rmb@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Julio Bernal- Texas - Texas A&M University (TEX)
Entomology 979-862-8378 juliobernal@tamu.edu

Ken Bloem- USDA-APHIS- North Carolina
kenneth.bloem@APHIS.USDA.GOV

Susan K. Braman - Georgia - University of Georgia (GEO)
Entomology 770 228 7236 kbraman@griffin.uga.edu

Harold W. Browning-Florida - University of Florida (FLA)
Entomology and Nematology 863-956-1151 ext. 215 hwbrowning@ifas.ufl.edu

George David Buntin-Georgia - University of Georgia (GEO)
Entomology 770 412 4713 gbuntin@griffin.uga.edu

John L Capinera-Florida - University of Florida (FLA)
Department of Entomology & Nematology 352-392-1901 jlcap@ifas.ufl.edu

James E. Carpenter- USDA-ARS/Georgia CPMRU, Tifton
229-387-2321 jcarpent@tifton.usda.gov

Raghavan Charudattan -Florida - University of Florida (FLA)
Plant Pathology 352-392-3631 ext. 354 rc@ifas.ufl.edu

Ted Cottrell- USDA-ARS/Georgia SFTNRL, Byron
478-956-6448 tcottrell@saa.ars.usda.gov

James P. Cuda-Florida - University of Florida (FLA)
Entomology & Nematology 352-392-1901 ext. 126 jcuda@ifas.ufl.edu

Micky D. Eubanks-Alabama - Auburn University (ALA)
Entomology 334-844-2556 eubanmd@auburn.edu

J. Howard Frank -Florida - University of Florida (FLA)
Entomology & Nematology 352-392-1901 ext. 128 JHF@IFAS.UFL.EDU

Joe Funderburk- Florida- University of Florida (FLA)
jefunderburk@MAIL.IFAS.UFL.EDU

Wayne Gardner- Georgia - University of Georgia (GEO)
Entomology wgardner@GRIFFIN.UGA.EDU

Chris Geden-USDA-ARS/Florida
Center Med/Vet. Entomology 352-374-5919 cgeden@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu

K. Giles-Oklahoma - Oklahoma State University (OKL)
Entomology 405-744-6298 kgiles@okstate.edu

Frank Gilstrap-Texas - Texas A&M University (TEX)
Texas Agric. Exp. Station f-gilstrap@tamu.edu

Jerome. F. Grant -Tennessee - University of Tennessee (TEN)
Ent. & Plt. Pathology 865-974-7135 jgrant@utk.edu

George Hamilton -New Jersey - Rutgers University (NJ.)
Entomology hamilton@aesop.rutgers.edu

Raymond Hix Florida- Florida A & M University (FLA)
Center for Viticulture 850-412-5193 raymond.hix@famu.edu

Judith Hough-Goldstein -Delaware - University of Delaware (DEL)
Entomology and Applied Ecology 302-831-2529 jhough@udel.edu

Marjorie A. Hoy-Florida - University of Florida (FLA) mahoy@ifas.ufl.edu

Donn T. Johnson -Arkansas - University of Arkansas (ARK)
Entomology 479-575-2501 dtjohnso@uark.edu

Seth J Johnson-Louisiana - Louisiana State University (LA.B)
Entomology 225-578-1826 sjohnson@agcenter.lsu.edu

Moses Kairo- Florida- Florida A & M University (FLA)
Center for Biological Control moses.kairo@FAMU.EDU

Kathleen Kidd-North Carolina Department of Agriculture
919-233-8214 kathleen.kidd@ncmail.net

L. T. Kok- Virginia - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VA Tech) (VA.) Entomology 540-231-6341 ltkok@vt.edu

Timothy J. Kring- Arkansas - University of Arkansas (ARK)
Entomology 479-575-3186 tkring@uark.edu

Paris L. Lambdin-Tennessee - University of Tennessee (TEN)
Lent. & Plant pathology 865-974-7952 plambdin@utk.edu

Susan Legaspi- USDA-ARS/Florida CMAVE, Tallahassee
Center for Biological Control, FAMU jlegaspi@saa.ars.usda.gov

Norman C Leppla -Florida - University of Florida (FLA)
Department of Entomology ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu

John Meyer-North Carolina - North Carolina State University (NC.)
Entomology 919-515-1659 john_meyer@ncsu.edu

Russell F Mizell- Florida - University of Florida (FLA)
Entomology and Nematology rfmizell@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

John Obrycki- Kentucky- University of Kentucky
Entomology john.obrycki@UKY.EDU

Ron Oetting- University of Georgia (GEO)
Entomology roettin@GRIFFIN.UGA.EDU

David B. Orr -North Carolina - North Carolina State University (NC.)
919-515-4684 david_orr@ncsu.edu

Bill A Overholt - Florida - University of Florida (FLA) waoverholt@ifas.ufl.edu

R. S. Patterson-USDA-ARS/Florida
CMAVE, Gainesville rpatterson@gainesville.usda.ufl.edu

Stewart Reitz- USDA-ARS/Florida CMAVE, Tallahassee
Center for Biological Control, FAMU sreitz@saa.ars.usda.gov

Eric Riddick- USDA-ARS/Mississippi, Stoneville 662-686-3646
ewriddick@msa-stoneville.ars.usda.gov

John R. Ruberson- Georgia - University of Georgia (GEO)
Entomology 229 386-7251 ruberson@tifton.uga.edu

David J Schuster Current Research Information System dschuster@ifas.ufl.edu

Alvin Simmons- USDA-ARS/South Carolina USVL, Charleston
843-556-0840 asimmons@saa.ars.usda.gov

J. M. Sivinski-USDA-ARS/Florida
CMAVE, Gainesville 352-374-5791 jsivinski@gainesville.usda.ufl.edu

Donald Steinkraus-Arkansas - University of Arkansas (ARK)
Entomology 479-575-3187 steinkr@uark.edu

Kenneth V. Yeargan -Kentucky - University of Kentucky (KY.)
Entomology 859-257-4961 kyeargan@uky.edu

Robert Wiedenmann- Arkansas- University of Akansas (ARK)
Entomology rwieden@uark.edu

Jim B. Wooley -Texas - Texas A & M University (TEX)
Entomology 979-845-9349 jimwooley@tamu.edu

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NJ, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Research, Extension, and Education Project Online Reporting Tool