Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Committee Chairman Dutcher called the meeting to order. Adminsitrative Advisor Watson to gave an overview of federal funding issues and the status of our regional project. He stated that our current regional project is in good shape and mid term reviews are no longer required. The regional project must be rewritten in 2 years (2009). Hatch funding has been restored and there is a possibility of an increase in formula funding in the next federal budget. The association of agricultural college deans have decided to take proactive measures to stop the annual fight to restore Hatch funds. Their goal is to increase formula funds in addition to increases in funds for competitive grants through the CREATE-21 proposal. Harris stated that the strength of this regional project has been its impact on pecan producers and suggested that an impact section be included as an objective in our future project. Mizell noted that southern region IPM has funds available to survey growers for project impacts. He also noted that our new project should include a technology transfer section. Committee member voted to hold next years annual meeting of the regional project in conjunction with the Western Pecan Growers Meeting scheduled for early March 2008. Harris encouraged us to invite Mexican entomologists to join our meeting and plan a trip into the pecan growing areas of northern Mexico Committee members gave a brief synopsis of the annual progress. Shapiro (USDA) is finishing up a SARE grant along with co-PIs from among the S-1017 group including Cotrell(USDA), Harris (TX) and Hudson (GA). Shapiro et al. found that fungal pathogens can do a good job of controlling pecan weevil adults. In contrast, nematodes have been short lived and do not control adults effectively. Cottrell (USDA) mentioned that he and Shapiro (USDA) found that one of the reasons Harmonia lady beetles have been so successful in colonizing the US is because they resist native pathogens. Cottrell has also been investigating attractants for lacewings. Dutcher (GA) briefly reviewed his pesticide trials work. Spintor did not control phylloxera. Knack and Esteem did not effectively control pecan nut casebearer. He mentioned that 1st summer generation casebearer arrived early in 2006. He described his feeding studies with Harmonia lady beetles and screening for alternative prey species. First and 2nd instar harmonia larvae showed some preferences but older larvae devour everything. Harris (TX) provided members of the committee with recently published survey results documenting the impact of pecan IPM on the pecan industry in Texas. He mentioned that April 2006 was much warmer than normal and that the casebearer spray dates became condensed across the state. In 2007, they are looking to expand PNC trapping locations across Texas by encouraging non-traditional cooperators. Harris also mentioned that the Texas Pecan website has been upgraded. Harris stressed the importance of spiders to pecan IPM and they can provide an indication of biodiversity. He further mentioned that Texas A&M maintains a spiders in pecans webpage. As a final note, Harris noted that the genetic studies on pecan weevil have been completed. Reid (KS) described the increasing importance of sawflies as a early season defoliator in SE Kansas and NE Oklahoma. He described the outbreak as being spotty be severe enough to justify control measures. He also described his work on the spatial distribution of pecan weevil in native pecan groves. Weevil populations seem to be clustered according to soil type with supporting the smallest weevil populations. Mizell (FL) outlined his work with trap traps for controlling stinkbugs. He suggested the season long control of stinkbugs can be achieved by establishing a series of trap crops including millet, grain sorghum, okra, field peas, and buckwheat. Some trap traps can be mowed to rejuvenate there attractiveness to stinkbugs. All major kernel feeding hemipterans feed on millet and sorghum. He also noted that tachinid flies are attracted to stinkbugs feeding on the trap crop. Goff reported that pecan cultivars differ in their susceptibility to stinkbugs. He also stated that in screening pecan cultivars they measure leaf retention Following the state reports the committee tackled a discussion on major issues in pecan IPM. The first issue discussed was the development of new insect monitoring tools. The pecan nut casebearer has been a great success but pheromones developed for pecan weevil and hickory shuckworm have proven to be failures in the field. Harris noted that Texas A&M will soon be looking into the genetics of hickory shuckworm discovering a new approach to trapping this pest. Mizell suggested that we should investigate the possibility of developing an ovipostion trap similar to the one currently used to monitor navel orange worm. He further encourages us to look at plant volatiles as a synergist for any new trap. Dutcher said he was looking into using lacewing pheromones to attract the beneficial insects into the pecan orchard. Harris remarked that their work with pecan weevil indicated that northern, southeastern and southwestern pecan weevil populations are genetically different. He further stated that pecan weevil emergence seems to occur following a peak in soil temperature (at 10cm) that occurs the 3rd week in July. Mizell noted that pyramid traps baited with southern green stinkbug pheromone is very attractive to premature female stinkbugs. Dutcher began the discussion of chemical controls. He noted that there are no cheap miticides available for pecans and that biocontrol may prove the only ecomonical method for controlling this pest. He also noted leaf bronzing is often misdiagnosed as mite damage when poor leaf conditions were caused by other factors. Hudson asked if pyrethroid use might induce mite problems. Goff mentioned that the cultivar, Desirable, and tree overcrowding can increase mite problems. Cottrell asked the question why do some aphids cause chlorosis (black aphids) and other do not (yellow aphids). He noted that plant growth regulators can reduce black aphid induces leaf spotting. He also note that a combination of a new insecticide, Beleaf, with provado gave good chemical control. Cottrell asked if aphid resistance problems were realy the result of a spray coverage problem. He is currently looking at sprayers, speeds, water rates, and air vs graound application methods. Hudson noted that provado has been slow to lose effectiveness due to the build up of aphid resistance. Harris worried that provado may flare mites and is encouraging growers in TX to avoid chemical controls for aphids. Hudson mentioned that it often requires twice the rate to control black aphids rather that yellow aphids. Harris stated that he was using water sensitive cards to monitor aphid honeydew production. He found 10 times the amount of honeydew under Cheyenne tree as Pawnee tree. Reid noted that cultivar vary widely in their attractiveness to aphids. Dutcher encouraged the use of water sensitive cards to monitor aphid populations and to develop threasholds. Harris stated that the cards can be used to predicit aphid population increases and to forecast aphid outbreaks. Shapiro began the discussion of biological control methods. He reviewed his collaborative work (Shapiro, Cottrell, and Gardner(GA)) with pecan weevil-killing nematodes including the screening of different nematode strains for virulence. He presented data on field trials with the best nematode strains. Field studies reviled that applied nemeatodes did not persist very long in orchard soils and extremely high application costs would make adoption of this biological control questionable at the current time. Shapiro was more optimistic about the use of fungi to control pecan weevil. Studies with Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae have resulted in mortality rates up to 80%. Techniques to apply the fungi to tree trunks have shown promise. Harris noted that his M. anisopliae had only 40% weevil mortality while his B. bassiana plot had too few weevils for an adequate test. Dutcher noted that he has found that releases of Western Predatory Mites in combination with the miticide, bifenazate (Acramite), does a good job of mite control. Releases of Western Perdatory Mite have persisted over several years. Hudson noted that biocontrol of mites may be difficult in areas sprayed with carbaryl for pecan weevil control. Harris suggest that mexico should be surveyed for biocontrol agents. Shapiro began the discussion of new projects. He presented an outline for a proposed book on nut tree IPM. Two ideas were put forward; 1) a text on the entomology of tree nut crops; or 2) a text on pecan IPM that covers both entomology and plant pathology. A consensus was reached that the proposed book should focus on pecan IPM. Shapiro stated that the book is intended to be a scholarly work and not an IPM handbook for growers. Harris suggested a chapter on the evolution of pecan as a crop and the role of pecan in society. Dutcher brought forward a proposal to resubmit a CAR grant this year. He said he would rework the proposal based of previous comments made by reviews of our previous CAR submission. The new proposal would be more streamlined focusing on biocontrol of pecan weevil, alternative control measures for black aphid, and trap crops for stinkbugs. Harris outline the coming seasons cooperative work on testing pheromones for the 2 strains of pecan nut casebearer. He suggested that maybe the reason PNC trap catch density could not be related to damage is because we are dealing with 2 strains of PNC. This summer we will continue using both pheromones but will also collect adults to do genetic studies. The meeting was concluded by selecting a new secretary for the Project. During the 2008 meeting of the regional project, Mizell will act as Chairman, Reid as Vice-chairman, and Cottrell will serve as secretary.