Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Minutes of the Meeting March 6, 2005, Las Cruces, NM In attendance: Dr. Clarence E. Watson (Administrative Advisor), Technical Committee Members: David I. Shapiro-Ilan (Chairman), Ted Cottrell (Vice-Chairman), Jim Dutcher (Secretary), Joe Ellington, Bill Ree, Bill Reid, Marvin K. Harris, Phil Mulder, Guests: Tom Crocker (Horticulturalist), Jane Crocker (Publicist), Joey Williamson (Entomology Graduate Student). The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:15 AM on March 6, 2005. After introductions, the Administrative Advisor provided comments on the current of status of regional research at the Federal and State level. For the past year, the project was a development project, number DC306. The new regional research project, number S1017, has been approved and will serve to coordinate and organize research efforts for the next five years. Each scientist needs to initialize his participation in the new project by contacting the Experiment Station Director in his University or Research Leader in USDA and filling out Appendix E on the NIMS website. All SAES's receive support for multi-state projects and participants receive travel funds and often salary funds from this support. It is also important to send success stories connected to the project to the Deans and Directors. It is important to maintain linkages to Administrators through impact statements and reporting publication of important articles. The Board of Trustees and Southern Directors need to see the practical (economic) impact of the research on crop production. On the Federal level funding for research is migrating away from formula funding and toward competitive grants. Marvin Harris added that the pecan project has sustained 30 years of cooperative research and has generated many high quality refereed regional and summary publications. Bill Reid added that scientists are also taking on dual appointments for research and extension work in two states (e.g., Kansas and Missouri - Mississippi and Louisiana) due to increased interest in pecan and the lack of a scientist in the additional state. The site of the 2006 meeting is Austin, Texas in conjunction with the SW Branch Meeting of ESA. If possible, a pecan IPM symposium will be arranged during the ESA meeting. Exact time and location of the regional project meeting and the symposium will be prepared by Harris, Ree and Mulder. Russ Mizell was nominated as the new secretary. Discussion ensued on publications. Papers delivered at the pecan nut casebearer symposium at the SW Branch Meeting of ESA in 2002 may be the source of the next regional publication. A review article in American Entomologist would give us national visibility. A title was proposed - "Impact of IPM Research on Pecan Production". Areas of interest for paper development are insect losses by state, loss of phosalone, risk assessment, secondary pest resurgence, history of pesticide usage. Shapiro-Ilan, Harris and Dutcher are preparing a book proposal to submit to publishers. The book will cover pecan management in three sections: 1. A practical production guide; 2. A current research section; and, 3. Regional Summaries incl. PIAP information and IPM systems in different production areas - Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi-Louisiana, regions of Texas, Mesilla Valley, NM, and Oklahoma-Kansas. The book will cover nutrition, insects and mites, plant diseases, weeds, and vertebrate nut predators. Research Funding - Jane and Tom Crocker discussed research budgets indicating that major cuts in federal funding for the experiment stations are under consideration. National and state pecan sheller and grower associations can supply some soft money support. Harris indicated that the importance of agricultural research wanes next to heart disease and cancer research. The Crockers added that a team of proponents for peach, pecan and watermelon commodities are going up to Washington DC to hire a lobbyist to get money for the Southeastern Fruit and Tree Nut Research Lab at Byron. Other moneys are available from southeastern fruit and vegetable groups and risk management groups. Harris added that check off programs may be a source of funds for research. The Crockers indicated that marketing research is expensive and Georgia pecan growers have teamed up with other commodities to reduce costs. A competitive grant was submitted to the Crops at Risk program of USDA/CSREES a second time by Dutcher, Shapiro-Ilan and Hudson and included proposed research on pecan IPM by most technical committee members. The grant was received and is in review. The first submission in 2004 received three ratings from reviewers as fair, very good and excellent and was not funded. Discussion of new research results completed in 2004 was present by each technical committee member and is organized below by project objective. Objective 1: Improved systems to monitor pecan arthropod pests - A new species of casebearer may have been found in Mexico that resembles pecan nut casebearer but has a different pheromone. Harris has the new pheromone and would like to test it at different locations across the southeastern states to determine the range of distribution of the Mexican species. Trials in 2004 in OK, GA, KS where Mexican casebearer pheromone was set out in American casebearer infested pecan orchards did not record a response to the new pheromone. The PNC monitoring and control system developed at Texas A&M University works for Texas and is being improved so that it will work for the entire region from Savannah, GA to El Paso, TX. Currently the turn around time for data coming in and recommendations going out is too long outside of a small area of Texas. The trap catch needs to be converted to a biofix point and degree day accumulations need to be correlated to first nut entry date over a large area. The Boy Scouts of America are being recruited to take these data all across TX. The scouts are also planting pecan trees in parks of major TX cities. Texas A&M extension service PNC program also gives out traps and lures to growers then growers report data to county agents. Nine counties were participating in 2004 and 16 in 2005. A prediction model is under development by Knutson and other members in TX. A new light trap was developed in GA where moths are attracted to a blacklight and trapped after they fly onto a clear plexiglass surface covered with Tanglefoot. The moths are well preserved and easy to identify. It works for leafminers and hickory shuckworm. Mite sampling was improved in GA with a mite brushing machine. Large samples (20 cpd leaves) can be combined into a single count for evaluating abundance of phytophagous and predatory mites, esp. at low population levels. Pecan weevil distribution in native groves in KS is clumped and based on several factors. Heavier soils have fewer weevils. Unsprayed native trees on flood plains have variable weevil density. Dispersal of weevils from an infested tree to a non-infested tree depends on the crop load of the uninfested tree. Pecan weevil adults may be transmitting phytophthora fungal pathogens to the nuts. The evidence is circumstantial at this time (USDA - Byron). TX is developing an interactive webpage for pecan IPM. The page has: an overview of insect and mite information resources; a prediction map generator; and discussion window. The role of honeydew in the pecan system is under investigation in TX. Honeydew is produced in large amounts and a major sink for photosynthate produced by the tree. It may have a role in hastening the decomposition of pecan foliage on the ground. Work in GA has found that it stimulates nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil. Objective 2: Improved control systems for pecan arthropod pests - Carbaryl is the recommended insecticide for pecan weevil control and potential alternative insecticides are pyrethroids, Warrior and Proaxis. Trunk sprays of insecticidal paint were not effective in controlling pecan weevil. Extensive trials of chemical controls for yellow pecan, blackmargined and black pecan aphids, hickory shuckworm and pecan nut casebearer were conducted in GA. Yellow pecan and blackmargined aphids are easily controlled by new insecticides and among the compounds tested - Centric, Provado, Assail and Fulfil - black pecan aphids were only controlled by Assail and Fulfil. Also in GA, integrated control of pecan leaf scorch mite was demonstrated with the Western predatory mite (Galendromus occidentalis (Nesbitt)) and a selective miticide, Acramite® (Uniroyal Crompton). The miticide was compatible with Western predatory mite, selectively killing scorch mites and not the predators. Predatory mite populations were significantly higher and scorch mite populations were significantly lower in the Fall in the Acramite treated trees than in the dicofol treated trees. In Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, Harris (TX) reports: Dormex (cyanamide) treatment is used to break dormancy in plants that did not get enough chill hours during the winter. The treatment also causes pecan nut casebearer larvae to emerge from the hibernaculum. Dormex treatment may have a role in IPM. In OK, use of Intrepid insecticide is increasing for pecan nut casebearer and hickory shuckworm control. A large trial in OK comparing conventional weevil control to the trunk spray called "Bug Juice"(deltamethrin plus white paint) was inconclusive. Weevils reported by the grower as dead may have been feigning death when disturbed. Cottrell indicated that the killing weevils on the trunk does not reduce damage in the nuts. Dutcher indicated that pyrethroids are not the most toxic insecticides against pecan weevil. Objective 3: Development of biological control systems for pecan arthropod pests - Shapiro-Ilan tested a Peoria strain of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana for pecan weevil control. Oil and UV screens were added to improve the longevity. Shallow cultivation of the soil before application was also beneficial. Entomopathogenic nematode strains were hybridized by Shapiro-Ilan to produce a new heat tolerant strain without a loss of virulence. In GA, the feeding rates of multicolored Asian ladybeetle larvae (MALB) (I1, I2, I3) on pecan aphids and cowpea aphids as an alternate prey were compared. First instar larvae preferred pecan aphids whereas I2 and I3 larvae showed no preference. Clover and vetch intercrops were evaluated for enhancement of multicolored Asian ladybeetle in GA. The intercrops produced pea aphid populations that were highly attractive to the ladybeetles. MALB eggs, larvae and adults were found while sampling the intercrops with sweep nets and visual inspection. USDA scientists at Byron found that MALB and C-7 are more tolerant to infection by endemic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, than native ladybeetles (Coleomegilla maculata, Hippodamia convergens, Olla v-nigrum). In NM, nitrogen fertilizer rates influence the density of pecan aphids. Aphid populations increase at a faster rate when too much nitrogen is applied. In NM, organic growers had higher yields and fewer aphids than conventional growers. In OK, flood irrigation was associated with an increase in aphids in pecan trees. Flooding destroys the habitat of aphidophagous insects in the ground cover. Similar results were found in KS. Trap crops were tested in GA and TX for stink bug control. Millet and sesbania were attractive to stink bugs, shield bugs, leaffootted bugs and green lynx spiders (an important predator of the kernel feeding hemipterans). Pecan growers are currently using cowpeas and soybeans as trap crops based on earlier research. USDA scientists (Cottrell and Tillman (USDA - Tifton)) found that sorghum is an effective trap crop for stinkbugs and leaffootted bugs. A major study on spiders as predators in pecan orchards in TX from 2001-2004 indicated that the spiders are generalist predators, have a ubiquitous distribution and prey on pests such as aphids at low prey population density. The spiders are sampled with refuge traps and pitfall traps. The goal of the study is to describe fluctuations in predator and prey populations to determine the relative importance of different predators at various prey densities. In summary, the meeting accomplished three main objectives. First, new funding sources for research were revealed. Second, commitments were made for future symposia and publications. Third, 2004 research results were discussed and cooperative research projects were outlined for 2005. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, James D. Dutcher, Secretary

S-1017 (previously S293) Report January 2004- January 2005. Current Chair, David I. Shapiro-Ilan. USDA-ARS, 21 Dunbar Road, Byron GA 31008. Activities: 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. Circle pecan weevil traps were deployed at 10 locations in the Neosho River flood plain to study the large scale spatial distribution of pecan weevil (Curculio caryae). Trap captures indicate that weevil population densities can be related to soil type or more specifically clay content. The greatest number of weevils were captured from trees growing in Verdigris silt loam (15-27% clay) while less that 1% of total weevils captured were found on trees growing in Osage silty clay (40-50% clay). It is hypothesized that heavy soils provide a physical barrier to the movement of pecan weevil into and out of the soil (the site of larval pupation) (KS State Univ). Use of Circle trap technology has proven useful for Oklahoma growers attempting to make treatment decisions for pecan weevil, Curculio caryae. Field evaluations of this trapping system have resulted in development of a threshold utilizing these traps in pecan. Several publications on this and other important information related to significant pecan pests were published during this annual cycle (OK State Univ). A new trap was developed for pecan leafminer adults and other microlepidopertans (Univ of GA). Additionally, mite sampling techniques were developed for evaluating abundance of phytophagous and predatory mites (Univ of GA). Field work was conducted on pecan pests including development and modification of traps to monitor circadian rhythms of insects attracted to pheromones and to monitor circadian rhythms and volumes of aphid honeydew production. Work on the pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella Nuenzig (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) pheromone for monitoring and decision making showed three traps were sufficient for grower use and that trap data can be combined with scouting and sequential sampling protocols to decide if and when to manage pecan nut casebearer. Work was also conducted on a newly developed attractant for a cryptic Acrobasis sp. The attractant was also deployed in the U.S. pecan belt and initially was thought to only attract very low numbers of Acrobasis nuxvorella (TX A&M Univ). 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. A trial was conducted to compare the effectiveness of an encapsulated formulation of lambda-Cyhalothrin (Warrior with Zeon Technology) to Carbaryl (Sevin 80W) for the control of pecan weevil. Weevil trap catch data was used to time pesticide applications and resulted in the application of 2 treatments, 30 days apart. Both pesticides provided excellent weevil control in comparison to check plots. Because of the extended residual effects of encapsulated lambda-Cyhalothrin, plots treated with the pyrethroid suffered significantly less stink bug damage to pecan kernels (KS State Univ). Field evaluations have also shown effective control of pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella with Spintor, Confirm, Intrepid, and Lorsban. Work was completed on developing a degree-day based model for pecan phylloxera, Phylloxera devastatrix in native and improved pecan cultivars in Oklahoma and Louisiana. Initial publications are being prepared by Dr. Hall in Louisiana. Field evaluations of insecticide alternatives for Sevin, used against pecan weevil, have been conducted. Results are being analyzed. Studies were completed on the effects of grazing legume-based or native orchard floors in flood-prone and non-flood prone areas. Information from these studies has been presented at international meetings and publication efforts have begun. Studies were initiated on monitoring the effects of particle film on delaying budbreak in pecan. Early results suggest this may be possible. Studies were also initiated on identifying a marker pheromone for pecan weevil. These studies have progressed slowly, with limited results available at present. Studies were also initiated in 2004 on stored product pests of pecan, an area that represents groundbreaking research on this important commodity (OK State Univ). Extensive trials of chemical controls for yellow pecan, blackmargined and black pecan aphids, hickory shuckworm and pecan nut casebearer (Univ of GA). Integrated control of pecan leaf scorch mite was demonstrated with the Western predatory mite (Galendromus occidentalis (Nesbitt)) and a selective miticide, Acramite® (Uniroyal Crompton) (GA). The miticide was compatible with Western predatory mite, selectively killing scorch mites and not the predators. Predatory mite populations were significantly higher in the Fall in the Acramite treated trees than in the dicofol treated trees (Univ of GA). Tebufenozide and Spinosad performed adequately against pecan nut casebearer, and hickory shuckworm, Cydia caryana (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) in field trials. No outbreaks of secondary pests were observed with these materials (TX A&M Univ). A comprehensive mail survey of 400 growers was also conducted and 216 surveys were returned. These are currently being analyzed to determine chemical use and program impact on use of decision making aids, adoption of new replacement chemistry and effects on profits and the environment (TX A&M Univ). New materials compatible with IPM that show promise include Spinosad for PNC, and tebufenozide for PNC and hickory shuckworm. They target Lepidoptera without adversely affecting natural enemies, thereby preserving aphid biocontrol and producer adoption is expected. The PNC pheromone has proven an effective monitoring tool and we expect survey results to provide more detailed data (wide adoption and economic impact quantified). Fire ant problems with equipment and harvest operations provided a bait solution with methoprene compatible with IPM should also result in wider producer adoption. The traps developed for use with pheromones and to monitor honeydew are expected to be widely adopted for use on a wide range of insects on numerous crops and to contribute to providing research information that can be adapted for field use in producer programs. (TX A&M Univ). 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. Several studies were conducted involving microbial control of the pecan weevil. Greenhouse and field tests indicated a novel (Italian) nematode strain of Steinernema carpocapsae provided 70-80% control of emerging adult pecan weevils (USDA-ARS Bryon GA, Univ GA). Field-testing of entomopathogenic fungi for suppression of the pecan weevil was continued; trials indicate greater efficacy may be achieved through incorporation of fungi into the soil or with trunk applications using a UV-resistant formulation. (USDA-ARS Byron GA and Peoria IL, Univ of GA). The recycling potential of entomopathogenic nematodes in pecan weevil was characterized; results indicated some potential for a round of recycling exists following inundative nematode applications, but the potential for subsequent recycling in weevil hosts is diminished (USDA-ARS Byron GA, Univ. of GA). Finally, a new nematode species, Heterorhabditis mexicana was tested for virulence to pecan weevils; results indicated that the new species is less virulent than others (e.g., S. carpocapsae) that are currently being studied (USDA-ARS Byron GA, Univ. of FL). In studies pertaining to ladybeetles, laboratory tests confirmed that an exotic lady beetle, Harmonia axyridis, can have detrimental effects upon the native lady beetle species Coleomegilla maculata and Olla v-nigrum. Larvae of exotic lady beetle were found capable of completing larval development when fed solely on a diet consisting of each species eggs. In stark contrast, the both native species were incapable of completing development when fed only the exotic species eggs. These native species can develop on eggs from either native species. These results indicate that under conditions of low prey availability, the exotic species will be favored because it is capable surviving by eating its own species eggs and the eggs of native species (USDA-ARS Byron GA). In other studies pertaining to the multicolored Asian ladybeetle included measurement of the feeding rate of ladybeetle larvae on pecan aphids and cowpea aphids as an alternate prey as well as an evaluation of intercrops for enhancement of the multicolored Asian ladybeetle (Univ of GA).

Publications (related to pecan entomology): Cottrell, T.E. 2004. Suitability of exotic and native lady beetle eggs (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) for development of lady beetle larvae. Biol. Cont. 31: 362-371. Cottrell, T. E. 2005. Intra- and interspecific egg predation by adult lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biol. Cont. (Accepted) Cottrell, T. E. and G. S. Hodges. Scale insects on pecan. The Pecan Grower, 15: 16-17. 2004. Cottrell, T. E. Importance of pecan weevil management during a light crop year. The Pecan Grower, 16: 18-19. 2004. (Industry) Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Habitat manipulation for enhancement of aphidophagous insects in pecan orchards. In G. M. Gurr. ed. Habitat Manipulation and Arthropod Pest Management. Special Section. International Journal of Ecology and Enviromental Sciences 30: 13-22. Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Hickory shuckworm and pecan nut casebearer control, 2002 Arthopod Management Tests, Entomological Society of America Vol. 29, Report D9. Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Research Spotlight. Trapping and scouting pecan insects. The Pecan Grower. 15(3): 18-19. Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Research Spotlight. Pecan leaf scorch mite control experiments. The Pecan Grower. 15(4): 19. Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Research Spotlight. Pecan nut drop and conservation of the nut crop.The Pecan Grower. 16(1): 22. Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Research Spotlight. Leaf feeding insect and mite problems. The Pecan Grower. 16(2): 28-30. Dutcher, J., M. Harris and D. Dean (eds) 2003. Integration of chemical and biological insect control in native, seedling and improved pecan production. Supp. 27 Southw. Entomol. 142p. Harris, M., A. Knutson, A. Calixto, A. Dean, L. Brooks and B. Ree. Impact of red imported fire and on foliar herbivores and natural enemies. In Dutcher, J., M. Harris and D. Dean (eds) 2003. Integration of chemical and biological insect control in native, seedling and improved pecan production. Supp. 27 Southw. Entomol. 123-134. Kulkarni, R., J. Brewer, O. Ochoa and M. Harris. 2003. Anisotropy in Hickory Shells. Proceedings of the American Society of Composites 18th Ann. Tech. Conf. Oct. 2003. McCraw, B.D. and P.G. Mulder, Jr. 2003. Pecan management e-learning on the Internet. http://pecan.okstate.edu Morrison A.A., P.G. Mulder, and M.W. Smith. 2004. Can we delay budbreak in Pecan? Proceedings Oklahoma Pecan Growers Annual Meeting and Show. 74: 35-36. Mulder, P.G., A.A. Morrison and S.K. Seuhs. 2004. Preliminary evaluation of alternative control treatments for pecan weevil, Curculio caryae on pecan. Proceedings Oklahoma Pecan Growers Annual Meeting and Show. 74: 24-28 Mulder, P.G., S.K. Seuhs, A Sheridan, M.E. Payton. 2003. Insecticide efficacy for control of pecan nut casebearer, 2001. Arthropod Mgmt. Tests 28: (D8). Mulder, P.G., W. Reid, R.A. Grantham, S. Landgraf, L. Taliaferro, M.E. Payton and A.E. Knutson. 2003. Evaluation of trap designs and a new pheromone formulation used for monitoring pecan weevil, Curculio caryae. SW Entomol. 27: 85-100. Reid, W. and P.G. Mulder, Jr. 2003. Insect management systems for native pecans. SW Entomol. 27: 39-44. Reid, W. 2004. Fungicides and insecticides: Chemistry and use recommendations. The Nut Kernel 56(3): 6-11. Reilly, C.C., Cottrell, T. E., Hotchkiss, M. W. 2005. Phytophthora shuck and kernel rot, pathogen movement, disease spread and occurrence. The Pecan Grower, 16: 7-9. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., M. Jackson, C. C. Reilly, and M. W. Hotchkiss. 2004. 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., R. J. Stuart, and C. W. McCoy. 2005. Characterization of biological control traits in the entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis mexicana (MX4 strain). Biological Control 32: 97-103. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., J. D. Dutcher, and M. Hatab. 2005. Recycling potential and fitness in steinernematid nematodes cultured in Curculio caryae. Journal of Nematology (In Press). Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., M. A. Jackson, C. C. Reilly, and M. W. Hotchkiss. 2004. Mixing insect diseases to kill pecan weevils. Pecan Grower 15(3): 10-13. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., R. Stuart, and C. W. McCoy. 2004. Picking the best nematode for controlling the pecan weevil. Pecan Grower 15(4): 11-15. Stevenson, D., A. Knutson, B. Ree, J. Jackman, A. Dean, J. Matis, J. McVay, M. Nesbitt, R. Mizell, J. Dutcher, W. Reid, M. Hall, D. Barlow, M.T. Smith, P. Mulder, M.W. Smith, J. Millar and M. Harris. 2003. Pecan nut casebearer pheromone monitoring and degree-day model validation across the pecan belt. In Dutcher, J., M. Harris and D. Dean (eds) 2003. Integration of chemical and biological insect control in native, seedling and improved pecan production. Supp. 27 Southw. Entomol. 57-73. vonBroembsen, S.L., P.G. Mulder and B.D. McCraw. 2004. Pecan insect and disease control - 2002. OSU Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Current Report No. 6209.