Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

The meeting was held on February 25, 2003 at the Renaissance Hotel in Oklahoma City, OK. This meeting was held in conjunction with the Southwestern Branch Meeting of the Entomological Society of America (ESA). Site selection and nominating committees were appointed and reports were received from each. Received status on publication in the SW Entomologist of the papers that were presented at the ESA meeting in San Diego, CA. Discussed publishing papers presented at the 2003 Southwestern Branch ESA meeting in Oklahoma City. Discussed research project objectives.

Objective 1: Improve monitoring and chemical techniques for hickory shuckworm, pecan nut casebearer, pecan weevil, and brown stink bug, and transfer this technology to large grower groups by making the techniques less expensive and more accessible.

Field evaluations of Circle traps have led to the development of a treatment threshold utilizing these traps in pecan orchards for control of pecan weevil (OK). These traps have proven extremely useful for Oklahoma pecan growers in making treatment decisions for control of pecan weevil. Two (LA) and three (OK) of pecan phylloxera emergence data have been collected. The data, currently under analysis, will be used to develop a degree-day model to predict emergence of this insect (OK, LA). Monitoring of pecan nut casebearer with pheromone traps, hickory shuckworm with light traps, pecan weevil with emergence traps is continuing in Alabama. Casebearer activity was detected at 80% of minotored locations, shuckworm activity was apparent at all locations, while pecan weevil emergence was erratic (dependent on soil moisture), being detected at only 60% of the sites (AL). Yellow aphid populations were moderate, black pecan aphid populations were high at 50% of the locations, and pecan leaf scorch mite populations were insignificant at 90% of the orchards sampled (AL). Pecan insects were monitored in four pecan orchards in Sumpter, Tift, Burke, and Irwin Counties, Georgia. Foliage and nut pest populations were monitored from May to September with standard scouting techniques and important signals of pest activity were reported on a website (GA). Research to develop an attractant and collecting trap for Harmonia axyridis, an exotic ladybird beetle, as they respond to buildings during overwintering behavior was continued (FL). The current traps don collect a small percentage of the responding beetles but not enough to protect houses. Spatial distribution of pecan weevils was related to soil type (KS). Circle traps were deployed on pecan trees growing in four soil series at four locations in the Neosho River floodplain. Soil types were Lanton silt loam, Osage silty clay, Hepler silt loam and Verdigris silt loam. The largest number of weevils were captured on trees growing on Lanton soil, while the fewest were captured on trees growing in Osage soils. Results were consistent across all locations (KS).

Objective 2: Develop biointensive insect pest management technologies through crop profiling, habitat diversification, host plant resistance, and biological control, and integrate these technologies into an overall pest management program.

Soybeans and cowpeas were again evaluated for use as a trap crop for control of late-season southern green stink bug (LA). Data showed that soybeans were prefered and that the soybeans were attractive for longer periods of time. Stink bug damage was light throughout the orchard and no significant differences in damage to the nut cluster were observed in samples taken from trees in proximity to the trap crops and from trees away from the trap crop plots (LA). Trap crop studies were also conducted in Alabama. Plants evaluated included sesame, soybeans, cowpeas, and various combinations of the three. Brown and green stink bug populations were light, with the most common kernel feeder being one of the leaffooted bugs, Leptoglossus spp. The trial will be repeated as soybean germination was erratic and a true picture of trap crop efficacy was not determined (AL). Research was conducted to determine variation in beneficial traits among strains of the nematode Steinernema carpocapsae, which has proven to be the most virulent nematode species to pecan weevil adults. This research will be used as a basis for developing a genetic improvement program for enchanced biocontrol potential (USDA-ARS). Field testing of entomopathogenic nematodes and fungi suppression of the pecan weevil was continued (USDA-ARS). Trials with entomopathogenic fungi indicated that novel formulations may enhance suppression of pecan weevil. Studies with entomopathogenic nematodes indicated that efficacy in pecan weevil control decreases as the distance from the trunk increases, probably due to UV light exposure (USDA-ARS). Biocontrol of the pecan weevil with entomopathogenic fungi could be hindered by simultaneous application of fungicides. Artifical selection and strain discovery were found to be viable mechanisms to enhance fungicide resistance in Beauveria bassiana against fungicides commonly used in pecan management. Furthermore, it was found that repeated exposure to fungicides increased B. bassiana virulence to the pecan weevil (USDA-ARS). Inundative releases of two phytoseiid predators, Phytoseiulis persimilis and Galendromus occidentalis, were evaluated as possible biocontrol agents for control of pecan leaf scorch mite (GA). Three treatments (0, 500, 1000 mites/tree) were applied to six, single tree replications on September 6, 2002. Mite counts indicated that pecan leaf scorch mite was effictively and similarly controlled by both application rates of both mites. Predator mites of both species were found at increasing levels of abundance in the treated trees and in trees throughout the farm for the remainder of the season (GA). It was observed that high numbers of tydeid mites inhabited the foliage at this time and may have served as an alternate host for the predatory mites, sustaining them through the season. Conservation of aphidophagous insects (ladybird beetles and lacewings) and spiders was possible through habitat manipulation (GA). Trunk bands of insecticides or ant repellent compounds applied to pecan trees were tested to determine if they would keep ants out of the tree crown where they interfere with biological control of aphids (GA). Ant repellent compounds (methyl carbitol, methyl anthranilate, methyl myristate, neem extract) were compared to a standard chlorpyrifos barrier and an untreated control in a controlled field experiment (GA). Potential vectors of xylem-limited bacteria were studied in the field to determine which species transmit the disease to pecan and the seasonal occurrence of certain sharpshooters known to transmit similar diseases in other woody plants (GA). A massive data base is currently being developed on the effects of fire ants in pecan ecosystems (TX).

Objective 3: Develop pesticide management strategies to conserve and optimize the efficacy of currently registered insecticides and integrate reduced-risk pesticides into the insect pest management programs.

Insecticides were evaluated for control of key pecan insect pests across the region (LA, OK, TX, AL, GA). Insecticides evaluated for control of pecan nut casebearer included; Confirm 2F (AL, GA, OK), Spintor 2SC (AL, GA, LA, OK), Lorsban 4E (GA, LA, OK), Intrepid 2F (AL, GA, OK), Actara 25G (GA), Dimilin 2L (GA), GWN 1730 (GA), USAI 10702 (AL, GA), Imidan 70WSB (LA), and DECIS 1E (AL). Spintor, Confirm, Intrepid, Lorsban, and Imidan were effective in controlling pecan nut casebearer (AL, GA, LA, OK). Trees treated with Actara and the higher rate of USAI 10702 were free of casebearer damage (GA). No significant differences were observed in infestation levels among treated plots, but all were significantly lower than the untreated control plots (AL). Infestation levels ranged from 1.33% (Spintor at 0.63 lb[ai]/acre), to 5.33% (USAI 10702 at 0.63 lb[ai]/acre), to 17.33% for the untreated control trees (AL). All treatments, except Spintor, provided excellent control of high population of hickory shuckworm (AL). Timing of the insecticide application and the short residual properties of Spintor may have contributed to the poor control (AL). In Georgia, the level of shuckworm control was quite variable within and between treatments. No significant differences were observed between the untreated control trees and any treatments with higher than 3.2% damage (GA). Trees treated with the higher concentrations of Intrepid, GWN 1730, USAI 10702, and Spintor had less shuckworm damage than the untreated control trees, as did those trees treated with Confirm and Dimilin (GA). In Alabama, Provado 1.6F, Calypso 2SC, Centric 40WG, Fulfill 50WG, and Disyston 8E were evaluated for control of pecan aphids. All treatments, except Fulfill at 0.083 lb[ai]/acre, provided excellent control of black aphids up to 7-DAT. At 14-DAT, aphid counts in all treated plots exceeded the pretreatment levels. The trial was discontinued because of the severity of the outbreak. Plots treated with Provado (0.088 lb[ai]/acre), Calypso (all rates), Centric (0.063 lb[ai]/acre), and Disyston retained the greatest amount of foliage and had the healthiest foliage. BioCover LS and UL were ineffective in controlling yellow aphids (LA). Fury 1.5E, Banshee 0.83E, Fury 1.5E+Lorsban 4E, and USAI 10702+Calypso were evaluated for late-season control of kernel feeding hemipterans and pecan weevil (GA). All treated trees were free of hemipteran damage, pecan weevil damage was 0.5% or less, and hickory shuckworm damage was 1.0% or less. No significant differences were observed between the treated trees; however, differences were observed between the treated trees and the untreated control trees (GA). Acramite proved effective in controlling pecan leaf scorch mites, with little or no effect on phytoseiid mites (GA). Extinguish Fire Ant Bait reduced the number of fire ant mounds by 80-96% during a three year study in Texas. Extinguish provided up to one year of residual control once ant densities were significantly reduced (85% or more). Work is ongoing to evaluate alternatives to currently registered at-risk pesticides (as a result of the Food Quality Protection Act) on pecan (TX).

Dutcher, J.D. 2002. Impact of insects on pecan nut drop from nut set to shell hardening. J. Entomol. Sci. 37: 259-269.

Dutcher, J.D. 2002. Pecan insects in 2001. The Pecan Grower. 13(3): 12-13.

Dutcher, J.D. 2002. Spray coverage important for pecan pest control. The Pecan Grower. 13(4): 8-9.

Dutcher, J.D. 2002. Effective pecan aphid control with new insecticides and biological controls. The Pecan Grower. 14(1): 18-19.

Dutcher, J.D. 2002. Teachers set out experiments in pecan orchard. The Pecan Grower. 14(2): 34-35.

Dutcher, J.D. 2002. Pecan insects 2002. www.angelfire.com/yt/pecanbugs.

Grantham, R.A., P.G. Mulder, J.K. Collins, and G.W. Cuperus. 2002. Comparisons on the efficacy of different trap types in capturing pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella. SW Entomol. 27: 21-30.

Grantham, R.A., P.G. Mulder, J.K. Collins, 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: 1062-1070.

Hall, M.J. and J. Austin. 2002. Emergence of the nut curculio, Conotrachelus hicoriae (Schoof), at two pecan orchards in Louisiana. J. Entomol. Sci. 37: 293-299.

Hall, M.J. and P.G. Mulder. 2002. Biology and life cycle of pecan phylloxera, Phylloxera devastatrix (Pergande), pp. 32-34. In M.W. Smith[ed.], Proc. 72nd Oklahoma Pecan Growers Assoc. Afton, OK. 45p.

Hall, M.J. and R.R. Shelton. 2002. Evaluation of four insecticides for control of yellow aphids on pecan, pp. 43-44. In, M. Hall[ed.], Citrus, Fruit, and Nut ACE Group Research Summary. LAES Res. Sum. 139.88p.

Hall, M.J. and R.R. Shelton. 2002. Evaluation of four insecticides for control of yellow aphids on Stuart pecan, pp. 45-46. In, M. Hall[ed.], Citrus, Fruit, and Nut ACE Group Research Summary. LAES Res. Sum. 139.88p.

Hall, M.J. and R.R. Shelton. 2002. Evaluation of five insecticides for control of hickory shuckworm, pp. 47-48. In, M. Hall[ed.], Citrus, Fruit, and Nut ACE Group Research Summary. LAES Res. Sum. 139.88p.

Hall, M.J. and R.R. Shelton. 2002. Evaluation of two miticides for control of pecan leaf scorch mite, pp. 49-50. In, M. Hall[ed.], Citrus, Fruit, and Nut ACE Group Research Summary. LAES Res. Sum. 139.88p.

Mulder, P.G. and M.J. Hall. 2002. Emergence patterns of pecan phylloxera on different pecan cultivars in Louisiana and Oklahoma, pp. 35-39. In, M.W. Smith[ed.], Proc. 72nd Oklahoma Pecan Growers Assoc. Afton, OK. 45p.

Mulder, P.G., R.A. Grantham, W. Reid, and S. Landgraf. 2002. Pecan weevil perhomone traps? pp. 22-32. In, E. Herrera[ed.], Proc. 36th West. Pecan Conf. Las Cruces, NM. 165p.

Reid, W. 2002. Current pest management systems for pecan. HortTechnology. 12: 633-639.

Shapiro-Ilan, D.I, C.C. Reilly, M.W. Hotchkiss, and B.W. Wood. 2002. The potential for enhanced fungicide resistance in Beauvaria bassiana through strain discovery and artifical selection. J. Invert. Path. 81: 86-93.

Shapiro-Ilan, D.I., W. Gardner, J.R. Fuxa, B.W. Wood, T. Cottrel, K. Nguyen, B. Adams, R.A. Humber, and M.J. Hall. 2002. Microbial control research for the suppression of pecan weevil, pp. 2-15. In, E. Herrera[ed.], Proc. 36th West. Pecan Conf. Las Cruces, NM. 165p.

Shapiro-Ilan, D.I., W. Gardner, J.R. Fuxa. B.W. Wood, K. Nguyen, B. Adams, R.A. Humber, and M.J. Hall. 2002. A survey for insect-killing nematodes and fungi endemic to pecan orchards of the southeastern US and their virulence to the pecan weevil. The Pecan Grower. 13(3): 6-8.

Shapiro-Ilan, D.I., W. Gardner, J.R. Fuxa, B.W. Wood, K. Nguyen, B. Adams, R.A. Humber, and M.J. Hall. 2002. Survey to entomopathogenic nematodes endemic to pecan orchards of the southeastern US and their virulence to the pecan weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Nematology. 4:197.