PROJECT NUMBER: S-293

TITLE:	Improved Pecan Insect and Mite Pest Management Systems

DURATION:	October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2004

STATEMENT OF

THE PROBLEM:	Pecan production techniques range from gathering nuts from native trees to culturing unimproved seedling trees to intensive management of improved cultivars. Each of these production methods is a viable and significant part of the total

U.S. pecan production system. Pecan growers rely on tools for monitoring and control of insect pests that have been developed by regional entomology research. New monitoring tools and control tactics require continued innovation and improvement through regional research to maintain cost savings and improved control efficacy expected by growers. Entomology research resources for pecan are dispersed across the pecan growing region from Georgia to California. Regional coordination of research will increase the usefulness of results by assigning leadership for specific research activities to participating scientists. Specific areas of work include: 1) improve monitoring and management techniques for hickory shuckworm, pecan nutcasebearer, pecan weevil and kernel feeding hemipterans; 2) develop and integrate biointensive IPM through crop profiling, habitat diversification, host plant resistance, and biological control; and, 3) develop pesticide management strategies to conserve and optimize insecticide efficacy for currently registered insecticides and integrate reduced-risk pesticides into pecan management.

JUSTIFICATION: Pecan, Carya illinoensis (Wangenheim) K. Koch, is the most important horticultural tree crop indigenous to North America. Pecan production is consistently profitable across the southern U.S. Regional pecan insect pest management research is needed because the regional differences in the pecan production system require insect management strategies that are based on the same core biological information yet tailored for each growing region. In addition, research facilities are limited and regional coordination of research is needed to eliminate redundancy and assign leadership to participating scientists for specific research activities.

Production practices differ sufficiently across the southern states, so that, new insect monitoring and control techniques must be validated at several locations through regional research. In South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Eastern Texas: a preventive fungicide schedule is required during the first half of the season to control pecan scab and pecan weevil, hickory shuckworm, aphids and kernel feeding hemipterans are important insects. Insecticide sprays are minimized during the first half of the season to conserve beneficial insects. Aphids peak once during the early season (May) and again during the late season (late August). In the southwestern states: (Western Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California): fungicides are not needed; Pecan nutcasebearer and aphids may be important insect pests. Insecticides may be applied during the early season (May) for control of pecan nutcasebearer, mid-season (July) for pecan nutcasebearer and August for pecan nut casebearer and aphids. Aphid populations peak in the spring and fall.

During the last ten seasons, pecan insect pest management has changed dramatically due to improvements in monitoring and new chemical controls. Pheromones have been developed for pecan nutcasebearer, hickory shuckworm, pecan weevil and brown stinkbug. Sampling techniques have been improved for aphids and beneficial insects. The insecticides, tebufenazide, imidochloprid, encapsulated methyl parathion and zeta-cypermethrin have recently received federal registration for use on pecan. Phosmet, methidathion and malathion are replacing phosalone - an important pecan insecticide that was canceled. The costs of insect monitoring and control have increased and improvements are needed to optimize spray timing. Secondary pest resurgence of aphids and mites are still a problem after broad spectrum insecticides are applied against nut pests. New more specific insecticides that kill pests and not beneficial insects are needed for pecan. Some of these insecticides - imidochloprid, formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins, tebufenazide, and azadirachtin) - are being tested for pecan insect control and their effect on the beneficial insect complex in field and laboratory research.

Non-chemical control of pecan weevils is needed to reduce insecticide sprays in the orchards. The current control scheme, developed during the first five years of regional research on pecan entomology, is still effectively controlling pecan weevil locally on infested farms. The control scheme couples monitoring of adult emergence and pecan nut phenology with multiple applications of carbaryl to the tree crown to prevent damage. The control scheme has brought many highly infested orchards back into production. Orchards become reinfested when pecan weevil adults immigrate into the orchards from hickory trees and unsprayed pecan orchards in the surrounding areas. Carbaryl sprays for pecan weevil often are amended with additional insecticide to control aphids and mites since the weevil sprays destroy the aphidophaga and mite predators. Currently, growers use imidochloprid, aldicarb, disyston and dimethoate for aphid control and dicofol and cyhexatin for mite control. Further research is needed to improve alternative pecan weevil control tactics: early nut harvesting; improved trapping; soil moisture control; confusion techniques (trunk bands and pheromones); host plant attractants; development of cultivars with reduced vulnerability to weevil oviposition; and, numerous untested biological control techniques. Chemical controls require a great deal of research and other work to gain registration on pecan. Insecticide resistance development can eliminate insecticides as management tools. Techniques have been developed to detect insecticide resistance in pecan weevil, pecan aphids and pecan leaf scorch mite. Regional research efforts are needed to integrate these new techniques into an overall insect management strategy.

The importance of the proposed research to agriculture lays in the continuous innovation and improvement of insect controls to protect and conserve the most important indigenous tree nut crop in the United States. The importance of the work to science is the found in the use of basic science to solve practical problems. Basic chemistry discovered pheromones for pecan nut casebeaerer, hickory shuckworm and pecan weevil. These compounds need to be developed into monitoring tools and possible for mating disruption. Basic ecology developed models of aphid population dynamics, predator - prey interactions and energy budgets for pest insect populations. These are used to develop prediction models for aphids and biological controls for aphids and other pests. Basic entomology delineated the trophic relations between aphids and aphidophaga, lepodopterous pests and parasitoids, and weevils and pathogens. These results have aided the research in biological control. Insect behavior research has lead to better trap designs.

RELATED CURRENT AND PREVIOUS WORK:

The Current Research Information System (CRIS) of the USDA was searched and 122 research projects were listed as currently or recently involved in research on pecans. The search indicated the insect and pecan problems that are under investigation by scientists in the USDA and the SAES systems. The following narrative cites projects by author and agency for research projects active during 1994 and afterward. Pecan cultivar resistance to insect damage has been and continues to be an important part of a pecan breeding program (Thompson and Grauke, ARS 6207). Horticultural research has developed prediction models for nut development and maturity that are useful for predicting the time when the crop is susceptible to insect damage (Sparks, CSRS, GEO). Aldicarb treatment for aphid control was part of two horticultural studies on improving pecan production (Worthington, LeCewell and Storey, CSRS TEX- Goff, CSRS ALA). Several disparate projects on biological control of pecan insects are being carried out (Wood and Tedders, ARS 6606 - Ellington, CSRS NM - Dutcher, Beaver and Worley, CSRS GEO - Hunter - CSRS ARZT). These projects have: established biological control in the Mesilla Valley of New Mexico in pecan orchards; investigated heat tolerant species of lacewings for biological control of pecan aphids in Arizona; developed and tested intercrops, ant controls and predator attractants as enhancements for aphidophaga in Georgia pecan orchards; and, released multicolored Asian ladybeetles and lacewings for aphid control in New Mexico and at Byron, Georgia. An adhesive has been found that is commercially available and will stick lacewing eggs to pecan foliage (Tedders ARS 6606). A tree-inhabiting spider has been discovered that is potential biological control agent for pecan aphids and pecan nut casebearer (Wood and Cunningham, USDA ARS 6606). An air-assisted tower sprayer was developed for pecan trees (Vanee and Ledebuhr, SAES MICL in cooperation with Wood, ARS 6606). Spray drift in pecan orchards is under investigation with advanced techniques (Miller, CSRS CONS). Pecan nut casebearer pheromone was discovered and is commercially available and very effective (Millar, CSRS CALB). Pecan weevil pheromone was discovered and an appropriate trapping technique is being sought (Hedin, Callahan and Jenkins, ARS 6406). The use of hickory shuckworm pheromone for mating disruption is being investigated (Smith, ARS 6402). Pheromones and trap crops were investigated for control of stink bugs on pecan (Wood and Yonce, ARS 6606). Pecan insect management strategies are being developed for native pecan groves (Reid, CSRS KAN). Many of the projects are authored by S-220 technical committee members and the biological control group has expressed interest in developing cooperative work through the new regional project.

Recent important advances in pecan research are related to pecan entomology. Significant advances have been accomplished in host plant resistance of pecan insects on pecan cultivars. Resistance of "Pawnee" and "Navajo" cultivars to blackmargined aphid has been demonstrated in greenhouse and field tests (Thompson and Grauke 1998). These cultivars are not immune to aphid infestation but resistance could enhance current recommended control techniques. These results are consistent with lab and field research in Georgia (Kaakeh and Dutcher 1994) where blackmargined, black pecan and yellow pecan aphids were found to have lower reproductive rates and altered probing behavior and lower infestation levels on "Pawnee" and "Cape Fear" cultivars. Black walnut, butternut, pecan and several hickory species were investigated as potential sources of resistance factors to aphids (M. T. Smith, et al 1993). Blackmargined aphid adults lived longer and had a higher reproductive rate on pecan, water, scrub, shellbark hickory, and hican than on black walnut, butternut, and several other hickory spp. Percent survival of blackmargined aphid nymphs to the adult stage was lower on most hickory and walnut species than on pecan, hican or water hickory. Yellow pecan aphid adults lived longer and had higher nymph survival on pecan than on hickory or walnut. Black pecan aphid had similar adult longevity on all tree species but reproduced and developed from nymph to adult only on pecan. Kernel feeding hemipteran damage was higher in cultivars with small nuts than in cultivars with larger nuts among cultivars observed in a Georgia study (Dutcher 1998). Two new cultivars - "Kanza" and "Creek" - have some resistance to hickory shuckworm and "Kanza" is highly resistant to phylloxera species (Thompson 1996a, 1996b).

Habitat diversification techniques have been identified as effective in pecan production. Trap cropping has been shown to be a viable alternative to chemical control for reducing the incidence of hemipteran kernel damage on pecan (M. T. Smith 1996) where trees adjoining trap crop areas had an overall reduction in damage of 55%. Intercrops of warm and cool season legumes have shown promise as sources of alternate prey aphids for aphidophaga that also feed on pecan aphids. Intercrops stimulate an increase of populations of alternate prey aphids and aphidophaga in the orchard and a decrease in pecan aphids in the tree crown. When coupled with control of secondary predation of aphidophaga by red imported fire ant, the pecan aphids are further reduced (Dutcher 1993, 1995).

Insect monitoring and prediction systems have been improved for pecan pest management. A pheromone mixture of the male pecan weevil was identified (Hedin et al 1997) that is attractive to female pecan weevils. The mixture contains four compounds also found in the boll weevil pheromone, however, in a different ratio. Female pecan weevils were highly attracted to a synthetic formulation of the male pecan weevil pheromone and to live males but not to boll weevil pheromone. Pecan weevil mating is diurnal, peaking in the mid-afternoon (Collins et al 1996). Pecan nut casebearer and hickory shuckworm pheromones are commercially available and researchers have been developing pheromone based monitoring systems.

Pecan nut casebearer pheromone traps in combination with season activity models and more effective formulations of B.t. toxins have enhanced the efficacy of Dipel ES and Javelin for biological control of pecan nut casebearer (Harris et al 1995). Pecan nut casebearer spray timing has been linked to geographic information systems (GIS) to generate maps with isoclinal lines showing when to make control decision dates that are updated weekly during the first summer generation.

Hickory shuckworm pheromone trap catches are lower than black light trap catch (Collins et al 1995), especially during the mid-summer even though adults are present and larvae cause significant nut drop (Yonce and McVay 1994). Research continues to identify and evaluate additional pheromone components and investigate sources of tree-to-tree variability in trap catch. This research has revealed two new compounds with attractiveness to male moths (M. T. Smith 1994). In controlled field experiments, male moth response to the new components was mixed (M. T. Smith 1995). Analysis of trap catch data indicates that the populations have a clumped distribution that becomes more uniform as the population size increases. These results indicate a need for more traps per orchard to measure moth flight accurately. The current recommendation is 1 trap/10 acres (M. T. Smith 1995).

Pheromones have been prepared for brown and dusky stink bugs that have been tested as monitoring techniques when combined with a malaise trap (Mizell et al 1995 and 1997).

These stink bugs are not the most important pests among hemipterans on pecan, however, new pheromones are being developed for southern green stink bug and leaf footed bug as well. Preliminary results indicate that, the damage potential varies between hemipteran species and between sexes within each species. Further studies where pecans are exposed to the different types of bugs in enclosures are underway to rate bugs for their ability to cause damage.

Chemical control of pecan insects is a critical issue in pecan production. Many insect problems are solved with chemical controls. Cancellation of the registration of principal pecan insecticides, development of insecticide resistance in aphids, and a reduction in the number of new registrations has reduced the chemical control options for pecan growers. Many growers rely on biological controls of early season insect problems, but the high investment in the crop has to be conserved with effective late season insect controls. Chemical control of pecan weevil, hickory shuckworm and kernel feeding Hemipterans is the most effective way to conserve the crop. Chemical control of black pecan aphid is the most effective way to conserve the foliage through the season and reduce alternate bearing. New chemical controls continue to be evaluated for control of pecan insect pests. Imidochloprid received a federal label for use on pecan for control of pecan aphids. Biorational materials are currently being evaluated and a federal label is anticipated in 1998 for tebufenazide for control of pecan nut casebearer on pecan. Tebufenazide has low efficacy against hickory shuckworm. Usage of phosmet, methidithion, formulations of B.t. toxins, has increased due to the canceling of the registration of phosalone. Phosmet and methidithion are the only two insecticides with high efficacy against black pecan aphid that are readily available to pecan growers. Spray frequency reductions continue to be a product of improved insect monitoring techniques. The number of carbaryl sprays have been reduced by trapping pecan weevils. New traps and trunk sprays of carbaryl are being tested yearly. A pyrethroid, zeta-cypermethrin, looks promising for control and is currently registered. All other chemicals have to be sprayed out once per week to be as effective as carbaryl at a 14 day interval. A five year control strategy where weevils are sprayed with carbaryl for three seasons and then Dipel for hickory shuckworm control during late season of the fourth and fifth seasons is effective in reducing pecan weevil. The two year hiatus from carbaryl allows natural controls to reduce aphid and mite infestations. Weevil damage was less than 2% damage in untreated pecan trees. These results indicate that pecan weevil may be locally controlled with reduced spray frequency for several seasons after a three year intensive control program (Dutcher 1997b). Pecan nutcasebearer can usually be controlled when the monitoring system is used with one well timed spray. Hickory shuckworm still requires two sprays of a contact insecticide, timed by monitoring pecan nut phenology and black light trap catches.

OBJECTIVES:

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

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

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 program.

PROCEDURES:

Procedures for field research on pecan insect bionomics and control are difficult to standardize due to the diversity of orchard conditions from native groves with low inputs and moderate yield to improved orchards with high inputs and high yield. However, certain methods have been found to be acceptable for most applications in pecan entomology and are commonly used by entomologists. Pecan nut casebearer monitoring procedures include searching the limbs and nut clusters for hibernacula, eggs and larvae. Adults are collected with pheromone traps. Control is aided by a sequential sampling plan for eggs to estimate density and a degree-day driven model to predict first nut entry. Hickory shuckworm monitoring procedures include nut inspection for oviposition sites, gravity traps for nut drop, light traps and pheromone traps for adult flight periods, nut dissection and larval counts to determine the infestation after shell hardening. Overwintering larval survival and adult emergence from the shucks can be monitored by placing infested shucks in field cages. Pecan weevil larval density is monitored by soil sampling. Adult emergence is monitored with cone and Tedders' pyramid traps. Samples of infested pecans are used to detect the oviposition and larval development of pecan weevil and hickory shuckworm. Aphids, leafminers and mites are monitored by direct enumeration from foliage samples. A mite brushing machine aids the counting of eggs and mites of the pecan leaf scorch mite and its predators. Predaceous insects are sampled by direct counts from pecan foliage, ground covers, and in overwintering sites under the tree bark. A larger amount of foliage needs to be searched for predators in the pecan tree crown so the terminal (stem and foliage of the current years stem growth) is a good sample unit to estimate abundance. Sample size for all the methods is dependent on pest abundance, the time available for sampling and the resolution level required by the experiment though some guidelines can be taken from experience. A good idea of the insect activity on the foliage can be found by sample 5 sample units (terminals or compound leaves or midleaf leaflets) per tree and sample every 4th tree in every 4th row of the orchard. Early in the season damage by nut feeding insects can be determine by examining 200 nut clusters from each variety in each 50 acre section of the orchard. Pecan weevil emergence can be accurately monitored with 48 cone traps or 12 Tedders' pyramid traps in the infested areas of every 50 acre section the orchard. Pecan nutcasebearer damage can be estimated with the inspection of 200 nut clusters per replication per treatment, soon after the larvae has caused the damage. Damage estimation at the end of the season for pecan weevil, kernel feeding hemipteran can be estimated with a 200 nut sample from each replication of each treatment. Hickory shuckworm infestation have to be estimated before shuck split to record the larval population that causes damage. Infestations near and after shuck split, though often high, do not cause damage.

Pecan is attacked by over 54 insect and mite pests each season and certain regions have a unique complement of these pests. Pecan entomologists have developed expertise and resources for research on a unique subset of the overall pest complex. Therefore, not all states will cooperate in every experiment due to state-by-state differences in the importance of pecans and each pest. The following lists the areas of work and experimentation for each objective. Coordination of data collecting and detailed protocol development are the responsibility of the technical committee member in the lead state (bold print).

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.

A. Hickory Shuckworm Monitoring and Control

The pheromone for hickory shuckworm needs more research to be useful. Damage from late season infestations (after dough stage) do not seem to be as important as mid-season (at shell- hardening) infestations with respect to the current years nut quality or yield. Control of shuckworm is good with formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and these sprays do not cause aphid resurgence. A new insecticide, tebufenazide, specifically controls moth pests and was recently labeled for use on pecan, though its efficacy is lower than contact insecticides or formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. New experiments include (lead state followed by participating states):

1. Determine the impact of predation by red imported fire ant on hickory shuckworm larvae in the shucks on the ground. (GA, AL, LA). First, survival of hickory shuckworm larvae from fall to spring will be estimated. Cohorts of hickory shuckworm larvae in infested pecan shucks will be set out in the fall in open wooden trays in orchard plots with and without red imported fire ants. Ants will be controlled with a poisoned bait. Subsets of the cohorts will be examined for larvae in both treatments and survival will be compared. Second, ant foraging in the wooden trays will be monitored with peanut oil soaked cards.

2. Monitoring moth flight with light and pheromone traps and compare to nut drop monitoring in the summer to determine the impact of hickory shuckworm during nut drop before shell hardening. (GA, AL, LA, TX). Three variables will be measured in the field. Moth flight will be monitored with pheromone traps and light traps. Nut drop sampling with gravity traps. Shuck mining will be estimated with nut samples after shell hardening. Analysis will seek relations between these variables.

B. Pecan Nut Casebearer Monitoring and Control

Pecan nut casebearer pheromone is highly effective. Research is underway to develop a timing system for insecticides and biological control (Dipel or Javelin) applications. In the southeastern and western states, during 1997, there were significant trap catches and little oviposition damage indicating that some unknown natural control was acting on these populations. A predatory mirid was very active in the trees during the moth flight. Correlations between trap catch, environmental factors and damage are still being evaluated. New experiments include:

1. Measure and correlate trap catch, damage and emergence time for different pecan cultivars. (GA, LA, AL). Standard trapping procedures outlined by TAMU will be followed as in previous seasons until enough data is available to reveal these relationships.

2. Determine the relative importance of parasitoids and predators on the mortality of the pecan nut casebearer. (GA, TX, LA). Direct field collection and holding insects for parasite emergence will be used to determine the parasites of pecan nut casebearer across the region in unsprayed pecan trees. Predator research will concentrate red imported fire ant predation of larvae in nuts and hibernacula and through collection and identification on the role of spiders in pecan nut casebearer control.

3. Continue refining TAMU pecan nut casebearer control system and extend application to other southeastern states (TX, GA, AL, OK, LA, KS). Models developed at TAMU and UGA will be used to derived a degree-day model to predict pecan nutcasebearer populations that will work in both regions.

4. Determine the importance of ground covers on the complex of beneficial insects that feed on pecan nut casebearer. (NM, GA, TX). Parasites may find nectar sources in ground covers sown in the orchard floor. Generalist predators commonly found in ground covers - assassin bugs and spiders - may prey on pecan nutcasebearer.

C. Pecan Weevil Monitoring and Control:

Improvements are possible with new chemical controls and region wide management.

Carbaryl, the principle pecan weevil insecticide, applied to the foliage and nuts, effectively controls weevil but is followed by resurgence of insect pests of the foliage. Mixtures of insecticides are often used to control pecan weevils, hickory shuckworm and secondary pests. Carbaryl + disyston, dimethoate or aldicarb, and a pyrethroid + chlorpyrifos, dimethoate or phosmet have been used on many farms. These chemicals are losing efficacy with each spray, due to insecticide resistance development in aphids and possibly pecan leaf scorch mite. Pecan grower need a more selective chemical control with residual activity that will control pecan weevil and not disrupt beneficial insects that regulate aphids, mites and leafminers.

Our understanding of the impact of soil properties and nut developmental, on weevil adult emergence and oviposition will be used to develop region wide management programs for pecan weevil. Weevil control will be greatly improved with a region wide monitoring system to indicated the best time to treat with insecticide and harvest. Through e-mail or a site on the world wide web, growers could report weevil adult and larval emergence data, nut development data and soil type. The data could be entered into existing models to improve control and harvesting time recommendations and the data would also be used to improve the models. New areas of work include:

1. Field of weevil control with insecticides. (OK, GA, TX, LA, AL, USDA). New insecticides for control will be tested for efficacy against the pecan weevil adults after that emergence from the soil and before they oviposit in the pecans. Measurol effectively controls pecan weevil and also repels birds that prey on the pecans. Dimilin is a growth regulator that kills the larvae before they hatch from the egg. Decis is an effective pyrethroid against pecan weevil. Piperonyl butoxide when added to carbaryl or pyrethroids may increase the effectiveness against pecan weevil and kernel feeding hemipterans.

2. Modification of new spray systems - large 'curtain-type' sprayers, and trunk and soil application of systemic insecticides - for large pecan trees. (USDA, GA). An air-assisted tower sprayer developed at Michigan State University has been tested by the USDA-SEFTNL at Byron for disease and insect control.

3. Region wide management of pecan weevil through communication of adult and larval emergence data and interaction with pecan growers. (GA, TX, OK, LA, AL, KS, USDA).
Pecan weevil adult emergence is monitored in hundreds of pecan orchards each season. A system will be developed for reporting the information to a central computer - possibly on a web site - for analysis, reporting and possibly prediction of pecan weevil activity.

D. Monitoring and control of kernel feeding hemipterans.

New pheromones and trapping systems have been developed in the previous project. The conditions that induce immigration of stink bugs and leaf footed bugs into the orchard are also well documented. Regional research is needed to investigate the feeding damage caused by each species of hemipteran that is found in the pecan tree, so that, monitoring information can be used to predict the type of damage that may occur. New experiments include:

1. Determine which hemipterans cause kernel spot on pecan by exposing pecans to damage in enclosures in the field. (USDA, GA). Preliminary data on the impact of southern green stink bug and leaffooted bug on pecan kernels through caging bugs on nuts and observing the development of damage indicates that the species and sexes differ in their ability to cause kernel spot after shell hardening. Caging studies will be attempted with brown stink bug.

2. Continue to develop a trap cropping systems for multiple hemipteran species. (TX, LA, AL, GA, USDA). Trap cropping procedures for pecan have been developed at LSU, TAMU, UGA and USDA. This research requires large scale field plots and season long monitoring and spraying of the pecan trees and the trap crop, followed by extensive sampling of the nut crop for damage.

E. Nut curculio and pecan phylloxeras are two insect pests that cause considerable damage across the southeastern states in pecan orchards and both are difficult to monitor in the field.

New monitoring techniques have been developed in Louisiana that are being tested in Kansas and are needed by growers across the pecan belt. New experiments include:

1. Monitoring nut curculio adult emergence and nut damage. (LA, GA, KS) and,

2. Monitoring pecan phylloxera activity at budbreak. (LA, GA, KS). Nut curculio and pecan phylloxera will be monitored with procedures developed at the LSU Pecan Station. These two pests are also causing considerable damage in Georgia and Kansas. Under the direction of the LSU, monitoring information will be generated in the three states for comparison and possible correlation to tree development and growth and ambient temperature and rainfall.

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.

A. Crop profiling research will be conducted in each state to produce a detailed description of the insect pest management components of pecan production. Costs of control, typical spray programs and damage impact of pests will be estimated from the results of surveys and interviews of extension specialists and cooperating pecan growers. The information may be used by regulatory agencies for insecticide registration and for comparisons to other crops. The progress of integrated pest management in the pecan industry will be assessed by comparing the yearly updates of the crop profile.

B. Pecan Aphid Field Biology - Field biologies of the three species of pecan aphids are fairly well documented, however, regional research is needed to determine the best time to apply controls based on monitoring information. Regional research will be conducted to develop a database of aphid monitoring information to document seasonal trends in aphid population development. The population parameters - rates of increase, life span, temperature effects - are fairly constant across the region. However, mortality caused by interactions among aphid species, cultivar and management effects, and parasitoid and predator effects on populations vary widely across the region and cause desperate differences in density and seasonal occurrence. Pecan researchers, growers and extension specialists have huge caches of aphid sampling data that have not been analyzed and compared for season trends. New data are collected over a large acreage of pecan each season and the data are stored at individual farms. New efforts include:

1. Historical and current aphid monitoring data will be collected. The more complete sets will be entered into a database and analyzed for interactions between aphid species and seasonal patterns of development. Sampling data will be submitted to a central collection point. (GA, AL)

C. Pecan Aphid Control - The main problems with aphid control are resistance to insecticide and outbreaks after destruction of natural enemies with broad spectrum insecticides.

Regional research will be conducted in two areas:

1. Integrate recently introduced predators - Asian ladybeetle and seven-spotted ladybeetle - into the current predator enhancement and conservation techniques in pecan orchards. (GA, TX, AL). A series of insecticide bioassays will be carried out to determine the relative toxicity of commonly used pecan insecticides to imported ladybeetles and lacewings using the methods of Hurej and Dutcher (1994a,b,c). The predators will be treated topically and fed treated aphids. In field efficacy trials of insecticides against pecan pests the aphidophagous insects will be monitored in the trees after treatment to determine if certain insecticides are safer than others are to the predators. Safer insecticides will be tested against nut pests in orchards with ground covers, ant foraging barriers and predator attractants to attempt to insect management with lower input of broad spectrum insecticides.

2. Investigate the composition, interactions and impact of aphids and their predators in the Southwest. In Arizona, aphids are the only major pests of pecan, and producers regularly apply insecticide for their control. A research program will be initiated to understand the phenology and impact of aphids on pecan yields, as well as to document the naturally occurring aphid predators and their effects on aphid control. Similar research protocols will be carried out at the same time in Georgia for comparison of the impacts of aphids and aphid predators in the Southeast. (AZ, GA, TX).

3. Evaluate the efficacy of Deraeocris nebulosis in controlling the pecan aphid complex (NM, GA, TX). This newly discover predator will be evaluated in the three states by releasing and culturing the predators on infestations of pecan aphid in New Mexico, Georgia and Texas.

D. Biological Control of Pecan Weevil

A low proportion of weevils have to survive during one life cycle to sustain an economically significant population and biological controls do not currently offer adequate control for commercial production. Soil borne fungi and nematodes cause some mortality in the population. Typically, one-third of the pecan weevil larvae are killed by red imported fire ant and Myophasia sp. flies, Rickettsia-like organisms and viruses had been found in field collected pecan weevils (Adams et al 1997). Some type of field application of these biocontrol agents may improve control. One of the fungi and one of the nematodes have become available in large amounts for field application. New research will focus on a regional search for new biological control agents, including, trapping and identification of predators and parasites, and soil sampling to find diseased insects with new diseases and nematodes (GA, TX, AL).

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 program.

Research will develop a biorational approach to insect control by finding insecticides including tebufenazide, imidochloprid, Bt formulations and new chemistry from the insecticide industry that target certain pest problems. These target specific pesticides to control major fruit pests will increase reliance on natural controls for pests of the foliage. Standard procedures for efficacy testing have been developed for pecan research and will not be listed here. Basically, efficacy trials will continue to monitor the effects of treatments on nontarget insects as well as the main pecan pests. Sprays are applied with airblast orchard sprayers similar to the sprayers used by commercial pecan growers at similar with the volume of water and tractor speed calculated from tree size and density. The trials are conducted by entomologists across the southeastern U.S. and the technical committee annually summarizes the results of these pesticide efficacy experiments – rating the efficacy of each insecticide against each insect or mite pest and beneficial insects. (AL, GA, TX, LA).

ORGANIZATION:

A. Officers and Subcommittees. A new chairman, vice-chairman and secretary will be elected during the first annual meeting. These three officers and the Administrative Advisor will form the Executive Committee. The role of the Executive Committee will be to organize annual and subcommittee meetings. They will also organize symposia for the presentation and publication of research results at regional and national entomology and pecan meetings. At each annual meeting of the technical committee, a new secretary will be elected. The previous secretary will become the vice chairman, and the previous vice-chairman will become the chairman, and the previous chairman will return as a technical committee member. Subcommittees will be formed at each annual meeting to develop research methods and procedures, prepare publications and manuals, review work assignments, and rewrite the new project after four years. A subcommittee will be formed at the start of each annual meeting to select a meeting site and make local arrangements.

B. Meetings. The annual meeting of the technical committee will be held at a site and time selected at the previous meeting. Subcommittees will meet between or during the annual meeting at a site and time designated by the technical committee chairman who will also serve as the chairman as the chairman of each subcommittee. When the subcommittee structure becomes too complex for one chairman to manage, the chairman may assign leadership of subcommittees to the vice-chairman. The secretary will record and distribute the minutes of each annual meeting and any subcommittee meetings during the year. Minutes for the annual meeting are distributed to all participating agencies and persons listed in the Manual of Cooperative Regional Research by the Secretary. Scientists with expertise outside of pecan entomology are encouraged to attend the annual meeting and lead or participate in discussions of research, or provide guidelines for research procedures. The chairman will invite these scientists at the request of any technical committee member.

Participation (+) by States and USDA in Proposed Procedures

Procedure	AL	AZ	GA	KS	LA	NM	OK	TX	USDA

______________________________________________________________________________

1.A.1. RIFA & HSW	+	+	+

1.A.2. HSW Trapping	+	+	+	+

1.B.1. PNC Trapping	+	+	+

1.B.2. PNC Biocontrol	+	+	+

1.B.3. PNC Prediction	+	+	+	+	+	+

1.B.4. PNC & Gr. Cover	+	+	+

1.C.1. PW Insecticides	+	+	+	+	+	+

1.C.2. Curtain Sprayer	+	+

1.C.3. Regional PW	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

1.D.1. HKD	+	+

1.D.2. Trap Crops	+	+	+	+	+

1.E.1. Nut Curculio	+	+	+

1.E.2. Pecan Phylloxera	+	+	+

2.A. Crop Profiling	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

2.B.1. Aphid Data	+	+

2.C.1. LB, LW & Sprays	+	+	+

2.C.2. Aphidophaga	+	+	+

2.C.3. New Aphid Predator	+	+	+

2.D. PW Biocontrol	+	+	+

3. Biorational IPM	+	+	+	+

___________________________________________________________________________

*RIFA = Red Imported Fire Ant; HSW = Hickory Shuckworm; PNC = Pecan Nut Casebearer; PW =Pecan Weevil; HKD = Hemipteran Kernel Damage; LB =Lady Beetle; LW = Lacewing; IPM = Integrated Pest Management.

SIGNATURES:

Regional Project Title: Improved Pecan Insect and Mite Pest Management Systems

_____________________________________________ ___________________________

Administrative Advisor	Date

_____________________________________________ ___________________________

Chair, Regional Association of Directors	Date

_____________________________________________ ___________________________

Administrator	Date

Cooperative State Research Service

REFERENCES:

Adams, J. R., T. B. Clark, G. J. Tompkins, W. W. Neel, R. F. Schroder, and P. W. Schaefer. 1997. Histopathological investigations on rickettsiella-like sp. and nonoccluded viruses infecting the pecan weevil, Curculio caryae, the squash beetle, Epilachna borealis, and the Mexican bean beetle, Epilachna varivestis. J. Invertebrate Pathol. 69: 119-124.

Collins, J. K., G. H. Hedger, and R. D. Eikenbary. 1995. An update on hickory shuckworm research. p. 5-9 IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Collins, J. K., P. G. Mulder, M. W. Smith, and R. D. Eikenbary. 1996. Mating behavior and peak mating activity of the pecan weevil Curculio caryae (Horn). Southwestern Entomol. 21: 479-481.

Dutcher, J. D. 1993. Recent examples of conservation of arthropod natural enemies in agriculture. IN R. D. Lumsden and J. L. Vaughn eds. Pest Management: Biologically Based Technologies. Conference Proceedings Series, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

Dutcher, J. D. 1995. Intercropping pecan orchards with legumes: entomological implications. p. 10-24 IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Dutcher, J. D. 1997. Current trends in insect control - nuts, Georgia. p. 290-291 IN Meister, R. T., ed. Insect Control Guide. Meister Publishing Company. Willoughby, Ohio 442 p.

Dutcher, J. D. 1998. Cultivar differences in hemipteran kernel damage of pecan. Proc. International Plant Resistance to Pests Workshop, Memphis TN USA.

Harris, M. K., J. A. Jackman, B. Ree, and A. Knutson. 1995a. Pecan nut casebearer update. p. 28-30. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Hedin, P. A., D. A. Dollar, J. K. Collins, J. G. Dubois, P. G. Mulder, G. H. Hedger, M. W. Smith, and R. D. Eikenbary. 1997. Identification of male pecan weevil pheromone. J. Chemical Ecology. 23: 965-977.

Hurej, M. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994a. Indirect effect of insecticides used in pecan orchards to larvae of Chrysoperla rufilabris (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 29: 450-456.

Hurej, M. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994b. Indirect effect of insecticides on convergent ladybeetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in pecan orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 1632-1635.

Hurej, M. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994c. Effect of esfenvalerate and disulfoton on the behavior of the blackmargined aphid, black pecan aphid, and yellow pecan aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 187-192.

Kakaah, W., and J. D. Dutcher. 1994. Probing behavior and density of Monelliopsis pecanis, Monellia caryella and Melanocallis caryaefoliae (Homoptera: Aphididae) on pecan cultivars. J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 951-956.

Mizell, R. F., III, and W. L. Tedders. 1995. A new monitoring method for detection of the stinkbug complex in pecan orchards. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 88: 36-40.

Mizell, R. F., III., W. L. Tedders, C. E. Yonce, and J. A. Aldrich. 1997. Stinkbug monitoring method - an update. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 50-52.

Smith, M. T., B. W. Wood, C. C. Reilly, W. L. Tedders, R. C. Gueldner, and R. F. Severson. 1993. Pecan aphid pest management: searching for sources of aphid resistance in plants. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 86: 133-144.

Smith, M. T., S. Galindo, J. R. McVay, M. J. Hall. 1994. Pecan insect pest management: recent investigations of the hickory shuckworm sex pheromone. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 87: 77-88.

Smith, M. T. 1995. Aphid-host plant interactions in pecan. p. 38-40. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Smith, M. T. 1996. Trap cropping system for control of Hemipteran pests in pecan: a progress report. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89: 71-81

Thompson, T. E., W. D. Goff, M. L. Nesbitt, R. E. Worley, R. D. O'Barr, and B. W. Wood. 1996a. 'Creek' pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89:180-184.

Thompson, T. E., L. J. Grauke, W. Reid, M. W. Smith, and S. E. Winter. 1996b. 'Kanza' pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89:185-188.

Thompson, T. E., and L. J. Grauke. 1998. Field resistance to yellow aphids in pecan. J. Amer. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 123: 85-90.

Yonce, C. E., and J. R. McVay. 1994. Hickory shuckworm pheromone trapping in Georgia and Alabama. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 87: 178-182.

ATTACHMENTS:

Project Leaders

Alabama	J. R. McVay	Entomologist

Arizona	M. S. Hunter	Entomologist

Georgia	J. D. Dutcher	Entomologist

Kansas	W. Reid	Horticulturist

Louisiana	M. J. Hall	Entomologist

Oklahoma	P. G. Mulder	Entomologist

New Mexico	J. Ellington	Entomologist

Texas	M. K. Harris	Entomologist

USDA	M. T. Smith	Entomologist

Resources:

SY	PY	TY	Objectives

Alabama	0.3	0.2	0.3	1, 2, 3

Arizona	0.1	2

Georgia	1.0	2.0	1, 2, 3

Kansas	0.3	1

Louisiana	1.0	1.0	1, 2, 3

New Mexico	0.1	2

Oklahoma	0.2	1, 2

Texas	0.49	1, 2, 3

USDA	1.0	3.5	1

Total	4.49	0.2	7.8

Critical Review:

This critical review covers the period from 1993-1998. Members of the technical committee published 40 refereed articles, numerous other articles and one regional publication (M. W. Smith et al 1995) on research conducted toward S-220 objectives. Their findings have resulted in more effective monitoring techniques, new chemical and biological controls and a better understanding of the biology of pecan insects.

Work under the first objective of the project - "Develop decisions models and geographic information system technologies to facilitate control decisions for key pests of pecan" - has lead to an effective control program for pecan nutcasebearer, improved monitoring for stink bugs and black pecan aphids. A highly effective monitoring and control system was developed for pecan nut casebearer by combining a pheromone monitoring system, a sequential sampling plan, a prediction model, and insecticides (Harris 1994, 1995, Harris et al 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1997). Important factors in pheromone trap catch were dose, lure age, and trap design (Knutson et al 1998). Research is now finding ways of replacing synthetic insecticides with biorational pesticides for pecan nut casebearer control. Pecan researchers are also working together to develop and improve pecan nut casebearer monitoring for different areas of pecan production (Davis 1993, Layton 1993, Mulder 1997, Ree 1995). Biological research continues to improve our understanding of oviposition and nut entry behavior of pecan nut casebearer (Aguirre et al 1995) and the interaction of pecan nut casebearer, pecan weevil and masting of pecan (Chung et al 1995, Harris et al 1996).

Hickory shuckworm pheromone trap catch with the current lures is low (Collins et al 1995) during the mid-summer even though adults are present and causing significant nut drop (Yonce and McVay 1994). Research continues to identify and evaluate additional pheromone components (M. T. Smith 1994), trap design and placement (McVay et al 1995), and emergence patterns and population trends (McVay et al 1994, Yonce and McVay 1994). In controlled field experiments, male moth response to the new components was mixed (M. T. Smith 1995). Analysis of trap catch data indicates that the populations have a clumped distribution that becomes more uniform as the population size increases. These results indicate a need for more traps per orchard to measure moth flight accurately. The current recommendation is 1 trap/10 acres (M. T. Smith 1995). Biological studies have measured the response of hickory shuckworm larvae and larval parasitoids to cold temperatures (Nava-Camberos et al 1996, Yonce et al 1996).	Stink bug monitoring was improved with a new trapping technique, where a pyramidal pecan weevil trap was painted yellow and a large malaise trap was affixed to the top (Mizell and Tedders 1995, Mizell et al 1997). A pheromone, attractive to brown and dusky stink bugs, was discovered and used in pecan orchards to monitor the seasonal activity (Yonce and Mizell 1997). The stink bugs remain in the pecan orchard year around and are low in orchards that maintain a mowed sod with herbicided tree rows. Stink bugs cause damage in pecan in the Fall and anytime when droughty conditions surround the orchard area. At these times alternate host plants in adjacent border crops are harvested or senesce, these areas become less desirable for stink bugs and the stink bugs migrate into the pecan orchard. The influx of stink bugs from harvested peanut fields into pecan can last 30 days (Mizell et al 1997). Irrigated pecan orchards are highly attractive to stink bugs and feeding before shell hardening can cause the nut to abort within 7 days (Wood and Tedders 1996). Pecan weevil trapping has been improved with pyramidal cone traps (Tedders and Wood 1994, Tedders et al 1996) and circle traps (Mulder et al 1997) and a pheromone trapping system is in development (Hedin et al 1996, 1997). A sampling technique and a model to predict the occurrence of black pecan aphid were developed to detect low population levels and give the growers an early warning for each infestation. Entire terminals (all the foliage on the current years stem growth) are the sample unit for the new sampling technique, whereas, the current sampling technique uses the compound leaf as a sample unit. The older sampling technique underestimated small population size and over estimated large population size. The new sampling technique also identified a lag period between the appearance of the first adults aphids and exponential population growth (Dutcher 1997a). The sampling and biological information from commercial and experiment station orchards is sen to the Cooperative Extension service specialists in the southeastern states and growers have access to the information through websites (Harris and Jackman 1996), a general IPM guide (Harris and Dean 1997) telephone hotlines in Georgia and Alabama and grower oriented publications (Dutcher 1997c).

Work under the second objective - "Develop biointensive IPM technologies through habitat diversification, host plant resistance, and biological control, and integrate these technologies into an overall pest management program" - has improved control programs for pecan weevil, hickory shuckworm, pecan nutcasebearer and the aphid complex. Alternatives to broad spectrum insecticides for pecan pest control were developed. Tebufenozide, a specific lepidopterous insecticide, was registered for use on pecan and it effectively controls pecan nut casebearer and gregarious caterpillars, and suppress hickory shuckworm without destroying predacious insects of aphids and mites (Dutcher 1996). A rickettsiella-like organism may be a potential pecan weevil agent against pecan weevil (Adams et al 1997). Pecan weevil control is still reliant on sprays of carbaryl to the foliage as an adulticide (Tedders and Wood 1995), however, a specific aphidicide, imidochloprid, was registered for use on pecan and it effective controls pecan aphids during the late season (Dutcher 1994b, 1995a, 1996, 1997a, 1997b).

Pecan aphid control was demonstrated with conservation of aphidophaga by intercropping with summer crop of sesbania, controlling secondary predation by red imported fire ant and spraying predator attractants (Bugg and Dutcher 1993, Kaakeh and Dutcher 1993, Dutcher 1993, 1994a, 1995b, 1998b). Pecan arthropods were influence by cool season intercrops (Smith, MW et al 1994, 1996) and methods were developed for screening potential intercrop plants (Smith MW et al 1996). Native pecan production was found to be profitable with limited insect control (Reid 1993). Organosilicone surfactant were found to control pecan aphids for a short time (Wood et al 1997). Higher action thresholds and innundative release of aphidophaga was an effective and economical control for pecan aphids in New Mexico (LaRock and Ellington 1996). Blackmargined aphids honeydew attracts aphid predators to the pecan foliage and may ameliorate biological control of aphids (Harris and Li 1996). The environmental factors effecting pecan aphid population dynamics were determined (Kaakeh and Dutcher 1993a, 1993b) and the aphids have a wide range of tolerance to high temperature and are temporarily reduced by rainfall.

Significant advances have been accomplished in host plant resistance of pecan insects on pecan cultivars. Resistance of "Pawnee" and "Navajo" cultivars to blackmargined aphid has been demonstrated in greenhouse and field evaluations (Thompson and Grauke 1998). These cultivars are not immune to aphid infestation but resistance would enhance current recommended control techniques. These results are consistent with lab and field research in Georgia (Kaakeh and Dutcher 1994) where blackmargined, black pecan and yellow pecan aphids were found to have lower reproductive rates and altered probing behavior and lower infestation levels on "Pawnee" and "Cape Fear" cultivars. Black walnut, butternut, pecan and several hickory species were investigated as potential sources of resistance factors to aphids (M. T. Smith, et al 1993). Blackmargined aphid adults lived longer and had a higher reproductive rates on pecan, water, scrub, shellbark hickory, and hican than on black walnut, butternut, and several other hickory spp. Percent survival of blackmargined aphid nymphs to the adult stage was lower on most hickory and walnut species than on pecan, hican or water hickory. Yellow pecan aphid adults lived longer and had higher nymph survival on pecan than on hickory or walnut. Black pecan aphid had similar adult longevity overall tree species but reproduced and developed from nymph to adult only on pecan. Kernel feeding hemipteran damage is higher in cultivars with small nuts than in cultivars with larger nuts among cultivars observed in a Georgia study (Dutcher 1998). Two new cultivars - "Kanza" and "Creek" - have a some resistance to hickory shuckworm and "Kanza" is highly resistant to phylloxera species (Thompson 1996a, 1996b). A leaf disc bioassay was developed to evaluate pecan cultivars for host plant resistance to black pecan aphid (Estes 1995).

Trap cropping effectively controlled the complex of kernel feeding hemipterans on pecan with consistent 50 % reductions in kernel damage with trap crops (M. T. Smith 1996). Research in the area of trap cropping in pecan is a major initiative and is a recommended practice in some IPM programs.

Work under the third objective - "Develop pesticide resistance management strategies to conserve and optimize the efficacy of insecticides" - has focused primarily on resistance management in blackmargined aphids. Pecan aphids were found to develop insecticide resistance in the field within two seasons of the introduction of use of pyrethroids (Dutcher 1997d) or organophophates. Combinations of insecticides were also losing efficacy over time. In commercial orchards, only soil application of aldicarb controlled blackmargined aphids among currently registered insecticides (Dutcher, unpublished data). In recent years, black pecan aphids have shown some tolerance to insecticide applications and populations are increasing across the southeast (McVay and Estes 1995). More specific aphid insecticides were found to effectively control the aphids and resistance development studies are underway for these new insecticides (Dutcher 1997b). The impact of pesticides on beneficial insects and aphid pathogens was determined in field an laboratory experiments (Hurej and Dutcher 1994a, 1994b, 1994c) and indicated that ladybeetles were not tolerant to any insecticides tested and lacewings were tolerant to certain insecticides. A pesticide usage survey in Texas indicated a reliance on organophosphate insecticides and strong participation in IPM approach to control (Harris et al 1993). Characteristics of concentrate and dilute spraying techniques were compared (Harris 1995).

Considerable effort has been directed to the integration of chemical and biological controls with monitoring techniques to determine the best time to apply a control. The regional project has served to integrate research results to provide control options for growers when they have to spray. The research results include estimates of the efficacy of control and the impact on beneficial insects for currently registered insecticides and potential pecan insecticides that are listed in a table of ratings that are updated at the technical committee meeting. These ratings have proven to be very valuable to growers and specialists in the Cooperative Extension Service. These ratings have also indicated which insecticides are losing efficacy over time. Pecan growers have increased their reliance on beneficial insects for control because of loss of insecticide registrations on pecan, loss of insecticides due to resistance development, increased application costs, high effectiveness of multicolored Asian ladybeetle and seven spotted ladybeetle and lacewings. Regional research has developed methods for enhancement, conservation and evaluation these biological controls to offer ways of retaining them in pecan orchards.

REFERENCES:

Adams, J. R., T. B. Clark, G. J. Tompkins, W. W. Neel, R. F. Schroder, and P. W. Schaefer. 1997. Histopathological investigations on rickettsiella-like sp. and nonoccluded viruses infecting the pecan weevil, Curculio caryae, the squash beetle, Epilachna borealis, and the Mexican bean beetle, Epilachna varivestis. J. Invertebrate Pathol. 69: 119-124.

Aguirre, L. A., M. Tucuch, and M. K. Harris. 1995. Oviposition and nut entry behavior of the pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella Nuenzig. Southwestern Entomol. 20: 447-451.

Bugg, R. L., and J. D. Dutcher. 1993. Sesbania exaltata (Rafinesque-Schmaltz) Cory (Fabaceae) as a warm-season cover crop in pecan orchards: effects on aphidophagous coccinellidae and pecan aphids. Biological Agric. and Hortic. 9: 215-229.

Chung, C. S., M. K. Harris, and J. B. Storey. 1995. Masting in pecans. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 720: 386-393.

Collins, J. K., G. H. Hedger, and R. D. Eikenbary. 1995. An update on hickory shuckworm research. p. 5-9 IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Collins, J. K., P. G. Mulder, M. W. Smith, and R. D. Eikenbary. 1996. Mating behavior and peak mating activity of the pecan weevil Curculio caryae (Horn). Southwestern Entomol. 21: 479-481.

Davis, J. H. 1993. Casebearer, shuckworm confirmed in New Mexico. Pecan South 26(2): 25- 26.

Dutcher, J. D. 1993. Recent examples of conservation of arthropod natural enemies in agriculture. IN R. D. Lumsden and J. L. Vaughn eds. Pest Management: Biologically Based Technologies. Conference Proceedings Series, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

Dutcher, J. D. 1994a. Cover crops and intercrops for pecan orchards. The Pecan Grower. 4(1):21.

Dutcher, J. D. 1994b. New aphidicides for pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 87: 117-120.

Dutcher, J. D. 1995a. Chemical control of pecan aphid on pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 88: 42-45.

Dutcher, J. D. 1995b. Intercropping pecan orchards with legumes: entomological implications. p. 10-24 IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Dutcher, J. D. 1996. Chemical control of pecan insects. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89: 155-158.

Dutcher, J. D. 1997a. Bionomics and control of black pecan aphid in Georgia. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 70-73.

Dutcher, J. D. 1997b. Current trends in insect control - nuts, Georgia. p. 290-291 IN Meister, R. T., ed. Insect Control Guide. Meister Publishing Company. Willoughby, Ohio 442 p.

Dutcher, J. D. 1997c. Scouting in insect control - nuts, Georgia. p.292-293 IN Meister, R. T., ed. Insect Control Guide. Meister Publishing Company. Willoughby, Ohio 442 p.

Dutcher, J. D. 1997d. Loss of pyrethroid efficacy in blackmargined aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) populations on pecan. IN K. Bondari. ed. New Developments in Entomology, Research Signpost, India. pp. 195-204.

Dutcher, J. D. 1998a. Cultivar differences in hemipteran kernel damage of pecan. Proc. International Plant Resistance to Pests Workshop, Memphis TN USA.

Dutcher, J. D. 1998b. Conservation of Aphidophaga in Pecan Orchards. Chapt. 16 IN P. Barbosa, ed. Conservation Biological Control. Academic Press. NY 396 p.

Estes, P. M. 1995. Bionomics of the black pecan aphid on pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 88: 48-51.

Harris, M. K., J. Jackman, B. Ree, A. Knutson, R. Lacewell, and J. B. Storey. 1993. Chemical usage casts perspective on pecan industry. Pecan South. 25: 15-16.

Harris, M., J. Jackman, B. Ree, and A. Knutson. 1994. Pecan nut casebearer. Proc. 2nd National Pecan Workshop. ARS-3: 28-31.

Harris, M. K. 1995. Challenges to pecan nut casebearer eradication. Pecan South 28:24, 25, 28.

Harris, M. K., J. A. Jackman, B. Ree, and A. Knutson. 1995a. Pecan nut casebearer update. p. 28-30. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Harris, M. K., J. A. Jackman, A. E. Knutson, and W. O. Ree. 1995b. Pecan nut casebearer management. Proc. 29th Ann. Western Pecan Conf., Las Cruces, NM pp. 95-103.

Harris, M. K. , C. S. Chung, and J. A. Jackman. 1996. Masting and pecan interaction with insectan predehiscent nut feeders. Environ. Entomol. 25: 1068-1076.

Harris, M. K. and J. A. Jackman. 1996. Pecan IPM. Chapt. IN: <http://www.ent.agri.umn.edu/academics/classes/ipm/ipmsite.htmt.

Harris, M. K., and T. Li. 1996. The blackmargined aphid as a keystone species: a predator attractor redressing natural enemy imbalances in pecan systems. pp. 112-117. IN: Dynamics of Forest Herbivory, USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-183.

Harris, M. K. and A. Dean. 1997. Pecan integrated pest management. CD-ROM.

Harris, M. K., 1997. Concentrate and dilute insecticidal spraying of fruits and nuts. Proc. West. Irrigated Pecan Growers Assoc., Las Cruces, NM.

Harris, M. K., J. C. Millar, and A. E. Knutson. 1997. Pecan nut casebearer sex pheromone used to monitor phenology and estimate area efficacy of traps. J. Econ. Entomol. 90: 983-987.

Hedin, P. A., D. A. Dollar, J. K. Collins, J. G. Dubois, P. G. Mulder, and R. D. Eikenbary. 1996.

Identification of the male pecan weevil pheromone. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89: 88.

Hedin, P. A., D. A. Dollar, J. K. Collins, J. G. Dubois, P. G. Mulder, G. H. Hedger, M. W. Smith, and R. D. Eikenbary. 1997. Identification of male pecan weevil pheromone. J. Chemical Ecology. 23: 965-977.

Hurej, M. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994a. Indirect effect of insecticides used in pecan orchards to larvae of Chrysoperla rufilabris (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 29: 450-456.

Hurej, M. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994b. Indirect effect of insecticides on convergent ladybeetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in pecan orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 1632-1635.

Hurej, M. and J. D. Dutcher. 1994c. Effect of esfenvalerate and disulfoton on the behavior of the blackmargined aphid, black pecan aphid, and yellow pecan aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 187-192.

Kakaah, W., and J. D. Dutcher. 1993a. Survival of yellow pecan aphids and black pecan aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) at different temperature regimes. Environ. Entomol. 22: 810-817.

Kakaah, W., and J. D. Dutcher. 1993b. Effect of rainfall on population abundance of aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) on pecan, J. Entomol. Science. 28: 283-286.

Kakaah, W., and J. D. Dutcher. 1993c. Population parameters and probing behavior of cowpea aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae), on preferred and non-preferred host cover crops. J. Entomol. Science. 28: 145-155.

Kakaah, W., and J. D. Dutcher. 1994. Probing behavior and density of Monelliopsis pecanis, Monellia caryella and Melanocallis caryaefoliae (Homoptera: Aphididae) on pecan cultivars. J. Econ. Entomol. 87: 951-956.

Knutson, A. E., M. Harris, and J. G. Millar. Effects of pheromone dose, lure age, and trap design on capture of male pecan nut casebearer in pheromone-baited traps. J. Econ. Entomol. (submitted).

Larock, D. R. and J. J. Ellington. 1996. An integrated pest management approach, emphasizing biological control, for pecan aphids. Southwestern Entomologist. 21:153-166.

Layton, B. 1993. Pecan insect management in Mississippi. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 86: 103-106.

McVay, J. R., R. D. Eikenbary, R. D. Morrison, C. A. Kouskolekas. 1994. Adult emergence patterns, population trends and activity patterns of the hickory shuckworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Olethreutinae) in pecan orchards. J. Entomol. Sci. 29: 526-533.

McVay, J. R., R. D. Eikenbary, R. D. Morrison, C. A. Kouskolekas, and M. Dennison. 1995. Effects of pheromone trap design and placement on capture of male Cydia caryana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Olethreutinae) in Alabama pecan orchards and the relationship of trap captures to fruit infestation. J. Entomol. Sci. 30: 165-175.

McVay, J. R. and H. C. Ellis. 1995. The status of pecan insect pest management in the southeast. In Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

McVay, J. R. and P. M. Estes. 1995. Biology and control of black aphids. Proc. Western Pecan Conf. 29: 91-94.

McVay, J. R. and M. J. Hall. 1998. Preliminary investigations of a biorational approach to pecan insect management. Proc. SE Pecan Growers Assn. 91: 78-85.

Mizell, R. F., III, and W. L. Tedders. 1995. A new monitoring method for detection of the stinkbug complex in pecan orchards. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 88: 36-40.

Mizell, R. F., III., W. L. Tedders, C. E. Yonce, and J. A. Aldrich. 1997. Stinkbug monitoring method - an update. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 50-52.

Mulder, P. G., R. A. Grantham, W. R. Reid, J. K. Collins, and A. E. Knutson. 1997. Evaluation of trap design and pheromones for pecan weevil monitoring. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 58-63.

Mulder, P. G. 1997. Controlling pecan nut casebearer on pecan in Oklahoma. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 64-68.

Nava-Camberos, U., M. K. Harris, and B. Ree. 1996. Hickory shuckworm, Cydia caryana (Fitch), larval response to two low temperatures. Southwestern Entomol. 21: 225-228.

Ree, B. 1995. Overview of pest management in the West. p. 25-27. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Reid, W. R. 1993. Developing low-input management strategies for native pecans. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oklahoma State University. 95 pp.

Reid, W. R. 1996. Pest management with a chain saw. Pecan South 29: 6, 10, 12.

Smith, M. T., S. Galindo, J. R. McVay, M. J. Hall. 1994. Pecan insect pest management: recent investigations of the hickory shuckworm sex pheromone. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 87: 77-88.

Smith, M. T., B. W. Wood, C. C. Reilly, W. L. Tedders, R. C. Gueldner, and R. F. Severson. 1993. Pecan aphid pest management: searching for sources of aphid resistance in plants. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 86: 133-144.

Smith, M. T. 1995. Recent advances in hickory shuckworm pheromone research. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 88: 52-59.

Smith, M. T. 1995. Aphid-host plant interactions in pecan. p. 38-40. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Smith, M. T. 1996. Trap cropping system for control of Hemipteran pests in pecan: a progress report. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89: 71-81

Smith, M. W., R. D. Eikenbary, D. C. Arnold, B. S. Landgraf, G. G. Taylor, G. E. Barlow, B. L. Carroll, B. S. Cheary, N. R. Rice, and R. Knight. 1994. Screening cool-season legume cover crops for pecan orchards. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 9: 127-135.

Smith, M. W., D. C. Arnold, R. D. Eikenbary, N. R. Rice, A. Shiferaw, B. S. Cheary, and B. L. Carroll. 1996. Influence of ground cover on beneficial arthropods in pecan. Biol. Control 6: 164-176.

Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Smith, M. W., D. C. Arnold, R. D. Eikenbary, N. R. Rice, A. Shiferaw, B. S. Cheary, B. L. Carroll. 1996. Influence of ground cover on phytophagous an saprophagous arthropods in pecan trees. Southwestern Entomol. 21:303-316.

Tedders, W. L., and B. W. Wood. 1994. A new technique for monitoring pecan weevil emergence (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 29: 18-30.

Tedders, W. L., and B. W. Wood. 1995. Update on pecan weevil. p. 31-37. IN Smith, M. W., W. Reid, and B. W. Wood, eds. 1995. Sustaining Pecan Productivity Into the 21st Century: Second National Pecan Workshop Proceedings, Wagoner, Oklahoma, July 23-26, 1994. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1995-3, 195 pp.

Tedders, W. L., R. F. Mizell, III, and B. W. Wood. 1996. Effects of color and trunk wrap on pecan weevil catch in pyramidal traps. J. Entomol. Sci. 31: 414-419.

Thompson, T. E., W. D. Goff, M. L. Nesbitt, R. E. Worley, R. D. O'Barr, and B. W. Wood. 1996a. 'Creek' pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89:180-184.

Thompson, T. E., L. J. Grauke, W. Reid, M. W. Smith, and S. E. Winter. 1996b. 'Kanza' pecan. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 89:185-188.

Thompson, T. E., and L. J. Grauke. 1998. Field resistance to yellow aphids in pecan. J. Amer. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 123: 85-90.

Wood, B. W., and W. L. Tedders. 1996. Stink bug feeding costs massive nut dropping in orchards. The Pecan Grower. 7(2): 14.

Wood, B. W., W. L. Tedders, and J. Taylor. 1997. Control of pecan aphids with an organosilicone surfactant. Hortscience 32: 1074-1076.

Yonce, C. E., and J. R. McVay. 1994. Hickory shuckworm pheromone trapping in Georgia and Alabama. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 87: 178-182.

Yonce, C. E., W. L. Tedders, and B. W. Wood. 1996. Cold tolerance of hickory shuckworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) larvae and associated parasites. J. Entomol. Sci. 31: 13-19.

Yonce, C. E., and R. F. Mizell. 1997. Stink bug trapping with a pheromone. Proc. Southeastern Pecan Growers Assoc. 90: 54-56.