INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN ALABAMA FEBRUARY 1997 IPM 1996 ANNI Al RLPORI From The Director I'm proud to be associated with the IPM Alabama Program, and to be a member of the team that contributed to this, our first IPM Alabama Annual Report. The purpose of this report is to familiarize the citizens of Alabama with some of the accomplishments of the IPM Alabama Program, and with the benefits of the program to the public. The concept of IPM, or Integrated Pest Management, has been recognized and practiced in the U.S. and in Alabama for over a quarter century. It was conceived after we recognized that reliance on the "silver bullet," pesticide-only approach was no longer possible because of widespread pest resistance to pesticides. Likewise, concerns about public health and the environment were growing. IPM is an approach that relies on knowledge of the pests to be controlled and also knowledge of the crop or habitat, enabling us to choose the most cost- effective combination of pest manage- ment strategies with the least negative impact on the environment. You will become familiar with some of the IPM strategies being developed in Alabama as you read through this report. Although IPM programs have existed in Alabama for many years in specific commodity areas like cotton, peanuts and tree fruit, there has not been an official mechanism to promote IPM programs and to encourage inter- disciplinary projects until 1996 when the organizational structure of the IPM Alabama Program was established. The program relies on IPM Commodity/ Area Teams comprised of both exten- sion and research personnel. The Commodity Teams (1) identify critical pest problems through contacts with growers, county agents and other clien- tele, (2) determine the research and extension work that is needed to solve the problems, and (3) develop plans to carry out the pest management programs. An IPM Mini-Grants Program, supported by federal funds earmarked for IPM, was recently established to support research and extension projects in Alabama that address critical pest management needs. IPM projects in Alabama are also supported by various commodity and industry organizations and by USDA grants to teams of research and extension specialists working in specific commodities or areas. The hiring this year of an IPM Program Assistant, Mr. Mark Rumph, has facilitated the development of new program areas including the IPM Alabama Website and the IPM Alabama Newsletter. These resources provide easier access for citizens of Alabama to a wide range of pest management information. In addi- tion, the program assistant facilitates interaction between IPM specialists and various groups representing the agricultural industry, the environ- ment, and other government and non-governmental organizations. We are experiencing a new era in pest management technology, as evidenced by the recent introduction of genetical- ly enhanced crops with genes for pest resistance, and the development of new-generation pesticides that target specific pests but are "softer" on the environment. Other new and promising crop protection technologies under development in Alabama include the use of beneficial microbes to induce crop resistance to pests, or to "out-compete" pathogenic microorgan- isms on crops thereby reducing their potential for damage. The role of IPM research and extension personnel in the viability of Alabama agriculture will be increasingly important as we strive to determine how new prod- ucts and technologies will best fit into our pest management programis. We invite you to read this report of our pro- gram's accomplishments this past year, and to learn about the various projects undenrway. It is our goal to further the adoption and successful implementa- tion of IPM methods for the benefit of the citizens of Alabama. Sincerely, Geoff Zehnder State IPM Coordinator IPM 1996 ANNUAL RIEPORT INTRODUCTION Integrated Pest Management, more commonly referred to as IPM, is not a new concept in Alabama, but the average citizen may not be aware of the meaning of IPM. IPM can be defined as the combined use of biological, cultural, physical, and chemical controls to manage pests with minimum negative impact on man and the environment. Private and public agencies involved in agriculture have encouraged the implementation of IPM practices, and the federal government recently announced a goal to have IPM methods established on 75% of America's crop land by the year 2000. The IPM Alabama Program embraces this challenge, and our mission is to develop and facilitate the use of ettective and economical pest management programs for our clientele, both on-farm and in urban settings. In addition to developing the component research and development needed to address critical pest problems, education and information transfer com- prise a growing and important facet of the program. The program is continually developing new ideas to make pest manage- ment information more accessible and to inform the public S: about IPM programs and activities. The program also received a boost in 1996 with the A ddition of an IPM program assistant, Mark A. Rumph. This Sposition was developed, in part, to enable the program to pro- vide more outlets from which IPM information could be made available. In May of 1996 an IPM Alabama site on the \'World Wide Web was developed that now contains more than 70 articles and fact sheets on IPM (with additions being made regularly). The site also contains information about the IPM Alabama Program, links to other IPM programs and .: infonnation, and an interactive formnn for users to complete and provide comments. A quarterly IPM Program newsletter, the first issue pub- lished and distributed in late summer, is another source of infomation on IPM Program activities and developments. The newsletter is published by the Communications Group iv in the Alabama Cooperative Extension System, and will be Jistributed in Februan, May, August, and November of each Syear. A copy of the newsletter is also available on the IPM :. . .- : ;Alabama web site. Within the pages of this annual report you will find Rinformation about the accomplishments of IPM Program extension and research personnel during 1996, as well as a Slimpse of some objectives and goals for the program in 1997. .We hope that this report will provide you with a better understanding of the IPM approach, and that you will share in our enthusiasm of the IPM Alabama Program and it's ,ccomplishments. Please feel free to contact us with any thoughts or questions. :Mark Rumph, IPM Program Assistant IPM 1996 ANNUAL REPORT IPM ALABAMA- ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The IPM Alabama Program represents a cooperative effort between the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES), the Auburn University College of Agriculture, and the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station (AAES). Dr. Geoffrey Zehnder, Extension Specialist and Associate Professor of Entomology at Auburn University, serves as the State Coordinator of Alabama's IPM program. An Administrative Committee, consisting of members of ACES, AAES, and college administrators and department heads, consults with the state coor- dinator to aid in program direction and planning. The foundations of the IPM Program are the Commodity Teams made up of extension special- ists and county agents, and researchers. These multi- discipli- nary teams work cooperatively to identify and prioritize critical pest management problems in Alabama. This is facilitated by the extension team members who have direct con- tact with Alabama farmers and other clientele. Once they identify critical needs, the teams develop IPM research and extension education programs designed to address the problems. Funding to support the IPM programs is provided by ACES, AAES, federal (USDA) formula and special project funds, various com- modity groups, and by the IPM Alabama Mini-grants program (described below). In 1996 Mr. Mark Rumph filled the position of IPM Alabama Program Assistant. Mr. Rumph assists the coordinator with adminis- trative duties and developed and maintains the IPM Alabama web site and the quarterly IPM Alabama newsletter. More details on these program areas are provided in the following pages. The IPM Program also works with several complimen- tary organizations including the ACES and AAES Research Information units, the State Sustainable Agriculture Program, ACES-AG Computer Support Division, and the Pesticide Education and Pesticide Impact Assessment Programs. The chart below represents the current organi- zational structure of the IPM Alabama Program. -, IPM O A A N - U R Administrative Committee ...... ~YL/I~~ V ILIUIU1~ ~) ILLU V U I V~~L I Sustainable Agriculture I Pesticide Education/ Assessment IPM Commodity State IPM Teams Coordiantor and IPM Program Assistant Grower Advisors I Publications Extension System and AAES 3 I ACES-AG Computer Support - --- ----- I, --- -- '"" ---- - ---- ~'Vh'U"" ~~"h'-~~ ~V UI~'~" ~'^' IPM 1996 ANNUAL REPORT IPM ALABAMA WEBSITE AND PUBLICATIONS Website During 1996, the IPM Alabama Program added an information site on the World Wide Web. Currently, the site houses more than 70 articles dealing with the control of various pests of field crops, fisheries and wildlife, forestry, forages and small grains, tree fruit and nuts, commercial turf and land- scape, urban pest management, and veg- etables. We are in the process of upload- ing new and existing pest management articles as time and resources permit, so our electronic library of IPM publica- tions will continue to grow. In addition, we plan to upload all of the Alabama pesticide recommendations for crops and urban areas so that these will be available online. IPM Alabama's web site offers general IPM information and links to other sites that provide information on pest management. The web site also provides an interactive questionnaire so that users can provide input on any requests or ideas. The site also contains a list of the IPM commodity team mem- bers and their e-mail addresses. Users will be able to access special pest hotline information for several commodities including cotton and pecans in 1997. To find our web site, you must have a computer with Internet accc- and a "web browser" such as Netscaiq Navigator or MicroSoft Internet Explorer. Our Internet address, or URL, is: http://w ww.acesag.auburn. edu/department/ipm If you have any questions ab, i the site or how to gain access, you c~ a contact the IPM office at the addr-- and phone number listed on the back cover of this report. Publications Each year, the Alabama Cooperative Extension System Communications Division produces many print articles written by IPM spe- cialists on pest management topics. These include Circulars and Timely Information Sheets addressing a variety of pest management problems on com- mercial farms and in urban settings. Literally hundreds of these publications are in print on virtually any pest man- agement subject. ACES also publishes an annual Alabama Pest Management Handbook providing treatment recom- mendations for disease, insect, and weed pests. The Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Office of Research Information also publishes articles that may contain information on pest man- agement, including the popular maga- zine Highlights of Agricultural Research. For information about these public a- tions, please contact the IPM Alabanma Program office, your local county agent, the Alabama Cooperative Extension System Communications Division, or the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Office of Research Infonnation. *,:,ic I2 Co 1 ( trot . 'l /7 The O Green June Beetle ' CULAR ANR 991 1, o u p,-;" I.:* C I., i w " 't J"' l Li.~* i~:l' .AN FES Ki MAR APR w" ' MAY~ JUNE ULY AVG . :* ; SEPT OCT OV OFCC ........ . Example of IPM publication OVERVIEW, SUCCESS STORIES, ORANTS COTTON PROGRAM Ron Smith, Barry Freeman, Mike Patterson, Bill Gazaway,Charlie Burmester, Dale Monks, Bob Goodman Overview: Established in 1972, the cotton IPM program has served the pest management needs of Alabama cotton farmers for more than 24 years. Insect pests are a primary con- cern in Alabama cotton production, therefore a major focus of the cotton IPM program is on insect manage- ment. All of the approximately 3,000 cotton growers are using some IPM technology, but not all are using the recommended IPM methods to the fullest extent possible for various reasons. Due to continually changing needs and pest problems, cotton IPM strategies are revised each year based on several factors such as weather and anticipated pest development. Therefore, the cotton IPM program objective is to develop the best set of strategies for the current season's con- ditions. The effectiveness of the cot- ton program has been evaluated pri- marily through user feedback. This is possible because the cotton IPM team has personal contact with over 50% of all cotton growers in the state on an annual basis. Because of this personal relationship, the cotton IPM program continues to grow and evolve to match the needs of Alabama's growers. The cotton industry was dealt a severe economic blow in 1994 and 1995 by the development of insecticide resistance in the tobacco budworm and its resulting damage. Unfortunately, no pest management tools were available at the time to prevent the severe loss of yields that occurred. But just prior to the 1996 season, the new, genetically altered Bt cotton variety BollGard was intro- duced by Monsanto and approved by the EPA. With pest management guidelines developed by the cotton IPM team specifically for BollGard cotton, Alabama growers planted approximately 70% of the state's cot- ton acreage with this new technolo- gy. As a result, Alabama growers had a highly successful cotton pro- duction season in 1996. Less than 20% of the state's 580,000 cotton acres received a single foliar insecti- cide application; this is the lowest input since the introduction of syn- thetic insecticides in the 1940s. This also resulted in increased effectiveness of beneficial insects for control of cotton pests. The cost of insect control was reduced from $115 to approximately $36 per acre, which included the $32 per acre cost for the BollGard vari- ety. This resulted in a savings of $45.8 million to Alabama cotton growers. At the same time, yields for 1996 are near an all time high statewide (750 pounds of lint per acre). This is an example of how the adoption and utilization of IPM technology can result in a sustain- able production system, both eco- nomically and environmentally. Success Story: Mr. Bibb Mims, a cot- ton producer from Monroe County, Alabama, has been producing cotton on his farm for more than 50 years, and his ancestors 50 years before that. Mr. Mims maintains accurate records of production costs and insecticide use, and has done so during his entire farming career. In 1996 he planted 96% of his 1,257 acres with the new BollGard cotton variety. Because of this new technology, Mr. Mirms made an average of only 1.5 foliar insecti- cide applications on only 4% of his acreage. His insect control costs were reduced from $78.75 per acre in 1995 to $33.74 per acre in 1996 (note that $32 per acre was used to pur- chase the BolGard technology). This resulted in a savings of $45.01 per acre or a total savings to Mr. Mims of $56,577.57. Mr. Milims uses a complete cotton IPM package, including use of a scout and incorpo- ration of treatment thresholds, cultur- al practices and methods to conserve beneficial insect populations. Grants: Funding for a Statewide Pheromone Monitoring Network Alabama Cotton Commission (R. Smith, W. Moar, W. Foshee) $20,000 Funding for Five Television Satellite Broadcasts of IPM Recommendations Alabama Cotton Commission (R. Smith) $2,000 For in Support of "800" Toll Free Insect Line The Cotton Foundation, Memphis, TN. (R. Smith) $2,000 To Prepare a Statewide Cotton Insect Loss Report Mississippi State University (R. Smith and B. Freeman) $250 OVERVIEW, SUCCESS STORIES, GRANTS FORAGES AND SMALL GRAINS Kathy Flanders, Paul Mask, Bill Gazaway, David Buntin, Don Ball, Ed van Santen, Richard Shelby, Pat Cobb, John Everest, Mike Patterson, Leonard Kuykendall, Frank Wood, Jack Brewer, Gregg Hodges, Nancy Graves, Dus Rogers, Olin Farrior, Tim Reed Overview: The Small Grains and Forages IPM Team was formed in 1996. It is comprised of smembers who repre- sent the disciplines of entomology, agronomy and soils, and agricultural economics, and the team hopes to add a plant pathologist in 1997. The team has identified priority research and extension needs within their commodi- ty area with input from more than 50 producers, county agents, USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) person- nel, and commodity group leaders. Several projects to address these needs are currently underway. The team also organized a forage insect in-service training session for county agents in three areas of the state. IPM Priorities Identified in 1996 for Forages and Small Grains: 1. Develop a management strategy for the barley yellow-dwarf virus on wheat. 2. Develop a management strategy for grubworms. 3. Management of foliar diseases on small grains. 4. Management of wild mustard, annual ryegrass, and wild garlic in small grains. 5. Develop cost-effective methods for fire ant management in pastures. 6. Develop alternative control strate- gies for soil borne small grain diseases. 7. Management of weeds in pastures and hayfields. 8. Develop alternative control meth- ods for alfalfa pests in grazing-tolerant alfalfa. 9. Develop alternative management strategies for the cereal leaf beetle. (~.,~~_"I::-: :~ Gregg Hodges, County Agent Coordinator, beetles. Success Story: Alabama has three million acres of perennial grass pastures and hayfields. At least 40% of these pastures are at risk for green June beetle infestatio ns. This is because they are grown in sandy soils in counties with high broiler production. Use of poul- try litter as an organic fertilizer in pas- tures and hayfields is increasing. It is an excellent fertilizer and helps cattle producers reduce the cost of inputs. However, decaying organic matter, including broiler litter, is the favorite food of the green June beetle. Green June beetles uproot forage grasses dur- ing their feeding activity. Severe infes- tations can destroy 80-90 % of the grass within a field, leaving bare ground for subsequent infestation by weeds. In Cullman County approxi- mately 25% of pasture productivity was lost to green June beetles in each of the last two years. In 1995-96 we began a pro- gram in Blount, Cullman, and Geneva Counties to address the green June bee- Cullman County, scouting for green June tie problem. We had two objectives: (1) to decide the best time to treat for green June beetles; and (2) to increase grower awareness of green June beetles before the damage is done. Results of the program demonstrated that the best time to treat for green June beetles is in September and October. At this time green June beetle grubs are still small, and have not yet seriously damaged perennial grass stands. We have devel- oped a tentative action threshold of four green June beetle grubs per square foot of pasture. If populations exceed that amount, an application of carbaryl insecticide is recommended. Fall treat- ment is contrary to current grower practice. Most growers notice the infestations only after the green June beetles have damaged a perennial grass stand in late fall (December) or early spring (April). By then, most of the damage to pastures has already occurred. During the past year, the pro- gram has recommended that growers OIwm. Sucss STemS, GRANTS with high risk pastures (sandy soil and a history of broiler litter application) scout fields in September and October for signs of green June beetle infesta- tions. Newspaper and magazine articles with information on green June beetles have been published, and a fact sheet is in press. The level of grower- adoption of these methods remains to be seen, but we will continue to refine our man- agement strategies and to encourage implementation by Alabama growers. Grants: Cereal Leaf Beetle Management Alabama Wheat and Feed Grain Committee (K. Flanders, P. Mask, 0. Buntin) $12,500 Biological Control of Cereal Leaf Beetle Alabama Wheat and Feed Grain Committee (K. Flanders, P. Mask, G. Buntin) $5,000 Development of a Management Strategy for Green June Beetle Auburn University IPM Mini-Grants Program (K. Flanders and J. Crews) $3,475 Evaluation of Aphid Behavior- Modifying Insecticides for Control of Barley Yellow Dwarf on Wheat Alabama Wheat and Feed Grain Committee (P. Mask and K. Flanders) $5,000 Evaluation of Planting Date and Seed Treatment (Gaucho) for the Control of Barley Yellow Dwarf on Wheat Alabama Wheat and Feed Grain Committee (P. Mask and K. Flanders) $8,150 Aphid Populations and Tuning of Arrival into Alabama Wheat Fields in Relation to Barley Yellow Dwarf Alabama Wheat and Feed Grain Committee (P. Mask, J. Murphy, K. Flanders, S. Halbert) $ 9,100 Establishment of Two Precision Agriculture Demonstrations in Alabama Alabama Wheat and Feed Grain Committee (Mask, et al.) $24,000 PEANUTS Paul Backman, Ron Weeks, Dallas Hartzog, Austin Hagan, John Everest Overview: The Alabama peanut IPM program has three focus areas. The first is to maintain peanut farm- ing as a profitable enterprise. A sec- ond goal of the program is to increase awareness by growers of alternative management strategies that will reduce costly pesticide usage. A final consideration of the peanut program is to help growers, consultants, and county agents who provide assistance to growers in the identification of new pest problems and help to devise management strategies for their control. The overall goal of the program is to facilitate the adoption of current IPM technology by 80% of Alabama peanut growers within the next four years. We propose to accomplish this by training county agents, crop consultants, and agribusiness person- nel so that they can properly advise peanut growers in the proper use and adoption of IPM techniques. Success Stories: In cooperation with Dr. Austin Hagan, extension plant pathologist, several peanut cul- tivars were evaluated for pest toler- ance. It was determined that root- knot nematodes less seriously affect- ed the peanut variety Andru95 than the Florunner variety of peanuts. Research also revealed that root- knot nematode more seriously dam- aged the Southern Runner variety than other varieties. Based on this research, growers were advised in 1996 to plant Andru95 peanut vari- ety when soil tests showed high lev- els of root-knot nematode popula- tions. The recommendations were disseminated through a series of peanut production meetings and in newspaper articles. As a result, Alabama growers increased plantings of Andru 95 peanuts from 10% in 1995 to 25% in 1996. In 1996, tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), a thrips-trans- mitted virus of peanuts, increased to significantly damaging levels in many peanut fields in Alabama. Infection rates of 25% to 30% were found in fields surveyed by county agents and crop consul- tants. In cooperation with exten- sion and research colleagues in Georgia and Florida, we are devel- oping an IPM system for manage- ment of TSWV using variety selection, planting dates, seeding rates and other cultural practices. In anticipation of increased prob- lems with TSWV, management guidelines developed from this multi-state effort were made avail- able to Alabama growers through farm visits and demonstrations, newsletters and media broad- casts. This information enabled our growers to better manage the outbreak of TSWV that occurred in 1996. Grants: Peanut IPM Research and Demonstration Alabama Peanut Producers Association (R. Weeks) $10,000 7 OVERVIEW, SoCCESS STORIES, CRANTS TREE FRUITS AND NUTS John McVay, Ed Sikora, Ellen Bauske, Arlie Powell, Robert Boozer, Chuck Ogburn, Bill Goff, Monte Nesbitt, Mike Patterson, Wheeler Foshee Overview: The tree fruit and nut IPM program focuses on two target commodities: apples and pecans. The pecan IPM program has been in operation for 19 years, and the apple program for the past four years. As a result of these programs, 100% of Alabama pecan growers use at least some of the available IPM tech- niques, and 80% use the complete IPNM program. Similarly, most apple growers use some IPM methods, and approximately 75% adopt all of the IPM methods that are effective and practical for use in apple production. The main goal of the IPM team is to keep abreast of changing pest prob- lems as they occur, and to revise the IPMl program to accommodate new pests or changes in pest development and importance. During the 1996 season pres- sure from foliar arthropod pests was light on both apples and pecans. Due to low numbers of aphids and only sporadic mite populations most apple orchards received no more than a single chemical application. In contrast, infestations of fruit pests, particularly lepidopterous species (moths), were greater than normal on apple crops. For the first time since the program's inception, popu- lations of the codling moth were widespread in Alabama and required treatment in approximately 50% of commercial apple orchards. Disease pressure was moderate due to dry weather during the spring. Apple growers using the IPM program applied an average of 12 fungicide and 6-8 insecticide/ acaracide appli- cations in 1996 and produced a high quality crop with little fruit damage from pests. The IPM program saved growers an average of six fungicide and 6-8 insecticide applications, com- pared with a conventional, calendar- based spray program. Researchers using weather monitoring equipment to develop fungicide application schedul Because of light infestations of foliar arthropod pests, less than 10% of Alabama pecan orchards were treated with insecticides for control of foliar-feeding pests. Incidences of the more damaging black pecan aphid were more fre- quent. However, aphid populations were low in most orchards and only 20% of pecan orchards were chemi- cally-treated for aphid control.The scorch mite was present throughout the season but caused little econom- ic damage. Pests attacking pecan fruit (the nuts) were more abundant than normal in 1996. For the first time in 20 years, populations of the pecan nut casebearer, a lepidopter- ous pest, were extremely heavy in Alabama. This pest caused wide- spread damage where orchards were not monitored and treated as neces- sary. Populations of the hickory shuckworm and pecan weevil were also heavy and the poten- tial for damage was great. Disease pressure was moder- , ate due to dry weather dur- ing the late spring. Pecan growers using IPM practices applied an average of seven 3 fungicide and four insecti- cide applications, nearly a 50% reduction compared with a conventional, calen- ' dar-based spray program. I Success Stories: An apple :: grower with an isolated orchard in Chambers County, Alabama, had a history of severe fruit dan- iae in his apple orchard due to a lepidopterous pest es. with which he was unfamil- iar. Upon the determination of the pest's identity (the Oriental fruit moth), by IPM program personnel, a pheromone trap was installed in the orchard along with monitoring devices for other pests. The pheromone trap contains a sex attractant specific to males of the fruit moth species. Using the trap to determine when fruit moths were present, the grower was able to apply insecticides specifically when they were needed. As a result, the grower produced a better-quality apple crop using less insecticide than in previous years. Convinced of the benefits of the IPM approach, he now uses all available IPM strategies in his orchard. Populations of the pecan nut casebearer were unusually high in the Alabama and in other southeastern states in 1996. Fortunately, IPM team members were conducting large scale evaluations of the sex pheromone for this pest. Due to the effectiveness of the pheromone as a monitoring tool, the team advised pecan producers of the potential for heavy damage in suf- ficient time to apply controls in heavi- ly infested areas. Producers who availed themselves of this informa- tion, particularly via the telephone pecan hotline, were able to implement timely controls and avoided significant damage from casebearer feeding. Growers not using the infonnation suffered as much as 30% crop loss from casebearer feeding damage. Grants: To Provide Pheromone and Trapping Equipment to Producers Interested in Adopting the IPM Program for Apples Auburn University IPM Mini-Grant (J. McVay) $1,500 For the Operation of the Orchard Monitoring System and Telephone Hotline Horticultural Crop Research Funds (1. McVa%) $17,500 OVERnvEW, SuccEss STORIES, CRANTS Dr. Patt Cobb soap-flushing mole crickets for sampling on a golf course. TURF AND and grot cxternal LANDSCAPE Red imp control Pat Cobb, Beth Guertal, ed at $1 Coleman Ward, Austin by lands Hagan, Mike Williams, John expensi\ Everest, Olin Farrior, Rick costs. E Beauchamp, Jeff Higgins widespr Overview: Turf and landscape com- areas is prises an area for the Alabama IPM Program that has made great strides in was init developing IPM programs that result landscai in reduced use of chemical pesticides of the p on golf courses and in other landscape Within settings. The team has specifically tar- trol cost geted grubs, fire ants and mole crickets decrease as the major insect pests of turf areas. utili:ed Recent advances in the mass produc- establisi tion of insect-killing nematodes and perimet fungi have made them a practical baits rat option for the biological control of ment. some soil-dwelling pests. Field trials are underway to evaluate the effec- progran tiveness of these biological control in Mob agents for control of white grubs and the buil mole crickets. Another promising, new soil insect management tool under evaluation is the practice of mapping soil pest infes- tations in order to target controls in the areas where they are needed. This will be facilitated by new devel- opments in global position- ing system technology that will permit precise location and treatment of pest infes- tations, thereby avoiding pesticide application in noninfested areas. Success Story: Alabama has more than 20,000 com- mercial landscape settings in areas adjacent to office complexes, schools, banks, etc. Many landscapes in major urban areas are man- aged internally by buildines inds department personnel, or ly by commercial companies. )orted fire ant (RIFA) annual costs in Alabama are estimat- 0 million. Treatment of RIFA cape managers is highly ve in labor and insecticide nvironmental concerns over ead pesticide use in public also a consideration. In 1992 a pilot IPM program iated in a business complex pe setting with the cooperation roperty management company. three years, the fire ant con- (labor and chemical) ed by 90(%. This IPM program maps of fire ant infestations, hed priority areas, and targeted er treatments with fire ant ther than whole area treat- In 1995 a pilot IPM RIFA began on a university campus ile, Ala. in cooperation with ldings and grounds manager OVERVIEW, SoCCESs STORIES, GRANTS for the university campus. A map of the campus was created that identi- fied priority areas determined by traf- fic, visibility, and number of RIFA colonies. Cooperators scouted sur- rounding areas to determine locations from which infestations originated. Perimeter bait treatments were applied in June, and again on two areas in September. One area did not require a second treatment. In 1996, only the perimeters of these areas were treated. The total RIFA control cost savings from the pilot program have not yet been determined because the program will continue for another year. However, the property manager report- ed fewer complaints and no reports of RIFA stings from these areas. He also reported that the time spent in control- ling fire ants in these priority areas dropped by at least 5 06o the first year. Several commercial landscape management companies have adopted this procedure of mapping RIFA infes- tations, identification of priority areas, and perimeter bait treatment. The extent to which this method will be adopted by other public and private landscape managers (i.e., schools and universities, commercial properties, etc.) remains to be seen. However, knowledge of the successful utilization of IPM practices by a few practitioners will undoubtedly lead to increased adoption by others. Grants: The Turf and Landscape program is currently participating in a Southern Region IPM Grant (listed below), and derives funding from various industry sources. Entomopathogenic Nematodes and Fungi vs. Chemical Pesticides in Urban Turfgrass (P. Cobb, et al (cooperators from Texas, Florida and Alabama). USDA Southern Region IPM Grant. URBAN PROGRAM Faith Oi, Art Appel, David Oi, Lane Smith, Guy Shelton Overview: Throughout 1996 the urban IPM program focused on two areas: (1) state and regional urban IPM technology transfer, and, (2) research involving subterranean termite control. The urban IPM team received a $20,000 National IPM Initiative Phase I Planning Grant that enabled them to form a regional urban IPM group. During a series of meetings, the members summarized the current research topics for each pest cate- gory (ants, termites, cockroaches, and fleas). They also determined that pest control operators who attend training meetings have around a 90%o understanding of IPM practices and theories, but they could make no accounting for those who did not attend training. Team members decided to form focus groups that include pest control operators, homeown- ers, and builders who build ener- gy-efficient but pest-conducive homes. The team also defined research objectives that focused on sampling and monitoring tech- niques, two areas vital to success- ful IPM programs. Although federal IPM funds to implement the 1996 plans were not appropriated, the information gathered in the plan- ning project will be used for other regional programs in urban pest management. A team has been assembled by Mike Linker (IPM Coordinator, NC State) and Gerrit Cuperus (USDA IPM Coordinator and Oklahoma State Subterranean termite infestation. IPM Coordinator) to produce an urban IPM handbook for the Internet that will include insect pests, diseases, and water quality issues. Researchers will also exam- ine urban IPM strategies against standard "spray-only" methods to decide if IPM is more effective. The regional group is also working to identify needs and develop pro- grams for IPM use in public schools and to raise re-certifica- tion issues with pesticide educa- tion and state regulatory officials. A second focus of the IPM Alabama urban program has been research and demonstration pro- jects for subterranean termite con- trol. Subterranean termite infesta- tions are a major problem for structures in Alabama and around the region. Currently there are four demonstration projects to examine the effectiveness of bait- ing in below-ground and above- ground situations. Baiting is a method of termite management where alternative food sources (wood blocks) are placed in and around structures. Once it is established that the termites are feeding on the alternative source, then the original blocks are replaced with bait treated with a termite growth inhibitor. The ORvI'V, SUCCESS STORIS, GIANTS advantage of the bait program is that it does not rely on barrier treatments of broad-spectrum insecticides. The urban team was awarded an Auburn University IPM Mini-grant to examine the reasons behind problems and high failure rates for termite control encountered by pest control oper- ators. Specifically, the group is looking at two areas: (1) the ter- mite infestation rates in relation to termite population size, and (2) the foraging activity of termites in the presence and absence of alter- native food sources. Researchers plan to carry on the experiment through the middle of 1997, and no preliminary results are avail- able. Once the group has an idea of population size, territory, and rate of infestation, they can test different control methods, exam- ine reinfestation rates, and modify their termite detection methods. Success Story: The major house- hold and structural pests are gen- erally regarded as termites, ants, cockroaches, and fleas. Termites are the only structural pests for which there have been no com- mercially feasible reduced chemi- cal measures developed. Reducing the use of chemicals in pest man- agement programs also reduces risks to pesticide applicators, con- sumers, and the environment. The current method of termite control is to drench the entire soil surface beneath and around a structure with 300 to 500 gallons of termiticide for a house of about 1,500 square feet. Termiticides have been applied for remedial control of existing structures as often as every three to five years. A survey of pest control operators at the Florida Pest Control Association's biannual Termite Symposium suggested that retreatments for subterranean ter- mite reinfestations occur at a more frequent interval than three to five years. In fact, yearly retreatments were not uncommon. The survey revealed that 68% of pest control operators had failure rates within five years after performing a pre- treatment, and 93% experienced failures within five years after post treatment. Clearly, a 93% failure rate within five years using current practices underscores the need to explore emerging reduced chemical technologies, in particular, subter- ranean termite baits. To demonstrate the effec- tiveness of an IPM approach, researchers installed the below- ground bait technology at a house in Montgomery during April of 1995. In addition to the below- ground bait, two sites were estab- lished to test an experimental above-ground bait technology. In July of 1996 the group established the first of these two sites at the communications center of the Russell Corporation in Alexander City, Ala., where conventional post-treatments were not an option because drilling would have damaged the buried wires.The second above-ground site was established at the same time in a high-rise building in the dropped ceiling of the 15th floor in Birmingham, Ala. These demonstration and experimental projects have resulted in a better understanding of termite biology and behavior by pest con- trol operators, homeowners and building managers. In Alabama, we have learned that baits should be in place by the end of February or the beginning of March for maximum feeding. If termites do not consume sufficient amounts of the active ingredient before winter when for- aging activity significantly decreas- es, control cannot be achieved until the following spring if hexaflu- muron is used. (Hexaflumuron is a chitin synthesis inhibitor that is dose-independent). These data correspond with results from other regions. The overall goal of these projects is to demonstrate that ter- mites can be controlled using IPM methods and reduced chemical input. Grants: Information on Subterranean Termite Foraging Behavior Needed Toward Increased IPM Adoption Auburn University 1PM Mini- Grant (E Qi, D. Qi, A. Appel, B. Cauthen) $3,000 Management of Fire Ants in Landscape and Pasture Lands Auburn University IPM Mini- Grant (D. Oi, K. Flanders, B. Farrior, F Qi) $3,500 1PM of Arthropod Pests in Urban Environments National 1PM Implementation Program, Phase I, USDA/CSREES/Land Grant Universities (F. Qi, A. Appel, B. Forshler, P. Koehler) $20,000 11 OVERVIEW, SoCCESS STORIES, GRANTS VEGETABLE PROGRAM Ed Sikora, Geoff Zehnder, Joe Kemble, Ellen Bauske, Mark Wilson, John Murphy, Chuck Oghurn, Eric Simone, Mike Patterson, Dale Monks, Joe Kloepper, Paul Backman, Dan Porch, Mary Baltikavski Overview: Vegetable production in Alabama is highly diverse with more than 20 different crops grown throughout the state. The core of the Alabama vegetable IPM team includes Edward Sikora (plant pathologist), Geoffrey Zehnder (ento- mologist), Ellen Bauske (plant pathologist, horticulturist), and Joseph Kemble (horticulturist). Dr. Kemble organized the Vegetable IPM Task Force in 1994. The task force now serves as the vegetable IPM working group. Throughout 1996 the team made a great deal of headway with vegetable IPM and achieved several notable accomplishments. The team conducted a large scale grower survey to determine the current level of IPM use on tomatoes grown in the south- eastern U. S. They used the informa- tion to identify priority pest manage- ment needs. More than 200 tomato producers in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and Kentucky took part in the study. Extension and Leaf-footed bug on Southern pea. The Alabama vegetable IPM program has many focus areas. The development and demonstration of low input production practices, development and evaluation of bio- logical control agents, and deploy- ment of pest monitoring and manage- ment programs comprise several of these areas. Though they are cur- rently conducting work on several different vegetable crops, the greatest emphasis has been on the tomato and cucurbit industry. research personnel from the major agricultural universities in each state were involved in the project. The team initiated a project to increase the level of IPM adoption in the major tomato producing regions of Alabama. This is a cooper- ative project involving the depart- ments of Agronomy, Horticulture, Plant Pathology, and Entomology at Auburn University. It also includes researchers from the Department of Weed Science at North Carolina State University. In Alabama, the main focus will be to implement tomato IPM practices by using large scale on- farm demonstrations. Also, they will evaluate the use of flame cultivation for use in a vegetable IPM production system. The group established a "Vegetable IPM Rotation Plot" to show the benefits of crop rotations and other IPM practices. In 1996 the team implemented an insect and dis- ease scouting program for southern peas, sweet corn, and lima beans. They also included the use of disease resistant tomato varieties as part of the field demonstration. The team also showed in field tests that trans- genic tomato plants with resistance to the cucumber mosaic virus showed resistance to the disease even under conditions of high disease pressure. Field and greenhouse experiments demonstrated that specific strains of root colonizing bacteria induce resis- tance against the cucumber mosaic virus on tomato. Those experiments also showed that specific strains induced resistance against cucumber beetles and bacterial wilt of cucuirbits. The group made several other notable accomplishments regarding vegetable IPM in 1996. On-farm evaluations demonstrated the effectiveness of reflective mulch for control of aphid- borne diseases of squash. Researchers also showed the effectiveness of the velvet bean as a nematode suppressive crop in squash production. A statewide survey of Irish potato fields indicated that virus infection of potato is widespread, and that potato virus Y (PVY) was the most common virus infecting potato. Field experiments proved that appli- cation of foliar insecticides based on OVIRIIIw, SgccsS STORIES, IANTS insect presence is more effective than the more environmentally-hazardous soil insecticides for control of insect damage in sweet potato. Other field experiments displayed that trap plantings of squash can be used to reduce infestations of pickleworm in adjacent plantings of cucumber. Success Stories: Alabama tomato growers must produce quality toma- toes despite severe disease and insect pest problems, Their main approach to pest management has been the prophylactic use of pesticides to pro- tect the crop before damage occurs. This requires frequent application of toxic pesticides that are expensive and pose a hazard to public health and the environment. IPM methods are available to reduce dependence on pesticides, but the current level of adoption of IPM methods by Alabama tomato growers is not known. This information is critical because the Clinton Administration has set a goal of IPM adoption on 75% of crop land acres by the year 2000. To help tomato growers increase their use of IPM practices, we must also obtain grower ideas on their priority pest and production problems. After the problems have been identified, the growers must be involved in research and extension activities that they believe can help them to implement IPM better. A tomato IPM team was organized to help tomato growers increase their use of tomato IPM practices. The team comprised entomology, plant pathology, and horticulture specialists, an agricul- tural economist, county agents, and key growers in the state. The team produced a comprehensive list of currently available 1PM methods for tomato production that resulted in the development of a working defin- ition of tomato 1PM. Researchers then used the list to develop a sur- vey to determine baseline levels of IPM used by growers. The survey was also used to identify the priority pest problems and research and extension needs as reported by toma- to growers. Tomato grower meetings were held in the winter of 1996 to increase grower knowledge of avail- able tomato IPM practices, and to provide an opportunity for growers to complete the surveys. Approximately 65 growers attended these meetings, and the majority expressed approval of the meetings and of the tomato IPM program. In addition to pest man- agement information, growers were provided with a hand lens to help them identify pests in the field. They also received tomato scouting manuals to increase their knowl- edge of pest monitoring procedures. The Alabama tomato growers sur- veyed scored an average of 57% out of a possible 100% in the tomato IPM survey. This shows that most growers are using some IPM prac- tices, but that they are not using all IPM methods that are available to them. The growers identified spe- cific pest and production problems on the surveys as limiting factors in tomato production. Collectively, this information will allow the team to focus future research and exten- sion education efforts in areas that will provide the greatest benefit to Alabama tomato growers. Soil insects, particularly whitefringed weevil larvae, are lim- iting factors in Alabama sweet potato production. The larvae live in the soil and create feeding scars on developing sweet potato roots, resulting in reduced marketability of the crop. Alabama growers pro- duce more than 5,000 acres of sweet potatoes annually, but soil insect damage has affected yields. Growers typically use soil-applied insecticides at planting to prevent damage, but soil insecticides pro- vide only marginal control of insect damage. Therefore, a need exists for alternative methods for white- fringed beetle management based on the insect's seasonal develop- ment and damage in the crop. Field studies were done in sweet potato fields in Clanton, Ala., to develop information on the seasonal development of whitefringed beetle adults and larvae. Entomology person- nel worked with the staff at the Chilton Area Horticulture Substation in an intense program to monitor the seasonal occurrence of adult popula- tions on the sweet potato foliage and of larval populations in the soil. In addition, they sampled sweet potato roots throughout the season to learn when insect feeding damage occurred. This work determined that soil insecti- cides were ineffective because insect damage occurred late in the season after the insecticide residue had dissi- pated. This information was used to develop an alternative management program for whitefringed beetle and other soil insect pests of sweet potato. The program relies on the application of foliar insecticides only when adult beetles are detected in the crop. Subsequent studies proved that the foliar sprays were more effective than the soil insecticides for reducing soil insect damage in sweet potato. The team provided results of the program to all ANR agents via Timely News Sheets and over the Internet. In addi- tion, they mailed results to the sweet potato growers in Alabama and provid- ed to members of the Alabama Sweet Potato Grower's Association at their annual meeting. Most of Alabama's sweet pota- to growers have foregone the use of soil insecticides in favor of the more envi- ronmentally benign approach of using 13 foliar insecticides. Growers apply the foliar insecticides when adult beetles are detected in the field. This has resulted in improved control of soil insect damage in Alabama sweet pota- to. Overall, the program has reduced the potential for insecticide contami- nation of groundwater supplies and for contamination of lakes and ponds next to sweet potato fields. Grants: Implementation of Tomato IPM Practices USDA Southern Regional IPM Program (E. Bauske, D. Monks, E. Sikora, G. Zehnder, M. Patterson, D. Heiniger, R. Goodman, J. Kemble) $127,000 A Biologically Based IPM Program for Control of Cucumber Mosaic Virus on Tomato USDA Southern Regional IPM Program (G. Zehnder, J. Murphy, E. Sikora, J. Kloepper) $84,500 Control of Cucumber Beetle and Bacterial Wilt of Cucurbits with Beneficial Bacteria USDA Pest Management Alternatives Program (G. Zehnder, J. Kloepper) $119,000 Agricultural Systems Management with Current Technologies: On- Farm Application of Doppler Radar USDA NRICGP (K. Bowen, E. Bauske, P. Backman, A. Hagan) $153,000 Implementation of TOM-CAST for Control of Early Blight on Tomato Auburn University IPM Mini-Grant (E Bauske, M. Baltikauski, and E. Sikora) $3,500 Statewide Survey for Incidence of Plant Viruses in Commercial Cucurbit, Pepper, and Tomato Productions in Alabama Auburn University IPM Mini-Grant (J. Murphy, E. Sikora) $2,000 IPM 1996 ANNUAL REPORT IPM ALABAMA PROGRAM GRANTS Many IPM Alabama Program activities are supported by outside grants awarded to individual IPM specialists or to interdisciplinary teams. Federal government programs and various commodity and agricultural industry groups provide these grants. Program research and extension per- sonnel received more than $500,000 in federal grant funds and more than $100,000 in industry support in 1996. The IPM Alabama Program also coordinates an IPM Mini-Grants program supported by federal formula funding for IPM programs. Established in 1995, the Mini-Grants program is open to all Alabama extension and research personnel working in IPM. The purpose of the program is to sup- port projects leading to increased adoption of IPM practices by farmers and other clientele. In 1996, the IPM Mini-Grants program provided approxi- mately $26,000 in support of nine IPM projects. The topics of those pro- jects range from the use of biological control agents to control frost damage on peaches to the management of fire ants in pastures. 1996 AU IPM MINI-GRANTS Information on Subterranean Termite Foraging Behavior Needed Toward Increased IPM Adoption $3,000 (Leader: .E Oi. Cooperators: D. Oi, A. Appel, and B. Cauthen) Subterranean termite infes- tation is a major problem for struc- tures in Alabama. The failure to successfully control the infestations has been blamed on any number of reasons ranging from "technician error" to the presence of alternate food sources. Despite a great deal of research and work in this area, no studies have linked subterranean ter- mite population pressure to the fail- ure to control the infestations. The study has two major goals. The first goal is to examine the infestation rates in relation to termite popula- tion size. Determining the foraging activity of termites in the presence and absence of alternative food sources is the second goal. Set up in June of 1996 the experiment involves 10 areas of 14 known subterranean termite infesta- tion. Researchers mapped all of the sites checked for subterranean ter- mite activity every six weeks. The team expects the experiment to run for at least one year before they can fully understand results. If the pres- ence of alternative food sources influences termite populations, the find exhibits further evidence that termites do not feed randomly. Project members can use this infor- mation as further confirmation that contractors and builders who bury grade stakes and form boards during construction contribute to termite problems. Once the team has an idea of population size, territory, and rate of infestation, they can field test dif- ferent control methods, examine reinfestation rates, and work on enhancing bait station designs. These projects would be dependent on industry cooperators. Alternatively, they can examine the effect of clearing property for con- struction on termite populations and territory by raking off the ground cover in forested areas. These data would contribute to extension pro- grams because they can cite quanti- tative data in addition to qualitative observations. Management of Fire Ants in Landscape and Pasture Lands $3,500 (Leaders: D. Oi, K. Flanders, and P. Cobb. Cooperators: B. Farrior, E Oi, and S. Diffie) Fire ants are found in every county in Alabama. The cost to control those pests exceeds $10 mil- lion per year in non-crop areas such as nurseries, home lawns, golf cours- es, athletic fields, churches, and schools. These figures are for the cost of control only, and do not include any loss estimates due to the damage that fire ants can cause. Likewise, the cost to control fire ants in crop type areas is probably just as high, but no good estimates of those costs exist for Alabama either. But, the cost for such control in Texas using currently the registered granular baits is estimated at $10 to $12 per acre. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current methods of fire ant control in Alabama, and to use those results to develop the safest and most cost effective approaches. Fire ants are often controlled by individual mound treatments, which can be done in two ways. First, approximately one gallon of insecticide is drenched or injected into the soil. This method intro- duces about 4.25 gallons per acre into the environment for each mound treated. Treatment may have to be repeated because of colony movement away from the treated area due to the disturbance of the mound. The second mound treatment method incorporates gran- ular baits. Many people do not IPM 1996ANNUAL RPORT apply these baits properly, and this hampers the efficacy of the bait. Furthermore, these baits take a longer time toward control (about seven to 14 days) as opposed to the apparent immediate elimination after a soil drench with a contact insecticide. However, broadcasting the bait over an area is by far the most efficient means of control. Use of the broadcasting method allows that individual mounds need not be located, and baiting uses the smallest amount of the active ingredient. While bait applications can control fire ants, the difficulty of their appli- cation hampers the adoption of bait- ing for fire ant control. Application problems with bait also promote the rapid reinfestation of treated areas by fire ants. The objectives of this year's project were to: (1) show that strip application of baits can control fire ants effectively, and (2) extend the suppression of fire ant populations by maintaining low levels of fire ants and encouraging the establishment of non-fire ant species that may pre- vent or impede the reinvasion by imported fire ants in areas previously treated and cleared. Four study sites were chosen, one in Georgia and three in Alabama. At one site Amdro fire ant bait was applied using the broadcast method in part of a pasture. Researchers applied it in alternating strips in the other part of the pasture. At the other three sites they broadcast Fenoxycarb fire ant bait (Award/Logic) at a rate of approximately 1.5 pounds per acre. They made the applications in June of 1996 and they assessed the ant populations at approximately six week intervals. The results of objective one indicate that strip applications were intermediate in their fire ant con- trol, resulting in a 41% reduction in active fire ant mounds as compared to a 79% and 15% reduction in the broadcast and control areas, respec- tively. Researchers recorded similar trends for the August evaluation. Strip applications of fire ant baits have the potential of reducing appli- cation times. Since fire ants are ter- ritorial in their food or bait gather- ing, further studies using narrower untreated intervals may improve control with strip applications. The results of the second objective show that they obtained more than 95% control in treated plots by the 12th week after applica- tion. The percentage of fire ants decreased by 44% and non-fire ant species increased by 157% just 19 weeks after treatment, however they sampled similar changes from the control plots. Broadcast bait appli- cations with fenoxycarb were suc- cessful in reducing fire ant popula- tions. Encouraging the establish- ment of non-fire ant populations and extending fire ant control will probably require several bait applica- tions. The next applications are scheduled for the spring of 1997 with subsequent applications being timed with increases in fire ant pop- ulations. As this study progresses, the team will determine treatment thresholds that are based on the number of active fire ant mounds per area, and the dominance of fire ants at baited vials. The prevalence of fire ants at bait vials indicates when fire ant populations are large enough to dominate food resources, includ- ing fire ant baits, and thus reduce the effect of the baits on non-target ant species. Minimizing pesticide exposure to non-fire ant species may allow these ants to compete with fire ants and further slow fire ant reinfes- tation of previously treated areas. By continuing these projects we 15 hope to provide a way to more effectively apply fire ant baits. We also hope to establish a fire ant treatment threshold that could help eliminate unnecessary insecticidal bait applications. Implementation of Apple IPM Efforts $1,500 (Leader: J. McVay. Cooperators: C. Grissom, E Wood, D. Porch, C. Andrews, L. Kuykendall, G. Gray, and J. Sharp) After successfully initiating the apple IPM program, this mini- grant enabled the project leader and cooperating county staff to continue to encourage adoption and imple- mentation of the program. The abil- ity to provide grower-cooperators ,with necessary traps and lures and other monitoring tools in exchange for detailed information concerning their scouting program and data con- cemrning pest information on a block by block basis is a very important aspect of the program. The informa- tion is analyzed annually and is vital for detecting pest trends and making adjustments to the IPM program. They expended the largest portion of the-grant in the purchase of pheromone lures and traps, which the apple team installed in each of the cooperating producers IPM blocks. These monitoring tools allowed the producers and/or their scouts effectively to monitor arthro- pod pest populations to make man- agement decisions throughout the season. An additional portion was used to pay a consulting fee to an apple scout in Limestone County. This amounted to 1/2 of the cost of scouting for producers in that area. This enabled the project leader to obtain more detailed information on pest populations from that important IPM 1996 ANNUAL REPORTIPM production area. The producers involved paid the remainder of the scouting costs. A minor portion went toward project leader travel. The Alabama apple IPM program has resulted in a large reduction in the use of unnecessary insecticide and acaracide applica- tions and an accompanying reduc- tion in production costs during each year of its operation. Control needs vary from location to location, but most producers apply an average of at least nine fewer insecticide/ acaracide sprays as compared to a calendar-driven spray schedule. This resulted in a cost per acre savings of approximately $220 each year and approximately 10 pounds fewer pes- ticide active ingredient applied to each acre. Annual production cost savings across the state amount to about $500,000 and pesticide reduc- tion in close to 10,000 pounds of active ingredient each year. Development of a Management Strategy for green June beetle, a Pest of Alabama Pastures $3,475 (Leaders: K. Flanders and J. Crews) Alabama's three million acres of perennial grass pastures are the basis of the $374 million cattle industry. Green June beetle, Cotinus nitida, has become a chronic pest in pastures where producers use organic fertilizers such as poultry litter. Tunnels made by the larvae loosen the soil around plants and make the plants more prone to drought stress. Grubworms leave characteristic trails of pulverized soil on the sur- face. When pastures are grazed, grasses growing in soil loosened by green June beetle tunneling activity are more likely to be pulled up. Thus, bare spots in pastures may also be a sign of grub injury. Weeds, such as spiny amaranth, crabgrass, and common bermudagrass, can colonize the thinned turf. Fescue pastures, and winter forages planted in infest- ed pastures, are especially prone to injury. Gregg Hodges, County Agent Coordinator, Cullman County, esti- mates that 25% of the productivity of pastures is lost due to green June bee- tle in Cullman County alone. The objective of this project was to develop an IPM program for green June beetle in pastures. The proposed plan of work will provide two components of this program: (1) an economic evaluation program to assist scientists, extension personnel, and growers in choosing the appro- priate treatment, and (2) determine the cost-effective timing and rate for insecticide applications. To deter- mine optimum timing rates for insecticide applications, the team established on-farm demonstrations in Geneva, Cullman, Blount, and Jackson counties. They designed each demonstration to answer a spe- cific question. In-Geneva County the study focused on determining if an insecticide application in early winter would be feasible. Cullman County was the site of a project that centered on the effectiveness of fall versus spring applications. What, if any, alternative control methods or insecticides could be used to control green June beetles was the problem being explored in Blount County, and the question of using two car- baryl applications rather than just one is being tested in Jackson County. This work has helped devel- op an integrated pest management program for green June beetles. A concurrent extension effort has increased grower knowledge of IPM and green June beetle biology and impact. Researchers made four pre- sentations on green June beetles in 16 1996, and they plan more for 1997. A magazine article was prepared and published in Cattle Today. A colored fact sheet, ANR-991, Biology and Control of the Green June Beetle, was released in November of 1996. The Epidemiology of Ice+ Bacteria and the Efficacy of BlightBan (Pseudomonas flourescens A506) as a Control for Bacterially Mediated Frost Injury of Peach in Alabama $2,000 (Leader: Mark Wilson) BlightBan (a commercial product containing the beneficial bac- terium Pseudomonas flourescens A506) is registered for the control of fire blight (Erwinia amylovora) and frost injury in pears. BlightBan, a bacteria itself, works when it is applied prior to a frost and utilizes the nutritional resources that would normally be used by other pathogenic bacteria; therefore it out competes the harmful bacteria. However, scientists have not evaluated BlightBan for control of diseases caused by harmful bacteria in peaches, and little information is available con- cerning the importance of biological ice nucleation in peaches. In this project, BlightBan was scheduled for application by backpack sprayers to peaches in several separate orchard settings at the recommended rate of five ounces in 100 gallons of water per acre. This biocontrol agent was to be applied at both low and high rates. Due to an early hard freeze, the researchers could only apply BlightBan at the lower rate some 76 hours before the freeze event. Thus, they evaluated the proposed high and low treatments as two separate applications. The team made a second set of applications to those blossoms that survived the initial freeze. These applications occurred 96 hours before another hard PM 1996 NNUAL REPORT freeze. After the second freeze, few viable peach ovaries remained within the orchard. BlightBan was not applied again in 1996. Despite the early hard freeze circumstances under which the tests were run, there was success in the ini- tial trials. BlightBan reduced the per- centage of frost-damaged blooms from 60% to 42.5% even though the prod- uct was only applied once. If the BlightBan had been applied more often and under better environmental conditions the damage rates could have been considerably lower. Statewide Survey for Incidence of Plant Viruses in Commercial Irish Potato Production in Alabama $2,000 (Leaders: J. Murphy and E. Sikora. Cooperators: L. Tapley and E. Tunnell) Potatoes represent one of the largest vegetable industries in Alabama. Most of the potato cropping area resides within three counties: Baldwin, Jackson, and Cullman. We know little about viral disease prob- lems in potato crops grown in Alabama. Because potato is an early season crop, it could serve as a reser- voir for several viruses that infect other crops grown throughout the summer. In this project scientists sur- veyed potato fields for three viruses, cucumber mosaic virus (CMV), potato virus Y (PVY), and tobacco etch virus (TEV). Aphids transmit all three viruses in a non persistent manner. Insecticide applications cannot control those pests. Samples were randomly collected during May and June from fields in Baldwin County, Jackson County, and Cullman County. All samples were placed on ice, transport- ed to the laboratory and tested for the presence of the three viruses by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). A total of 251 samples were collected from Baldwin County. PVY occurred most frequently, being detect- ed in 24.7% of the samples. Testing indicated CMV in 17.1% of the sam- ples, while the incidence of TEV was 4.4%. In Jackson and Cullman coun- ties 211 samples were collected for analysis. PVY and CMV were detect- ed at levels similar to those noted in Baldwin County, but surprisingly TEV occurred in 55% of the samples from those two counties. The team will share the results from this survey with growers in the state to make them aware of the potential problems associated with plant viruses in potato. This would include yield reductions previously attributed to factors such as adverse weather conditions or other pest prob- lems. This study also illustrates the potential for potato to act as an early season reservoir host for viruses. Growers will be made aware of the potential impact this can have on production of late season crops, such as tomato and cucurbits. Information from this survey will also require growers to reevaluate their IPM pro- grams in terms of both virus and aphid management. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria as an Alternative Treatment for Methyl Bromide in the Production of Loblolly Pine Seedlings in Forest-Tree Nurseries $3,500 (Leaders: S. Enebak and K. McNabb. Cooperators: D. McCraw, R. Bower, M. Reddy, and D. Kenney) The use of methyl bromide as a soil-fumigant before sowing is the most common disease control practice in forest-tree nurseries throughout the United States. However, federal reg- ulatory agencies have classified it as an ozone-depleting compound. 17 This broad spectrum disease, weed, and insect control treatment will not be available after the year 2001. Research to find a treatment as effective as methyl bromide is ongo- ing in agricultural and forestry research communities throughout the United States. A few of the potential treatments to replace methyl bromide include the use of alternative chemical fumigants and fungicides, and non-traditional treat- ments such as steam, solarization, crop rotations, microwaves, resistant plant varieties, and biological con- trol. To date, however, none of the proposed treatments has been as effective as methyl bromide. In this study the use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) as a seed treatment before sowing was used to examine its effec- tiveness in increasing the growth and survival of seedlings. Two conifer bare-root nurseries, both members of the Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative, agreed to participate with the PGPR research trials and provided the equipment, nursery space, pine seed and mainte- nance of the plots. In each nursery, one section was designated for the study, of which half was treated with 375 pounds per acre of methyl bro- mide and served as the fumigated soil while the other half was left untreated and served as the non- fumigated soil. One week prior to sowing, loblolly pine seeds were treated with one of two bacterial iso- lates (Bacillus subtillis, Burkerholderia cepecia) that have been shown to be effective on other plant species. The seed was sown in April 1996 and maintained under current oper- ating practices which included weed, insect and rust control, top and root pruning to maintain seedling out- planting characteristics, and applica- IPM 1996ANNUAL REPORT tions of fertilizer to maintain seedling vigor over the growing sea- son. The emergence of seedlings within treatments was assessed five, 15 and 24 weeks after sowing. Seedling information gathered with- in each plot included germination rate, survival, damping-off, cut- worm damage, weeds and soil-borne fungus levels. At the end of the growing season, 25 seedlings within each of the treatment plots were removed from the soil and seedling characteristics such as grade, stem caliper, height, biomass, and root area were determined. The result of the testing showed that there was little, if any, impact made by the addition of the PGPR to the seeds. Given the results of the two nursery trials, they can make no decision as to the effectiveness of PGPR seed treat- ment as an alternative to methyl bromide fumigation. Proper com- parisons between the two treat- ments would be to compare non- fumigated/bacteria plots to fumigat- ed/control plots. In both nurseries the difference between those treat- ments was not significant based on statistical analysis (although the non-fumigated/bacteria had fewer seedlings than the fumigated/control plots). Thus, based on these two trials, the extra cost to treat the seed is not economically justified when sowed into either a fumigated or non-fumigated soil bed. Plans for the upcoming growing season include a repeat of the same experi- ment, sown in the same nursery sec- tion in both nurseries. In this way, the soil section classified as non- fumigated will have had three grow- ing seasons since the last treatment of methyl bromide and the fumigat- ed plots will have had two growing seasons without fumigation. The deleterious soil-borne pathogens may have increased to levels in these areas to show an increase or decrease in the number of seedlings. Implementation of TOM-CAST for Control of Early Blight on Tomato $3,500 (Leaders: E. Bauske, M. Baltikauski, and E. Sikora) Producers apply fungicides to tomatoes in Alabama primarily to control early blight, caused by the fungus Alternaria solani. Development and spread of early blight occurs under warm, wet conditions, and it causes severe defo- liation resulting in reduced fruit number and quality. Because of the crop's high value and it's susceptibili- ty to disease, growers may make 10 or more fungicide applications dur- ing the growing season. TOM- CAST is a weather-based spray pro- gram for control of early blight, Septoria leaf spot, and anthracnose. TOM-CAST uses hourly tempera- tures and leaf wetness measurements to determine optimum fungicide spray applications. Researchers have tested TOM-CAST in Alabama and it was proven effective. On average a grower will save three applications per season using TOM-CAST. The goal of the project was to increase grower confidence in TOM-CAST by demonstrating its effectiveness on farms. Originally the plan was to release TOM-CAST advisories via an electronic bulletin board, the Internet, and the County Extension Office. But, due to a lack of federal funding, the Southeast Agricultural Weather Service Center of the National Weather Service was closed. This affected all aspects of the ACES Weather Program and the project had to be delayed one year while the program regrouped and reorganized. 18 Biological Control of Southern Red Mite (Oligonychus ilicis McGregor) for Nursery Production $3,000 (Leaders: C. Hesselein and M. Williams) Southern Red Mite (SRM) is the most important cool weather arthropod pest for nursery producers in the Southeastern United States. Many ornamental plants host this mite, and it is particularly destruc- tive to Japanese hollies, azaleas and camellias. SRM is similarly prob- lematic to producers because of its rapid rates of reproduction. Often infestations which are not detected at the producer's property will become a problem at the customer's when the temperatures increase and mite populations explode. While many pesticides control SRM (e.g., acephate, insecticidal oils, dienochlor) it is difficult for nursery producers to achieve thorough cov- erage in the dense canopy of fin- ished, market ready, plant material. Discussions with various growers have led to the belief that with some guidance, growers would be willing to use effective biological control agents for control of this pest. The study will be conducted in two stages, the first stage in the laboratory at Auburn University, the second at the Ornamental Horticulture Substation in Mobile. The initial study will involve the screening of several predatory mites species to determine which, if any, can successfully utilize SRM as a host. The second stage of the study will be field trials of those predatory species determined to be successful predators in stage one. Though the experiment did not take place in 1996, plans are to begin it in 1997 with the aid of several new employees. 1PM 1996 ANNUAL REPORT FEDERAL FUNDING IPM of Arthropod Pests in Urban Environments-- $20,000 (E. Oi, A. Appel, B. Forshler, and P. Koehler) National IPM Implementation Program (USDA/CSREES/Land Grant Universities) Urban arthropod insects such as cockroaches, ants, termites, and fleas can spread disease, bite and sting, and destroy homes and property. No cohesive IPM strate- gies exist for controlling arthropod pests in and around structures, although tactics exist for a few individual urban pests. Chemical control is usually the first choice for control of urban pest, and resi- dents in the Southeast are exposed to higher levels of pesticides in the home when compared with resi- dents in other parts of the country. Through a series of three meetings, the urban IPM team will develop an IPM program to augment cur- rent control tactics simultaneously for arthropod and vertebrate pests with structural modifications. IPM training and education for the gen- eral public, pest control, and build- ing construction industries will be conducted through the cooperative extension system, county agents, and association (housing, building, and pest control) seminars and workshops. State regulatory agen- cies will be enlisted to create a state certification program for urban 1PM. Such certification would result in economic and envi- ronmental benefits, and serve as an incentive to use 1PM. The economic and envi- ronmental impact of our 1PM pro- gram to homeowners/renters will decrease in the amount of money spent on pest control; a decrease in pesticide use, leading to improved environmental quality of the areas in and around homes; and decreased property (structure and belongings) loss due to insect dam- age, leading to less spent-on repair and replacement. Pest control companies that follow the IPM program will produce knowledge- able personnel who do a better job in pest control. The second high- est cost of running a pest control business is liability insurance, and insurance rates can decline because pesticide use and possibil- ity of misuse will decrease. Furthermore, completion of a state certified IPM program will help pest control operators defend against frivolous punitive damage claims because they can document the use of proper IPM procedures. Finally, reduced chemical usage will have a positive impact on the environment. The building construction industry will benefit from the IPM program because their liability will be limited during the first five years after construction of a struc- ture for building "pest-resistant" houses. Pest-resistance via struc- tural modifications will enhance the image of the building con- struction industry and improve salability of structures by advertis- ing certified pest-resistant con- struction. Pest-resistant structures will be attractive investments to homeowners and the benefit to the environment will be positive because reduced amounts of pesti- cides will be used for pest control after structural modification. include a measurable decline of pests in the home, leading to a 19 Implementation of Tomato IPM Practices - $127,000 (E. Bauske, C. Monks, E. Sikora, G. Zehnder, M. Patterson, D. Monks, R. Heiniger, R. Goodman, and J. Kemble) USDA Southern Regional IPM Program. Improved pest control strate- gies exist for fungal and insect pests of tomato, and are in developmental stages for weed control. The overall goal of this project is to develop a comprehensive IPM program for fresh market tomato production that controls all major pests (diseases, weeds, and insects) typically encountered by tomato growers in the southern region. This project will allow producer participation to modify the IPM strategy, and will give producers a stake in the out- come. The effectiveness of simul- taneous use of TOM-CAST (a weather-based pest control recom- mendation system) and a disease and insect scouting program will be demonstrated in six on-farm tests with the cooperation of producers in key tomato production areas in Alabama. IPM practices will be compared with standard disease and insect management practices, eval- uated by producers and investiga- tors, and modified as needed. The efficacy and crop safety of flame cultivation, mechanical cultivation, mulching, and various combinations of these practices for controlling weeds in vegetable crops will be determined in field tests in both Alabama and North Carolina. Producers and investiga- tors will evaluate those successful nonchemical techniques incorpo- rated into the six 1PM on-farm demonstrations. They will also assess and compare the economic performance of 1PM practices with the performance of standard pest control practices. They will dis- 1PM 1996ANNUAL REPORT tribute results to producers in lan- guage that is readily understand- able. To provide the producers with the information necessary to continue using the IPM practices, the team will develop a producer- oriented publication describing the IPM practices. The publication will emphasize the importance of a scouting program, TOM-CAST, pest identification, weed control, and economic aspects of IPM. A Biologically Based IPM Program for Control of Cucumber Mosaic Virus on Tomato- $84,500 (G. Zehnder, J. Murphy, E. Sikora, and J. Kloepper) USDA Southern Regional IPM Program. The overall goal of the pro- ject is to develop a biological con- trol system for the cucumber mosa- ic virus (CMV) and the aphid vec- tor of the virus. This has been a limiting factor in Alabama tomato production in recent years, particu- larly in northern Alabama. Our project is based on induced sys- temic resistance (ISR) to diseases and insects resulting from seed treatment with beneficial bacteria, which has been reported in green- house and field trials at Auburn University over the past five years. After examining the results from previous work with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and ISR in cucumber, it is believed that this technology can be used in tomatoes as well (e. g., that CMV severity will be reduced, and that insect transmission of the pathogen will decline). Several PGPR strains will be evaluated for induced resistance against CMV in the greenhouse where plants will be mechanically inoculated with the virus. They will also evaluate the strains under field conditions where natural aphid populations and CMV inoculum exist. The group will also investi- gate PGPR effects on-feeding, development, and virus transmis- sion in aphids, the most important group of insect vectors of plant viruses. The specific objectives of the first two-year phase of this pro- ject will be the following: (1) eval- uate first the capability of selected PGPR to control CMV on toma- toes in the greenhouse, and then compare PGPR treatment efficacy with standard insecticide treatment for control of aphid-transmitted CMV in field tomatoes, (2) deter- mine the effects of PGPR on aphid feeding and development on toma- toes, and (3) determine the influ- ence of PGPR treatment on natural aphid transmission of CMV on tomatoes. In the first year of the pro- ject six PGPR strains were selected for field testing based on green- house screening experiments for protection against CMV symptoms on tomatoes. Field experiments showed that tomato treated with PGPR strains showed significantly reduced symptoms of CMV infec- tion. Those tomato plants also had lower ELISA absorbency readings, indicating reduced presence of the virus in plant tissue. In addition, PGPR treated tomato had greater yields than the non treated tomato. Field experiments will be repeated in 1997, and concurrent experi- ments will be done to determine whether the PGPR treatment affects aphid feeding behavior and transmission of the virus. 20 Control of Cucumber Beetle and Bacterial Wilt of Cucurbits with Beneficial Bacteria - $119,000 (G. Zehnder, J. Kloepper, and 0. Wei) USDA Pest Management Alternatives Program. This project addresses the control of bacterial wilt disease and the cucumber beetles that transmit the disease in the field. This repre- sents a critical need in cucurbit pro- duction because producers spray pes- ticides routinely to prevent loss of yields from bacterial wilt disease, yet are largely ineffective for con- trol. In addition, pesticide residues represent a health and food safety hazard. Furthermore, the residues are undesirable, particularly to the cucumber processing industry (e.g., Campbell and Vlasic Foods) who have made a commitment to implementing alternative pest management strategies on their farms when such strategies are available. The team has found that seed treatment with specific strains of beneficial bacteria, also called plant growth-promoting rhizobac- teria (PGPR), induces resistance in cucumber against bacterial wilt dis- ease, and against cucumber beetle feeding which spreads the disease. They have also shown that PGPR induce physiological changes in the plant leading to reduced levels of the cucumber beetle feeding stimulant cucurbitacin. These pre- vious experiments were dlone with a slurry of laboratory-cultured, veg- etative PGPR cells. The underlying hypothesis of this project is that these results can also be achieved using PGPR spore preparations. These spore preparations are required in a com- mercial seed treatment because IPM 1996 ANNUAL REPORT bacterial spores are much more resistant to environmental stresses than vegetative cells and have a much greater shelf-life. Based on previous work, the team will select six of the most promising PGPR strains that have shown induced resistance against bacterialwilt. Then they will conduct experi- ments in the greenhouse and in experiment station plots to test the hypotheses that seed treatment with spore formulations of PGPR will induce resistance in processing and fresh-market cucumber culti- vars to bacterial wilt disease, and will inhibit feeding and spread of the disease by cucumber beetles. It will also be determined whether PGPR spore formulation treatment reduces levels of the beetle feeding stimulant cucurbitacin. The most effective PGPR strains will be evaluated in on-farm trials super- vised by Campbell Research and Development and Vlasic Foods, who will provide the efficacy data needed for registration bythe EPA. If registration is achieved, Campbell will adopt the seed treat- ment as part of their IPM program. In addition, Gustafson will involve the vegetable seed industry in ini- tial testing of promising PGPR strains, thereby transferring the technology throughout the U. S. Agricultural Systems Management with Current Technologies: On Farm Application of Doppler Radar -- $153,000 (K. Bowen, E. Bauske, P. Backman, and A. Hagan) USDA NRI Grant Precipitation is the most important environmental parameter in agriculture. Rainfall is critical for crop growth, and disease and pest Currently, there are approximately 133 official rainfall observations collected throughout Alabama, which provides inadequate data for use on an individual farm in rou- tine management decisions. Estimates of rainfall from WSR- 88D (Doppler) radars have a 2 km x 2 km resolution, which is better than that provided by the current network. Weather-based control strategies exist for fungal and insect pests of many crops. In the southeastern United States, where the pests of peanuts are particular- ly important, researchers have shown that they can maintain control, reduce the number of pes- ticide applications, and improve yields by using weather-based con- trol strategies. The ultimate goal of this project is to use WSR-88D radar estimates of precipitation to assist in on-farm decision making and increase profits while reducing pes- ticide inputs. This will be accom- plished by verifying the accuracy of WSR-88D rainfall estimates in comparison to rain gauge data; integrating WSR-88D radar data into pest advisories and verifying the accuracy of advisories; distrib- uting advisories through electronic communication media; and evalu- ating the net returns to producers. The integrated management of insects, foliar disease, and aflatoxin contamination of peanuts in the southeastern United States has been chosen as a model system to test the application of WSR-88D radar precipitation estimates. population development. 21 Integrated Pest Management Alabama Program 204-A Extension Hall Auburn University, AL 36849 (334)844-6390 FAX (334)844-5002 Website Address: http://www.acesag.auburn.edu/department/ipm