Integrated Pest Management in Washington State A 5-year Report
Message from the State Coordinator Apples. Carrots. Cherries. Grapes. Hops. Mint. Onions. Oysters. These and over 200 other crops are produced on a commercial scale in Washington State. Washington is a major exporter to Pacific Rim nations and a supplier of a wide range of staple and specialty crops to domestic and foreign markets. Washington’s apples are iconic; we are also the nation’s foremost producer of pears and sweet cherries. Our wine grapes result in award-winning, world-class wines, but we also produce more Concord (juice) grapes than any other state in the union. If you have enjoyed a stick of chewing gum recently, the spearmint or peppermint oil that flavored it probably came from Washington. These are among many crops of which Washington is the #1 national producer.
Douglas B. Walsh, Ph.D.
Washington State IPM Coordinator Washington State University Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center 24106 North Bunn Road Prosser, WA 99350-8694 Phone (509) 786-9287 Fax (509) 786-9370 email@example.com
In order to be a leader in U.S. agriculture, our state must employ state-of-theart crop protection technologies. My colleagues at Washington State University (WSU) and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and I are dedicated to promoting safe and holistic approaches to the management of weed, disease, and insect pests in a manner that is both economically sustainable and environmentally sound. IPM researchers at WSU and USDAARS benefit from strong commodity commission support and support from the Washington State Legislature through the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration. We work hand-in-hand with growers and processors to constantly improve the integrated management of pests through means as simple as scouting and as complex as phenology modeling. And Washington’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) efforts go beyond agriculture. We have a vigorous urban IPM program assisting in the education of applicators and the implementation of sound strategies in schools, parks, and other public venues. Turf and landscape professionals turn to WSU’s IPM educators for certification in safer pest control practices. Professional applicators rely on our licensing and recertification courses to stay abreast of the latest techniques. And Washington State is the birthplace of the Master Gardener program, whose trained volunteers give back so much to our communities. My personal philosophy is that pesticide inputs should be reduced wherever possible. I have conducted and supported research in techniques from the standard to the offbeat, all in the name of reducing or eliminating use of chemical pesticides. Where chemical pesticides are necessary, I am dedicated to finding the least broad-spectrum, most highly targeted means of addressing the pest. As IPM Coordinator for Washington State, I applaud the efforts of my colleagues in advancing Integrated Pest Management. We are scientists, farmers, educators, field workers, mothers, fathers, and community members. We share the common goals of a safe and plentiful food supply and a healthy environment. The following pages highlight some of the progress we have made over the past five years.
Washington’s IPM Tradition Long before there was a “national IPM Roadmap,” before there were IPM Centers, before the letters “IPM” came to mean what they mean today, research and Extension personnel at Washington State University were laying the foundation for integrated pest management throughout our state and region. From the chartering of Washington State Agricultural College and School of Science as our land-grant university in 1890, our commitment to agricultural production, pest management, sustainability, and environmental stewardship was clear. With the authorization of the WSU Irrigation Experiment Station (today’s Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, or IAREC) in Prosser in 1917, integrating production concerns with pest management took a quantum leap forward. IAREC established a distribution system for virus-free tree fruit stock critical to our state’s economy and IAREC’s biological control program virtually eliminated Russian wheat aphid, to highlight two examples of important crop protection advances. The founding of the Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center (TFREC) in 1937 was another key step. This Wenatchee center is recognized worldwide for its contributions to tree fruit IPM. Research at western Washington experiment stations including Puyallup and Mt. Vernon led to advances in poultry, cattle, berry, vegetable, and seed crop pest management and productivity.
Photos courtesy of the Wenatchee World
In the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s, WSU researchers continued to ask how one pest affected another, how cultural practices impacted the pest complex, how pests’ biological cycles might be taken into consideration, and a host of other questions that led to what today is known as Integrated Pest Management. As the research scientists and Extension professionals in this report conducted their IPM programs over the past five years, they stood on the shoulders of these forwardthinking men and women.
How Do You Like THEM Apples? Whether it’s your apple-a-day for keeping the doctor away or your apple for teacher, Washington is the nation’s #1 producer of this popular fruit.
Areawide II: A Pheromonal Success Flying high on the success of CAMP, the pheromone-based Codling moth Areawide Management Program (1995–1999), the Areawide II orchard IPM project began in 2001. Spearheaded by Jay Brunner, Director of WSU’s Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center (TFREC) in Wenatchee, its goal was to reduce the use of broad-spectrum pesticides in favor of softer controls, including mating disruption (MD) and biological control, and to promote the use of newer, safer, and more selective insecticides. Specifically, Areawide II sought to: • increase MD acreage in pome fruit to 75%; • increase natural biocontrol impact in orchards; • reduce pest populations through orchard floor/habitat management; • enhance beneficial arthropod populations through habitat management; and • carry out an outreach/education plan. CAMP and Areawide II have had profound impacts on the state’s pome fruit industries. Mating disrupted apple acreage increased from 60,000 in 1999 to 93,000 in 2000. There was a decline the following two years to about 80,000 due to declines in apple prices, but most participants stayed the course, committed to the program even during tough economic times. Mating disrupted acres increased again from 2003 to 2005 (two major manufacturers reported significant increases in sales of hand-applied pheromone dispensers in 2004) and in 2006 it was estimated that 75% of the apples acres used pheromones as part of an IPM program. The Pacific Branch of the Entomological Society of America recognized the impact this project had on the agricultural industry in Washington and other states when it presented the Areawide II Coalition with the IPM Team Award.
The Areawide II project has been called the “best data-driven IPM effort in the United States.”
Outstanding OUTREACH Managing Apple Pests without Organophosphates, an 8 page instructional pamphlet, was written by Jay Brunner, Elizabeth Beers, Michael Doerr, and Keith Granger. Published in cooperation with Good Fruit Grower magazine, this guide was distributed to over 10,000 highly targeted readers in April 2005.
Kids love apples and pears, so we take special care to keep pesticide inputs low. But leafrollers and codling moths love ‘em, too, so what’s a grower to do?
The WSU TFREC website (http://www.tfrec. wsu.edu/ ) is a cornucopia of information. From here, growers can go to Chang-Lin Xiao’s page on Postharvest Diseases of Apples & Pears (a photo-enhanced diagnostic and treatment guide); Brunner, Dunley, Beers, and Doerr’s New Insecticides and Miticides for Apple and Pear IPM; phenology information; and everything you ever wanted to know about pheromone-based IPM in orchards. Here, too, is the Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Washington. Updated annually, it is available in print (92 pp.), on-line as a PDF, or as a downloadable database for use on desktop and palm computers. Extension Educator Tim Smith exemplifies the university outreach professional. In 2004, his workshops were attended by a total of 8,953 individuals, 21.6% of whom were Hispanic. Participants surveyed rated the effectiveness of Smith’s programs 9.58 on a scale of 10. Smith issues timely inseason bilingual advisories on weather and insect situations, routinely reaching 2000+ growers, fieldmen, and workers.
Reduced-Risk RESULTS • Reduced-risk products Calypso 4F (thiacloprid, an insecticide) and Zeal (etoxazole, a miticide) were registered for use in 2004. • The Washington Agricultural Statistics Service’s most recent Fruit Chemical Use Survey indicated an increase in the use of acetamiprid, bifenazate, imidacloprid, kaolin, spinosad, and thiamethoxam, all reduced-risk alternatives to organophosphates. • A comprehensive survey comparing apple grower practices in 1990 to those in 2000 found across-the-board increases in IPM practices including monitoring, alternate row spraying, thresholds, biocontrol, reduced chemical rates, pheromones, and degree-day models.
Another Urban Legend Washington State’s urban IPM programs may not be legendary, but they certainly are effective. In our schools, parks, golf courses, and other public spaces, IPM is alive and well. Launched in 2000, the WSU IPM Certification Program for Landscape and Turf Professionals integrates standard applicator licensing and recertification training with a special IPM curriculum. In its first season, these courses reached 3000 individuals, with 81% of attendees surveyed planning to adopt integrated approaches after training. By the end of 2005, 1,311 applicators had applied for certification and 98 had completed the 30 hours of required training. Hortsense is a popular web-based resource for home gardeners, Master Gardeners, and county agents. With 265,000 visitors and 71,000,000 hits annually, the site links to 878 fact sheets on diagnosis, biology, and integrated management of insect, disease, and weed pests. WSU’s Urban IPM Program supports a robust Master Gardener outreach effort, which has included production of two videos: The Homeowner’s Guide to Integrated Pest Management and The Homeowner’s Guide to Pesticide Safety. The WSU Urban IPM Program in western Washington is managed by Carrie Foss, Urban IPM Coordinator, who is based at WSU’s Puyallup Research and Extension Center.
Active since 1994, the IPM in Schools Working Group continued to make progress during 2000-2005 by supporting state legislation requiring posting, notification, and recordkeeping for pesticide applications on school buildings and grounds. UPEST, the Urban Pesticide Education Strategy Team, launched an IPM in Schools website in 2002 and a Household Indoor module in 2005.
That’s What I Mint Conserving beneficials, embracing cultural methods, and cutting back on chemical controls—mint producers are as refreshing as their crop! Weeds in mint fields reduce the quantity and quality of mint oil. Lambsquarters and pigweed and have developed resistance to the widely used herbicide terbacil. Research conducted by Rick Boydston, USDA-ARS, has resulted in the registration of new herbicides with unique modes of action and improved weed control. Field bindweed is a difficult-tocontrol aggressive perennial weed in mint. Boydston demonstrated that combining gall mite feeding and sublethal doses of 2,4-DB reduced field bindweed root growth more than mites or herbicide alone. Because there are good mites as well as bad mites, mint growers are making efforts to target the pests and conserve the predators. Many species of cutworm are present in and potential pests of mint. By studying cutworm biology and behavior, researchers Holly Ferguson, Tim Waters, Ron Wight, and Doug Walsh determined that one particular generation (the overwintering one) of one
particular species (the spotted cutworm) caused the greatest problem. The team used this information to develop treatment thresholds and timing recommendations that have greatly reduced chemical applications against cutworm in mint. A survey of Washington mint growers’ pest management practices in 2002 indicated that most utilized certain nonchemical control methods, including field monitoring (scouting), economic thresholds, crop rotation, and mechanical weed control (85.5%, 84%, 70%, and 65%, respectively). Eighty percent indicated that they “sometimes” or “often” used reduced pesticide rates and up to 35% of the growers reported using integrated mite management or biological control (35% and 25%, respectively).
How Grape Thou Art Washington’s wine and juice grape growers have embraced IPM in management of several key pests as the result of WSU research.
In the beginning, some Washington State farmers said “I think we can grow wine here.” Europeans and Californians may have laughed, but 25 years of internationally award-winning wines have proven that Washington wines do more than hold their own with the Big Boys, they can win in the quality arena. But a new wine (and juice) grape-producing region meant a new pest complex. WSU and USDA-ARS researchers rose to the challenge, developing strategies to manage pests of grape in the Northwest. In recent years, as Washington’s reputation for producing premium and ultra-premium wines grew, so did the public’s preference for and demand for reduced-risk pest management strategies. Again, the university responded.
Cutworms, a major economic pest of Washington grapes, were once managed with foliar sprays. WSU researchers, led by Doug Walsh, developed a technique of spraying only the area where the vine trunk and trellis meet the soil. This targeted “barrier treatment” keeps cutworms on the ground and off the plants. This technique has eliminated the use of organophosphates in grapes, reduced overall chemical inputs by 25,000 lbs a year, and saved growers $5.5 million. To reduce chemical use even further, the team has also developed attract-and-kill bait stations that reduce the numbers of adult moths later in the season so that fewer cutworms are present in the field the next spring. Disease control has come a long way as well. Development and use of disease forecasting models enables low-chemical and no-chemical disease control. Plant pathologist Gary Grove’s work with petroleum-derived spray oils (PDSOs) on powdery mildew control in 2001 and 2002 laid the foundation for a new treatment paradigm that has become the standard for control of this disease in eastern Washington. Use of PDSOs has helped reduce fungicide usage and input costs without compromising disease control or fruit quality and marketability.
Riparian Roulette The relationship of weeds and other hosts to the arthropod complex in riparian buffer zones can have a profound impact on adjacent croplands. Over a three-year period, a team of researchers from the Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center (IAREC) in Prosser investigated the arthropod populations in a variety of riparian areas in the Yakima Valley. Specifically, WSU entomology graduate student Tim Waters and his colleagues studied the relationship between different vegetation regimes and the presence of both pest and beneficial arthropods. Plant diversity was categorized as pristine (primarily native plant), rehabilitated (replanted with primarily native plant species), or weedy (invaded by exotic weed species). In the lower Yakima valley, riparian buffers are often near agricultural areas. The research team hypothesized that arthropods in these buffers could migrate into the adjacent agricultural areas and contribute—for better or worse—to the arthropod fauna within the crop system.
The results indicated that riparian areas consisting of invasive flowering broadleaf weeds hosted significantly more pest arthropods than the riparian areas that were maintained in a more pristine condition with a greater number of native plants. In addition, beneficial arthropods were seen to thrive in the more stable native environments. These data have implications for buffer rehabilitation planning and implementation. Choosing native plant species creates a habitat less likely to harbor pest arthropods that could potentially migrate into adjacent agroecosystems and inflict damage to crops. Fewer pests migrating into the adjacent agroecosystem translates into fewer pesticide applications by farmers and a safer, healthier environment. This integration of weed management and insect management is a classic example of using IPM to protect both crops and the environment.
Growing Onions (and other vegetable row crops)
with Fewer Tears In 2001, WSU established its Vegetable Pathology Team. Under the leadership of Debra Inglis and Lindsey du Toit, the group • assists with vegetable disease diagnoses, • helps coordinate vegetable disease research and extension activities, • provides growers and gardeners with resources and information to manage vegetable diseases in environmentally-sound ways, • publishes new information on the biology and control of vegetable pathogens, • serves the state’s fresh-market and processing vegetable and vegetable seed industries, and • maintains a vegetable disease website.
What’s Up, Doc? CARROT Tactics Succeed A variety of seed treatments against seed corn maggot were conducted in 2002. The results produced by Doug Walsh, Tim Waters, and Ron Wight led to registration of low-toxicity imidacloprid as a seed treatment in carrots, resulting in Washington carrot growers reducing their use of the more toxic diazinon by some 4,000 lbs. annually.
Making dozens of presentations annually reaching hundreds of growers, the team routinely serves producers of potatoes, onions, lettuce, peas, tomatoes, carrots, cole crops, spinach, and squash. Intensive research into Iris Yellow Spot Virus (IYSV) by Lindsey du Toit, Mark Trent, Tim Waters, and Hanu Pappu is making inroads to non-chemical controls of this yield-reducing disease of storage onions. Cultivar selection, vector (thrips) control, alternate host (weed) control, and maintenance of plant vigor are all techniques studied by this group and passed on to growers. Recent research may lead to additional advances in breeding for resistance as well.
How SWEET (CORN) It Is The corn earworm moth is probably the most serious pest of corn in the northwest. The caterpillars foul the ear by feeding on the silk and ear tip. Research led by WSU’s Rich Zack and USDA’s Pete Landolt has allowed growers to differentiate between the corn earworm and the false corn earworm, the latter of which is also attracted to pheromone monitoring traps. The ability to separate the two moths has allowed growers to better time spray applications and to significantly lessen the amount of insecticide being Eliminating applied.
2-3 insecticide applications
Additionally, studies were undertaken to develop a and saving over pheromone lure that was more specific to populations of corn earworm that occur in the northwest as opposed to annually? the “generic” lures developed Nothing “corny” for use throughout the United about that! States. On an annual basis, these advancements save the growers between two and three applications of insecticide which translates to a savings of between one and 1.4 million dollars. Current studies are evaluating the use of nonpheromone, floral-based lures that will attract both males and females to bait stations where they will come in contact with a pesticide. This should lead to an overall reduction in egg laying with a concurrent reduction in larval damage.
It’s the Berries! Who doesn’t love a sweet, juicy raspberry? These tender little jewels add a certain elegance to desserts, fruit bowls, and snacks. Washington is the #1-ranked state for red raspberry production, and we’re berry proud of these and the other small fruits we grow.
Groundbreaking RESEARCH WSU’s Lynell Tanigoshi, Patrick Moore, and Pete Bristow developed root rotresistant red raspberry cultivars ‘Cascade Dawn’ and ‘Cascade Bounty.’ Tanigoshi and consultant Tom Peerbolt are developing an areawide IPM program for leafroller contaminants in caneberries. Their work on control strategies for root weevils has resulted in movement away from high-risk insecticides to lower-risk, biorational controls applied with greater attention to timing and target monitoring. Tanigoshi’s work on yet another red raspberry pest, orange tortrix, has likewise resulted in greater attention to monitoring, timing, and behavior prediction. Craig MacConnell and Todd Murray developed an IPM program against western raspberry fruitworm. Most red raspberry growers applied diazinon prophylactically to avoid fruitworm contamination. MacConnell, Murray, and their collaborators at the Scottish Crop Research Institute demonstrated effective monitoring tools in almost 1,000 acres of raspberries. Growers now can accurately measure fruitworm presence and abundance and apply protective sprays only when necessary.
Reduced-Risk RESULTS • Raspberry growers have reduced reliance on preventative OP insecticides. • Entrust (an organic formulation of spinosad) received a supplemental label for caneberries in 2004. • Raspberries were added to Captevate 68WDG label in 2004. • Blueberry trials in 2004 resulted in the addition of bushberries to the label of OP alternative Actara. • Fungicides Cabrio, Pristine, and Abound were registered for raspberries in 2003.
In response to FQPA legislation raising concerns about surface water contamination by pesticides usually used on cranberries (e.g., chlorpyrifos, diazinon), WSU research scientist Kim Patten developed a biorational control system involving chemicals that are more selective for the pests and easier on the environment. Within the first year after the research was disseminated to growers, half the cranberry acreage in Washington was being treated with the new program. In a truly integrated and holistic paradigm, Patten studied insect, weed, and disease pests. His work resulted in expanded labels and/or new registrations for reduced-risk products in all three major pest groups. Abound (azoxystrobin) fungicide was found to provide control of both twig blight and fruit rot and was subsequently registered. Intrepid (methoxyfenozide) insecticide’s label was expanded to allow chemigation and Admire (imidacloprid) was extended to black vine weevil control. Mesotrione (Callisto) was found to manage most annual and perennial broadleaf weeds in two applications and was given a Section 18 registration.
INFORMATION Creation & Dissemination Pacific Northwest (PNW) small fruit researchers, growers, and processors have shown a commitment to IPM information development and dissemination. They have been enthusiastic participants in the Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs) requested by the USDA Office of Pest Management Policy. PMSPs help guide state and federal agencies in making regulatory decisions and provide useful prioritization information for granting agencies. Small fruit PMSPs in which Washington has participated include cranberry (2001), caneberry (2003), and blueberry (2004). A publication crucial to IPM in small fruits is Washington State University Extension’s Pest Management Guide for Commercial Small Fruits, updated every year by specialists such as Art Antonelli, Lynell Tanigoshi, Peter Bristow, Tim Miller, and Catherine Daniels. Information is also shared at a variety of annual faceto-face gatherings, including the Northwest Center for Small Fruits Conference, the Western Washington Small Fruit Workshop, WSU Extension workshops, field trial open houses, and field days. Consultants Tom and Anna Peerbolt distribute the invaluable Small Fruit Update email.
WSU’s Geoff Menzies and Craig MacConnell developed and maintain the Integrated Pest Management for Raspberries website.
To Bee or Not To Be? In alfalfa, there is no question: Pollinators must be protected.
In 2004, WSU scientist Doug Walsh and Area Extension Educators John Kugler and Tim Waters started a vigorous program of research toward creating an IPM program for alfalfa and alfalfa seed crops. The objectives were many, including testing alternatives to pyrethroids, investigating biocontrol, and studying pest and predator biology and phenology.
management methods such as strip cutting of adjacent fields. In the end, the research team found that by integrating weed management, preferred hosts could be eliminated more cost-effectively than by using insecticides alone. And employing a parasitic wasp for biocontrol has been so effective that some areas of the state have eliminated insecticide use entirely.
Taking a “bug’s-eye view,” the team learned all they could about Lygus bugs. Do they overwinter in the alfalfa field or migrate in? If they migrate, from where and how far? What are their alternative hosts? Through clever and cost-effective research techniques, they defined the migration pattern and tested inexpensive, intelligent pest
Two key components of IPM in alfalfa and alfalfa seed are managing resistance and protecting pollinators. Insecticides, when used, must be selective yet costeffective. And with Washington State’s unique pollination situation involving the alkali bee, protection of these insects is critical. As a result of this research, a new insect growth regulator was granted a Special Local Needs registration. Growers are embracing the techniques pioneered by the WSU team and are looking forward to the results of the research planned for the coming years, including additional pollinator protection studies and studies on alternatives to field burning, a traditional means of stubble removal with environmental and pest complex impacts.
Poplar Mechanics Hardy and highly productive, hybrid poplar trees are an efficient, renewable source of wood for pulp and paper production. They are intensively cropped and harvested much like a row crop. The poplar industry was among the first in Washington State to complete a crop profile document. This detailed discussion of production and pest management practices, released in 1999, helped lay a foundation for the development of IPM in this crop in the years that followed. Research funds were received from the Washington Commission on Pesticide Registration to develop an IPM program in poplars (20012002) and to investigate mating disruption for control of lepidopteran pests (2003). Target pests including cottonwood leaf beetle, aphids, mites, and grasshoppers have been dealt with as direct results of this research, spearheaded by WSU entomologists John Brown and Doug Walsh and Ph.D. students Neal Kittelson and Gene Hannon.
Special Local Needs permits were sought and granted for endosulfan, imidacloprid, and diflubenzuron, selectively targeting eriophyid mites, cottonwood leaf beetles, and grasshoppers, respectively. A mating disruption lure was registered for use in hybrid poplars in 2003. Use of this new aerosol has led to a reduction in use of higher-risk chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) on poplars. In all, this work has
reduced chlorpyrifos use by 54,000 lbs and endosulfan use by 4,000 lbs annually.
To the Future...and Beyond! Our researchers may not be superheroes, but the tools and techniques they are pioneering today are light years ahead of yesterday’s practices. They are dedicated to reducing risk and safeguarding our nation’s food supply through IPM. Isn’t that super?
Not: AgWeatherNet Provides Real-Time Data
Since the mid-1980s, growers in Washington State have benefited from the Public Agricultural Weather System (PAWS), a network of 60 weather stations located primarily in the irrigated cropland areas of the state. The PAWS website (http://www.paws. prosser.wsu.edu) provides near real-time weather data and weather-related information at 15-minute intervals. Growers use this information to schedule irrigation, monitor the potential for and timing of pest and disease problems, assist in frost protection decisions, and guide a host of other weather-related management decisions on the farm.
Locations of PAWS weather stations as of October, 2005.
Since 2001, the WSU Center for Precision Agricultural Systems (CPAS) located at Prosser has been operating the PAWS network. Over the past few years, CPAS developed new wireless sensor network technologies that were used to create a replacement network for PAWS called AgWeatherNet. In 2005, the Washington State Legislature provided funding for CPAS to expand AgWeatherNet to more than 120 stations statewide and, in 2006, provided funds to CPAS for the annual operation of AgWeatherNet beginning July 1, 2006. AgWeatherNet data and weather-related information products like pest and disease models will be available to the public through the Internet at http://www.agweathernet.wsu.edu. Enhancements underway to the AgWeatherNet website will expand the number and accuracy of weather products and management tools available to support growers in their IPM programs. Beyond growers, other agriculture service providers using AgWeatherNet include university personnel and crop consultants. Tim Smith, North Central Extension Educator, integrates AgWeatherNet data into fruit pathology and forecast information available either at http://www.ncw.wsu.edu/treefruit/ or at http://fruit.wsu.edu/. Gary Grove at the WSU Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center uses the weather data to model powdery mildew infection that he in turn emails as “powdery mildew alerts” directly to wine grape and cherry growers. Typical AgWeatherNet weather station with sensors for air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, rainfall, leaf wetness, solar radiation, and soil temperature.
Growers can expect much more from the fully expanded AgWeatherNet in support of IPM programs that increasingly rely on more and better information about pests and diseases and on the weather conditions that drive them.
The best and the brightest...graduate students ARE our future...and the future of Integrated Pest Management. - 10 -
Obliquebanded Leafroller larva
Apple Maggot larvae
They Can RUN
Codling Moth adult
San Jose Scale
Pandemis Leafroller larva
Western Cherry Fruit Fly adult
They Can’t HIDE
With entomologist Vince Jones’ Phenology and Management Spreadsheet, tree fruit pests have no more secrets. The downloadable Excel spreadsheet predicts populations of codling moth, Pandemis leafroller, Obliquebanded leafroller, Western Cherry Fruit Fly, San Jose Scale, and apple maggot using custom-written Visual Basic routines. The programming calculates degree-days from user-entered data, then applies phenology models to arrive at science-based predictions. Using degree-day data accumulated for the past 10 days, the spreadsheets also provide a phenology projection for 10 days into the future. Management recommendations are then provided for the current situation with each pest. But the scientists at WSU’s Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center won’t rest on their laurels. This spreadsheet model is an intermediate step in the development of a web-based phenology and management system that will link to WSU’s Center for Precision Agricultural Systems’ AgWeatherNet (see page opposite). The new system will expand the number of insect models, add disease models, and incorporate the pesticide recommendation databases into a seamless system.
Taking the highly successful Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Washington into the New Millennium, researchers Vince Jones, Gary Grove, and Chang-Lin Xiao developed palm and desktop database versions. Now orchardists, fieldmen, and applicators can check their pesticide recommendations from the convenience of their tractor cabs.
and on the
In response to population growth and a consequent need for qualified structural pest control professionals, WSU led a collaboration involving the Washington State Department of Agriculture, the Washington Pest Control Association, and the Western IPM Center in developing an integrated education and demonstration project. The project included construction of a 24’ x 48’ Structural Pest Research and Demonstration Facility at the WSU Puyallup Research and Extension Center. The unique building has several types of siding and roofing, a crawlspace, an unplumbed bathroom, and panels of damaged wood, providing a hands-on opportunity for pest inspectors. The curriculum for the program is being developed by a multi-state workgroup of pest management specialists.
Washington State Pest Management Resource Service (WSPRS) is an information hub for all aspects of IPM. From the WSPRS home page, users can go to the Pesticide Information Center On-Line (PICOL), a unique, searchable on-line database with over 12,000 labels registered in Washington. They can also surf the Pesticide Notification Network (PNN) for Section 18s, Section 24cs, new registrations, and label changes, or subscribe free of charge to receive targeted announcements pertaining to exactly the crops or sites and the types of pesticides pertinent to their life and work. Sponsored in part by the Western IPM Center, which is supported by USDACSREES, this website is the face of the State Information Network.
- 11 -
College of Agricultural, Human, & Natural Resource Sciences Use pesticides with care. Apply them only to plants, animals, or sites listed on the label. When mixing and applying pesticides, follow all label precautions to protect yourself and others around you. It is a violation of the law to disregard label directions. If pesticides are spilled on skin or clothing, remove clothing and wash skin thoroughly. Store pesticides in their original containers and keep them out of the reach of children, pets, and livestock. Copyright 2006 Washington State University WSU Extension bulletins contain material written and produced for public distribution. You may reprint written material, provided you do not use it to endorse a commercial product. Alternate formats of our educational materials are available upon request for persons with disabilities. Please contact the Information Department, College of Agricultural, Human, & Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University for more information. An electronic copy of this publication is available at http://ipm.wsu.edu. Issued by Washington State University Extension and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in furtherance of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914. WSU Extension programs and policies are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations on nondiscrimination regarding race, sex, religion, age, color, creed, national or ethnic origin; physical, mental or sensory disability; marital status, sexual orientation, and status as a Vietnam-era or disabled veteran. Evidence of noncompliance may be reported through your local WSU Extension office. Trade names have been used to simplify information; no endorsement is intended. Published June 2006.