Progress 07/01/08 to 06/30/13

Outputs
Target Audience: Farmers (especially organic farmers), Landowners, Extension agents, Graduate students, Undergraduate students, Academics, State and Federal Government employees, Extension Master Gardener programs, General public. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Many opportunities for training and professional development were provided by this project and are detailed in the "Other Products/Outputs" and "Products" sections of this report. Two graduate students were trained and received degrees working on this project. Over 100 Center for Environmental Farming Systems interns and apprentices were offered training that included results from this project. NC State University courses and guest lectures have included material from this project, directed at both undergaduate and graduate students. Professional training and knowledge of all the investigators on this project were also extended through hands on experience and analysis of results. Other members of the target audience benefited from the various workshops, training sessions, and technical presentations offered through this project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Journal articles and other technical products (see Products sections of report) were produced and presented at technical meetings to disseminate results to the academic, government and extension members of the target audience. Workshops, training sessions and other outreach efforts were conducted for farmers, landowners, extension personnel, government employees, students, and the general public. Extension articles and web-based materials related to this project were produced to support efforts to disseminate results. Material related to this project was incorporated into classroom materials for courses on organic agriculture, biological control of insects, and agroecology. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? 1) major activities completed: Conservation buffers, areas of non-crop vegetation integrated into agricultural landscapes, enhance many agroecosystem services. Among other benefits, these buffers also provide habitat for wildlife and beneficial organisms such as pollinators and pest enemies. However, non-crop vegetation in agricultural settings can also be a source for crop pests. One buffer strategy, fallowing strips of land adjacent to crop fields, provides critical habitat for threatened wildlife species, but this strategy may increase in-field weed pressure by developing a reservoir of weed seeds that spreads into the neighboring crop field. Fallow buffers also offer few resources for beneficial organisms that provide important pest management services. It has been suggested conservation buffer practitioners move away from fallowing towards plantings of native forbs and grasses. It is not clear whether these planted buffers augment or diminish insect, weed and wildlife dynamics in agricultural landscapes. Two studies examined multiple field edge strategies to determine whether they have an impact on ecological weed management in organic cropping systems. Ecological weed management, an integration of many indirect weed management strategies, can be of critical importance to organic growers who are restricted from using conventional weed management tools. The first study investigated how the bank of weed seeds in the soil (the ‘weed seedbank’) changed over time in relation to field buffer management, distance away from the field edge, and crop type. Results showed planted buffers, especially those with native warm season grasses, can reduce the number of weed seeds that enter the seedbank. The second study examines the response of ground dwelling, seed eating organisms (‘weed seed predators’) respond to the different field buffer management schemes. The results from this study showed field buffers had little to no influence on weed seed predators or the seed predation services they provide. However, crop type did heavily influence these organisms as well as seed predation . Fields with crops that provide dense cover, such as hay, saw more weed seed predation than fields that were more open with less vegetative cover, such as harvested maize fields. The results from this weed seed predation experiment, however, may reflect conditions that are specific to our system and to the southeastern United States. One important aspect of the Southeast in relation to weed seed predators is the recent introduction of the invasive red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Although this ant is now present in high numbers inside southeastern U.S. agricultural fields, it is not clear if they are contributing to weed seed predation services. A third study used video monitoring in an agricultural field to collect direct evidence of Solenopsis invicta and their impact on summer annual weeds. The video data suggest this ant is not contributing to weed seed predation services. It is not clear from the video data, however, what impact these invasive ants have on native weed seed predators. The value of 4 different field border treatments (planted native grass and prairie flowers, planted prairie flowers only, fallow vegetation, or mowed vegetation) was compared by conducting northern bobwhite foraging trials, arthropod sampling, overwintering sparrow surveys, and small mammal trapping. In spring 2008, field border treatments were established randomly around 9 organic crop fields, and all borders were approximately 0.084 hectares. Groups of 6 human-imprinted bobwhite chicks were led through 30-minute foraging trials in all border treatments from June-August 2009 and 2010. Following trials, chicks were immediately euthanized, and their crops and gizzards were later dissected. Eaten arthropods were identified to family, measured with digital calipers, and counted. Allometric equations were used to calculate a mean foraging rate for each border treatment (grams of arthropods consumed/ chick/ 30 min). Arthropod prey availability was determined within each border treatment using a modified blower-vac to sample arthropods at the vegetation strata where chicks foraged. Foraging rate did not differ among treatments in 2009 or 2010. Total arthropod prey densities calculated from blower-vac samples did not differ among border treatments in 2009 or 2010. From November-March 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, single-observer transect surveys were conducted to determine overwintering sparrow use in the different field border treatments. During surveys, the total number of sparrows was counted in each field border, and individual species were identified only if easily visible with binoculars. A majority of birds observed were sparrows (96.4%), of which we were able to positively indentify 1424 (51%) to species. The most common sparrow species observed within field borders were savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) (61.5%), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) (22.8%), and swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) (6.8%). Total sparrow densities were 5-10 times lower in mowed borders than in other border treatments in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, but did not differ among planted and fallow borders in either year. In October-November 2009, small mammals were trapped over a 6-day period in each field border using Sherman live-traps. Captured individuals were marked with individually numbered ear tags, and released. Over all trapping periods, 512 individuals of only two species, the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) and house mouse (Mus musculus), were captured. Using the mark-recapture data, closed population models were created in Program MARK to estimate the density (number of individuals/hectare) of each species in each border. Cotton rat density was higher in borders planted for beneficial insect habitat, which likely was influenced by greater vegetation density and availability of preferred foods in these border types. Total small mammal density was lower in mowed borders, emphasizing the importance of available non-crop vegetation for supporting small mammal communities within intensive agricultural areas. Results of these studies suggest that field borders planted as beneficial insect habitats provide quality wildlife habitat comparable to traditional fallow field borders. 2) specific objectives met: Objectives 1-8 were all met. However, even though the data was collected and analyzed for objective 2, it has not yet been published. so publication products do not appear in this report. 3) significant results achieved, including major findings, developments, or conclusions (both positive and negative): Overall, results of this study indicate that planted borders may maximize the biodiversity potential of field border establishment by providing suitable habitat for both beneficial insect and wildlife populations. However, some beneficial organisms, such as weed seed predators, may not be enhanced by the presence of field border habitat 4) key outcomes or other accomplishments realized. The investigators, graduate students and technical personnel on this project all learned both the practical value and limitations of field border habitats for farmland insect and wildlife management. This learning is evident in the products resulting from this project. The investigators on this project were directly involved with farmers that changed practices to include diverse field borders on their farms. Peer-to-peer training in farm-based workshops has resulted in an undetermined number of other farmers that have also changed behavior.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Fox, A.F., Reberg-Horton, S.C., Orr, D.B., Moorman, C.E. and Frank, S.D. 2013. Crop and field border effects on weed seed predation in the southeastern U.S. coastal plain. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 177: 58-62.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Moorman, C. E., C. J. Plush, D. Orr, C. Reberg-Horton, and B. Gardner. 2013. Small mammal use of field borders planted as beneficial insect habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin. DOI: 10.1002/wsb.226
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Plush, C. J., C. E. Moorman, D. Orr, and C. Reberg-Horton. 2013. Overwintering sparrow use of field borders planted as beneficial insect habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 77:200-206
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Plush, C. J., C. E. Moorman, D. Orr, and C. Reberg-Horton. 2013. Do beneficial insect habitats also provide quality brood habitat for northern bobwhite? Proceedings of Quail VII Symposium, Tucson, AZ, Jan. 10-12, 2012.
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2011 Citation: Plush, C.J. 2011. Wildlife Use of Field Borders Planted as Beneficial Insect Habitat. M.S. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Fox, A.F. 2013. Conservation Buffers and Ecological Weed Management in Southeast Organic Cropping Systems: Weed Seedbanks and Weed Seed Predators. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Orr, D.B. 2012. Whole farm-level evaluation of field border vegetation on organic management of insect pests and weed seed banks, and on farmland wildlife. Proceedings, NIFA Organic Programs Project Director Meeting October 3-4, 2012, Washington, DC.
• Type: Book Chapters Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Orr, D. B. and A.A. Fox. 2012. Augmentation and Conservation Biological Control. In: Abrol, D.P. and Shankar, U. (ed.s), Integrated Pest Management Principles and Practice. CABI International, Wallingford, UK.
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2011 Citation: G. Balme, D. Orr, A Fox. 2011. The Ground Beetles of Eastern North Carolina Agriculture. North Carolina State University AG-735-1
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2011 Citation: G. Balme, D. Orr. 2011. Identification of Common Ground Beetles North Carolina Coastal Plain Agricultural Fields. North Carolina State University AG-735-2.
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2009 Citation: D.B. Orr, H.M Linker, and L.M. Forehand. 2009. Using Beneficial Insect Habitat On the Farm: An Introduction. (AG-676-02W).
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Orr, D. and T. Kleese. 2012. Beneficial Habitats. Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Stewardship News. Vol. 32 issue 3, pp. 1, 11.
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Plush, C., C. Moorman, D. Orr, and C. Reberg-Horton. 2012. Farmland Field BordersThe Relationships between Beneficial Insects and Wildlife. The Upland Gazette, Spring 2012. Vol. 17, issue 1, pp. 11-13.
• Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Orr, D. 2012. Native Plants for Beneficial Insects in the Southeast. (http://www.beneficialbugblog.blogspot.com/)
• Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Orr, D. 2012. Why Provide Habitat. (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dorr/Habitat%20Information/Introduction/why_provide_habitat.html)
• Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Orr, D. 2012. Habitat Principles. (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dorr/Habitat%20Information/Principles/habitat_principles.html)
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2008 Citation: Orr, D.B. 2008 Beneficial Insects and Wildlife Buffers. The Upland Gazette, Fall 2008, Volume 13, issue 2. pp. 4-5.
• Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Orr, D. 2012. Habitat Example. (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dorr/Habitat%20Information/Example/habitat_example.html)

Progress 07/01/11 to 06/30/12

Outputs
OUTPUTS: High resolution video monitoring demonstrated that field crickets (Gryllus sp.) and house mice (Mus musculus) were the predominant weed seed predators in eastern North Carolina crop fields. Carabid beetles, such as Harpalus pennsylvanicus, which are common weed seed predators in temperate areas, were rarely seen in the videos or in pitfall traps. House mice were especially common in plots where ants had been removed. These results show that while Solenopsis invicta has become a dominant insect in the Southeast United States, they do not contribute to weed seed predation ecosystem services in agricultural settings. Instead, they may weaken this service by displacing other seed eating organisms such as mice and beetles. Field border treatments had no effect on seed removal rates but that crop species heavily influenced both weed seed predation and invertebrate seed predator activity density. Weed seed predation was highest in the dense, perennial hay fields and lowest in the more open corn fields. Activity densities for field crickets (Gryllus sp.) and the ground beetle Harpalus pennsylvanicus were also high in the hay fields and low in the corn fields while the red imported fire ant seemed to prefer the open corn fields. These results show that increasing vegetative diversity in field borders is not an effective method for conserving weed seed predators, but that higher quality habitat inside the crop field can be achieved by increasing ground cover. Cotton rat density was higher in borders planted for beneficial insect habitat, which likely was influenced by greater vegetation density and availability of preferred foods in these border types. Total small mammal density was lower in mowed borders, emphasizing the importance of available non-crop vegetation for supporting small mammal communities within intensive agricultural areas. Foraging rate of bobwhite quail chicks did not differ among treatments. Total arthropod prey densities calculated from blower-vac samples also did not differ among border treatments. However, quail chicks in mowed borders experienced heat stress, and were exposed to predators. Sparrow densities were 5-10 times lower in mowed borders than in other border treatments, but did not differ among planted and fallow borders. Field borders planted to promote beneficial insects may be a useful tool for maximizing the ecological services provided by non-crop vegetation. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals David Orr, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (PI on project; directed graduate students, designed experiments, presented training and professional development). Chris Reberg-Horton, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Chris Moorman, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Yasmin Cardoza, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Partner Organizations: Center For Environmental Farming Systems. The Earthwise Company, LLC Collaborators: Tony Kleese, The Earthwise Company, LLC, PO Box 2093, Wake Forest NC. Mary Wilks, Carolina Precision Consulting, Inc., 5664 Fieldstream Dr., Rocky Mount, NC. Debbie Roos, Chatham County Extension Center, North Carolina State University, Pittsboro, NC. Training or Professional Development: Advisory panels, field demonstrations, workshop, web-based publication, scientific publication, conferences, formal classroom instruction, laboratory instruction, CEFS internship, outreach activities. TARGET AUDIENCES: Farmers, Extension agents, Graduate students, Academics, Government workers, Master Gardeners, General public. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.

Impacts
Organic methods for establishing and maintaining habitat for multiple ecological services were presented to growers, agents, and students through two on-farm field days, a field demonstration, two workshops, several powerpoint presentations, blog and web site entries. Data are still being analyzed and published, but will provide organic growers guidance on how CRP habitats relate to management of insects, weeds and farmland wildlife.

Publications

• Moorman, C.E.; C.J. Plush, D.B. Orr, C. Reberg-Horton, B. Gardner. 2012 (In Press) Small Mammal Use of Field Borders Planted as Beneficial Insect Habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin.
• Plush, C. J., C. E. Moorman, D. Orr, and C. Reberg-Horton. 2012 (In Press). Overwintering sparrow use of field borders planted as beneficial insect habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management.
• G. Balme, D. Orr, A Fox. 2011. The Ground Beetles of Eastern North Carolina Agriculture. (NCSU AG-735-1)( http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dorr/Insects/Predators/Ground_Beetle/Ground_Bee tles1_final.pdf).
• G. Balme, D. Orr. 2011. Identification of Common Ground Beetles North Carolina Coastal Plain Agricultural Fields. (NCSU AG-735-2)( http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dorr/Insects/Predators/Ground_Beetle/Ground_Bee tles_new2.pdf).

Progress 07/01/10 to 06/30/11

Outputs
OUTPUTS: An approach to increase adoption of beneficial insect habitats for IPM is to incorporate habitats providing multiple ecological services into existing CRP programs that provide growers financial and other incentives (e.g. hunting). Research was continued comparing habitats (both planted and fallow) that could potentially be incorporated into existing CRP programs (e.g. CP33 which is intended to enhance quail populations in agricultural landscapes), with standard mowed field borders. Habitats were evaluated for their value to parasitoids and predators of crop pests, predators of weed seeds, and farmland wildlife such as bobwhite quail and songbirds. Plots were established that included four early successional habitat types around 9 fields (3 fields each of soybeans, corn, hay) on 110 acres of the Organic Research Unit at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems, near Goldsboro, NC. Data were collected from the 3 crops and 4 habitats on density and activity of: 1) Pest insects ; 2) Parasitoids and parasitism of selected pests; 3) Foliage-dwelling as well as soil-dwelling arthropod predators; 4) Weed seed predators and predation; 5) Weed seed banks; 6) Songbird use of field border habitats; 7) Small mammals; 8) Resource use by quail chicks in field border habitats. Several meetings were conducted with advisory groups for their input into this project. Development work was conducted on a website and web-based materials related to this project. Workshops and outreach efforts were conducted for the target audiences. Presentations were also made at professional meetings. Material related to this project was incorporated into classroom materials for two courses on organic agriculture and biological control of insects. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals David Orr, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (PI on project; directed graduate students, designed experiments, presented training and professional development). Chris Reberg-Horton, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Chris Moorman, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Yasmin Cardoza, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Partner Organizations: Center For Environmental Farming Systems. The Earthwise Company, LLC Collaborators: Tony Kleese, The Earthwise Company, LLC, PO Box 2093, Wake Forest NC. Mary Wilks, Carolina Precision Consulting, Inc., 5664 Fieldstream Dr., Rocky Mount, NC. Debbie Roos, Chatham County Extension Center, North Carolina State University, Pittsboro, NC. Training or Professional Development: Advisory panels, field demonstrations, workshop, web-based publication, scientific publication, conferences, formal classroom instruction, laboratory instruction, CEFS internship, outreach activities. TARGET AUDIENCES: Target audiences: Farmers, Extension agents, Graduate students, Academics, Government workers, Master Gardeners, General public. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
Organic methods for establishing and maintaining habitat for multiple ecological services were presented to growers, agents, and students through one field demonstration, two workshops, several powerpoint presentations, three Advisory Panel meetings, and a web-based article. As a result, twenty growers have committed to establishing habitat plots on their farms. The types of data being collected were determined at least in part from input by growers, based on advisory group input, individual interactions, and survey results. Samples are still being processed from 2010, and data are being analyzed so it is too early to present anything definitive. However, these ongoing studies will provide organic growers guidance on how CRP habitats relate to management of insects, weeds and farmland wildlife.

Publications

• Orr, D. B. and A.A. Fox. 2011. Augmentation and Conservation Biological Control. In: Abrol, D.P. and Shankar, U. (ed.s), Integrated Pest Management Principles and Practice. CABI International, Wallingford, UK. (In Press)

Progress 07/01/09 to 06/30/10

Outputs
OUTPUTS: One approach to increase adoption of beneficial insect habitats for IPM is to incorporate habitats providing multiple ecological services into existing CRP programs that provide growers financial and other incentives (e.g. hunting). Research was conducted to compare habitats (both planted and fallow) that could potentially be incorporated into existing CRP programs (e.g. CP33 which is intended to enhance quail populations in agricultural landscapes), with standard mowed field borders. Habitats were evaluated for their value to parasitoids and predators of crop pests, predators of weed seeds, and farmland wildlife such as bobwhite quail and songbirds. Plots were established that included four early successional habitat types around 9 fields (3 fields each of soybeans, corn, hay) on 110 acres of the Organic Research Unit at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems, near Goldsboro, NC. Data were collected from the 3 crops and 4 habitats on density and activity of: 1) Pest insects ; 2) Parasitoids and parasitism of selected pests; 3) Foliage-dwelling as well as soil-dwelling arthropod predators; 4) Weed seed predators and predation; 5) Weed seed banks; 6) Songbird use of field border habitats; 7) Small mammals; 8) Resource use by quail chicks in field border habitats. Several meetings were conducted with advisory groups for their input into this project. Development work was conducted on a website and web-based materials related to this project. Workshops and outreach efforts were conducted for the target audiences. Presentations were also made at professional meetings. Material related to this project was incorporated into classroom materials for two courses on organic agriculture and biological control of insects. PARTICIPANTS: David Orr, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (PI on project; directed graduate students, designed experiments, presented training and professional development). Chris Reberg-Horton, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Chris Moorman, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Yasmin Cardoza, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Partner Organizations: Center For Environmental Farming Systems. The Earthwise Company, LLC Collaborators: Tony Kleese, The Earthwise Company, LLC, PO Box 2093, Wake Forest NC. Mary Wilks, Carolina Precision Consulting, Inc., 5664 Fieldstream Dr., Rocky Mount, NC. Debbie Roos, Chatham County Extension Center, North Carolina State University, Pittsboro, NC. Training or Professional Development: Advisory panels, field demonstrations, workshop, web-based publication, scientific publication, conferences, formal classroom instruction, laboratory instruction, CEFS internship, outreach activities. TARGET AUDIENCES: Farmers, Extension agents, Graduate students, Academics, Government workers, Master Gardeners, General public. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
Organic methods for establishing and maintaining habitat for multiple ecological services were presented to growers, agents, and students through two field demonstrations, two workshops, multiple powerpoint presentations, three Advisory Panel meetings, and a web-based article. As a result, twenty growers have committed to establishing habitat plots on their farms. The types of data being collected were determined at least in part from input by growers, based on advisory group input, individual interactions, and survey results. Samples are still being processed from 2010, and data are being analyzed so it is too early to present anything definitive. However, these ongoing studies will provide organic growers guidance on how CRP habitats relate to management of insects, weeds and farmland wildlife.

Publications

• Orr, D. B. and A.A. Fox. 2010. Augmentation and Conservation Biological Control. In: Abrol, D.P. and Shankar, U. (ed.s), Integrated Pest Management Principles and Practice. CABI International, Wallingford, UK. (In Press)

Progress 07/01/08 to 06/30/09

Outputs
OUTPUTS: Challenges for adoption of beneficial insect habitats for IPM in agricultural landscapes include logistics, cost and priorities. One approach to increase adoption is to incorporate habitats providing multiple ecological services into existing CRP programs that provide growers financial and other incentives (e.g. hunting). Research was conducted to evaluate habitats (both planted and fallow) that have been approved for use in an existing CRP program (CP33) which is intended to enhance quail populations in agricultural landscapes. The plants selected for planted habitats are all prairie plants native to North Carolina that are easily established, provide resources season-long, are competitive with weeds, and are readily available from commercial sources. Species included are Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium); Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans); Butterflyweed (Asclepias tuberosa); Common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca); Black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta); Purple Coneflower (Echinacea purpurea); Lance leafed coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata); Swamp sunflower (Helianthus angustifolia); Showy Goldenrod (Solidago speciosa); and Heath Aster (Aster pilosus). A second study was begun that seeks to evaluate CP33-appropriate field borders for their value to parasitoids and predators of crop pests, predators of weed seeds, and farmland wildlife such as bobwhite quail and songbirds. Plots were established that included four early successional habitat types around 9 fields (3 fields each of soybeans, corn, hay) on 110 acres of the Organic Research Unit at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems, near Goldsboro, NC. Data were collected from the 3 crops and 4 habitats on density and activity of: 1) Pest insects (including herbivores, hyperparasitoids and intraguild predators); 2) Parasitoids and parasitism of selected pests; 3) Foliage-dwelling as well as soil-dwelling arthropod predators; 4) Weed seed predators and predation; 5) Weed seed banks; 6) Songbird use of field border habitats; 7) Small mammals; 8) Resource use by quail chicks in field border habitats. Several meetings were conducted with advisory groups for their input into this project. Development work was conducted on a website and web-based materials related to this project. Workshops and outreach efforts were conducted for the target audiences. Material related to this project was incorporated into classroom materials for two courses on organic agriculture and biological control of insects. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals David Orr, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (PI on project; directed graduate students, designed experiments, presented training and professional development). Chris Reberg-Horton, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Chris Moorman, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Yasmin Cardoza, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Partner Organizations: Center For Environmental Farming Systems. The Earthwise Company, LLC Collaborators: Tony Kleese, The Earthwise Company, LLC, PO Box 2093, Wake Forest NC. Mary Wilks, Carolina Precision Consulting, Inc., 5664 Fieldstream Dr., Rocky Mount, NC. Debbie Roos, Chatham County Extension Center, North Carolina State University, Pittsboro, NC. Training or Professional Development: Advisory panels, field demonstrations, workshop, web-based publication, scientific publication, conferences, formal classroom instruction, laboratory instruction, CEFS internship, outreach activities. TARGET AUDIENCES: Target audiences: Farmers, Extension agents, Graduate students, Academics, Government workers, Master Gardeners, General public. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
Habitat plots in the main study established very well, and the various habitat types were remarkably distinct. Organic methods for establishing habitat were presented to growers, agents, and students through two field demonstrations, one workshop, multiple powerpoint presentations, three Advisory Panel meetings, and a web-based article. As a result, five growers have committed to establishing habitat plots on their farms. The types of data being collected were determined at least in part from input by growers, based on advisory group input, individual interactions, and survey results. Data are still being collected, samples still being processed, and data analyzed so it is too early to present anything definitive. However, these ongoing studies will provide organic growers guidance on how CRP habitats relate to management of insects, weeds and farmland wildlife.

Publications

• Orr, D.B. 2009. Biological Control and Integrated Pest Management. pp. 207-239, In: Peshin, R., and A.K. Dhawan (eds.), Integrated Pest Management (Volume1): Innovation-Development Process. Springer.
• D.B. Orr, H.M Linker, and L.M. Forehand. 2009. Using Beneficial Insect Habitat On the Farm: An Introduction. (AG-676-02W). (http://www.cefs.ncsu.edu/resourcesfieldnotes.htm)