Progress 09/01/11 to 08/31/14
Outputs
Target Audience: Crop producers, consultants, commodity groups, ag leaders, citizens and youth in 25 IPM units (single or multi-county areas important in crop production and need for IPM) were the main clientele groups reached by the 18 IPM Agents who initiated the program and 14 who completed the 2011-12 year. The IPM Program Specialist in school IPM worked primarily with School IPM Coordinators (a position required in all 1,031 Texas public school districts; serving 8,195 campuses and 4.6 million students). She worked less directly with school administrators, custodians, teachers, and others to promote cleaner, safer schools. Four Urban IPM Program Specialists began the year (one position was lost during the year). Their audiences included citizens in four of Texas' larger metropolitan areas - Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and Houston (El Paso was served by the IPM Agent there). Urban programs were heavily involved with youth, pest management professionals, horticulturists,city personnel, landscape professionals, and citizens with concerns about urban and landscape pests. The IPM Program Specialist in Nursery and Greenhouse worked primarily with owners and technical people in charge of wholesale nurseries and greenhouses. The IPM Program Specialist in Pecan IPM worked with producers of some 68,000 acres of improvedpecan trees and some 100,000 acres of unimproved pecans in Texas. The IPM group worked with 11 IPM Interns during thesummer of 2011, 13 IPM Interns in 2012 and 9 IPM Interns during the summer of 2013. Changes/Problems: Our approach involves local determination of priorities in each IPM unit through prioritization meetings with Steering Committees. Our evaluation processes need more work. We need to emphasize the importance of surveys to help us tell our story.The pest and pest management environment is constantly changing. Invasive pests are showing up much more frequently than in years past. Systems are threatened by pest resistance. Palmer amaranth resistance to glyphosate herbicide has changed the way producers control weeds. Sugarcane aphid has the potential to change the way grain sorghum growers manage pests. Bermuda grass maggot may change management strategies in Texas Bermudagrass pastures. Systems which protect and allow pollinators to survive and flourish are critically important. Tawny crazy ant is proving to be very challenging to manage in urban areas. Pest status changes due to new introductions and changing environmental conditions are challenging existing IPM systems. IPM programs such as our program in Texas are valued by growers and citizens because they provide unbiased informaton and help people develop and and deploy multi-tactic solutions to pests and production challenges. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? In 2012, the program provided IPM Agents and Program Specialists with opportunities for in-house training at the Entomology Science Conference in the fall, the Entomology Professional Development Conference in the spring and the Texas Pest Management Association Conference, also in the spring. These provide opportunities for both formal and informal professional development. The program also encouraged participation in the Southwestern Branch Entomological Society of America meeting and the Entomological Society of America meeting. It also encouraged Agents to attend and present at the Beltwide Cotton Conference, the American Peanut Research and Education Society, the National Fire Ant Conference and other professional and commodity meetings at which professional development is an important part of the purpose of the meeting. The publications section indicates IPM Agents use these meetings to further their professional development and share information from their programs. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? The aforementioned professional and commodity meetings, local county and multi-county meetings, newsletters, radio & TV, newspaper, blogs, websites, and other means are used to disseminate information. Articles in the popular and agricultural press are also valuable in outreach to communities of interest as are articles for homeowner association blogs and newspaper, blogs, websites, and other means are used to disseminate information. Articles in the popular and agricultural press are also valuable in outreach to communities of interest as are articles for homeowner association blogs and newsletters. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Specific goals change with each project. Currently the West Nile Virus educational effort is ongoing. The main thrust is educating municipalities through workshops - using the manual developed primarily in 2013 - to enable workers to be able to monitor mosquitoes, submit samples for virus testing, understand the lab reports and take actions based on threshold numbers of virus carrying mosquitoes. Citrus greening work is becoming more important in South Texas and the need for research, education and areawide managment has increased. Field crop priorities have changed with the arrival of the grain sorghum pest known as sugarcane aphid. Efforts continue to manage pests of field crops with limited insecticide use, saving money and producing benefits to the environment and human health. In cotton technology and IPM efforts have reduced insecticide use by ~ 66% in the last 14 years. The biggest threats for the future are the development of pest resistance to control technologies and the introduction of new and harmful pests.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Agricultural Programs: Economic competitiveness - Two hundred and seven cotton growers surveyed said their IPM prgrams had a value of $42.01per acre in 2012. Twenty three wheat growers reported the wheat program had a value of $10.48 per acre and 13 grain sorghum growers reported the IPM program had a value to them of $17.92 per acre. Human Health and the Environment - Those surveyed indicated strong reductions in pesticide use improving human health and the environment. Urban and School Programs: Programs worked to build awarness of IPM principals and economic, environmental and human health benefits. Thousands of people were educated about IPM during the West Nile Virus outbreak in 2012. Awareness was increased via programs for public schools, adult clientele, news media, newsletters, blogs, summer camps and websites. Surveys measured learning and intent to use the IPM principles learned. IPM Interns: IPM Interns learned about IPM through hands-on application of research and educational principles. All 12 2012 internsindicated that they learned and benefited from the program. About 80% indicate they would like to work in an IPM related job
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Bynum, E., A. Knutson, J. Swart and M. Jungman. 2012. Managing Insects and Mites of Small Grains. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. Publication E-399. 21 pages
|
Progress 09/01/12 to 08/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Crop producers, consultants, commodity groups, ag leaders,citizens and youthin 25 IPM units (single or multi-county areas important in crop production and need for IPM) were the main clientele groups reached by the 18 IPM Agents who initiated the program and 14 who completed the 2011-12year. The IPMProgram Specialistin school IPM worked primarily with School IPM Coordinators (a position required in all 1,031 Texaspublic school districts; serving8,195 campuses and 4.6 million students). Sheworkedless directly withschool administrators, custodians, teachers, and others to promote cleaner, saferschools.Four Urban IPM Program Specialists began the year (oneposition was lost during the year).Their audiences includedcitizens infourof Texas' larger metropolitan areas - Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and Houston (El Paso was served by the IPM Agent there). Urban programs were heavily involved with youth, pest management professionals, horticulturists, city personnel, landscape professionals, and citizens with concerns about urban and landscape pests. The IPM Program Specialist in Nursery and Greenhouse worked primarily with owners and technical people in charge of wholesale nurseries and greenhouses. The IPM Program Specialist in Pecan IPM worked with producers of some 68,000 acres ofimproved pecan trees and some 100,000 acres of unimproved pecans in Texas. The IPM group worked with 11 IPM Interns during the summer of 2011, 13 IPM Interns in 2012 and 9 IPM Interns during the summer of 2013. Changes/Problems: Our approach involves local determination of priorities in each IPM unit through prioritization meetings with Steering Committees. Our evaluation processes need more work. We need to emphasize the importance of surveys to help us tell our story. The pest and pest management environment is constantly changing. Invasive pests are showing up much more frequently than in years past. Systems are threatened by pest resistance. Palmer amaranth resistance to glyphosate herbicide has changed the way producers control weeds. Sugarcane aphid has the potential to change the way grain sorghum growers manage pests. Bermuda grass maggot may change management strategies in Texas Bermudagrass pastures. Systems which protect and allow pollinators to survive and flourish are critically important.Tawny crazy ant is proving to be very challenging to manage in urban areas.Pest status changes due to new introductions and changing environmental conditions are challenging existing IPM systems. IPM programs such asour program in Texas are valued by growers and citizens because they provide unbiased informatonand helppeople develop and anddeploy multi-tactic solutions to pests and production challenges. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? In 2012, the program provided IPM Agents and Program Specialists with opportunities for in-house training at the Entomology Science Conference in the fall, the Entomology Professional Development Conference in the spring and the Texas Pest Management Association Conference, also in the spring. These provide opportunities for both formal and informalprofessionaldevelopment.The program also encouraged participation in the Southwestern Branch Entomological Society of America meeting and the Entomological Society of America meeting. It also encouraged Agents to attend and present atthe Beltwide Cotton Conference, the American Peanut Research and Education Society, the National Fire Ant Conference and other professional and commodity meetings at which professional development is an important part of the purposeof the meeting. The publications section indicates IPM Agents use these meetings to further their professional development and share information from their programs. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? The aforementioned professional and commodity meetings, local county and multi-county meetings, newsletters, radio & TV, newspaper, blogs, websites, and other means are used to disseminate information. Articles in the popular and agricultural press are also valuable in outreach to communities of interest as are articles for homeowner association blogs and newsletters. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Specific goals change with each project. Currently the West Nile Virus educational effort is ongoing. The main thrust is educating municipalities through workshops - using the manual developed primarily in 2013 - to enable workers to be able to monitor mosquitoes, submit samples for virus testing, understand the lab reports and take actions based on threshold numbers of virus carrying mosquitoes. Citrus greening work is becoming more important in South Texas and the need for reearch, education and areawide managment has increased. Field crop priorities have changed with the arrival of the grain sorghum pest known as sugarcane aphid. Efforts continue to manage pests of field crops with limited insecticide use, saving money and producing benefits to the environment and human health. In cotton technology and IPM efforts have reduced insecticide use by ~ 66% in the last 14 years. The biggest threats for the future are the development of pest resistance to control technologies and the introduction of new and harmful pests.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Agricultural Programs: Economic competitiveness - Two hundred and seven cotton growers surveyed said their IPM prgrams had a value of $42.01 per acre in 2012. Twenty three wheat growers reported the wheat program had a value of $10.48 per acre and 13 grain sorghum growers reported the IPM program had a value to them of $17.92 per acre. Human Health and the Environment - Those surveyed indicated strong reductions in pesticide use improving human health and the environment. Urban and School Programs: Programs worked to build awarness of IPM principals and economic, environmental and human health benefits. Thousands of people were educated about IPM during the West Nile Virus outbreak in 2012. Awareness was increased via programs for public schools, adult clientele, news media, newsletters, blogs, summer campsand websites. Surveys measured learning and intent to use theIPM principles learned. IPM Interns: IPM Interns learned about IPM through hands-on application of research and educational principles. All 12 2012 interns indicated that they learned and benefited from the program. About 80% indicate they would like to work in an IPM related job.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Bynum, E., A. Knutson, J. Swart and M. Jungman. 2012. Managing Insects and Mites of Small Grains. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. Publication E-399. 21 pages
|
Progress 09/01/11 to 08/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Highlights of the Texas IPM Program's 2011-12 activities were as follows. IPM Agents wrote 204 newsletters which reached 132,560 clientele directly and many others when picked up by ag and popular press outlets. The wrote 73 newspaper articles. They participated in 12 Texas AgriLife Extension press releases, 106 radio programs and 12 TV programs. Meetings for clientele included: 9,025 site visits, 349 scouts/practitioners trained, 104 consultants trained, 332 CEU's provided to 1,252 people, 20 Steering Committee Meetings with 186 members attending, 248 county & regional meetings & field days, 105 educational meetings for school children, 13 posters or oral presentations at professional meetings, 28 training meetings at which 986 master volunteers were trained and 2 ISEC educational meetings at which 10 people received training. Applied research and demonstration work included 158 projects and 4 community fire ant projects involving 1111 households. Direct contacts were: 84,351 agriculture and 10,531,022 other. Funds generated (excluding state and EIPM sources) were $682,183 from local, industry, commodity group and governmental sources. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who worked on the project were: Statewide IPM Coordinator, Dr. Charles Allen; Extension Agents IPM: Monti Vandiver, Dustin Patman, Kerry Siders, Scott Russell, Tommy Doederlein, Manda Armstrong, Dr. Salvador Vitanza, Warren Multer, Richard Minzenmayer, James Swart, Marty Jungman, Jared Ripple, Clyde Crumley and Stephen Biles. IPM Program Specialists working with the program were: Janet Hurley, Bill Ree, Wizzie Brown, Molly Keck, and Dr. Paul Nester. Numerous partners within Texas AgriLife Extension Service supported the Texas IPM Program effort, but received no support from EIPM-CS funding. A partial list includes, Dr. David Kerns, Dr. Jason Woodward, Dr. Pat Porter, Dr. Dana Porter, Dr. Mark Kelley, Dr. Calvin Trostle, Dr. Dan Fromme, Archie Abrameit, Dr. David Drake, Dr. Chris Sansone, Dr. Carlos Bogran, Dr. Tom Isakeit, Dr. Paul Baumann, Dr. Peter Dotray,Dr. Galen Morgan, Dr. Robert Duncan, Dr. Bart Drees, Dr Allen Knutson, Dr. Mark Muegge, Dr. Roger Gold, Dr. Mike Merchant, Dr. Don Renchie and Dr. Roy Parker. Similarly, the program was supported significantly by Dr. Terry Wheeler, Dr. Megha Parajulee, Dr. Wayne Keeling and others with Texas AgriLife Research, and by numerous faculty at Texas A&M. The Texas IPM Program is conducted at the county/multi-county level by IPM Agents and Program Specialists, supported by Extension Specialists and Research Scientists. Other partnering organizations include Texas Pest Management Association, Texas Department of Agriculture, USDA (NIFA, ARS, APHIS, NRCS, FSA), commodity associations (cotton [7 state and NCC], wheat, corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, pecans, vegetables and citrus), Farm Bureau, Texas Parks and Wildlife, EPA, public schools and public school organizations, youth organizations (4-H, Boy and Girl Scouts, etc.), cities and counties, Home Owner Associations, Habitat for Humanity, CARITAS, adult education groups, Pest Control Operators, seed and pesticide companies, Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Housing Authorities, Master Gardeners, Master Naturalists, Botanical Gardens and others. We collaborate with faculty at other universities in Texas and in other states. Our IPM Internship program provides students with hands-on opportunities to work in the field with an IPM Agent for a summer. In 2012, we have 12 interns in the program. We contact thousands of Texas citizens each year, providing them with information on management of pests on farms, in schools, in homes, and in landscapes, in cities and in pastures, rangelands and natural areas. Professional improvement opportunities for Agents and Program Specialists are meetings of professional societies, commodity-specific scientific meetings and training meetings within the Texas AgriLife System (annual meetings of the IPM group, the Entomology Department, and Texas AgriLife Extension (district and state levels). The Texas County Agricultural Agents Association also provides professional improvement opportunities. The NIFA project (EIPM-CS) supports travel, salaries and fringe benefits of the Agents and Program Specialists to accomplish their educational work and receive training for professional improvement. TARGET AUDIENCES: Target audiences for Texas IPM Program efforts are: farmers, agricultural consultants, agribusiness people, commodity groups, home owners and home owner organizations, pest control professionals, school personnel (IPM Coordinators, teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, teachers and administrators), employees in public housing authorities, people interested in maintaining outdoor plantings (landscapes, athletic fields and grounds), etc. We work to teach science-related curricula with youth in schools and summer camps, high school and college age students, young adults and older adults. Our programs reach all kinds of people (from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, races, religions, sexes, ages, etc.). PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: The most significant changes in Texas IPM Programming in recent years have been budget-driven. Since 2009, the Texas IPM Program has lost 46% of its Federal support and 18% of its state support. Taken together these losses are 26% of the 2009 funding support. Nine full time IPM Agent positions and 14 half-time secretaries have been lost. The program is currently rehiring three full time positions and adding counties to program units to ensure critical areas are covered - re-organizing to make the best possible use of our resources. In agriculture, changes have occurred over the last 10-15 years which have affected private and public sector IPM. Boll weevil eradication and changes - from innovations in both transgenic and conventional breeding - have been the stimulus for these changes. Fundamentally, Texas agricultural IPM has changed from a predominantly field-specific emphasis (scouting, thresholds, insecticide-based management) to a predominantly areawide approach (resistant cultivar and biocontrol-based). The result has been a significant decrease in infrastructure (people and equipment) available to support field-specific IPM. In addition, fewer students are being trained in Texas colleges and universities to support farmers' needs. As Texas agriculture has moved increasingly to areawide pest management, there has been a significant decline in knowledgeable experts and equipment to deal pest outbreaks. Public sector IPM programs are badly needed to fill the gap. Also critically needed is the unbiased locally relevant assessment of IPM products and strategies needed to continue making progress with modern IPM systems. The availability of rapid, unbiased response to problems such as pest resistance is another major critcal concern as resources become increasingly limited. In the near future, these concerns will become more pressing as agricultural production must increase to feed and clothe the world's growing population. Pest management challenges in the urban/school area are to promote basic non-pesticidal IPM first and rely on limited use of least toxic pesticides as a last resort. Management of emerging pests such as bed bugs, exotic ant species, and invasive stink bugs support the need for solid IPM programs in urban areas. Human health issues related to pests and pest management systems further emphasize the need for strong public sector, urban IPM programs to educate providers enabling them to deliver best management strategies for (homes, schools, public housing, hospitals, nursing homes and offices).
Impacts
Five IPM positions were lost in 2011-12. Record heat and drought caused loss of crop acreage that would have been scouted. In spite of the difficulties, IPM programs continued to make a difference. In response to survey questions, field crop IPM programs were judged by producers to have a value to them of $38.20 per acre across all crops (value in peanuts and cotton is higher and grain crops lower). A recent economic impact study by Texas AgriLife Extension showed the program's value to cotton producers who participate in scouting programs at $9.1 million per year (and this is a fraction of the value of the program in interpreting technology to Texas producers). A breakthrough was made in management of cotton root rot, a disease which causes $30 million in losses each year to Texas cotton farmers. Recent work initiated by Texas IPM Agents and supported by AgriLife Extension Plant Pathologists led to discovery and labeling of a fungicide which is effective against the disease. The fungicide - available in 2012 - provides the first significant control of cotton root rot in 150 years. Integrated work from many extension and research partners is making progress against aflatoxin in corn - a disease/toxin responsible for $14-200 million per year losses to corn growers. The work involves hybrid development/testing, biological control with atoxigenic strains of the pathogen, Bt transgenic corn hybrids, and cultural techniques. Work on the sucking insect complex in cotton, which causes $13.7 million in losses/yr, is another IPM program focus. Sampling, thresholds, scouting, and control strategies are being investigated, developed and delivered to growers. The School IPM Program trains School IPM Coordinators to manage pests using IPM strategies. This has resulted in safer schools for 4.8 million Texas students - the nation's second largest public school system. Urban IPM Program Specialists work with the 9.8 million people in the Houston, Austin and San Antonio metropolitan area. Their primary emphases are health & safety and youth education. Bedbugs, fire ants, cockroaches, household ants, termites and other pests are educational centerpieces of their work. Their focus with youth is on promoting science education. Programs on invasive pests and herbicide resistant weeds are coming to the forefront in Texas. Caribbean (Rasberry) crazy ant, brown marmorated stink bug, bagrada bug and Asian citrus psyllid are important concerns. IPM education for college students through hands-on IPM Internships is another important part of the program. Growers have identified the need to develop the IPM professionals for the future. College students respond when they become aware of the opportunity to work in IPM. They enjoy and benefit from working daily during the summer with mentors. Eight students served as IPM interns in 2011. All of them reported that they benefitted and 88% said they would like to have a career in IPM. Two indicated they would pursue graduate degrees in IPM related fields. Twelve students are enrolled in the 2012 program.
Publications
- Anderson, M., T.A. Wheeler and J.E. Woodward. 2012. Evaluation of variety tolerance and use of Vydate C-LV for management of southern root-knot nematodes. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 239-241.
- Isakeit, T., R.R. Minzenmayer, D.R. Drake, G.D. Morgan, D.A. Mott, D.D. Fromme, W.L. Multer, M. Jungman, and A. Abrameit. 2012. Fungicide management of cotton root rot (Phymatotrichopsis omnivora): 2011 results. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 235-238.
- Kerns, D., M. Anderson, B. Baugh, D. Patman and B. Kesey 2012. Occurrence and impact of Kurtomathrips morrilli: a new pest of cotton on the Texas High Plains. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 1128-1135.
- Mott, D.A., G.D. Morgan, D.D. Fromme, S. Biles, J. Janak, B. Batchelor, P. McGuill, C. Crumley and A. Malone. 2012. On-farm agronomic and economic evaluation of stacked-gene cotton cultivars in the Upper Coastal Bend Region of Texas. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 123-127.
- Patman, D., S. Russell, M. Anderson, B. Baugh and D. Kerns. 2012. Controlling bollworms and fall armyworms in non-Bt cotton. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 889-894.
- Pierce, J., W. Multer, T. Doederlein, M. Anderson, S. Russell, C. Allen, R. Zink, M. Walters, D. Kerns and J. Westbrook. 2012. Results of a two-year pink bollworm survey in the southern plains of Texas and New Mexico. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 935-940.
- Ree, B. 2011. Management and control of stink bugs in pecans. Jimenez Pecan Growers, Jimenez MX.
- Vandiver, M., B. Baugh, M. Parajulee, J. Dever and M. Arnold. 2012. Managing thrips using organically approved insecticides. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 821-825.
- Wheeler, T.A., K. Siders, and M. Anderson. 2012. Management of root-knot nematodes without Temik. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 325-328.
- Baugh, B., D. Kerns, B. Kesey, and D. Patman. 2012. Evaluation of insecticides for aphid control in cotton and impact on lint quality and yield. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 826-829.
- Doederlein, T., D. Kerns, B. Kesey and D. Patman. 2012. Impact of early-season fruit loss on cotton yield and lint quality. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 884-888.
- Drees, B.M., A.A. Calixto, and P.R. Nester. 2012. Integrated Pest Management Concepts for Imported Fire Ants [Solenopsis invicta Buren (Hynenoptera: Formicidae)]. Insect Sci. (accepted).
- Wheeler, T.A., S.A. Russell, M.G. Anderson and J.E. Woodward. 2012. Comparison of calendar wersus threshold-based fungiside applications for management of pod rot. In Proc. Amer. Peanut Res. and Edu. Soc. Raleigh, NC in press.
- Woodward, J.E., J.L. Spradley, J.L. Yates, B.A. Baugh, M.D. Dunlap, S.A. Russell, J.H. Ramirez and T.B. Baughman. 2012. Variety performance in the Southern High Plains and Rolling Plains of Texas. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 100-104.
- Yang, C., G.N. Odvody, C.J. Fernandez, J.A. Landivar, R.R. Minzenmayer and R.L. Nichols. 2012. Monitioring cotton root rot progression within and across growing seasons using remote sensing. In Beltwide Cotton Conf. S. Boyd, M. Huffman and B. Robertson (eds.) National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN. pp. 475-480.
|