Progress 09/01/14 to 08/31/18
Outputs
Target Audience:This grant coordinated IPM implementation and improvement efforts across the full scope of Oregon agriculture, and in diverse systems, including primary priority agronomic and specialty crops, and the secondary priority area of IPM training and implementation in schools. Oregon agriculture constitutes $5.2 billion at the farm gate for 220 commodities, translating to $11 billion in total economic benefit and 150,000 Oregon jobs. There are 40,000 farms, almost 90% of them owned by individuals; and of 17.2 million acres of land in agriculture, over 62% of these farms are less than 50 acres. In this work, we partnered with the College of Agricultural Sciences at OSU, and the State Extension Service to address capacity building among county- based extension agents with IPM responsibilities in Oregon. Through this effort we brought IPPC tools and services to a wider audience, better integrated the innovations of local extension agents within the statewide effort and establish an improved framework for program planning and evaluation, based upon adult education theory, that we have adapted and validated in our system. The goals of the State IPM Coordination programs are to advance PAMS IPM in all of its applications in Oregon through a sustainable portfolio of programs that address high priority pest management challenges. Our program was transdisciplinary, in that our model for coordination fully integrated social and scientific dimensions at every stage to maximize uptake and implementation of IPM. We also operated regionally and lead or participated in a number of regional workgroups to maximize IPM program connectivity across the Western USA. Changes/Problems:No major problems encountered, we were largely employing and refining tools and processes that had been under development over the decade prior to this award, and by this stage the programmatic benefits were clear to our audiences, and no major problems were encountered. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Over tenure of this award, 183 School IPM Coordinators were trained The web-based tools IPM-PRiME (no-longer active because pesticide risk tables have been developed and published separately since this award was active), and https://uspest.org/wea provided opportunities for localized, hands-on education experiences for farmers and consultants throughout the award. The outcome-based IPM education design model was also employed throughout the award in partnership with nine OSU extension agents distributed throughout the state. IPM coordinator programs conducted 2014-2017, funded through this award included. Jepson's participation in these events was supported by the CPPM EIP award, and also other NIFA, and local crop commodity group resources: Resilient Potato Production Initiative Workshop: co-organizer and co-facilitator, Portland, OR December 5th, 2017 The Emerging Problem of Resistance: invited speaker, Hermiston Farm Fair, Hermiston, OR November 30th, 2017 Pesticides, soils, pests and beneficial insects - some practical considerations: Hermiston Farm Fair, CORE recertification credit workshop, Hermiston, OR November 30th & December 1st, 2017 IPM Festival for the Bear Creek Watershed, Middle Rogue workshop and tour: co-organizer, facilitator and presenter, September 21st, 2017 Potato IPM Working group: Co-organizer and facilitator, Portland, OR, April 27th, 2017 Cranberry Integrated Pest Management Strategic Planning: co-organizer and co-facilitator, Coos County Extension, Myrtle Point, OR, April 7th, 2017 Cranberry Crop Pest Losses Assessment Workshop: co-organizer and facilitator, Coos County Extension, Myrtle Point, OR, March 1st, 2017 Middle Rogue PSP: Pesticide Risk and Best Management Practices: co-organizer and facilitator, Middle Rogue Soil and Water Conservation District, Medford, OR, February 28th, 2017 Onion Integrated Pest Management Strategic Planning: co-organizer and co-facilitator, Ontario, OR February 6th, 2017 Potato IPM Needs Assessment: co-organizer and co-facilitator, Washington and Oregon Potato Conference, Kennewick, Washington, January 25th, 2017 Potato IPM: invited guest co-presenter, Washington and Oregon Potato Conference, Kennewick, Washington, January 25th, 2017 Mint and grass seed IPM Needs Assessment Workshop: co-organizer and facilitator, Union County Extension, La Grande, Oregon, January 24th, 2017 Potato Crop Pest Losses workshop: co-organizer and facilitator, Farm Fair, Hermiston, December 1st, 2016 Different paths to IPM on your Farm: invited keynote speaker, PNW Christmas Tree Association, Salem, OR June 17th, 2016 Whole Farm Planning to Minimize Pests and Pesticide Use in Christmas Trees: workshop co-organizer and presenter, North Willamette Research and Extension Center, April 13th, 2016 Pesticide Stewardship Partnership needs assessment: workshop co-organizer and presenter, Southern Oregon Research and Extension Center, March 31st, 2016 Pesticide Application Management in Vineyards: workshop co-organizer and presenter, Southern Oregon Research and Extension Center, March 31st, 2016 Winegrape Pest Management Strategic Planning: invited participant, IPM and pesticide risk management, Portland, OR February 25th, 2016 Functional Agricultural Biodiversity Workgroup Needs Assessment: workshop co-organizer and discussion leader, research and agency working group, Portland, OR February 17th, 2016 Keeping Pesticides out of Water: invited presenter, Non-Crop Vegetation Management Conference, OSU, January 20th, 2016 Whole farm planning to manage pests and minimize pesticide use: workshop co-organizer and presenter, Aurora, OR, 7th January, 2016 Outcome-based education program planning: workshop co-organizer and presenter, OSU Extension Annual Conference, 9th December, 2015 The principles of IPM and the role of pesticides (addressing IPM planning, pollinator protection and drift management, adapted to each audience over 2h sessions): OACFA 4th & 5th November, Springfield and Wilsonville; Oregon Ag Expo, Albany, 17th & 19th November; Union/Baker/Wallowa/Grant/E OR Ag College/ Morrow, Gilliam/ Klamath/Coos and Curry counties, 16th December (approx. 1,500 applicators reached) Pesticide applicator nozzle selection for efficacy and drift reduction, workshop co-organizer and presenter, GK Engineering, OR, June 18th, 2015 Beneficial insects in Christmas Trees, Moving ahead, workshop co-organizer and presenter, Aurora, OR, February 11th, 2015 Combining effective IPM and pesticide risk management in nurseries, workshop co-organizer and presenter, Boring, OR, February 3rd, 2015 Tree fruit IPM. Invited speaker at Oregon Small Farm School, Clackamas Community College, September 6th, 2014 How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Packages of locally-tuned and adapted IPM decision guides were distributed at the events for consultants and farmers. We also emphasized web-access to the tools that were developed for decision support and we have evidence that these were in widespread use. For example, uses of the on-line, weather-based IPM decision support system increased from 12,884 model runs in 2014, to 28, 827 model runs in 2017 (see: https://uspest.org/wea/uspest.org_tally_update_Feb_2022.pdf) What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Short-term - after IPM education: 1,019 farmers and consultants (representing >350,000 acres) reported significantly (p<0.05) increased knowledge skills in IPM planning, risk assessment, conservation biological control and IPM decision making. 31% of consultants covering 146,590 acres adopted more intensive monitoring. 62% of consultants implemented new pest prevention or avoidance tactics. 69% of consultants improved pesticide application efficiency by using decision support tools and drift reduction technologies. 79% of consultants used PAMS IPM guidelines to support certification. 90% of 183 School IPM Coordinators showed increased knowledge. 75% of Schools (96% of 197 coordinators now trained) and 100% of Community Colleges (17 coordinators now trained), will put new tactics into practice. 75% of Oregon schools in 197 school districts are using IPM plans. 90% of school districts use non-chemical methods compared with 66% in 2010. 65% of school districts have a monitoring schedule and action thresholds compared with 36% in 2010. 71% of school districts have a low impact pesticides list, compared with 38% in 2010 Medium-long term - after IPM education: There have been no chlorpyrifos detections in the Hood River for the past four years, despite a long prior history of high and toxic detections. Median malathion detections dropped 82% in the Wasco watershed despite higher use rates against spotted wing Drosophila. Chlorpyrifos concentrations in the Walla Walla River are 90% lower, compared with 2006 when monitoring began, and are now below the chronic water quality benchmark. In Zollner Creek (Pudding watershed, N. Willamette Valley), no chlorpyrifos has been detected since 2008, despite high rates of use and high prior pesticide loadings, Use of on-line weather based decision support tools increased in Oregon from <4,000 a year at the outset to >18,000 a year at the end of the award (model uses outside Oregon are ~60,000 a year). The weed, insect and disease IPM handbooks on line now receive >600,000 significant (multi-page) uses each year. Active and sustained partnerships have been developed in the State IPM Program, watershed-scale IPM, Farmscaping for Beneficials and School IPM programs.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Jepson, P.C., Guzy, M., Blaustein, K., Sow, M., Sarr, M., Mineau, P., Kegley, S. (2014) Measuring pesticide ecological and health risks in West African agriculture to establish an enabling environment for sustainable intensification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0491
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1639/20130491
This publication reported details of the pesticide risk assessment platform IPM-PRiME which was developed with NRCS and NIFA support, and used throughout Oregon IPM extension programmatic delivery during tenure of this CPPM award. An African case study was reported in this example, funded from non-US sources, because comprehensive pesticide use data of the form that we analyzed, are not available in Oregon. The tools that are reported were however used to rank pesticides by health and environmental risk for user audiences and we acknowledged the role of the CPPM program in the paper.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Halbleib, M.L., Jepson, P.C. (2015) Adapting an outcome-based education development process to meet near real-time challenges to sustainable agricultural production. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 21 (2),109-126
Published on line July 2014: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.927377
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1389224X.2014.927377#.U8WJGFaoVX9
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Halbleib, M.L., Jepson, P.C. (2016) Adaptive, learner-centered education: a toolkit for extension. EM 9144, Oregon State Extension Service.
This extension publication acknowledges NIFA support, and was used with extension partners throughout this award to design and focus state-IPM extension programing throughout the state.
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Coop, L (web publication, continuous update) https://uspest.org/wea/
This web-based, weather-data and model driven IPM decision support system acknowledges NIFA support, among other sources, and made significant advances during tenure of the CPPM award. (see annual entries under Whats New : https://uspest.org/wea/weanew.html
|
Progress 09/01/15 to 08/31/16
Outputs
Target Audience:1. OSU Extension agents and their associated stakeholders have been reached. We have projects in hay, forage legumes, winegrapes and tree fruit in S. Oregon, grass seed and mint in the mid WillametteValley, nursery crops and Christmas trees in the N. Willamette Valley, Tree fruit in the Mid-Columbia region, wheat and peas in the Blue Mountains, and potato, onions, and bluegrass in irrigated desert agriculture. 2. Chritmas Tree and nursery producers have received targeted education programs in IPM and conservation biological control. 3. School IPM Coordinators and ground's staff have received training throughout the state. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The iLab capacity program for extension agents provides contunuous support and feedback through conference calls, program planning, newsletters and jointproject activity. This has included workshops and grower consultations in the Mid Willamette Valley, Medford in S. Oregon and Milton Freewater in the Umatilla Basin ofN.E. Oregon. We refer to the Nursery and Christmas Tree Industry workshops above. So far in the School IPM Program, the results of the demonstration project have been shared with IPM coordinators (IPMCs) from K-12 public school districts and grounds leads at multiple trainings. The sharing of current results began with the annual turf and landscape workshop on August 11, 2015 (47 participants, including 28 participants from 13 school districts, and 19 participants from private K-12 schools, Head Start programs, a community college and OSU), which was hosted at the OSU Lewis Brown Horticulture Research Farm, as well as on the OSU campus south of Sackett Hall. From then on, the results have been shared at IPMC training events in Bandon, Roseburg and Salem (125 participants). Information from the demonstration plots aids in trainings by reinforcing maintenance practices that the study is measuring against, like mowing frequency, the importance of establishment, and fertility. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We are documenting all of the iLab activities for ultimate reporting under this funding. Results are beingshared among participants in the form of newsletters and data summaries. We distribute detailed IPM guides and risk management plans among participants at our IPM workshops for nurseries and Christmas Trees, and we are now focusing on participatory development of conservation biological control practices, and we have distributed plant lists and management plans via industry newsletters and at educational events. For School IPM the results have been released to the communities of interest in two major ways. The first has been mentioned, which is through IPMC trainings and the annual turf and landscape workshop on August 11, 2015. The other is by the publishing of an article in Digger Magazine. The article should be published in the June issue, this year (2016). The results will also be discussed in a presentation during the American Society of Agriculture (ASA) annual meeting this November in Arizona. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The iLab program is accellerating and we will conduct a three day training workshop on program planning and Crop Pest Loss Impact Assessment for extension agents in October, 2016, with monthly video conferences leading up to this. We will also document stakeholder workshops and outcomes. We are contunuing to conduct fall and winter conservation biological control and IPM workshops, and this program is expanding significantly in the next 12 months now that multiple, new industry connections have been made through iLab. For School IPM:Continue taking data from the demonstration plots. Conduct an annual turf and landscape workshop as per the project timeline. The next one will be on August 2, 2016. We will also keep IPM Coordinators up to date as further results come out by informing them at upcoming IPMC trainings (Eight are scheduled from June 29, 2016 to August 24, 2016).
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
We have a establised a network of extension agents - iLab, and we have a series of projects undeway with them, building capacity to use the methodology for adaptive, learner-centered education that we have developed in the IPPC (Halbleib and Jepson, 2016). A program of Pest Management Strategic Plans has been planned for mint, cherries, cranberries, and onions, and we are suppementing these with Crop Pest Lost Impact Assessment surveys that were developed by University of Arizona. We conducted a workshop in outcome based program design in October 2015, and a program plan for this capacity building exercuse has been developed. We conducted three series of education events for nursery and Christmas Tree growders in the N. Willamatte Valley, and developed IPM guidelines, pesticide risk management and pesticide application management guides for these two industries. We taught 5-7 skills, depending upon the industry sector in pesticide use reduction, where we addressed alternatives to pesticides, and we we addessed 6 aspects of risk mitigation, including application management and pesticide selection. There were 73 participants spanning the key industruy representatives in these workshops. At events, 64-100% of participants intended to make adjustnents to spray timing, 50-100% intended to select lower risk pesticides, and 58-100% intended to reduce spray frequency. In the following season, 50-90% had used on-line weather forecasting, 79-95% adjusted application timing, 55-90% protected sensitive sites fromspray drift, 83% spent more time scouting, 30-58% used less chlorpyrifos, and 48% used aphicides less frequently. In 2015, chlorpyrifos detection frequency in the key watershed for these industries had fallen to 12%, well below the 45% peak in 2009, and also the 28% starting point for this program in 2013. And concentrations were below, except in one case, the chronic water quality benchmark for Salomon. This was a slight increase from zero detections in 2014. The School IPM program has conducted trainings at a turf and landscape annual meeting for School IPM Coordinators, and IPM training events for 125 participants in Bandon, Roseberg, and Salem. Also, for School IPM: A specialist was hired to conduct one demonstration plot on school grounds to support annual turf and landscape IPM training. Key school IPM coordinator/grounds leads were surveyed to determine the 10 plant types to be used in the demonstration plot. Survey respondents were educated about characteristics of 16 plants, which included a discussion and Q&A, then asked to pick their favorite 5. Respondents were given the opportunity to add plants to the list. The 10 plants chosen were:Creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra L. ssp rubra), Chewings fescue (Festuca rubra L. spp. commutata), Colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis Sibth), Dwarf periwinkle (Vinca minor), Bearberry cotoneaster (Cotoneaster dammeri), Wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei), Creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), Green carpet (Herniaria glabra), Caucasian stonecrop (Sedum spurium), and Point reyes ceanothus (Ceanothus gloriosus). It was decided to establish two demonstration plots on OSU property that have characteristics similar to typical school grounds. Factors to be evaluated include the establishment rate, drought tolerance, weed suppression, mowing tolerance, and visual quality of various ground covers and grasses in a low maintenance situation. Visual quality and uniformity ratings will be done by grounds staff at least biannually. Data is being taken from May of 2015 to October 2017. After data analysis differences in Percent plant coverage and weed cover were observed. From May 2015 to January 2016, colonial bentgrass, chewings fescue, and strong red fescue had the highest percent of plant coverage among all ground covers (83%, 76% and 74%, respectively). The next closest ground cover was Sedum spurium which provided 51.8% ground cover. From there the plants drop off in plant coverage, and increase in weed coverage. In a short period of time we have observed that grasses fill in areas quickly, reducing weed coverage better than the other ground covers. Sedum is performing close to the grasses, but comes at a substantially greater cost per area compared to grass seed. Ground covers have the potential to get complete coverage resulting in fewer weeds and lower long term maintenance costs, but there is more of an upfront cost in maintaining them until full establishment. Grasses are great in that they fill in fast while being relatively cheap, but long term maintenance will be more intense when regular irrigation, fertilization, and mowing is utilized.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
Hableib, M.L. and Jepson, P.C. (2016) Adaptive, learner-centered education: a manual for extension. EM9411, Oregon State University Extension Service, June 2016.
|
Progress 09/01/14 to 08/31/15
Outputs
Target Audience:1. Primary Coordination Emphasis Area: IPM Implementation in Agronomic and Specialty Crops: a. Enhancing IPM implementation in agronomic and specialty crops via an extension IPM innovation laboratory. OSU county-based extension agents. b. Enhancing biologically-based IPM in Agronomic and Specialty Crops by a Farmscaping for Beneficials Program. Columbia Basin tree fruit producers, of all categories, and small to medium scale farms of other types throughout the state. 2. Secondary Extension Implementation Program Priority Area: IPM Training and Implementation in Schools: School custodians and ground keepers, and private pest control industry contractors Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?1. Primary Coordination Emphasis Area: IPM Implementation in Agronomic and Specialty Crops: a. Enhancing IPM implementation in agronomic and specialty crops via an extension IPM innovation laboratory. Agent 1: Evaluation of website and an IPM alert system in a way that provides analysis of the uses and benefits of the information, and tracks changes over time. Agent 2: Design and evaluation of Christmas tree IPM grower education to reduce OP use, and increase beneficial insect populations through enhancing on-farm habitat management. Agent 3: Documenting adoption of IPM in nurseries, understanding the time lags involved, and developing new ways to develop IPM education for workers and nursery managers Agent 4: Evaluation of the role of master gardeners in the Metro area in pesticide management and risk reduction, and moving beyond anecdotal evidence for program impacts. Demonstrate actual impacts of the program on gardener behavior to unlock funding. Agent 5: Formal design and evaluation for a thrips IPM program (which targets early monitoring and damage assessment), in response to elevated pesticide use and reliance on calendar spraying. Better articulation of IPM benefits, and resolution of categories of impact. Agent 6: Pesticide drift management at the agriculture/urban interface, and steps to limit movement of urban pests (e.g. apple maggot) into commercial orchards. This could include an on-line mapping website for non-commercial fruit tree owners that shows distance to nearest orchard, and how to avoid being a source of pests. Also interested in applications of ipmPRiME. Agent 7: Landscape-scale tracking of CPB movement after harvest using GIS to support development of a pesticide resistance management regime. Seeking evidence for pesticide resistance in CPB, and establishment of a pest resistance task force. Incorporate economics into the analysis. Agent 8: Pesticide risk management, IPM and certification in pome fruit, wine grape and wheat/pea production systems. Agent 9: Considering ideas related to potato production. b. Enhancing biologically-based IPM in Agronomic and Specialty Crops by a Farmscaping for Beneficials Program. In December 2014 a telephone conference call was held with project collaborators from Washington's Underwood Conservation District and the Wasco Soil and Water Conservation District and other calls to three area orchardists to design content for the 2015 courses. Suggestions were also take from the 2013/14 course evaluations. Taking into account previous participant and collaborator input, the March 11th, Designing and Establishing Insectary Plantings in Oregon Orchards and Vineyards was expanded to provide basic biological and ecological information for insect predators and parasitoids of vineyard and orchard pests, native pollinators and birds beneficial in each system. Participants learned various configurations of insectary plantings from real commercial farm examples and details on how to establish them. Drew Merritt, of Humble Roots Nursery and Farm, presented information on appropriate, local native plants to use in insectary plantings and gave a handout of a local orchard, insectary planting implemented 6 years ago (see Flowers and Shrubs in Copper Block Planting). This planting was visited in our summer field course. A local farmer panel consisting of one conventional cherry orchardist, a vineyardist using permaculture techniques and a farmer from a combined biodynamic orchard and vineyard operation presented techniques they use to provide resources for beneficial insects, why they use them and how they perceive the value of the practices to their farming system. At the end of the course participants had an opportunity to assimilate what they learned in the course through small group exercises where they designed a plan for implementing insectary plantings on three participant farms. The designs had to go from planning to maintenance (over a year and a half). Members of each group were chosen to write/demonstrate and present the plan to the larger group. The plan from one of these farms was refines at the summer course (see Dahle Hedgerow draft). Participants of the winter course helped plan the content and format of the summer field course and suggested we visit two farms instead of one. This change was implemented for the summer field course. An evaluation was conducted at the end of course. A handout of an example hedgerow for orchards and vineyards and their associated pests and beneficial insects was included in the course packet along with a Farmscaping Resource Guide for the Columbia Basin. For the summer course a summary of the host farmers conservation practices were also included in the packet (see corresponding attachments). The summer field course, held at Omeg Family Orchards and Dahle orchards in The Dalles consisted of a farm tour an extensive visit to agricultural biodiverse areas with farmer hosts describing insectary plantings they had done and how they established them. Field identification of native plants and beneficial insects was conducted at the Omeg insectaries with the help of Humble Roots Nursery personnel. Class participant, Tim Pitz, identified beneficial birds in the field as we visited established bird boxes on both farms. A chance to visit the site "farmscaped" in the winter course at the Dahle Orchard resulted in the class creating a new hedgerow plan for that area at the end of the day. A round robin evaluation of the day, a paper evaluation (see Field Course Evaluation Summary, May 13, 2015) and a discussion of plans for continuing our work together was held after the designing session. Three farmer participants agreed they would implement habitat in the next year and would like to form a local working group with other course participants to make that happen on their farms. Two participants were interested in attending the 2015/16 regional Functional Agricultural Biodiversity Work Group meeting in Portland. Meetings will be confirmed this fall and winter. 2. Secondary Extension Implementation Program Priority Area: IPM Training and Implementation in Schools: We will train IPM Coordinators (IPMCs) from K-12 public school districts and grounds leads at annual turf and landscape workshops. The first training was scheduled for the fourth quarter of the first year of the grant, and will be conducted on August 10, 2015. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?1. Primary Coordination Emphasis Area: IPM Implementation in Agronomic and Specialty Crops: a. Enhancing IPM implementation in agronomic and specialty crops via an extension IPM innovation laboratory. N/A b. Enhancing biologically-based IPM in Agronomic and Specialty Crops by a Farmscaping for Beneficials Program. Reports and event summaries are distributed widely to former course participants throughout the state, and to agency staff and cooperators. 2. Secondary Extension Implementation Program Priority Area: IPM Training and Implementation in Schools: The School IPM Website maintains and up to date record of all activities and it is widely consulted by School staff. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The program will continue as outlined in our proposal, building upon the first years programatic advances
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
1. Primary Coordination Emphasis Area: IPM Implementation in Agronomic and Specialty Crops: a. Enhancing IPM implementation in agronomic and specialty crops via an extension IPM innovation laboratory. A group of experienced, off-campus research and extension faculty agreed to participate in iLAB and develop the concept. Initial challenge areas for each faculty member were outlined, and a series of group calls, meetings and planned events are now in progress. In several cases, new opportunities for program development have arisen through the use of novel approaches and technologies that were introduced as part of iLAB. b. Enhancing biologically-based IPM in Agronomic and Specialty Crops by a Farmscaping for Beneficials Program. In 2015, the Farmscaping for Beneficials Program conducted two all day courses for orchardists and vineyardists of Oregon's Columbia Plateau. The courses built upon 2013/14 courses and focused on the integration and establishment of conservation practices that increase agricultural biodiversity in orchards and vineyards. The format for the courses was a full-day, winter workshop paired with a full-day summer field course on a commercial farm. In total, there were 35 course participants (farmers, agricultural support personnel and consultants) that spanned over 1000 acres from three Oregon counties (Wasco, Hood River and Washington) and three Washington counties (Skamania, Klickitat and Yakima). 2. Secondary Extension Implementation Program Priority Area: IPM Training and Implementation in Schools: We are building School IPM Coordinators' and Grounds Staff's Capacity to Implement IPM and Train School Staff A specialist was hired to conduct the demonstration plot. Key school IPM coordinator/grounds leads were surveyed to determine the 10 plant types to be used in the demonstration plot. Survey respondents were educated about characteristics of 16 plants, which included a discussion and Q&A, then asked to pick their favorite 5. Respondents were given the opportunity to add plants to the list. It was decided to establish two demonstration plots on OSU property that have characteristics similar to typical school grounds. The plots were planted on May 25, 2015. Factors to be evaluated include the establishment rate, drought tolerance, weed suppression, mowing tolerance, and visual quality of various ground covers and grasses in a low maintenance situation. Visual quality and uniformity ratings will be done by grounds staff at least biannually. Data will be taken from May of 2015 to October 2017.
Publications
|