NAVIGATING THE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN PEST MANAGEMENT AND POLLINATOR CONSERVATION IN CUCURBITS

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: OTHER GRANTS
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 1010185
• Grant No.: 2016-51181-25410
• Cumulative Award Amt.: $3,673,611.00
• Proposal No.: 2016-04962
• Project Start Date: Sep 1, 2016
• Project End Date: Aug 31, 2022
• Grant Year: 2021
• Program Code: [SCRI]- Specialty Crop Research Initiative

Recipient Organization
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
(N/A)
WEST LAFAYETTE,IN 47907

Performing Department
Entomology

Non Technical Summary
Originally introduced in the mid-1990s, neonicotinoid insecticides (hereafter, abbreviated as 'neonics') experienced an exponential rise in use on farmland over the past two decades and are now the most widely used insecticides in the world . Their rapid and widespread adoption, including registration for use on virtually all field and horticultural crops, is largely due to their: a) high selectivity towards insects with low mammalian toxicity, making neonics relatively safe to humans compared with older insecticide classes; b) high water solubility, allowing for systemic uptake and circulation to all plant parts; and c) broad-spectrum activity that targets a wide diversity of insect pests. Unfortunately, these same attributes that make neonics versatile and powerful pest management tools make them prone to non-target effects. Their systemic activity, for example, results in the presence of active ingredients in pollen and nectar, including both crops grown from neonic-treated seed and uncultivated weeds and wildflowers, providing an unanticipated exposure route for beneficial pollinating insects. Indeed, neonics have been implicated as a factor in sudden die-offs of managed honey bee hives and long term declines in native bee populations . Thus, farmers growing pollinator-dependent crops--representing a large fraction of all fruits and vegetables--are confronted with a potential trade-off between two competing aspects of crop production: effective pest suppression and successful pollination. It remains unclear, however, to what degree pest and pollinator management are mutually exclusive in specialty crops managed with neonics and whether this trade-off can be mitigated.This dilemma is particularly apparent in cucurbits (collectively valued at ca. $1.5 billion annually in the U.S.), which are attacked by several insect pests that constrain production. These pests are effectively managed with neonics, but are ultimately dependent upon bees for pollination and fruit set. Cucurbits present the ideal framework to address a conundrum posed by neonics in agriculture at large: Can these powerful and ubiquitous insecticides be used to effectively target pests while simultaneously preserving key pollinators? To address this broad goal, we have assembled a diverse team of research and extension scientists, from entomologists to economists, across several Midwestern and Northeastern states, combined with input from a consortium of cucurbit growers, beekeepers, and pest control representatives. Our long term goal is to develop holistic pest management regimes that are effective, profitable, and sustainable.

Animal Health Component

80%

Research Effort Categories

Basic

20%

Applied

80%

Developmental

(N/A)

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
211	1429	1130	100%

Knowledge Area
211 - Insects, Mites, and Other Arthropods Affecting Plants;

Subject Of Investigation
1429 - Cucurbits, other;

Field Of Science
1130 - Entomology and acarology;

Keywords

cucurbit

honey bee

insecticide

neonicotinoid

pollination

Goals / Objectives
Objective 1: Identify insecticide management strategies that simultaneously optimize pest suppression while minimizing non-target exposure to cucurbit pollinatorsHypothesis: Neonic residues in plant parts visited by bees frequently exceed the levels considered safe, without contributing additional benefits in the form of pest reduction. Thus, producers can adapt their management to partially alleviate this trade-off.Objective 2: Determine the consequences of within- and extra-field neonic exposure for honey and wild bee health using large-scale field manipulationsHypothesis: Pollinator exposure to neonics is a function of both within-field management and extra-field association with row crops (corn, soybean), which represent the lion's share of neonic use overall. As a result, pollinator survival and reproduction will be further suppressed when exposed to both stressors.Objective 3: Assess the ecological and socioeconomic trade-offs among pollinators, pests, crop yield, and farm profitability resulting from alternative pesticide regimesHypothesis: The hidden costs of neonics on pollination services discount the benefits of pest control and reduce overall farm profit, both at the private and aggregate levels, under many real-world scenarios, risking the long-term sustainability of specialty crops.

Project Methods
1: Over a period of three years (2017-2019) we will perform annual surveys of cucurbit farms across three Midwestern states. Due to regional differences in total crop acreage, each state will focus on only one or two cucurbit types; namely, Michigan: cucumber, Indiana: watermelon and muskmelon, and Ohio: pumpkin and squash. In each year, we aim to sample 15 fields per state, resulting in 135 total fields across the duration of the project (3 years x 3 states x 15 fields/state/year). Farms will be recruited for inclusion in the study using the large network of grower contacts already available by the PDs on this proposal, most of whom routinely interact with producers via their extension activities. Several have already been identified and pledged their cooperation with this project if funded (see grower support letters from Stakeholder Relevance Review), and we do not anticipate difficulties in increasing this number to the desired sample size. This is partly the case because our proposed sampling design is highly non-intrusive; we will be able to collect all necessary data without interfering with daily crop management. At each field, we will record the following information, which will later be used as either predictor or response variables in our statistical model: Pesticide inputs, Pest populations, Pollinators, Plant and soil samples. All plant and soil samples will be analyzed for neonic presence and concentration. 2: Over a three year period (2018-2020) we will compare pest control, pollination, and crop yield between two management systems that vary widely in their reliance on neonics. For within-field, we will compare 'high intensity' regimes of frequent prophylactic neonic applications at high rates--but still typical of on-farm practices--with an 'IPM' approach, where neonics are used but sparingly to minimize pollinator exposure; namely, using low application rates, active ingredients with lower toxicity for bees, and only applying insecticides based on economic thresholds. These treatments present two disparate, but workable, approaches for pest management. For extra-field treatments we will compare 'no neonic' (cucurbits planted into fields rotated with untreated corn in the previous year and neighboring untreated corn) with standard 'neonic' regimes that are almost uniformly employed in current Midwestern row crops (rotation with and neighboring seed-treated corn). At each of the six farm sites, we will establish two fields that are randomly assigned to either: i) standard high-intensity neonic; or ii) experimentally reduced neonic, IPM treatment. Thus, we will have five replicates of this experiment repeated over three years with each farm serving as one fully replicated block. Because honey bees have a large foraging radius (ca. 1.5 km), we will separate the two fields within a site by at least 3 km to avoid pseudoreplication. We will only use corn as the rotation and neighboring row crop in this experiment rather than trying to integrate both corn and soybean. This is partly for ease of data interpretation (i.e., corn and soybean use different neonics--clothianidin and thiamethoxam, respectively--as seed treatments), but also because corn is more prevalent in our region and potentially more relevant to cucurbit producers. Unlike Obj. 1 that examines many different cucurbit types, for this experiment we will focus only on muskmelon because Indiana is one of the top producers in the U.S. for this crop. Muskmelon plots (1 acre) will be embedded within a corn matrix (15 acres) to simulate a common scenario where the specialty crop is surrounded on all sides by row crop.3: Data from grower surveys will be integrated with outcomes from Obj. 1 and 2 within a spatial-dynamic ecological-economic simulation model with socio-ecological feedbacks to simulate the outcomes of whole-farm (within-field) and landscape-wide (extra-field) neonic use. Substantial scenario analyses will allow us to assess the level of economic inefficiency that results from grower decision-making based on imperfect or incomplete information, under a variety of crop, farm, and landscape configurations. We will design a set of related stated-preference surveys to elicit grower preferences for pest control and pollination alternatives and to determine willingness to trade-off attributes such as revenues, direct costs, and indirect external costs. We will include additional questions to evaluate (i) farmer perceptions and knowledge of neonics, including their contribution to crop growth/yield and their potential harm to pollinators, and (ii) farmer support for policies or programs that would promote lower use of neonics and/or increased plantings of wild pollinator habitat. Different versions of the survey will target growers of pollinator-dependent crops (e.g., melons and cucumbers), growers of non-pollinator-dependent crops (e.g., corn), and growers that rotate their fields among pollinator-dependent and non-dependent crops. Following Mitchell & Carson (1989), we will develop the surveys through a rigorous process that includes grower interviews and focus groups, and design charrettes/pretests of the survey instrument. Interviews and focus groups help identify the language used by typical respondents in describing farm, pollination and pest control attributes to ensure they are not understood differently by researchers (Johnston et al. 1995) and that alternative scenarios presented are considered reasonable options. Surveys will be mailed to growers in Indiana and other Midwestern states. We will follow Dillman et al.'s (2008) mail survey methodology that involves multiple mailings over several weeks: (1) a preview letter describing the purpose of the study, (2) the survey instrument, (3) a reminder postcard, (4) a second copy of the survey to non-respondents only, and (5) a second reminder postcard to non-respondents only. This method is used to increase response rates and reduce response bias. We anticipate of sample of N~400 completed and returned surveys, providing adequate degrees of freedom to estimate the anticipated models. We propose to develop spatially-explicit, stochastic, computational ecological-economic models of neonic drift that are discrete in space (fields are represented by a grid) and time (monthly time steps, over fifteen years). These models will be used to design computational experiments that extend the field experiment described in Obj. 2.

Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/22

Outputs
Target Audience:Entomologists working in academia, the federal government (USDA), and industry. Specialty crop producers focused on those growing cucurbits (watermelon, pumpkin, cucumber). Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We gave the following presentations during the final year of this project: Leach A, Pecenka J, Ingwell L, Foster R, Krupke C, Kaplan I. Implementing cucumber beetle IPM for pollinator protection. Symposium: Novel Tools and Opportunities for Cucurbit IPM in North America. 10th International IPM Symposium, Denver CO. March 2022. Wu L, Atallah S. A choice experiment of pest and pollinator management. Seminar, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Program in Environmental and Resource Economics, September 16, 2021. Wu L, Atallah S. A choice experiment of pest and pollinator management. AERE @ the Southern Economic Association (SEA) Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, November 20, 2021. Leach A, Kaplan I. IPPM in watermelon: what worked and what didn't. Illiana Watermelon Association, French Lick, IN, March 11, 2022. (60 growers in attendance) What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Obj 1: The hazard pesticides pose to pollinators are well-understood from laboratory studies. However, the field-level response of pollinators to pesticide use in agroecosystems is not well-established, nor is it clear if synergisms between pesticides affect pollinator visitation to crops. We evaluated if fungicide and insecticide use posed a hazard to wild and honeybees at 87 cucurbit--pumpkin, cucumber, watermelon--farms in the Midwestern United States. We also evaluated if synergisms between local- (i.e. focal cucurbit field) and landscape-level (i.e. surrounding crops) pesticide use influence wild and honeybee visitation to crop flowers. We found that bees were exposed to pesticides above regulatory levels of concern and that synergisms between a few local insecticides and landscape-level fungicides reduced wild bee visitation to cucurbit flowers. Honey and bumblebee visitation to crops was not strongly influenced by synergisms between pesticides used at the local and landscape level. We found pesticides posed hazards to honey and wild bee species. However, pesticides were less likely to affect short-term visitation rates of honeybees compared with wild bee species. Thus, there is a need for changes in pesticide use at large spatial scales to reduce reliance on honeybees and maximize wild bee visitation to pollinator-dependent crops. We suggest that a multifaceted approach, involving collaborations between farmers, consumers and policymakers, will be fruitful to promote changes in pesticide use and wild bee pollinators. Obj 2: We used a 4-y experiment using commercial-scale fields replicated across multiple sites in the midwestern United States to evaluate the consequences of adopting integrated pest management (IPM) using pest thresholds compared with standard conventional management (CM). To do so, we employed a systems approach that integrated coproduction of a regionally dominant row crop (corn) with a pollinator-dependent specialty crop (watermelon). Pest populations, pollination rates, crop yields, and system profitability were measured. Despite higher pest densities and/or damage in both crops, IPM-managed pests rarely reached economic thresholds, resulting in 95% lower insecticide use (97 versus 4 treatments in CM and IPM, respectively, across all sites, crops, and years). In IPM corn, the absence of a neonicotinoid seed treatment had no impact on yields, whereas IPM watermelon experienced a 129% increase in flower visitation rate by pollinators, resulting in 26% higher yields. The pollinator-enhancement effect under IPM management was mediated entirely by wild bees; foraging by managed honey bees was unaffected by treatments and, overall, did not correlate with crop yield. This proof-of-concept experiment mimicking on-farm practices illustrates that cropping systems in major agricultural commodities can be redesigned via IPM to exploit ecosystem services without compromising, and in some cases increasing, yields. In two additional field studies, we also evaluated the effect of IPPM insecticide programmes on striped cucumber beetle (Acalymma vittatum) management, pollination and watermelon yield. The first trial (2020) featured insecticide treatments representing a factorial combination of (1) products varying in bee toxicity (bifenthrin, cyclaniliprole and acetamiprid), (2) application frequencies (weekly vs. threshold-based) and (3) application timings (AM vs. PM), as well as an untreated control. These data were then used to inform a second trial (2021) that applied two insecticide treatments (IPPM based or grower standard) to commercial-scale (20-30 acres) fields in collaboration with regional watermelon farms. Weekly beetle densities, pollinator visitation and yield data were collected to determine programme efficacy. Overall, beetle infestations were successfully managed with all insecticide treatments, none of which compromised marketable yield. In 2020, threshold-based insecticide programmes offered statistically similar levels of pest control but required 20%-80% fewer applications compared to a weekly programme. Furthermore, pollinator visitation was increased in threshold-based programmes by ~42% across all products. The on-farm validation trial in 2021 upheld these findings; IPPM fields had effective beetle control but with 1-7 fewer insecticide applications compared to grower standard fields. IPPM fields also had 62% greater pollinator visitation and 49% more melons during harvest compared to grower standard fields. Our study demonstrates the capacity of IPPM programmes to manage pests while mitigating negative effects on pollinators. In particular, administering insecticide applications by pest thresholds led to the greatest enhancement in pollinator function. These findings also suggest that growers can benefit from this approach with reduced insecticide costs while encouraging pollination in pollinator-dependent crops. Obj 3: While research suggests that pollinator decline is linked with agricultural practices, it is unclear whether farmers share this view and adapt management to promote pollinators based on their understanding of these threats. To address these issues, we surveyed farmers of pollinator-dependent cucurbit crops across four states in the Midwest, USA. We grouped farmers by their perceptions of pollinator declines and routes of pesticide exposure and used statistical models to evaluate if farmers manage pests and pollinators based on these perceptions. Out of 93 completed surveys, 39% of farmers believed pollinators were in decline. When grouped, 17% of farmers were classified as proponents, ranking (on a 1-5 Likert scale) the factors mediating pesticide exposure and pollinator declines as important or highly important. For comparison, 44 and 39% of farmers were classified as neutral or skeptical, respectively, of these same factors. Compared to the neutral and skeptic groups, proponents were on average younger, had fewer years farming but more years in family farming, and were more dependent on income from outside the farming system. Proponents also on average reported smaller farms, higher pest richness, more land in cucurbit production, and greater richness of crops that are not pollinator dependent, when compared to the neutrals and skeptics. We did not find pest and pollinator management to be related to farmer perceptions of pollinator decline or routes of pesticide exposure, but farmers classified as pollinator "proponents" were more likely to indicate participation in future pollinator habitat restoration programs. Rather, management strategies were better explained by on-farm environmental conditions (e.g., pest richness, farm size, number of pollinator dependent crops) and economic factors (e.g., sources of income). Generally, our research shows that farmers who perceive pollinator threats may not be using pollinator supportive practices. Thus, while some farmers believe in pollinator declines, there remains a need to connect this knowledge with on-farm practices. We also designed a choice experiment survey asking cucurbit growers in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio about their perceptions and preferences for different sets of pollinator and pest management options which include insecticide sprays at different effectiveness levels, renting honey bee colonies, and setting aside habitat for wild pollinators. Overall, we find that cucurbit growers in our sample have a clear preference for two attributes: high pest control effectiveness and maintained managed beehives strength. We find that respondents who believe wild pollinators are in decline prefer options that protect them by reducing pesticide leaching rather than by options that provide them with habitat.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Accepted Year Published: 2021 Citation: Pecenka JR, Ingwell LL, Foster RE, Krupke CH, Kaplan I. 2021. IPM reduces insecticide applications by 95% while maintaining or enhancing crop yields through wild pollinator conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (44) e2108429118 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108429118
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Accepted Year Published: 2022 Citation: Leach A, Pecenka J, Kaplan I. 2022. Does IPPM bear fruit? Evaluating reduced?risk insecticide programmes on pests, pollinators and marketable yield. Journal of Applied Ecology 59(12): 2993-3002 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14294
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2023 Citation: Kaminski AR, Bauer DM. Pollinator-dependent farmers care about pollinators, but do they worry about them? Findings from cucurbit farmer focus groups in the Midwest, USA. Renewable Agriculture & Food Systems, in revision
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2021 Citation: Pecenka J. 2021. IPM in Midwestern Agriculture: Implications to Pests, Pollinators, and Yield. PhD Dissertation, Purdue University.
• Type: Websites Status: Accepted Year Published: 2020 Citation: Purdue Extension, Cucurbit/Melon Project: https://youtu.be/DFThkjqXmm0
• Type: Websites Status: Accepted Year Published: 2020 Citation: Purdue Extension, Cucurbit/Melon Pest Management: https://youtu.be/GRqONj5Ex0M
• Type: Websites Status: Accepted Year Published: 2020 Citation: Purdue Extension, Cucurbit/Melon Pollination: https://youtu.be/ctzQ1pygMFA
• Type: Websites Status: Accepted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Helping Honey Bees Pollinate Pickling Cucumber Fields: https://youtu.be/Rknuvhl9Sbg

Progress 09/01/20 to 08/31/21

Outputs
Target Audience:Entomologists and horticultural scientists working in pest management and conservation; social scientists and agricultural economists; vegetable growers and beekeepers. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have given the following presentations over the past year: Szendrei, Z. 2021. Supporting pollinators in vine crops: from honey bees to wild bees. Purdue University Entomology Department's Virtual Seminar Series. Pecenka, J.R., Ingwell, I., Foster, R., Krupke, C., Kaplan, I. 2021. Adopting IPM in Midwestern Agroecosystems to Conserve Pollinators. Society for Ecological Restoration Midwest-Great Lakes Chapter Meeting. Virtual Conference. Pecenka, J.R. Balancing pests and pollinators in Indiana watermelons. Southwest Purdue Ag Center Field Day. Virtual Meeting - June 24, 2021. Leach, A.B., Pecenka, J.R. Having your cake and eating it too: watermelon pest management. Southwest Indiana Melon and Vegetable Growers Spring Meeting. Virtual Meeting - March 12, 2021. Pecenka, J.R. Spray vs. Survey: balancing watermelon pest management. Indiana Small Farms Conference. Virtual Poster Session - March 6, 2021. Pecenka, J.R., Ingwell, L.L., Foster, R., Krupke, C. and Kaplan, I. 2021. Prophylactic insecticides to watermelons lead to less frequent wild bee visitation and lower yield. Oral Presentation. Entomological Society of America, North-Central Branch Meeting. Virtual Conference. Pecenka, J.R., Ingwell, L.L., Foster, R., Krupke, C. and Kaplan, I. 2020. Unprotected Indiana corn suffers no pest pressure... Until year 4. Oral Presentation. Entomological Society of America, Annual Meeting. Virtual Conference. Wu, L., and Atallah, S. 2021. Farmer Pest Control and Pollination Choices: Evidence from a Choice Experiment with US Midwestern Cucurbit Farmers. Eastern Economics Association Annual Conference (Virtual 2021, New York City, New York). Audience: 700 Economists Wu, L., and Atallah, S. 2021. Farmer Pest Control and Pollination Choices: Evidence from a Choice Experiment with US Midwestern Cucurbit Farmers. United States Society for Ecological Economics (Virtual 2021). Audience: 25, more ecological and natural resource economists Wu, L., and Atallah, S. 2021. The bioeconomics of integrated pest and pollinator management: the case of neonicotinoids insecticides. UNH ECON Dept. Seminar (Virtual, 2021, Durham, New Hampshire). Audience: 15, Economic professors and graduate students Wu, L., and Atallah, S. 2021. The bioeconomics of integrated pest and pollinator management: the case of neonicotinoids insecticides. Western Economic Association International Annual Conference (Virtual 2021) Audience: 1814 Economists Wu, L., and Atallah, S. 2021. Farmer Pest Control and Pollination Choices: Evidence from a Choice Experiment with US Midwestern Cucurbit Farmers. Biodiversity and Economics for Conservation (Virtual 2021, Jackson, Wyoming) Audience: 90 more natural resource, bio-economists Wu, L., and Atallah, S. 2021. Farmer Pest Control and Pollination Choices: Evidence from a Choice Experiment with US Midwestern Cucurbit Farmers. Program in Environmental and Resource Economics, UIUC, ACES Dept (Virtual 2021, Urbana, Illinois). Audience: 20 economists and graduate students What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Data from all three objectives of this project were collected during 2016-2021. Thus, for the final year, we will be analyzing data, drafting manuscripts, and submitting them for publication. We anticipate submitting 2 manuscripts from Obj. 1, 3 manuscripts from Obj. 2 (one is already in press at PNAS), and 3 manuscripts from Obj. 3. In addition, we will continue presenting our data at grower-oriented extension events.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Obj 1: The field data for this objective were collected on commercial farms throughout Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan in 2018-2019. Some of these data have already been published (Ternest et al. 2020). However, a postdoc, Eli Bloom, worked to prepare an overall synthesis of data from all three states to determine level of neonicotinoids in flowers and potential impacts on wild and managed bees, as well as the influence of pesticides from the surrounding agricultural landscape. We found that bees were exposed to pesticides above regulatory levels of concern and that synergisms between a few local insecticides and landscape-level fungicides reduced wild bee visitation to cucurbit flowers. Honey and bumblebee visitation to crops was not strongly influenced by synergisms between pesticides used at the local and landscape level. This analysis was recently (2021) published in the Journal of Applied Ecology. Co-PI Goodell at Ohio State is working with former postdoc Keng-Lou James Hung to draft a manuscript on the costs and benefits of prophylactic insecticide use in cucurbit crops, again using data from all three states combined. They also processed and conducted statistical analyses on the pesticide load in spiders collected from pumpkin. In the lab, they prepared pumpkin leaf, nectar, and pollen samples for chemical analysis. These samples are the last of those collected in the summer of 2019, the analysis of which had been delayed due to COVID 19 restrictions on laboratory occupancy. Obj 2: The fourth and final year of the large-scale Indiana experiment led by PI Kaplan and conducted by PhD student, Jacob Pecenka, was completed during summer 2020. During the subsequent year, Jacob finished analyzing these data and writing his thesis chapters. The first chapter on crop yields and bee visitation was submitted to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Jacob plans to graduate in December 2021. Additionally, a postdoc, Ashley Leach, performed an on-farm experiment in summer 2021 using five commercial watermelon growers in Indiana. For this experiment, we sampled two fields for each farm - one field assigned to an IPM treatment and the other as the control. This is intended as an on-farm test of the Pecenka et al. study. Ashley visited farms weekly, sampled pests, told growers when pests crossed economic thresholds, and advised them on which pesticides to apply. Additionally, she sampled the pollinator community and measured fruit characteristics (yield and quality - hollow heart). These data are currently being analyzed and prepared for publication. In September 2020, a postdoc working with Co-PI Krupke, Sebastian Sheperd, was finishing the data collection from the final field season of his postdoctoral work, in a semi-field study analyzing the effects of exposure to different pesticide combinations on whole honeybee colonies. The research portion of this experiment finished at the end of the month, with the field site breakdown and preparation for winter at the start of October. In October-December 2020 Sebastian undertook pesticide residue analysis from this project at the Bindley Biosciences Center at the Purdue West Lafayette campus. This involved detecting levels of insecticides and fungicides in samples of flower pollen, leaf tissue, and water samples, from Sebastian's experiments. From January 2020-March 2021 Sebastian did computer-based analyses of data from this project, including several thousand photos of frames from beehives for honeybee colony structure analysis. This also included statistical analysis of key results from this project from the new data collected in Summer 2020 (including, but not limited to: mortality, colony weight change, varroa mite infestation, hive activity, experimental controls, pesticide residues, honey bee sugar consumption, RFID tracking of honey bee foraging behavior and more). From March 2021-May 2021 Sebastian produced publication-ready figures for these analyses and wrote/edited revisions on a manuscript for this part of the project. Sebastian finished his position on the project in May 2021, with the data analyzed and ready for subsequent reports to be submitted for publication. He is currently preparing a manuscript entitled: Common co-occurring pesticides (a neonicotinoid and fungicide) encountered by bees foraging in maize impair honey bee colony health in a semi-field study Obj 3: Linghui Wu (UNH) continued data analysis of the discrete choice experiment grower survey question, which became part of her dissertation. Dr. Wu presented preliminary results at multiple venues and has a draft paper "Farmer pest control and pollinator health choices: Evidence from a choice experiment with Midwestern cucurbit farmers" anticipated for submission in the fall or winter. Co-PI Bauer is mentoring this work. Dr. Wu successfully defended her dissertation in August. The first chapter model has a basic theoretical model for pollinator decline due to pesticide change and farm neonicotinoid drift externality from neighboring corn farms. Postdoc, Eli Bloom (Michigan State University), completed data analysis on a series of grower survey questions relating grower perceptions on pollinator health to agricultural management actions (e.g., pesticide use and pollinator habitat plantings). The paper "Socioecological factors and farmer perceptions impacting pesticide use and pollinator conservation on cucurbit farms" was published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. Co-PI Bauer mentored this work, but funding of Dr. Bloom came from the subaward to Michigan State. Co-PI Bauer continued revisions on the manuscript based on focus group work and began data analysis for another grower survey manuscript assessing potential tradeoffs and synergies among growers use of managed honey bees and wild pollinators. The following manuscript, based on our early focus groups, is again under revision: Kaminski, A.R., and D.M. Bauer. Pollinator-dependent farmers care about pollinators, but do they worry about them? Findings from cucurbit farmer focus groups in the Midwest, USA.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: LL Ingwell, JJ Ternest, JR Pecenka, I Kaplan. 2021. Supplemental forage ameliorates the negative impact of insecticides on bumblebees in a pollinator-dependent crop. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 288 (1953), 20210785
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: EH Bloom, TJ Wood, KLJ Hung, JJ Ternest, LL Ingwell, K Goodell, I Kaplan, Z Szendrei. 2021. Synergism between local?and landscape?level pesticides reduces wild bee floral visitation in pollinator?dependent crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 58: 1187-1198.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: EH Bloom, DM Bauer, A Kaminski, I Kaplan, Z Szendrei. 2021. Socioecological factors and farmer perceptions impacting pesticide use and pollinator conservation on cucurbit farms. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5, 254
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Linghui Wu. 2021. Economics of pest control and pollination conservation: perspectives from a bioeconomic model and a choice experiment. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire.
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Pecenka JR, Leach A. 2021. Spray less, pay less, and get better control of your arthropod pests. Vegetable Crop Hotline, Issue 692.

Progress 09/01/19 to 08/31/20

Outputs
Target Audience:Academic and government (USDA) scientists involved in entomology, plant science, agriculture, and ecology; specialty crop (cucurbit) producers and beekeepers. Changes/Problems:Due to COVID-related delays in our ability to access core facilities for processing samples for pesticide residue analysis, progress on lab work has been delayed. We recently applied for a no-cost extension to deal with these delays. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have given the following presentations at scientific conferences: Pecenka, J.R., Foster, R., Ingwell, L.L., Krupke, C. and Kaplan, I. 2019. Can IPM replace prophylactic insecticides in Midwestern cropping systems? Oral Presentation. Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting. St. Louis, MO. Pecenka, J.R., Foster, R., Ingwell, L.L., Krupke, C. and Kaplan, I. 2019. Can IPM replace prophylactic insecticides in Midwestern cropping systems? Oral Presentation. Ohio Valley Entomological Association. Lexington, KY. Pecenka, J.R., Ingwell, I., Foster, R., Krupke, C., Kaplan, I. 2019. Implementing IPM to improve pollinator health and profitability of Midwestern agroecosystems. Entomological Society of America North Central Branch Meeting. Cincinnati, OH. Skidmore, A., Pecenka, J.R., Grijalva, I., Krupke, C., Ingwell, L., Foster, R., and Kaplan, I. 2019. Ecosystem service bundling: Integrating predator and pollinator responses to insecticides in midwestern cropping systems. Entomological Society of America North Central Branch Meeting. Cincinnati, OH. Bloom EH, Wood TJ, Hung K-LJ, Ternest JJ, Ingwell LL, Goodell K, Kaplan I, Szendrei Z (2019) Synergism between local and landscape-level pesticides reduce wild bee visitation in pollinator-dependent crops. Entomology Society of America (St. Louis, MO) Bloom EH, Wood TJ, Hung K-LJ, Ternest JJ, Ingwell LL, Goodell K, Kaplan I, Szendrei Z (2020) Synergism between local and landscape-level pesticides reduce wild bee visitation in pollinator-dependent crops. Great Lakes Expo (Grand Rapids, MI) Wu L, Atallah S. 2019. The Bioeconomics of Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management: The Case of Neonicotinoids Insecticides, Southern Economics Association Meeting, Graduate Student Session. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Nov 23-25. Wu L, Atallah S. 2020. Farmer Trade-offs Between Pest Control and Pollinator Health: Evidence from a Choice Experiment with Midwestern Farmers, Annual Graduate Research Conference, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, April 21 Wu L, Atallah S. 2020. Farmer Trade-offs Between Pest Control and Pollinator Health: Evidence from a Choice Experiment with Midwestern Farmers, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association Annual Conference, 2020, Virtual Meeting Krupke CH. Effects of combined pesticide exposure on honey bee health and behaviour. Entomology Society of America Annual Meeting, St. Louis Missouri, USA. November 2019 Extension Presentation: 'Updates on the Impacts of Pesticide Use on Pollinator Health'. Southwest Indiana Melon and Vegetable Growers Annual Meeting. French Lick, Indiana, USA. February 2020. Keng-Lou James Hung, Laura Ingwell, Ian Kaplan, and Karen Goodell. "Response of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides and broad-spectrum foliar pesticides in pumpkin fields". Presented at the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO. 2019 Pecenka, J.R. and Ingwell, L. IPM in pollinator dependent crops. Indiana Hort. Conference and Expo. Indianapolis, IN. Feb 13, 2020. Pecenka, J.R. Implementing IPM to improve pollinator health and profitability of Midwestern agroecosystems. Commercial CCH's at SEPAC. Butlerville, IN. Dec 9, 2019. Podcast Interview - 'The Creator's Cloud - CIA for Bees' URL: https://soundcloud.com/user-763375325/cia-for-bees Summary: Podcast interview describing some of the broader aims of the SCRI project along with the use of RFID technology to track bees What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Objective 1 Analyses were conducted on a dataset (collected in 2017-18) describing the exposure of pollinator populations to pesticides at 87 specialty crop farming systems in the Upper Midwestern US (Indiana-watermelon, Michigan-cucumber, Ohio-pumpkin). We found that synergisms between local and landscape level pesticide hazards mediated exponential declines in wild bee pollinators visiting specialty crops. Our results demonstrated a need for landscape scale pesticide management and future directions for integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM). The manuscript describing these data was submitted to the Journal of Applied Ecology, which is now in revision as follows: Bloom EH, Wood TJ, Hung K-LJ, Ternest JJ, Ingwell LL, Goodell K, Kaplan I, Szendrei Z. Synergism between local and landscape-level pesticides reduce wild bee visitation in pollinator-dependent crops. In 2nd review at Journal of Applied Ecology Chemical analysis data from pumpkin field collections were processed, and statistical analysis run to determine the pesticide levels in leaf, pollen and nectar tissue, as well as in spiders collected from Ohio pumpkin fields. Statistics, data presentation, and preliminary manuscripts were drafted for two manuscripts. One is an agroecology synthesis of the effectiveness of insecticide treatments on suppressing herbivore pests in pumpkin, cucumber, and melons. The other is an examination of the pesticide load in spiders collected from pumpkin. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, no lab work or field work was performed in this time period. Manuscript in Preparation: Hung, K-L. J. et al. Macro-ecological patterns in cucurbit production surrounding chemical applications, pest pressures, and pollinator risk. Manuscript in preparation: Hung, K-L. J. et al. Response of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides and broad-spectrum foliar pesticides in pumpkin fields. Objective 2 Through winter/spring data from Summer 2019 were analyzed, protocols were prepared for pesticide residue analysis (of samples collected in Summer 2019). Equipment was prepared and ordered for the summer research season in 2020, and a large literature review/data extraction was conducted of the scientific literature that has investigated the effects of neonicotinoids on honey bees in proximity to corn/soybean. During Summer 2020, 24 new honey bee colonies installed and monitored, field sites were prepared for research (including re-seeding and irrigating wildflower plots), and a second replicate was conducted of the 2019 experiment with nucleus bee hives (investigating the effects of combined pesticide exposure on honey bee colony health). By the end of Summer 2020 this work was completed for this experiment, which now has 48 honey bee colonies of data spread across the summers of 2019-2020. In September 2020, pollen, water and leaf tissue samples from 2019 and 2020, were prepared for pesticide residue analysis (which will occur in October/November 2020). During summer of 2020, we completed the fourth and final year of the experiment across Indiana testing effects of insecticides on pests and pollinator health. However, samples from the summer of 2019 were unable to be processed due to COVID-related delays. These are being prepared for spring/summer of 2021. Additionally, we conducted two new experiments at the Meigs horticultural farm in summer 2020, led by postdoc Ashley Leach. Experiment 1 tested the effects of wild and honey bee visitation on watermelon fruit set and marketable yield using the following treatments: 1) two honeybee visits, 2) two wild bee visits, 3) eight honeybee visits, 4) open pollinated and 5) hand pollinated-were tested to determine the effect of differing visitors on watermelon yield and quality. In experiment 2, we tested the effects of three different insecticides, weekly vs. threshold sprays, and AM vs. PM spraying on pest management, pollinator visitation, and watermelon yield. These data are in preparation for publication. Objective 3 The ecological-economic model had a simplified cucumber beetle dynamics sub-model based on one year of field data; during this period, we developed a plant-level (agent based) model of cucumber beetle dynamics and used an additional round of data on cucumber beetle counts (from co-PI Krupke) to calibrate the pest spread model needed to specify the pest damage with different farmers spraying strategies. This work also relied on previous literature (Hoffmann et al. 1996; Hoffmann et al. 2000) to link the number of cucumber beetles per plant to the defoliation level and yield loss. After incorporating the plant-level pest dynamics model, we solved for the economic spraying threshold that takes into account pest prevalence, pollinator health, and pollinator mitigation strategies (pollinator habitat and renting honey bee colonies). We generated data for the case where neonicotinoid drift occurs from neighboring corn fields at the time of planting and analyzed the effect of the drift externality on a farmer's economic spray threshold. We analyzed the choice experiment data using conditional logit and mixed logit models. We started a landscape-level model with multiple cucurbit and corn farms. Ph.D. Student Linghui Wu successfully defended her Ph.D. dissertation proposal, Economics Department, University of New Hampshire, Oct 28th, 2020. Her dissertation chapters are the following: Chapter 1: The Bioeconomics of Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management: The Case of Neonicotinoids Insecticides; Chapter 2: Farmer Trade-offs Between Pest Control and Pollinator Health: Evidence from a Choice Experiment with Midwestern Farmers; Chapter 3: Spatial-Dynamic Pesticide Externality: the Case of Corn and Pollination on Cucurbit Farms. No final publications were produced during this reporting period. Three publications based on grower survey data are in various stages of development. These include: Kaminski, A.R., and D.M. Bauer. Pollinator-dependent farmers care about pollinators, but do they worry about them? Findings from cucurbit farmer focus groups in the Midwest, USA. Bloom EH, Bauer, DM, Kaplan I, Szendrei Z (2020) Future conservation efforts are linked to perceptions of pollinator declines and routes of pesticide exposure. In prep for Agriculture, Ecosystems, & Environment Eli Bloom (Michigan State University) began data analysis on a series of survey questions relating grower perceptions (e.g., on pollinator health) to agricultural management actions (e.g., pesticide use and pollinator habitat plantings). Co-PI Bauer is mentoring this work, but funding of Dr. Bloom came from the subaward to (or other sources at) Michigan State. Co-PI Bauer is revising a manuscript based on focus group work and began work on another manuscript assessing potential tradeoffs or synergies among growers use of managed honey bees and wild pollinators.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: JJ Ternest, LL Ingwell, RE Foster, I Kaplan. 2020. Comparing prophylactic versus threshold-based insecticide programs for striped cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) management in watermelon. Journal of Economic Entomology 113 (2), 872-881

Progress 09/01/18 to 08/31/19

Outputs
Target Audience:We have reported our data to a wide variety of audiences.This includes other scientists (faculty, postdocs, graduate students, undergraduate students, government employees), as well as relevant stakeholders (fruit and vegetable producers, beekeepers). Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Research presentations Bloom EH, Wood TJ, Hung KJ, Ternest JJ, Ingwell LL, Leach AB, Goodell K, Kaplan I, Szendrei Z (2019) Synergism between local and landscape-level pesticides reduce wild but not honey bee floral visitation in pollinator-dependent crops. Entomology Society of America, St. Louis, MO, USA. Academic Audience. Bloom EH, Wood TJ, Hung KJ, Ternest JJ, Ingwell LL, Leach AB, Goodell K, Kaplan I, Szendrei Z (2019) Synergism between local and landscape-level pesticides reduce wild but not honey bee floral visitation in pollinator-dependent crops. Entomology Department Seminar, East Lansing, MI, USA. Academic Audience. Bloom EH, Wood TJ, Hung KJ, Ternest JJ, Ingwell LL, Leach AB, Goodell K, Kaplan I, Szendrei Z (2019) Synergism between local and landscape-level pesticides reduce wild but not honey bee floral visitation in pollinator-dependent crops. Plant Arthropod Reading Group, East Lansing, MI, USA. Academic Audience. Hung, K.-L.J. & K. Goodell. January 2019. "Ohio pumpkins: cucumber beetle control and pollinator management." The Ohio Produce Network, the Ohio Produce Growers & Marketers Association, Dublin, OH, USA. Hung, K.-L.J., L. Ingwell, I. Kaplan & K. Goodell. November 2019. "Response of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) to systemic neonicotinoid insecticides and broad-spectrum foliar pesticides in pumpkin fields." Contributed Oral Presentation, Entomological Society of America 2019, St. Louise, MO, USA. Pecenka, J.R., Foster, R., Ingwell, L.L., Krupke, C. and Kaplan, I. Nov. 18, 2019. Can IPM replace prophylactic insecticides in Midwestern cropping systems? Oral Presentation. Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting. St. Louis, MO. (30) Pecenka, J.R., Foster, R., Ingwell, L.L., Krupke, C. and Kaplan, I. Oct. 18, 2019. Can IPM replace prophylactic insecticides in Midwestern cropping systems? Oral Presentation. Ohio Valley Entomological Association. Lexington, KY. (50) Pecenka, J.R., Foster, R., Ingwell, L.L., Krupke, C. and Kaplan, I. Nov. 12, 2018. Response of pests and pollinators to multiple routes of insecticide exposure across adjacent cropping systems. Oral Presentation. Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada. (30) Pecenka, J.R., Ingwell, I., Foster, R., Krupke, C., Kaplan, I. March 19, 2019. Implementing IPM to improve pollinator health and profitability of Midwestern agroecosystems. Entomological Society of America North Central Branch Meeting. Cincinnati, OH. (30) Shepherd, S. and Krupke, C. 2019. Effects of combined pesticide exposure on honey bee health and behavior. ESA Entomology 2019- America's Center Convention Complex, St. Louis, MO. (35) Skidmore, A., Pecenka, J.R., Grijalva, I., Krupke, C., Ingwell, L., Foster, R., and Kaplan, I. March 19, 2019. Ecosystem service bundling: Integrating predator and pollinator responses to insecticides in midwestern cropping systems. Entomological Society of America North Central Branch Meeting. Cincinnati, OH. (30) Ternest, J.J. 2019. Implementing IPPM: Agricultural Management with Pollinators in Mind. NRCS - Southern Indiana May 2019 Meeting, North Vernon, IN. (9 May 2019) Ternest, J.J. 2019. Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management: How Pest Management Impacts Pollinators in Commercial Watermelon Production. West Central Indiana Beek Ternest, J.J., Ingwell, L.L., Foster, R.E., and Kaplan, I. 2019. Native pollinator diversity on commercial watermelon farms and potential impacts from grower management. Entomological Society of America, 2019 Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO. (18 Nov. 2019) Wu, L. and Atallah, S. 2019. Economics of Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management: the case of neonicotinoid insecticides. Annual Meeting for Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA), Atlanta, Georgia. July 21-23, 2019 Wu, L. and Atallah, S. 2019. Farm and Landscape-Level trade-offs between pest control and pollination service provision: the case of neonicotinoid insecticides. Annual Graduate Research Conference (GRC), the University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. April 2nd, 2019. Wu, L. and Atallah, S. 2019. Farm and Landscape-Level trade-offs between pest control and pollination service provision: the case of neonicotinoid insecticides. Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association (NAREA), Portsmouth, NH. June 9-12th, 2019 Wu, L. and Atallah, S. 2019. The Bioeconomics of Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management: the case of neonicotinoid insecticides. Heartland- Environmental and Resource Economics Workshop, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois. September 28-29th, 2019 Wu, L. and Atallah, S. 2019. The Bioeconomics of Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management: the case of neonicotinoid insecticides. Southern Economics Association 89th Annual Meetings, Fort Lauderdale, FL. November 23-25, 2019 Extension publications (estimated audience indicated in parentheses where possible) Bloom EH, Wood TJ, Hung KJ, Ternest JJ, Ingwell LL, Leach AB, Goodell K, Kaplan I, Szendrei Z (2019) Synergism between local and landscape-level pesticides reduce wild but not honey bee floral visitation in pollinator-dependent crops. Great Lakes Expo, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. Cucurbit Farmer Audience. Pecenka, J.R. and Ingwell, L. Integrating pest and pollinator management into Indiana watermelons. Pinney Purdue Ag Center Vegetable Field Day. Wanatah, IN. August 13, 2019. (45) Pecenka, J.R. and Ingwell, L. Using IPM principles in Indiana agroecosystems. Southeast Purdue Ag Center Field Day. Butlerville, IN. August 27, 2019. (150) Pecenka, J.R. and Ingwell, L. Using IPM principles in Indiana agroecosystems. Northeast Purdue Ag Center Field Day. Columbia City, IN. August 22, 2019. (20) Pecenka, J.R. and Ingwell, L. Using IPM principles in Indiana agroecosystems. Southwest Purdue Ag Center Field Day. Vincennes, IN. June 27, 2019. (150) Pecenka, J.R. Hidden costs of insecticide use to Indiana watermelons: a closer look at pests, pollinators, and yield. Indiana Horticulture Congress. Indianapolis, IN. Feb 13, 2019. (60) Pecenka, J.R. Integrating pest and pollinator management into Midwest agroecosystems. West Central Indiana Beekeepers Winter Meeting. West Lafayette, IN. Jan 19, 2019 (30) What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Objective 1: In the next year MSU collaborators are focusing on data analysis and manuscript preparation. Currently planned manuscripts focus on landscape and compositional factors determining neonicotinoid exposure for honey bees in agricultural landscapes, pesticide use on controlling the pest community, impacts of the landscape on the wild bee pollinator community and pesticide use on the pollination service provided by honey bees. Information will continue to be disseminated to the relevant stakeholders through grower meetings, industry publications such as Vegetable Growers News and Vegetable Crops Hotline alongside scientific publications for the academic community. Objective 2: Data analysis will continue in order to quantify residues on samples collected in 2018 and 2019. A second season of watermelon and corn, following same protocols, will be conducted in 2020. Objective 3: Bauer and Kaminski have a manuscript in preparation and will be presenting findings at the upcoming Annual Meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in July 2020. Also, Abby Kaminski has left for a new position with the Forest Service, but will continue to provide a small amount of work on publications.Economic colleagues at UNH are assisting with some data analysis. Wewill also be hiring a Clark Economics graduate student in early 2020.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Objective 1 Ohio (Goodell, Hung, and Lybbert): Hung led the investigation of the association between pesticide application to pumpkin, pest levels on pumpkin, pesticide levels in pumpkin tissues and soils, and pollinator densities in pumpkin. He completed the chemical analyses of pumpkin tissues in December 2018 and analyzed the chemical data over the winter of 2019. The Summer 2019 project investigated whether insecticides and major fungicides in foliar applications constitute a significant route of exposure for pollinators foraging in cucurbit crops. We sought to understand the exposure of bees to foliar insecticides because it is important for assessing routes of exposure and overall risk of pesticide applications to pollinators. We also investigated how the risk of exposure with foliar insecticides differs across pollinator species based on pollinator foraging behavior (i.e., how often they stop on leaves). In the spring, we contacted farmers to obtain a chemical inventory and chose farms that were likely to be sprayed with Carbaryl, Permethrin, Clothianidin, Quinoxyfen, and other target foliar chemicals from the list of chemicals that Purdue Bindley's protocol can detect. When a spraying date was confirmed, we visited the farm on the day right before the spray, and on the day immediately after spraying had occurred. We returned to the sprayed farm 3, 6, and 9 days after spray to collect more flowers (for pollen / anther and nectar) and more leaves for chemical analysis to track how sprayed chemicals decayed and / or translocated into floral resources picked up by bees. Michigan (Bloom, Szendrei): Bloom developed an analysis which reveals exponential decline in plant-wild bee interactions due to cross-agroecosystem pesticide synergisms. Bloom is preparing this analysis for publication in the Journal of Applied Ecology with expected submission in January 2020. This manuscript reveals the importance of area-wide pesticide management for promoting wild bee-plant interactions in pollinator dependent cucurbit agroecosystems throughout the Upper Midwest. This work has been presented through four academic venues in 2019, reaching approximately 180 researchers. Bloom will also present this research at the Great Lakes Expo to farmers which produce pollinator dependent cucurbits in the study region. Indiana (Ternest, Kaplan, Ingwell): Ternest concluded experiments and field research for Objective 1 in Indiana from 2017-2018. Pest densities were assessed on all farms while a sampling protocol has been established and an economic analysis of insecticide use conducted. Pollinator communities have been identified and quantified on each farm. Insecticide and fungicide residues analysis was completed for all farms. From this research, one publication is currently in review and a second is being prepared for submission. Grower reports that share findings and farm specific insect communities and insecticide use have been sent to all participating growers. Objective 2 (Pecenka, Kaplan): Pecenka completed the second year of data collection and analysis for Obj. 2a. Trends in data in 2019 are consistent with previous year's data, and show a lack of economically damaging pest pressure which has not impacted crop yield. Managed honey bee and bumble bee colonies were managed and evaluated in both the conventional management and integrated pest management systems (IPM) and were found to be healthier (more brood cells, heavier hive weights) in the IPM system. Additionally, a lack of insecticide applications again resulted in greater observed pollination and higher watermelon crop yield. During the winter/early spring of 2019 plant and soil samples collected from 2018 were screen for detectable pesticide residues, however analysis is still underway to determine and quantify compound found on leaves, anthers, and soil. (Shepherd, Krupke): Using a lab-based bioassay we tested a dose-response curve of bees to the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin (at precise concentrations delivered in sugar solution) with and without exposure to the major commercial fungicide product Headline AMP (delivered as a contact exposure on a corn leaf). In this experiment we measure a range of data including mortality, behavioral changes (e.g. evidence of toxicity) and feeding preferences. A major finding from this work is that when the contact fungicide Headline AMP (a major fungicide used in corn) is present, at lower doses neonicotinoids are more toxic to bees. These results can help us determine risk assessments for these compounds being encountered in combination for bees in agroecosystems. Impacts of combined neonicotinoid and fungicide effects on honeybee colony health Using a field-based experiment, we again tested combined exposure of bees to the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin and the commercial fungicide product Headline AMP. With a total of 24 hives we exposed hives to one of 4 treatments (no pesticides, just clothianidin, just Headline AMP, and a mix of both clothianidin and Headline AMP). There were 6 hives total per treatment. The clothianidin dose was field-realistic for levels that can be encountered by bees in the cropping systems of objective 2. In this experiment we measured a range of data to determine impacts of these compounds on colony health including colony survival, weight change, sugar consumption, hive activity, changes in hive structure (e.g. honey production, pollen collection etc.), and parasitic load. A major finding is that mix treatments of both clothianidin and the fungicide headline AMP were required to reduce hive activity. These results can further help us determine risk assessments in growing systems. Objective 3 (Bauer, Kaminski, Wu): Several individual and small-group survey pre-tests were conducted at the Great Lakes Expo in December. These mini focus groups helped identify the language that growers use to ensure that survey questions are not understood differently by growers and researchers. Based on survey pre-tests, we modified a few survey questions and finalized the design of our survey instrument. Surveys were administered by multiple mailings over several weeks (late January through late February): (1) a preview letter describing the purpose of the study, (2) the survey instrument, (3) a reminder postcard, (4) a second copy of the survey to non-respondents only, and (5) a second reminder postcard to non-respondents only. This method is used to increase response rates and reduce response bias. All survey data was entered twice and checked for discrepancies. We have a final dataset ready for analysis. Linghui Wu (UNH) began data analysis of the discrete choice experiment survey question, which will become part of her dissertation. In the coming year, data analysis will continue and preliminary results will be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeast Agricultural and Resource Economics Association in June and the Annual Meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in July 2020. (Atallah, Wu): Analysis on the socioeconomic trade-offs offs among pollinators, pests, crop yield, and farm profitability is underway. Wu has built the first version of cucumber beetle dynamics (growth, damage, and control) to include pollinator dynamics and use project data (form Obj. 1) to parameterize growth. As part of this effort, Atallah and Wu visited Purdue to work with co-PIs on model parameterization during spring 2019. To further optimize this model, data from Garibaldi et al. (2013) has been incorporated to accommodate for different marginal productivities of wild pollinators vs honey bees in the ecological-economic model.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: TJ Wood, I Kaplan, Y Zhang, Z Szendrei. 2019. Honeybee dietary neonicotinoid exposure is associated with pollen collection from agricultural weeds Proceedings of the Royal Society B 286 (1905), 20190989

Progress 09/01/17 to 08/31/18

Outputs
Target Audience:Agricultural scientists (faculty, graduate students, undergraduates, postdocs), cucurbit farmers, beekeepers Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Goshen College Agroecology Guest Lecture (July 24, 2018): Jacob Pecenka hosted an agroecology course at the Northeast Purdue Agricultural Center site for the opportunity for the students to see examine what large scale agricultural research looks like. The course participants examined some of the pest and beneficial insects in the system and what prophylactic insecticides mean for both. Jacob also demonstrated a honey bee hive evaluation and described their importance to agriculture. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Research presentations Wu, L. and Atallah, S. 2018. An ecological-economic model of trade-offs between pest control and pollination service provision: the case of neonicotinoid insecticides. Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA. June 9-12, 2018. Szendrei, Z., Wood, T., Zhang, Y., Ingwell, L.L., and I. Kaplan. 2018. Quantifying health risks to honey bees in pickling cucumbers in agroecosystems in Michigan. Entomological Society of America North Central Branch Annual Meeting. Madison, WI. March 18-21, 2018. Ternest, J.J., Kaplan, I. and Foster, R.E.2018. Assessing pest management strategies in cucurbit crops and their impact on pollinator health. Entomological Society ofAmerica, North Central Branch Meeting. Madison, WI. March 18-21, 2018. Wu, L. and Atallah, S. 2018. An ecological-economic model of trade-offs between pest control and pollination service provision: the case of neonicotinoid insecticides. University of New Hampshire Graduate Research Conference. Durham, NH. April 10, 2018. Ternest, J.J., Ingwell, L.L. Kaplan, I, and Foster, R.E. 2018. Evaluating grower practices andinsect communities to better integrate pest and pollinator management on commercialwatermelon fields. Ohio Valley Entomological Association, 2018 Annual Meeting.Indianapolis, IN. Oct. 19, 2018. Hung, K-L., Kaplan, I., Ingwell, L.L., and K. Goodell. 2018. Relative roles of pesticide management and landscape context in determining pest pressure, predator abundance, and pollinator visitation in pumpkin fields. Entomological Society of America and Entomological Society of Canada joint annual meeting. Vancouver, BC, Canada. November 11-14, 2018. Pecenka, J., Foster, R., Ingwell, L.L., Krupke, C. and I. Kaplan. 2018. Response of pests and pollinators to multiple routes of insecticide exposure across adjacent cropping systems. Entomological Society of America and Entomological Society of Canada joint annual meeting. Vancouver, BC, Canada. November 11-14, 2018. Ternest, J., Ingwell, L.L., Kaplan I. and R. Foster. 2018. Integrated pest and pollinator management: Evaluating grower practices and insect communities on commercial watermelon farms. Entomological Society of America and Entomological Society of Canada joint annual meeting. Vancouver, BC, Canada. November 11-14, 2018. Wood, T.J., Kaplan, I., Ingwell, L.L., and Z. Szendrei. 2018. The impact of landscape and pollen diet composition on neonicotinoid exposure for honey bees in intensive agriculture. Entomological Society of America and Entomological Society of Canada joint annual meeting. Vancouver, BC, Canada. November 11-14, 2018. Wu, L. and Atallah, S. 2018. An ecological-economic model of trade-offs between pest control and pollination service provision and pesticide drift:the case of neonicotinoid insecticides in a landscape comprised of pollinator and non-pollinator-dependent crops. Association of Environmental and Resource Economics session at the Southern Economic Association Annual Meeting. Washington, DC. Nov. 18-20, 2018. Extension presentations Wood, T. and Szendrei, S. 2017. Cucumber pollination in Michigan: The relative contribution of wild and managed bees. Pickling Cucumber Improvement Committee Meeting. Chicago, IL. November 1st 2017. Wood, T. and Szendrei, S. 2017. Maintaining pollinator health in cucumber production systems. Midwest Pickle Association Mtg. at the Great Lakes EXPO. Grand Rapids, MI. December 5th 2017. Bergefurd, B and Hung, K.-L.J. 2018. Pumpkin production and cultivar evaluations, and updates from the Ohio SCRI pumpkin. The Ohio Produce Network, the Ohio Produce Growers & Marketers Association. San Dusky, OH. Jan. 17, 2018. Ternest, J.J.2018. What we're learning about pollinators. Indiana Horticulture Congress 2018. Indianapolis, IN. Feb. 13-15, 2018. Hung, K-L.J. 2018. Harnessing native bees for pumpkin pollination. Pollinators on Ohio Farms: An Integrated Crop Pollination Approach. Wooster, OH. March 1, 2018. Ternest, J.J.2018. Managing watermelon pests with pollinators in mind. Southwest IndianaMelon and Vegetable Growers Annual Meeting. French Lick, IN. March 9, 2018. Ternest, J.J., Pecenka, J. and Ingwell, L.L. 2018. The challenges facing pollinators in uniquecropping systems. Wednesdays in the Wild weekly nature lecture series. Lafayette, IN. Aug. 22, 2018. Ingwell, L.L. 2018. Insect pest management and pollinator stewardship in pumpkins. Pumpkin Field Day at the Ewing Demo Center. Ewing, IL. September 6, 2018. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Objective 1: In the next year MSU collaborators are focusing on data analysis and manuscript preparation. Residue analysis from samples collected in 2018 will be finalized by early December and the immediate priority will be to begin producing manuscripts. Currently planned manuscripts focus on landscape and compositional factors determining neonicotinoid exposure for honey bees in agricultural landscapes, pesticide use on controlling the pest community, impacts of the landscape on the wild bee pollinator community and pesticide use on the pollination service provided by honey bees. The current postdoc on the cucumber part of the project (Thomas Wood) will be leaving for a new position at the end of January 2019, and the hiring of a replacement postdoc is in the final stages, with the replacement likely to start in the spring of 2019. This postdoc will also initially focus on data analysis and paper writing. Depending on data analysis and outstanding questions, there is scope for the collection of additional samples to fill in knowledge gaps or answer newly arising questions. Information will continue to be disseminated to the relevant stakeholders through grower meetings, industry publications such as Vegetable Growers News and Vegetable Crops Hotline alongside scientific publications for the academic community. Objective 2: Data analysis will continue in order to quantify residues on samples collected in 2018. A second season of watermelon and corn, following same protocols, will be conducted in 2019. Objective 3: Bauer and Kaminski will conduct additional focus groups at the Great Lakes Expo held in Grand Rapids, MI December 4-6, 2018. Here they will pretest the survey instrument for clarity and time to complete. These focus groups will help to identify the language that growers use to ensure that survey questions are not understood differently by growers and researchers. They will then finalize the design of the survey instrument. Bauer and Kaminski will administer the survey using a methodology that involves multiple mailings over several weeks (late January through end of February): (1) a preview letter describing the purpose of the study, (2) the survey instrument, (3) a reminder postcard, (4) a second copy of the survey to non-respondents only, and (5) a second reminder postcard to non-respondents only. This method is used to increase response rates and reduce response bias. Data analysis will commence in early spring and continue throughout the summer. Preliminary results will be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in July 2019.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Objective 1 Pumpkins in Ohio (Goodell, Hung): During 2018, the OSU team surveyed pumpkin fields on 16 farms in and around Columbus, OH. Each farm was visited 7 times. During visits 1 and 7, soil samples were collected to assess pesticide residues. During visits 2-6, pumpkin leaves and arthropod predators were collected for pesticide residue analysis and pest density was quantified. During visits 5 and 6, Hung documented floral visitation by honey bees, bumble bees, squash bees, and other wild bees to pumpkin flowers, as well as collected pollen and nectar for pesticide analysis. Ten of the 16 growers used honey bee colonies. Pollen from honey bee colonies was not sampled in 2018 because in 2017 pumpkin pollen constituted a small proportion of honey bee pollen intake (mean = 2.6%, median = 0%, max = 36%). Pickling cucumbers in MI (Szendrei, Wood): During 2018, 4 commercial pickling cucumber growers and 3 industrial beekeepers were collaborators on the project. Fifteen pickling cucumber fields were identified in the counties of Gratiot, Isabella, Midland, Saginaw and Tuscola. In each field, soil, leaf and cucumber anther samples were collected resulting in 120 soil, 90 leaf and 30 anther samples. Pest pressure continued to be extremely low, with a total of 3 cucumber beetles detected across 90 pest counts. Pollinator surveys were also conducted. Honey bees continued to be the dominant pollinators of commercial cucumber fields, accounting for 99% of observed visits. Adjacent to each cucumber field, 5 honey bee colonies were identified and tracked to measure growth, Varroa mite load and mortality. A total of 70 hives were tracked through the season. In addition to these hives, at each cucumber field 3 additional hives were trapped for pollen. Hives were trapped 5 times, yielding 145 samples for analysis. The area surrounding each apiary was also mapped to a radius of 1.5 km to allow for landscape analysis. Watermelons in IN (Foster, Kaplan, Ternest): In 2018, 15 commercial watermelon fields were sampled. Data collection remained almost unchanged from 2017. Weekly sampling of striped cucumber beetles was conducted for a second year. Two pollinator sampling and collection dates at each of the 15 fields were conducted to identify key pollinator species. Leaf, pollen and soil samples were collected for pesticide residue analysis. Analysis is currently taking place for 2017 and 2018 samples. New for 2018, managed bumblebee colony quad packs were placed in each field. Individual hive boxes were removed bi-weekly to assess impacts of grower management on bumblebees in a field setting. Colony size, amount of stored food, number of reproductives produced and residues are all being measured. In addition to the on-farm work, we conducted controlled experiments aimed at measuring bumble bee fitness in watermelon. High tunnels were used as large cages and the impact of neonic and pyrethroid applications in watermelon were examined in mesocosms with monoculture (watermelon only) vs. alternative forage (clover mix + watermelon) in a fully crossed design with and without pesticide inputs. Commercially available bumble bee hives were used and monitored for six weeks. Pollinator activity, pollination efficiency, hive health and residues were measured and are being analyzed. Objective 2 Melon harvest:We successfully managed to harvest the 10 acres of watermelons we were managing, resulting in >100,000 pounds of watermelon! Thanks to the help of theFood Finders organizations we were able to donate a vast majority of this crop to underprivileged Indiana areas, providing them with some delicious fresh fruit during the summer. In the smaller sub-plots within the 0.5 acres counts and weights of the harvested melons were taken, showing an increased yield in our IPM fields, likely thanks to our pollinating insects! Honey bees:Placed in the first week of May, 20 total hives (2 in each plot) were closely monitored. Hive weights were taken monthly, along with pictures of frames to quantify brood production. Tarps were placed outside of each hive's entrance and relative mortality was observed twice a week. Foraging workers were collected throughout the season for future nutrition analysis. Hives were brought back to West Lafayette to overwinter in the last week of October. All hives that did not survive the season (along with those who fail to survive winter) will be replaced with new colonies but use existing hive boxes from the original colony. Bumble bees: 1-2 weeks before peak flowering began each plot had a "Quadbox" (consisting of 4Bombus impatienscolonies) placed in the field as an additional managed pollinator. Each box spent 6 weeks in the melon field, with weights taken each week. At the end of 6 weeks all living bees were frozen and the colony was dissected, counting the number of remaining beesalong with the breakdown of food/larval stores in the colony. Pest/Pollinator surveys:Pest surveys were done weekly for the 10 weeks following watermelon transplanting to identify if cucumber beetles ever reach a threshold requiring insecticide application. Only 1 of the 50 surveys had cucumber beetle numbers above threshold and resulted in a reactionary spray. During 5 weeks of peak watermelon flowering pollinators visiting watermelon flowers were surveyed. We found that plots following IPM principles had twice the floral visits and nearly 3x the pollination events (observing a bee landing on a male flower and traveling to a female flower). Objective 3 Atallah, Wu, Bauer and Kaminski met in January to discuss ways in which the grower surveys, being developed by Bauer and Kaminski will help to inform the parameters of the simulation model as well as the contextual background for the scenarios that the model, being developed by Atallah and Wu, will test. Bauer and Kaminski conducted four focus groups of cucurbit growers in February and March: two in Indiana, one each in Michigan and Ohio. A total of 20 growers participated. The purpose of these focus groups was to gain a general understanding of the major problems cucurbit farmers face, how pollination and pest suppression rank among the problems, and how growers make decisions regarding pest control and pollination services. Bauer and Kaminski conducted a broad review of the literature on growers' willingness to adopt conservation and other on-farm best management practices. Specific studies on pest management and pollination are few and far between. This information assisted in survey question design. They also compared a number of approaches for sampling our grower population through both private and public sources. A Freedom of Information Act request from the USDA yielded a large number of cucurbit growers across the Midwest, but the mailing information was often incomplete. They decided to purchase a sample of 3000 growers from the private company FarmMarketID. Bauer and Kaminski developed a preliminary set of grower survey questions and sent them to the extended project team for review. They also reviewed their stated preference (choice experiment) questions with two stated preference experts. Atallah and Wu completed the development of an ecological-economic model for a watermelon farmer deciding on how much neonicotinoid pesticide to spray, whether to rent commercial honey bee hives and whether to set aside land for wild pollinator habitat and who faces the trade-offs between pest control and pollinator health. They have completed model parameterization using data from peer-reviewed published literature and obtained preliminary results. They are currently working to refine parameterization using data that has been collected by project personnel in objectives one and two. The model has also been extended to include a neighboring corn farmer and a neonicotinoid drift onto the watermelon crop.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Accepted Year Published: 2018 Citation: Wood, T.J., Kaplan, I. & Szendrei, Z. Wild bee pollen diets reveal patterns of seasonal foraging resources for honey bees. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Foster, R.E. and L.L. Ingwell. 2018. Why your insecticide may not be working as well as you would like. Veg. Crops Hotline. Issue 648. Retrieved from https://vegcropshotline.org/article/why-your-insecticide-may-not-be-working-as-well-as-you-would-like/
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Ternest, J.J. 2018. Striped cucumber beetles: Densities and effective scouting in watermelons. Vegetable Crops Hotline. Issue 652. Retrieved from https://vegcropshotline.og/article/striped-cucumber-beetles-densities-and-effective-scouting-in-watermelons/
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Pecenka, J. 2018. IPM revisited: A cost-effective solution for balancing pest and pollinator management. Vegetable Crops Hotline. Issue 652. Retrieved from https://vegcropshotline.org/article/ipm-revisited-a-cost-effective-solution-for-balancing-pest-and-pollinator-management/
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Egel, D. and L.L. Ingwell. 2018. Pollinator health and foliar fungicide use. Veg. Crops Hotline. Issue 642. Retrieved from https://vegcropshotline.org/article/pollinator-health-and-foliar-fungicide-use/
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Ingwell, L.L., Foster, R.E. and D. Egel. 2018. Spider mites on cucurbit crops. Veg. Crops Hotline. Issue 646. Retrieved from https://vegcropshotline.org/article/spider-mites-on-cucurbit-crops/

Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/17

Outputs
Target Audience:Cucurbit producers focusing on those cultivating cucumbers, melons, and pumpkins. Scientists studying pest management and pollinator health in academic and governmental institutions. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?A PhD student on the project, Jacob Pecenka, participated in thethe Entomological Society of America Plant-Insect Ecosystems (ESA P-IE) Section's Science Policy Field Tour, "Balancing Pest Management and Pollinator Health" in the Delta Region of Mississippi in August 2017. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Pollinator talks used by county educators at 48 Private Applicator Recertification Program (PARP) meetings to 909 people. Distributed over 4,000 copies of Purdue extension bulletin POL-2, Protecting pollinators in fruit and vegetable production. In addition, we have given the following extension presentations for cucurbit producers: Ingwell, L.L. 2017. Pollinators in home gardens. Pinney-Purdue Vegetable and High Tunnel Field Day. Wanatah, IN. August 15, 2017. Ingwell, L.L. 2017. Pollinators in pumpkin production. Pinney-Purdue Vegetable and High Tunnel Field Day. Wanatah, IN. August 15, 2017. Foster, R.E. 2017. Protecting pollinators while managing pests in watermelon production. Southwest Indiana Purdue Agriculture Research Center Field Day. Vincennes, IN. June 29, 2017. 80 ppl. Foster, R.E. 2017. Pests and Pollinators. NRCS Training. Vincennes, IN. June 21, 2017. 40 ppl. Foster R.E. 2017. Neonicotinoid insecticides: Advantages and concerns. Lake County Extension Board. Lake County, IN. March 22, 2017. 25 ppl. Foster, R.E. 2017. Pollinators in pumpkins. Melon Growers Mtg. French Lick, IN. March 10, 2017. 40 ppl. Foster, R.E. 2017. Protecting pollinators in vegetable crop production. Indiana Horticulture Congress. Indianapolis, IN. Jan. 11, 2017. 50 ppl. Foster, R.E. 2017. Pollinators: Where are we after 2016? Illiana Vegetable Growers Association. Shererville, IN. Jan. 5, 2017. 95 ppl. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Objective 1: Identify insecticide management strategies that simultaneously optimize pest suppression while minimizing non-target exposure to cucurbit pollinators During the summer of 2017, 45 commercial cucurbit fields were monitored and evaluated through Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. These states were partitioned according to crop with Indiana sampling watermelon (15 farms), Michigan pickling cucumber (16 farms), and Ohio pumpkin (14 farms). Indiana farms were primarily in the southwestern portion of the state near Vincennes. Michigan sites were selected across Saginaw and Tuscola counties in eastern Michigan. As many of these fields were large, a number were planted with multiple cucumber strips across a period of several days. Pumpkin sites were in and around Columbus, OH. Site selection In Indiana, we recruited a range of watermelon growers with field sizes ranging from 1 to 50 acres. Farms also varied in whether they grew a diversity of vegetable crops or only focused on melon production. In Michigan, we identified a commercial beekeeper who takes pollination contracts in pickling cucumber fields. Two commercial pickling cucumber producers with operations in the thumb region of eastern Michigan who rent hives from this beekeeper were contacted. Both growers produce a range of agricultural crops, with around 300 and 800 acres in pickling cucumbers each. Plant and soil residue sampling At each planting, four soil samples were collected before the crops were planted. Each of the four soil samples were comprised of 10 samples from one quarter of each field which were homogenised in the field and a subsample was taken. Immediately following harvest, four soil samples were collected from each planting following the same methodology. Each planting was visited six times. A transect was designed for the field moving into the center from the edge and then back out again parallel to the original entry. Twenty sampling points were evenly distributed along this transect in order to capture any intra-field variation that might exist. At each point, the largest fully expanded leaf was collected from one cucumber plant, resulting in a sample comprised of 20 leaves. Approximately 200 male flowers were collected from each planting during bloom. These samples will have the anthers dissected out to allow for pollen/anther complex residue analysis. In Ohio we also sampled nectar from pumpkin flowers. This was not done in other states because of the smaller flowers in these crops. All tissue collections were placed in cold storage at -80C until later analysis. Pest and pollinator surveys At the same time as the leaf sampling transect, pest insects were assessed on crops. At each of the 20 sampling points, a pest insect count was conducted. Pest insects checked for included striped and spotted cucumber beetles, corn rootworm, aphids, mites, and thrips. Also during bloom, each planting was surveyed for pollinators. The same pest and leaf sampling transect was followed, but 16 sampling points were selected rather than 20. At each sampling point, a 3-minute bee survey was conducted, with every bee visiting a 1x1 m patch of flowers recorded. In addition, wild bee visitors to flowers were collected for 30-minutes to allow for determination to species. These pollinator observation and collections were conducted twice during bloom in each planting. Honey bee metrics Data for honey bee hives were collected in Michigan and Ohio. At each site, honey bee colonies were either placed out on the ground or loaded onto wagons so that the grower could transport them between cucumbers fields as and when required. A total of 62 colonies were followed through the season, with 45 hives stationary in four locations and 20 hives moved on four separate wagons. Colony growth was assessed every two weeks between mid-June and early September. Each colony was fitted with a pollen trap and pollen was collected over two 48-h periods when adjacent cucumber fields were in bloom. In addition, at three locations an additional five colonies at each site were trapped every two weeks in order to build up a more comprehensive picture of their pollen diets over the June to September period. A sample of up to 15 g of pollen was collected each time. Approximately 180 samples were collected that are large enough to be analysed analytically, with a further 30 samples large enough for microscopical analysis of pollen species content. In Ohio, ten of the 14 growers utilized honey bee colonies. At seven of the farms, we were able to collect pollen from returning honey bee foragers using front-mounted pollen traps (honey bees were managed by 5 different keepers). Miscellaneous The landscape surrounding each of the hive locations at all three states was mapped up to a radius of 1.5 km and cropping data was collected by ground-truthing. We also collected hand-pollinated and open-pollinated pumpkins (n = 3 per treatment per site) from 11 pumpkin farms in Ohio for the purpose of evaluating the quality of pollination services via quantifying pollen limitation. Spray records and previous rotational cropping data are being collected from growers at all sites. This will be used to inform and interpret the pesticide residue analyses. Objective 2: Determine the consequences of within- and extra-field neonic exposure for honey and wild bee health using large-scale field manipulations This objective is aimed at experimentally testing the effects of neonicotinoids from corn/melon on pests, pollinators, and crop yield. Because the fields being used at Purdue University research areas have a history of production using seed-treated corn or soybean, year 1 goals were to: a) identify fields to use for this experiment (ten total fields, two at each of five locations throughout Indiana); b) randomly assign fields to either with or without neonicotinoid treatment; and c) cultivate treated or untreated corn, depending on randomized assignment, at all ten fields. As of August 2017, we selected ten fields that are each ca. 15 acres. Two of these had to be rented from growers on private land to maintain the desired >2 km distance between fields within a site. We used five PACs (Purdue Agricultural Centers): PPAC (Pinney, northwest IN), TPAC (Throckmorton, west-central IN), SWPAC (southwest IN), NEPAC (northeast IN), and SEPAC (southeast IN). In year 1, we planted only corn with the aim of having one year of untreated corn growing in the controls before beginning the melon portion of the experiment in years 2-4. This is to control for potential carryover effects across rotation crops via pesticide residues in the soil. Currently, corn is being harvested to compare yields with/without seed treatment and watermelon plots are being spatially positioned for next season. ?Objective 3: Assess the ecological and socioeconomic trade-offs among pollinators, pests, crop yield, and farm profitability resulting from alternative pesticide regimes The work described for this objective involving grower surveys and spatial-economic modelling was scheduled for years 2-4 of the project and thus there are no updates for year 1. Both PIs (Bauer, Atallah) recruited and hired personnel to begin the work in this area beginning in fall/winter 2017-18.

Publications

• Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: www.purdue.pollinatorprotection.org
• Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: https://youtu.be/Xr-VFczNm9Y
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: Ingwell, L.L. 2017. Pollinators in home gardens. Pinney-Purdue Vegetable and High Tunnel Field Day. Wanatah, IN. August 15, 2017.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: Ingwell, L.L. 2017. Pollinators in pumpkin production. Pinney-Purdue Vegetable and High Tunnel Field Day. Wanatah, IN. August 15, 2017.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: Foster, R.E. 2017. Protecting pollinators while managing pests in watermelon production. Southwest Indiana Purdue Agriculture Research Center Field Day. Vincennes, IN. June 29, 2017. 80 ppl.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: Foster, R.E. 2017. Pests and Pollinators. NRCS Training. Vincennes, IN. June 21, 2017. 40 ppl.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: Foster R.E. 2017. Neonicotinoid insecticides: Advantages and concerns. Lake County Extension Board. Lake County, IN. March 22, 2017. 25 ppl.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: Foster, R.E. 2017. Pollinators in Pumpkins. Melon Growers Mtg. French Lick, IN. March 10, 2017. 40 ppl.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: Foster, R.E. 2017. Protecting pollinators in vegetable crop production. Indiana Horticulture Congress. Indianapolis, IN. Jan. 11, 2017. 50 ppl.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: Foster, R.E. 2017. Pollinators: Where are we after 2016? Illiana Vegetable Growers Association. Shererville, IN. Jan. 5, 2017. 95 ppl.