The Quarterly e-bulletin of EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program Spring 2015
Rising to Meet the Challenge of Spotted Wing
Drosophila Management for Michigan Cherries
Silver PESP member, the Michigan Cherry Committee, through its partnership with the Michigan State
University (MSU) Fruit Team, has been heavily involved with spotted wing drosophila (SWD) management
in Michigan. SWD is a challenging pest for ripening, tliin-skinned fruit, and it has become a major late season
pest in blueberries, fall red raspberries, and tart cherries since it was first detected in Michigan in 2010. The
SWD has significantly increased the number of insecticide applications that must be made to these crops to
manage the pest. A fall 2014 survey of Michigan fruit growers showed an overall increase in the number of
insecticide applications made to their crops, ranging from 1-3 additional applications and an associated increase
in production costs of $35 to $43.25 per acre. In some cases, growers of fall red raspberries gave up on growing
this crop and have switched to crops that are not susceptible to the SWD. For blueberry and cherry growers,
with greater investments in orchard establishment and equipment used in the production and harvesting of these
crops, pulling out of production because of SWD is not a practical solution to the problem.
In response to the increasing challenges the spotted wing drosophila was presenting, in 2010 members of the MSU Fruit Team and
the Michigan Cherry Committee initiated a statewide SWD monitoring effort. This proactive effort has been able to alert growers
when the pest is active in their region and populations are increasing. A great deal of time and training has gone into this effort, as the
SWD are small and difficult to distinguish from other flies frequently caught in the monitoring traps. A weekly report posted on the
MSU Extension News for Agriculture website is made available through weekly Fruit & Nut Digest emails during the season.
continued on page 2
In This Issue:
Featured Member Managing Spotted
Wing Drosophila 1
EPA Promotes Tribal School IPM 1
Is Biocontrol Beating the Bug? 3
Finding Huanglongbing Solutions 4
EPA Grantee Finds School IPM Success
in the Midwest 5
Mole, Vole, and Pocket Gopher IPM 6
Scientists Discover how Bollworm
Became Resistant to BrCrops 8
EPA Leadership Promotes School IPM: 9
Upcoming Events 10
Grant Opportunities 10
EPA Promotes Tribal School IPM
Nationwide
EPA strives to improve the health of communities across the country by taking action
on chemical safety. One important aspect of chemical safety is promoting integrated
pest management (IPM) in schools. IPM is a smart, sensible and sustainable approach
to managing pests that focuses on addressing the underlying causes that enable pests
to thrive. Practicing IPM has many benefits beyond pest management, including
water and energy saving. EPA recommends schools implement IPM as a means to
reduce the risks of pest and pesticide exposure to children.
Building partnerships with regional and
national organizations is one of the strategies
that the EPA uses to advance the adoption
of IPM in schools. During the summer of
2013, the EPA Center of Expertise for School
IPM. EPA Region 10, and the Indian Health
Services (IHS) partnered to develop a model
project with aims to increase the number of
tribal schools with a sustainable school IPM
I# -*%£ « .
* £ *
* * . V ¦
io * | r
dian Lands
program.
continued on page 9
Tribal lands in EPA regions
-------
2
PESPWire Spring 2015
continued from page 1
Monitoring is a key component of a
successful integrated pest management
(IPM) plan, as it allows for preventative
pest management, and prevents
unnecessary pesticide applications.
The 2010 survey also revealed that most
respondents (73%) consulted the weekly
MSU SWD Statewide Monitoring
Report at least once per week, with 76%
of respondents saying they altered their
insecticide program based on trapping
data in their region. Alterations in pest
management plans involved either using
the report to trigger the initiation of
an SWD management program when
SWD were found in traps in their region
(69%), or the elimination of a planned
insecticide application when low or no
SWD were reported in traps in their
region in a given week (34%). More
than half (56%) of respondents increased
monitoring efforts on their own farms
after SWD trap counts increased in their
region.
As populations of SWD have continued
to grow within the state, the pest is
being found earlier in the season and
has started to overlap with ripening
tart cherries. Michigan is the largest
producer of tart cherries in the U.S.,
most of which are processed and some
of which are exported to markets in
Europe and East Asia. These markets
often have lower maximum residue
limits (MRLs) or tolerances for pesticide
residues in agricultural products than the
U.S., and cherries have a mandated zero-
tolerance for infested fruit. Late-season
pests such as SWD are of particular
concern to cherry growers both for the
risk of rejected fruit if maggots are
found in them, and for the potential of
pesticide residue detections that might
prevent their
sale into export
markets with lower
tolerances.
In response to increasing concerns
among growers of the potential
impact of SWD on the Michigan
clieny industry, an SWD Summit was
organized by MSU and held at the
Northwest Michigan Horticultural
Research Center in Traverse City,
Michigan in November 2014. The goals
of the meeting were to solicit input from
growers, field scouts, and processors
on their needs, and to coordinate
research and extension efforts regarding
SWD management in cherries. More
than 65 growers and other industry
representatives attended this meeting
including the Cherry Marketing
Institute, the Michigan Cherry
Committee, and the newly formed
Michigan Tree Fruit Commission.
The program began with a history
of the pest and an update on our
current knowledge of its biology and
management. Members of the MSU
Fruit Team involved with cherry pest
management followed with presentations
on the work that has been done and is
underway in Michigan. Participants then
formed groups, facilitated by the MSU
Fmit Team, to brainstorm research and
education priorities. The top priorities
to come out of these discussions were
1) a better understanding of when SWD
control strategies must be initiated by
improving the tools used to monitor for
this pest and relating that to potential
fruit infestation. 2) improving our
understanding of the residual activity
of insecticide sprays to guide future
management decisions, and 3) knowing
which insecticides will work best and
the most effective timing for application
of these insecticides against SWT) in
clieny.
As a result of the SWD Summit, MSU
campus and field staff collaborated over
the winter to write four coordinated
research proposals that have been
funded by the Michigan Cherry
Committee for a total of $49,000.
Larry Gut will lead a project that
will help support the continuing
statewide monitoring network
for SWD and to develop better
management techniques for SWD.
including improved monitoring
traps and relating trap catch to
fruit infestation through mark-and-
recapture studies to determine the
trap area of influence (Monitoring
and Management of Spotted Wing
Drosophila in Michigan Cherries,
$14,000).
Nikki Rothwell will lead a project
to test the efficacy and timing of
insecticides against SWD and will
evaluate alternate wild host sources
of the pest (Improving management
strategies for controlling spotted
wing Drosophila in Michigan
cherries, $12,000).
Matthew Grieshop will lead a
project to develop attract-and-
kill tactics for managing SWD
{Development of an Attract and Kill
Tactic for Spotted Wing Drosophila,
$9,000).
Mark Wlialon will lead a project to
evaluate various biopesticides for
their ability to control SWD as an
alternative to insecticides that may
cause problems for cherry exporters
(Late Season Biopesticides as
an Alternative to Conventional
Pesticides for SWD Control and
Avoidance ofMRL Violations,
$14,000).
Additional SWD projects that the
MSU Fruit Team are involved with
include a collaborative project led by
Julianna Wilson (Developing sound IPM
strategies for controlling spotted wing
drosophila in tart cherries. $40,000),
and a recently submitted pre-proposal
for a $7 million USDA-SCRI grant
led by North Carolina State on SWD
biology and management.
The goal of all of these efforts are to
enable Michigan clieny growers to make
the best possible management decisions
for controlling this new, late-season pest.
Through the use of better monitoring
tools to aid timing of control strategies,
by providing alternatives where
possible to broad-spectmm insecticide
applications, and by providing growers
with regional trapping data to alert
them as to when they may need to
start considering SWD management
strategies on their fanns, the Michigan
Cherry Committee and the MSU Fruit
Team hope to manage SWD while
minimizing impacts on the environment
from pesticide use.
www.epa.gov/pesp
-------
ESP Wire Spring 2015
3
Is Biocontrol
Beating the
Bug?
Richard Lelmert
Courtesy of Good Fruit Grower
Brown Marmorated Stink B ug (BMSB)
Photo: TJ Midlinax. Good Fruit Grower
"I have growers who hadn't sprayed a
miticide in 15 or 20 years until brown
marmorated stinkbug came around."
said Dr. David Biddinger, tree fruit
research entomologist at Pennsylvania
State University 's research center in
Biglerville.
The arrival of this invasive Asian bug
"turned our IPM systems upside down."
he said. Growers resorted to more
sprays, applied more times and later in
the season, and using harsher pesticides,
including pyrethoids for the first time.
As a result, outbreaks of secondary
pests such as European red mite, San
Jose scale, and woolly apple aphid
began to occur because they were no
longer controlled by beneficial insects,
themselves victims of new pesticide
regimens.
BMSB lias increased growers'
insecticide/miticide bills from about 8
percent of their production costs to 25
percent, Biddinger said, with control of
secondary pests adding $100 or more an
acre to the cost.
"This pest not only caused a lot of
damage for many growers, but extended
our spray season right up through
harvest time," he said. "It made us
start to look up reentry and preharvest
intervals more than we used to, and
it brought the first widespread use
of pyretliroids to Pennsylvania apple
orchards.
"Pyretliroids were always a bad word
in Pennsylvania IPM programs because
of the negative effects they have on the
biological control of secondary pests
such as leafrollers, spider mites, woolly
apple apliids, and San Jose scale."
BMSB also brought the return of broad-
spectrum insecticides like Lannate
(methomyl), Thionex (endosulfan), and
diazinon. Growers hadn't used those
chemicals much since the days when
tufted apple bud moth was the main pest
of concern, he said.
These days, Biddinger is on a mission
to help growers restore IPM practices
to their orchards. He's written several
articles that were published on Penn
State's Fruit Times website, and he
speaks frequently at field days and
annual horticulture shows, such as
the Mid-Atlantic Fruit and Vegetable
Convention.
Nature snapping back?
On the good news side, Biddinger sees
signs that biological control is exerting
itself against the brown marmorated
stinkbug. "There was less stinkbug
damage this year, and we don't really
know why," he said. It may be the cold
winter last year reduced their numbers.
It may be, as he likes to say, "native
biocontrol agents are getting used to
eating Chinese food."
That's a reference to a couple of native
species trying to adapt to include the
Asian BMSB in their diets. In one
study, Biddinger found that 25 percent
of BMSB egg masses had been eaten
by native predators and the introduced
multicolored Asian ladybird beetle.
Much of the added biocontrol is taking
place outside of orchards—a good tiling,
he said, because brown marmorated
stinkbugs spend 90 percent of their
lives elsewhere. That makes them hard
for fruit growers to control, since they
continually invade from woodlots and
corn and soybean fields. But it may
also mean that biological control agents
outside of orchards are already at work.
"Something is happening out there," he
said. "Nature is snapping back"
As growers learn more about the
behavior of the stinkbug and researchers
develop better monitoring tools,
they react with less panic and more
forethought.
"The ability to preserve IPM programs
seems to have worked better for large
growers with larger blocks and farms
where damage to fruit in the border
rows was only a small fraction of the
total volume of apples harvested,"
Biddinger said, "Most of these growers
were able to get by with border sprays
of the less disruptive neonicotinoid
products—Venom and Scorpion (both
with the active ingredient dinotefuran)—
to control BMSB without developing
secondary pest problems."
"Growers with smaller blocks of fruit
and more borders exposed to woodlots
or corn and soybean fields could not
afford the risk of major crop losses due
to BMSB and hit them with everything
but the kitchen sink.
"It is our hope that BMSB populations
will decline in the near future as some
native predator or pathogen decides it
likes to eat Asian food as well or that
we will be able to import and release
Asian Chinese parasitoids that already
have a taste for BMSB eggs," Biddinger
said. "Then, hopefully our apple IPM
programs will return to normal and we
will see fewer secondary pest outbreaks
as biological control is re-established."
www.epa.gov/pesp
-------
4
PESPWire Spring 2015
Progress
Toward Finding
Immediate,
Practical
Huanglongbing
Solutions
Abbv Yigzani
Courtesy of Citrograph, published by the
Ciftus Reseatvh Board
The United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Huanglongbing
Multiagency Coordination (HLB MAC)
Group was created in December 2013
in direct response to a request from the
citrus industry to the USD A for greater
urgency, support and coordination in the
fight against HLB. HLB, also known as
citrus greening, is a serious disease of
citrus spread by the Asian citrus psyllid.
During the last 12 months, the HLB
MAC Group met each of these goals
as it worked to prioritize and allocate
$21 million in funding for research and
field-trial projects that will soon put
promising tools that fight against HLB
into the hands of growers.
"From day one, our focus has been on
getting growers the help they need now
to combat this devastating disease," said
Maty Palm. Ph.D., chair of the HLB
MAC Group. "We've pushed hard this
year to get promising HLB detection,
control and management methods out of
the labs and into large scale field trials
where they can be validated and turned
over to growers for use in their groves."
An infested sample of flush is collected for
parasitism analysis in a laboratory.
The HLB MAC Group made its first
major announcement in May, providing
$1.5 million to ramp up the release of
the biological control agent, Tamarixia
radiata, to help suppress populations of
Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) in Florida,
California and Texas. This also will
benefit neighboring citrus-producing
states. Through its work to set collective
goals and priorities, HLB MAC group
members all agreed that scaling up
biocontrol. wliich is a tool that has
shown promising results, would be of
immediate benefit to the citrus industry.
'Through these and other efforts in
2014, the HLB MAC Group fostered
cooperation and coordination across
Federal and State agencies and industry.
The MAC team focused on sharing
information, making strategic decisions
based on shared priorities and reducing
duplicative efforts. As one example,
the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture's coordination with the HLB
MAC Group avoided the duplication or
overlap of research efforts and ensured
that the greatest number of critical
projects was funded.
A field insectary cage installed over a lime tree
where Tamarixia radiata has been introduced and
is parasitizing all ACP nymphs present. The mesh
screen is removed right before the third generation
of parasitoids emerge, often producing about
12,000parasitoids.
Part of the $1.5 million was instrumental
in the transfer of technology for the
production of Tamarixia radiata from
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Sendee's methods development
laboratory to the Texas Citrus Pest and
Disease Management Corporation,
which repurposed Agricultural Research
Sendee greenhouses in Weslaco for
biocontrol production.
Then, in June, the HLB MAC Group
made the decision to allocate $6.5
million for citrus health research
projects that seem the most promising
for producing tools and strategies that
can help growers in the near future. This
funding is supporting the field testing of
antimicrobials, such as streptomycin and
oxytetracycline, in Florida to gauge their
effect on the HLB bacterium.
It also is supporting thennotherapy
technology projects, as well as a large
demonstration grove in Florida to
will help educate growers about best
management practices that support
citrus production in areas where HLB is
present.
The Group also coordinated regular
communications, including weekly
conference calls, among State, Federal
and academic biocontrol practitioners
from across the United States. These
calls not only help to facilitate
vital information sharing, they also
are enabling rapid advances in the
development and use of biological
control technologies for ACP. To
date, the practitioners have developed
common standards to measure the
efficacy of biological control of ACP
so that programs in different states can
compare results, share infonnation about
best production and release practices
and identify alternative biological
control strategies, in addition to
Tamarixia radiata, which are near the
implementation stage.
"As we look ahead to 2015, we want
to continue the progress we started
last year and build on it to fund more
projects that will get us closer to our
goal of effectively battling ACP and
HLB," said Palm. "We want to help the
citrus industry gain the advantage as
quickly as possible."
Afield insectary cage being installed over a
recently hedged lime tree that is infested with
thousands of ACP nymphs and where about 300
Tamarixia radiata will be introduced for mass
production.
www.epa.gov/pesp
-------
'ESPWire Spring 2015
5
As part of the HLB MAC Group's
efforts to help the citrus industry- gain
that advantage, the group cast a wide
net to receive project suggestions from
industry, academic. State and Federal
researchers. The project suggestions
selected will be funded in 2015 and
focus on four critical areas:
early detection, such as
standardizing antibody-based
detection methods, developing high
throughput diagnostics using root
samples and training canines to
detect HLB;
sustainable citrus production
practices, such as the treatment
of bicarbonates in irrigation
water and soil, rapid propagation
and widespread field testing of
HLB-tolerant rootstocks and the
establishment of several more
demonstration groves to help
showcase effective integrated
management approaches;
treatments for infected trees, such as
field-level thermotherapy delivery
systems to heat trees, kill the HLB
bacteria and restore productivity;
and
vector management, such as a
lure to attract and kill the ACP,
release and establishment of several
alternative biocontrol agents and
new methods to increase production
of the biocontrol agent, Tamurixia
radiata.
It has been an exciting and busy year
for the HLB MAC, as the group has
worked toward funding near-term
solutions for fighting HLB. These near-
term investments will pay dividends as
longer-term research continues. And
it's just the start. More information
on the MAC Group's efforts and
announcements can be found at http://
usda.gov/citrus.
Abby Yigzaw is the acting assistant
trade director and trade correspondence
manager of the USD As Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service.
School IPM
Success in the
Midwest
Children's health is paramount to
the EPA, and it's Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) promotes school IPM as
an effective approach to protecting
children from exposure to pests and
pesticides. "Children are among the
most vulnerable members of our society,
and it's EPA's job to protect them
from harmful chemicals," said Jim
Jones, OCSPP Assistant Administrator.
"We aim to help schools implement
sustainable pest management practices
to create a healthier environment for our
children and teachers."
Since 2012, the
Agency has
Improving Kids' Environment committed Qvcr $|9
million to improving children's health
through school 1PM grants, impacting
over 4.5 million children nationwide.
Improving Kids' Environment. Inc.
(IKE), one of the recipients of the
grant funds, partnered with school IPM
experts to ensure a safer and healthier
learning environment for children in
Indiana and Ohio through training
programs, coalition building and
demonstration programs.
With $250,000, IKE sought to increase
school IPM implementation in Ohio
and Indiana through a multi-pronged
approach that included demonstration
schools, coalition building, training, and
information sharing. Ten demonstration
schools, representing nine school
districts, were chosen to serve as the
catalysts towards developing healthier
environments for children. A coalition
within Indiana was expanded, and
one within Ohio developed, to ensure
dissemination of information and
support. Trainings and information
sharing ensured the creation of a
knowledge base in both states, making
school IPM dissemination possible.
Franklin Township Community School
Corporation in Indianapolis, Indiana saw
a 70% reduction in amount of pesticides
applied and 75% drop in pest complaints
through the implementation of IPM.
This district had previously participated
in a school IPM event hosted by IKE.
After learning the basic principles of
school IPM. the implementation team
within Franklin Township believed
they were well prepared to move
further down the IPM road to a more
advanced and verifiable IPM program.
This subuiban community school
district provided an excellent model as
to what other local school districts can
accomplish with a comprehensive IPM
program in their school systems.
Rick Hunter, Franklin Township
supervisor of buildings & grounds, and
his staff demonstrated their commitment
to this progressive program by adopting
the approach: "Pest Management
is People Management". Methods
in "people management" include
distributing Pest Press newsletters
regularly as reminders of IPM, posting
Pest Sighting Logs in clear view, and
holding regular discussions with staff
about pest prevention by keeping
classrooms clutter-free, properly storing
food, and quickly reporting pests or
pest-conducive conditions.
All demonstration schools saw an
average of 62% reduction in both
pesticide use and pest complaints. Out
of the nine districts, seven adopted
IPM techniques across their district
after seeing the successes in their
demonstration schools, including in
Columbus City School District, which
contains 111 schools. In addition, IKE
and partners developed school IPM
websites specific to Ohio and Indiana,
over a dozen newsletters, multiple
posters and presentations, and five
videos. One school district. Western
Reserve in Collins, Ohio, achieved the
prestigious IPM STAR Certification.
In the end, the health of over 75,000
children was positively impacted
through the work of Improving Kid's
Environment, Inc. and their partners.
EPA will continue to work with partners
and stakeholders to advance school IPM
nationwide.
www.epa.gov/pesp
-------
6
PESPWire Spring 2015
Prevent Moles,
Voles, and
Pocket Gophers
from Ruining
Your Spring
It's Springtime. Time to get outside and
enjoy your lawn, sports fields, or golf
course you manage. As you assess your
spring maintenance routines, you notice
something has created a maze of tunnels,
in every direction in that once-beautiful
turf.
Voles and moles are the most common
culprit. But which is it and how do
you tell the difference? How do you
discourage them from living on your turf
and convince them to take up residence
elsewhere? Moles are often blamed for
the damage caused by voles or pocket
gophers. Moles and voles are entirely
different pests that have little in common
beyond a name that rhymes.
The biggest differences between
moles and voles are their diet and the
type of damage they cause. Once you
understand their differences it becomes
rather easy to tell them apart and
develop a prevention strategy.
Voles are rodents who look much like
mice, only with shorter tails. Voles
usually do not invade homes and should
not be confused with the common house
mouse. Voles are plant-eaters, feeding
on the stems and blades of lawn grass,
perennial-flower roots, seeds and bulbs.
In winter when their main sources of
food are scarce, they'll even chew into
the stems and trunks trees and shrubs,
damaging and sometimes killing them.
Pocket gophers, also rodents, are
powerful diggers and have front paws
with large claws. Pocket gophers eat
grasses, herbaceous plants, shrubs, and
even small trees. They mainly feed on
the roots they encounter when digging.
Sometimes they pull the vegetation into
their tunnel from below.
In comparison, the primary diet of moles
is earthworms, with a few grubs and
insects tossed in as appetizers.
Their landscape demolition is the
incidental damage of tunnels and
runways dug in lawns while on the
never-ending search for more worms.
According to Ohio State, a 5 ounce mole
will consume 45-50 pounds of worms
and insects each year. So, unlike voles
or gophers, they pose no direct threat to
your turf.
Damage
Moles, voles, and pocket gophers cause
noticeably different types of damage.
Moles make raised burrows in your
lawn ground cover, and shrub areas
as they search for worms and grubs to
eat, and their tunneling activity raises
the soil into ridges. However, when
voles tunnel in search of roots, they do
not create raised ridges. Pocket gopher
mounds are clustered and fan-shaped.
Voles create quarter-sized entry holes in
their tunnels along walls and in mulched
beds, leaving minimal mounds behind.
Vole surface runways result from the
voles eating the grass blades, and
beating a path through the grass. Their
tunnels are at or near the surface and are
most noticeable in early spring, just after
the snow melts.
Is it a Mole, a Vole, or a Pocket Gopher?
Moles Voles Pocket Gopher
Photo: Stanislaw Szyalo, creative
commons, org
Photo: Jack Kelly Clark, UC Davis
Insectivores who eat earthworms,
grubs, and insects
Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC
Mole Damage
Photo: Steven Vantassel
Rodents who eat plants grass, roots,
seeds and bulbs
Vole Damage
Photo: Steven Vantassel
Rodents who eat herbaceous plants,
shrubs, and small trees
Pocket Gopher Damage
Photo: Steven Vantassel
Photo: Jack Kelly Clark, UC Davis
www.epa.gov/pesp
-------
'ESPWire Spring 2015
7
Moles, on the other hand, are built for
tunneling, with paddle-like front paws
that make quick work of soil. Moles
prefers well-drained, moist, loose, sandy
or loamy soil, and are often drawn
to manicured lawns, parks and golf
courses. They are constantly tunneling
in search of meals, pushing up mini
mountain ranges all over the lawn, and
creating volcanoes of soil in random
spots. Moles produce two types of
elaborate tunnels; feeding tunnels just
beneath the surface that appear as raised
ridges running across your lawn, and
deep tunnels that enable moles to retreat
up to 5 feet below the surface as the
weather cools.
Pocket gopher
mounds are
characterized
by a kidney-
like fan shape,
and are often
clustered. The
plugged entry
hole is off to
one side of the mound. Pocket gopher
burrows consist of a main burrow
between 4 to 18 inches below ground,
with a variable number of lateral
burrows. Like moles, some parts of
their tunnel system may be as deep as
5 or 6 feet. A single pocket gopher can
construct as many as 300 soil mounds
while moving over 4 tons of soil a year.
To deter these landscape pests, be
prepared to alter their enviromnent.
Preventing pest problems through
foresight, is the #1 rule of Integrated
Pest Management (IPM). IPM is both
beneficial both to your health and to the
health of the enviromnent.
The basis of IPM consist of the
following fundamental principles.
1) Take preventive steps to preclude a
pest problem instead of taking a purely
reactive approach by waiting for pests
to arrive.
2) Determine tolerance levels ahead of
time. How much of an infestation can
you tolerate before eradication measures
need to be taken?
3) Know your pest. That knowledge
will give you key clues for management
strategies.
4) Determine the optimal time of the
year, weather conditions, or time of day
to control your pests.
5) Implement cultural, maintenance and
mechanical best practices necessary for
control.
6) Use chemical controls judiciously,
as they are are also a part of the IPM
toolbox.
Cultural and biological controls
For moles, regulating at least some of
their food supply will make your lawn
less appealing to them. Since moles are
fond of beetle grubs in the lawn you
can begin by controlling these grubs.
The three primary solutions are milky
spore, beneficial nematodes, and neem
oil products. An annual lawn application
of bacterial-based milky spore disease
granules can help, but killing every last
grub won't necessarily solve the mole
problem immediately. Milky spore takes
two to three years to inoculate, and it
doesn't work in colder climates. Neem
has been used as an insecticide for
centuries in India and is available in oil
or powder. However, as long as there are
plenty of worms or ants in your lawn,
you may still have a mole problem and
may wish to resort to other measures.
For voles and pocket gophers, you
need to modify your yard to make it
less appealing. Be particularly careful
about applying mulch too close to trees
and shrubs. Voles easily tunnel through
the mulch and it provides them with
an insulated pathway under snow, ice
and frozen ground in the winter. Get
rid of autumn leaves, twigs and other
debris that can also make inviting
pathways and remove ground cover that
can hide voles. Bare soil makes them
more vulnerable to predation. Consider
placing wire cages around individual
plants. This can be very effective,
especially for your favorite plants, but
it is also very time consuming, thus
making it impractical for large-scale
implementation.
Wrap hardware cloth around the base
of the young tree and shrub trunks to
keep them from being gnawed. Be sure
to bury the screen at least 4 to 5 inches
deep and go up the trunks at least 2 feet.
Keep your garden weeded and avoid
planting dense ground covers. Tilling
gardens and fields can add to deterrents
for voles and pocket gophers. Also, keep
your lawn short if voles are a problem in
your neighborhood.
Repellents
For moles and gophers, the most widely
used repellent is castor oil - whether it's
a homemade treatment or commercial
product made from ground corn cobs
and castor oil.
For voles, some commercial repellents
are formulated from hot-pepper sauce,
while the fungicide tliiram is made
with urine from predators such as
coyotes that is repulsive to voles. These
repellants are effective at keeping
voles from eating live plants and bulbs.
Their draw back is that they need to
be re-applied frequently because most
dissipate with the rain. Voles may also
become acclimated to the smell and
come back. Therefore, a varied approach
works best with repellents.
Other repellents such as fumigants,
ultrasonic repellers, and noise or
vibration makers are not effective
against voles, moles, or pocket gophers.
Trapping or Lethal Action
Trapping moles, voles, or pocket
gophers is an effective long-term
strategy. Check your state's regulations
before turning to trapping or lethal
action, as there may be restrictions.
Snap traps manufactured mainly for
mice also are effective at catching voles.
Place the mouse traps into the widest
vole runways. They are indicative of
heavy traffic and offer the best results.
A mix of peanut butter and oatmeal or
small apple slices are effective vole bait.
Numerous pesticides are available
for moles, voles and pocket gophers
including zinc phosphide and warfarin-
based products. These products are
regulated by the EPA. Remember to read
and follow all label directions. A serious
vole or pocket gopher problem may
require a pest management professional
who lias access to more effective
technologies and pesticides ingredients
than the homeowner.
Pocket Gopher Mound
Photo: University of Arizona
Cooperative Extension
www.epa.gov/pesp
-------
8
PESPWire Spring 2015
Scientists
Discover How
Bollworm
Becomes
Resistant to B/
Crops
k-ARS, Bugwood.org
resistance is caused by changes to a gut
protein called cadherin. In susceptible
insects, cadherin binds to the Bt toxin
eventually leading to the death of the
insect. When mutations in the gene
encoding cadherin block this binding,
the insect becomes resistant.
Reprinted with permission from
Entomology Today
Bt crops are plants that have been
genetically-engineered to produce
proteins that are harmless to humans
but are toxic to some devastating insect
pests. The proteins are produced by
genes from the bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis {Bt) that have been
inserted into the crops. These same Bt
proteins have been used by organic
farmers for more than 50 years in a
spray formulation.
Bt crops were introduced in 1996
and have helped reduce the use of
insecticides in corn and cotton fields
around the world. In Arizona alone,
cotton growers have reduced spraying
broad-spectrum insecticides, which kill
beneficial insects along with pests, by 80
percent.
The Bt protein works by binding to
receptors in certain insects' guts —
which makes it harmful to targeted
insects but safe for others.
As Dr Bruce Tabashnik (University
of Arizona) once explained it, the idea
behind Bt crops "can be explained with
a lock-and-key analogy ... The lock on
the door is the receptor protein in the
insect's gut, and the key is the Bt toxin
that binds to that receptor. To be able to
kill the insect, the toxin must fit the lock
to open the door and get inside."
Several insect pests have evolved
resistance to Bt crops, one of which is
called the pink bollworm (Pectinophora
gossypiella), and Dr. Jeff Fabrick, a
USDA-ARS entomologist, and his
collaborators from the University of
Arizona have unraveled the genetic
mechanism by which it occurs. Their
findings are described in the journal
PLOSONE.
Fabrick and his colleagues have spent
more than a decade studying how
insects adapt to Bt crops. They produced
Bt resistance in pink bollworm in the
laboratory and determined that the
The scientists compared the cadherin
gene in their lab-raised resistant
insects with that same gene in resistant
pink bollworm found in India. They
discovered that the resistant pink
bollworm from India had different
changes and many more changes to
that gene. In total, 19 unique mutations
were found in just eight resistant pink
bollworms from India. By comparison
the scientists found just four cadherin
mutations in several laboratoiy-raised
resistant strains from the U.S.
The researchers found that the pink
bollworm from India uses a novel
genetic mechanism to develop
resistance. Known as alternative
splicing, it enables a single DNA
sequence to produce many variants of
a protein. The diversity of mutations
and the novel mechanism that gives
rise to that diversity show that a variety
of molecular mechanisms could be
important in how insects develop Bt
resistance.
More work is still needed to determine
how widespread resistance due to
alternative splicing is in other pests.
W
EPA's Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) in the Office of Pesticide Programs, is responsible
for all regulatory activities associated with biologically-based pesticides. Biopesticides include naturally occurring
substances that control pests (biochemical pesticides), microorganisms that control pests (microbial pesticides), and
pesticidal substances produced by plants containing added genetic material (plant-incorporated protectants, or PIPs).
The use of genetically modified PIP crops, such those expressing the Bt protein are an effective method of
insect control. Such crops greatly reduce the need for topical pesticides, thereby protecting the environment and human health.
Biopesticides, including PIPs, are usually inherently less toxic than conventional pesticides, and generally only affect the target pests.
It is essential that these crops are properly managed to remain effective over the long-term. EPA is committed to maintaining effective
oversight of these products to prevent the target pests from developing resistance to the natural proteins being expressed. As part of
this effort, BPPD is interested in new research exploring how insects can develop resistance to PIPs. In
She article above, researchers from USDA and the University of Arizona have discovered that changes
to a gut protein called cadherin can lead to resistance in bollworms, a common pest of Bt cotton. This
research may help scientists develop new strategies to maintain the effectiveness of these exciting
innovations in biotechnology.
www.epa.gov/pesp
-------
'ESPWire Spring 2015
9
Promoting
Tribal
School IPM
Nationwide
continued from page 1
IHS is an agency
within the Department
of Health and Human
Services, and is
responsible for
providing federal health
services to American Indians and Alaska
Natives.
Both EPA and IHS recognized that
providing training to IHS environmental
health and safety officers (EHOs) was
an efficient and effective way to assess
schools within Indian Country. EHOs
already visit many of these schools on a
regular basis to conduct environmental
health and safety walkthroughs. The
EHOs would be trained on how to use
an IPM checklist to
identify pest conducive
conditions and pest and
pesticide hazards. They
would also be trained on
how to provide limited
IPM technical assistance
to a school contact.
The training took place in Oregon in
December 2013, reaching five IHS
Portland Area EHOs. Both EPA and
IHS presented and led a school IPM
walkthrough. These EHOs now integrate
IPM inspections into their environmental
health and safety walkthroughs when
visiting tribal schools within the states
of Washington, Oregon and Idaho.
In 2013 and 2014, IHS provided ten
schools with an IPM assessment,
specifically looking at the schools' pest
issues, pesticide risks, prevention and
control practices, and administrative
practices related to pest management.
Based off these initial assessments, IHS
has started to develop IPM action plans
for interested schools.
Through the success and lessons
learned from the Portland area, EPA
Region 5 School IPM Coordinator, Seth
Dibblee. and IHS decided to continue
the exemplary efforts started in the IHS
Portland area, and offered the training
to its tribal partners. On April 7-8, Mr.
Dibblee presented at the annual training
event in Duluth, MN for the Indian
Health Service Bemidji Area.
Expanding on the pilots efforts in
Portland, the EHOs participated in a
one-day training workshop on School
IPM for tribal schools and Headstart
programs.
The interactive workshop included
information on IPM principles and pest
prevention practices, and a presentation
on pest biology from Dr. Stephen Kells
from the University of Minnesota
Extension. Workshop participants also
were able to perform a two-hour "walk-
through" of the Fond du Lac Ojibwe
School in Cloquet, MN identifying
potential areas of concern and apply
common sense strategies.
IHS has plans to offer similar workshops
nationwide at a minimum of four times
per year, in coordination with other
EPA Regions. These trainings are an
important step towards providing tribal
schools with information on how to
advance their level of IPM.
EPA
Leadership
Promotes
School IPM
Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for
EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention, is an advocate for
IPM in our nation's schools. Having
the Agency's School IPM program
under his purview provides Mr. Jones
opportunities to see firsthand the benefits
schools have realized after implementing
smart, sensible, and sustainable pest
control programs. He noted that, "many
schools are stuck on a treadmill of
never-ending pesticide applications,
without addressing the underlying issues
that make schools attractive to pests. If
we can make it so pests aren't attracted
in the first place, the need for pesticides
in schools would be greatly reduced,"
Since 2014, Mr. Jones has visited
schools in New Orleans. Louisiana:
Phoenix, Arizona: Indianapolis, Indiana;
Norfolk, Virginia; and Salt Lake City,
Utah.
While each school and school district is
unique and presents its own challenges,
all have made the commitment to IPM
and are pleased with the results.
Mr. Louis Cuffee (center), building supervisor,
describes Booker T. Washington's pest monitoring
program to EPA's Jim Jones (left), GCA Services
representatives, and the assistant principal.
In mid-March, Jones visited, in
conjunction with EPA's Environmental
Justice (EJ) month, two Norfolk
(Virginia) Public Schools with
strong IPM programs. The healthier
learning environments provided by
school IPM are particularly relevant
during EJ month. Asthma rates are
often disproportionately high in EJ
communities due in part to exposure to
allergens including those from pests.
www.epa.gov/pesp
-------
10
PESPWire Spring 2015
Upcoming Events
Mr. Jones saw firsthand that
Campostella Elementary. Booker T.
Washington High, and Norfolk Public
Schools as a whole were committed
to IPM and providing their students
with an environment in which they can
thrive. The Norfolk Public Schools' IPM
program is provided through a contract
with GCA Sendees Group, which trains
and oversees the districts" custodial staff
and empowers them to be a large part of
the IPM solution.
Most recently in late March, Mr. Jones
visited Salt Lake City and toured Riley
Elementary School. The Agency took
the opportunity to present certificates
of appreciation to both the school and
to the district's custodial supervisor,
Ricardo Zubiate, for their dedication to
using IPM practices to keep schools free
of pests and limit pesticide use.
The Salt Lake City School District
has received grants from the EPA,
and the district has been recognized
for its participation in the IPM Star
Certification program. Riley Elementary
is an excellent example of a successful
and effective IPM program that is
managed by district staff. In the last
ten years, there has been only one
application of pesticide at the school to
control a nest of wasps. Other than that,
the school's custodians and staff have
kept their building pest-free by using
common sense strategies to reduce their
sources of food, water and shelter.
Through events like these, EPA is able
to recognize school districts that have
made a commitment to IPM. and hopes
to motivate other to move their schools
farther down the IPM road.
National Assocation of School Nurses
Conference
June 24-27
Philadelphia. PA
National Environmental Health
Association Conference
July 13-15
Orlando, FL
National Pest Management Association
Academy
July 15-17
Las Vegas, NV
National Pest Management Association
Mid-Atlantic Summer Conference
July 29-Aug 1
Myrtle Beach, SC
3N
Biopesticide Indus Irs Alliance Fall
Semi-Annual Meeting
Sept 16-18
Arlington VA
Biopesticide Industry Alliance 2015
Global Minor Use Priority Setting
Workshop
Sept 20-22
Chicago, IL
Entomological Society of America
Annual Meeting
Nov 15-18
Minneapolis. MN
Grant Opportunities
EPA National Farmworker Training
Due June 8
EPA is soliciting applications for a cooperative agreement that supports national
farmworker training aimed at reducing exposure to pesticides for agricultural workers,
their families and the agricultural community. This training will help ensure that
farmworkers are aware of the strengthened protections they are afforded under the
final worker protection standards that EPA expects to release in September 2015. To
implement the program. EPA expects to provide up to $500,000 annually, depending
on the Agency's budget, for a total of five years.
EPA must receive proposals through Grants.gov no later than June 8,2015.
Additional information on this soliciation is available under Funding Opportunity
Announcement F.PA-QPP-2015-001
Agronomic Science Foundation Sustainable Research Program
Due June 1
The Agronomic Science Foundation (ASF) is seeking proposals by June 1 for its
competitive Sustainable Research Program with up to $120,000 in grants awarded for
research projects involving cover crops and related management practices in the
United States.
They invite new and continuing proposals to be submitted as online applications for
2015-2016 funding by June 1, 2015. The ASF Sustainable Research Program
Technical Advisory Committee will evaluate proposals and anticipates releasing
funds on July 15, 2015.
Salt Lake City Awardees with AA Jim Jones
www.epa.gov/pesp
------- |