INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Cooperative Extension System & Department of Plant Science

MAINTAINING FARM VIABILITY PRESERVING OPEN SPACES ENHANCING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REDUCING USE OF HARMFUL CHEMICALS PROTECTING WATER QUALITY

What is IPM? Integrated pest management (IPM) is a sustainable approach to managing pests. IPM practitioners base decisions on information that is collected systematically as they integrate economic, environmental, and social goals. IPM can be used within the context of both agricultural and urban environments, and is flexible enough to accommodate the changing demands of agriculture, commerce, and society. IPM emphasizes the integration of many pest suppression technologies:

• Biological control - The use of beneficial organisms to manage pests. • Cultural control – crop rotation, improved sanitation, and other practices that reduce

pest pressure. • Mechanical and physical control – for example, traps and cultivation. • Chemical control – judicious use of pesticides and other chemicals. • Host plant resistance – use of pest-resistant varieties. • Regulatory control – state and federal regulations that prevent the spread of pests.

IPM Program Contacts IPM Coordinator Ana Legrand 860-486-0869 Ana.Legrand@uconn.edu

Field Crops IPM Frank Himmelstein 860-885-2829 Frank.Himmelstein@uconn.edu

Fruit IPM Lorraine Los 860-486-6449 Lorraine.Los@uconn.edu

Greenhouse IPM Leanne Pundt 860-626-6240 Leanne.Pundt@uconn.edu

Invasive Plant IPM Donna Ellis 860-486-6448 Donna.Ellis@uconn.edu

IPM Curriculum Donna Ellis 860-486-6448 Donna.Ellis@uconn.edu

Nursery IPM Donna Ellis 860-486-6448 Donna.Ellis@uconn.edu

Turfgrass IPM Steven Rackliffe 860-486-1944 Steven.Rackliffe@uconn.edu

Vegetable IPM Jude Boucher 860-875-3331 Jude.Boucher@uconn.edu

Wine Grape IPM Richard Kiyomoto 860-486-3436 Richard.Kiyomoto@uconn.edu

For more information on IPM, see the UConn IPM Website at http://www.hort.uconn.edu/ipm

3

The general public has a right to safe and affordable food and water, and an environment that is free from contamination. Certain chemicals employed in pest control have the potential to adversely affect human health and the quality of natural resources. History has shown that once environmental damage or contamination has occurred, it may be either irreversible or extremely costly to correct. Furthermore, when a single pesticide or other pest control strategy is used repeatedly, it can lose its efficacy in controlling pests as the pests develop resistance. A proactive approach to pest control that integrates diverse control methods is needed to achieve long-lasting pest control that poses minimal threat to human health and natural resources. The goal of integrated pest management (IPM) is to reduce the dependence of agricultural producers, homeowners and schools on pesticides while maintaining or improving productivity, crop quality and quality of life. Since its inception in 1980, the University of Connecticut IPM program has made great strides in developing and implementing more sustainable methods for pest control throughout Connecticut. The University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System in conjunction with the Department of Plant Science has educated growers throughout Connecticut about the judicious use of pesticides and alternative pest control methods. Each year, IPM training programs are conducted for vegetable, fruit, field corn, greenhouse, turfgrass, and nursery production. Information is also disseminated to growers through presentations, publications, pest information hotlines, and the IPM website at www.hort.uconn.edu/ipm. In addition, the Connecticut IPM program educates the public and natural area managers on issues related to invasive

species. Homeowners, teachers and students benefit from other program offerings such as conferences, web-based materials and the ongoing development of school curricula on IPM. Through such education, the IPM program has significantly increased the economic viability of agriculture and the green industries in Connecticut, while at the same time safeguarding human health and the environment. Since 1984, IPM personnel at the University of Connecticut have held 738 full-season, one-on-one training programs for

individual growers and groundskeepers in Connecticut. This training has vastly reduced pesticide use in Connecticut, resulting in more than 91 tons of pesticide active ingredient not being applied to Connecticut crops and landscapes. This reduction included at least 33 tons of chemicals classified as having moderate to severe potential to contaminate groundwater. The University of Connecticut IPM training programs have substantially improved the economic viability of agriculture in Connecticut through both lowering pesticide costs and reducing pest damage to crops. To date, these training programs have saved Connecticut growers well over $2.6 million. Given

that IPM training impacts were only measured during the year in which a given IPM training program occurred, the continuing impacts of the IPM program are presumably far greater than these numbers reflect. In 2004, 34 growers participated in full-season IPM training programs. These growers reduced their pesticide use on 973 acres by a total of 783.5 pounds of active ingredient, while at the same time achieving improved pest control. The vegetable IPM program alone saved growers more than $180,000 in 2004 by reducing pest damage.

Executive Summary

“The UConn IPM Program is an excellent program and

I recommend it to other growers.”

—Betsy Molodich,

Molodich Farm, Sterling, CT

4

Boy Scouts of America Cheney Vocational & Technical School CT Agricultural Experiment Station CT Department of Environmental Protection CT Invasive Plant Working Group CT Master Gardener Program Covenant Village, Cromwell Danbury Department of Public Health Earth BioSciences, Inc. Eastern Connecticut Conservation District Environmental Protection Agency Friends of Ball Pond Girl Scouts of America Harris AgriScience & Technology Center Juniper Ridge Tax District, Danbury Lake Kenosia residents, Danbury New England Floriculture, Inc.

New England Veg. & Berry Growers’ Assoc. Panthorn Park, Southington Pratt and Whitney Quinnipiac River Watershed Association Simsbury Conservation Commission Southbury Parks & Recreation Still River Greenway, Torrington United States Department of Agriculture University of CT faculty University of CT Home and Garden Center Wallingford Country Club West River Memorial Park staff, New Haven Westmoor Park Staff, West Hartford Wethersfield Conservation Commission Wethersfield Inland Wetlands Commission White Memorial Foundation, Litchfield

IPM Funding The IPM program is the result of a joint effort between the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System and Department of Plant Science. In 2004, the IPM program was supported through a variety of private, state and federal funding sources. The CT Department of Environmental Protection Non-Point Source Grant Program funded the Quinebaug River Watershed Reduced Pesticide/Nutrient Loading Demonstration Project ($52,577). Work on invasive species management was supported by funds from USDA/APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Biocontrol program ($13,500), USDA/APHIS Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) ($25,444) and the CT Department of Environmental Protection River Restoration Program. A grant from USDA Northeast SARE supported work in vegetable IPM ($139,000 over two years) and funding from the Bingham Trust ($100,000) supported the development of the school IPM curriculum and the production of curriculum kits for teachers. Research on management strategies for apple pests was funded by a USDA Northeast IPM grant ($5,552). The publication of an IPM guide for herbaceous perennials by Leanne Pundt was supported through a grant from the New England Greenhouse Conference. Research on biological control of Japanese and Oriental beetles was funded by the USDA Hatch Multi-State Project S-301. State funds and USDA Smith-Lever funds covered the salaries and fringe benefits of several IPM team members. A significant development in 2004 was the formation of a partnership between the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the IPM program to provide IPM training to growers participating in the NRCS EQIP program.

Other Partners

5

The thirteen growers who participated in the full-season vegetable IPM training, which took place in the growers’ fields on a weekly basis, reduced the number of pesticide applications they made to 298.5 acres of sweet corn, peppers, summer squash, winter squash and cucumbers by 22% and the amount of active ingredient they used by 2.6 pounds of active ingredient per acre or 51%. This resulted in a total

reduction of 776 pounds of active ingredient. They increased their crop yields by 12%, 12%, and 18% on sweet corn, peppers, and cucurbits respectively, and saved $184,705 ($619/acre) by reducing pest

damage. IPM training for organic growers was initiated in 2004 as part of the NRCS EQIP program, and two growers received full-season organic IPM training. More than 130 growers, researchers and service representatives attended the annual CT Vegetable and Small Fruit Growers' Conference; 100% of respondents rated the program as excellent or good and stated that it would improve their pest management and/or crop quality. The UConn telephone/internet vegetable pest message, updated weekly throughout the season, received over 700 calls/hits. More than 170 growers attended three twilight meetings/farm tours conducted to inform growers about research efforts and to demonstrate the latest innovative materials and methods for crop production and pest control.

Fruit IPM

The four tree fruit growers who participated in the fruit IPM training program reduced the amount of pesticide they applied to 103 acres of tree fruit by 3.5 pounds of active ingredient per acre. This resulted in a total reduction of 355.9 pounds of active ingredient. All training sessions included information on IPM methodology, including pest identification, biology, monitoring, chemical and non-chemical management, and issues asspcoated with pesticide use. In addition, an on-farm field study was conducted to compare three different management strategies for the key apple pests plum curculio and apple maggot. Three additional wine grape growers received IPM training in 2004, one of whom participated in the NRCS EQIP program. Data was collected for use in developing wine grape IPM recommendations for Connecticut. The UConn fruit pest message was emailed to 80 growers weekly during the growing season in addition to being available by telephone and on the web.

Greenhouse IPM

The six growers who participated in the greenhouse IPM training program reduced the amount of pesticide they applied to 4.7 acres of production by 5 pounds per acre of active ingredient. This resulted in a total reduction of 23.3 pounds of active ingredient. Whenever possible, growers selected more environmentally friendly products with shorter reentry levels, lessening worker exposure to pesticides. Growers also used more reduced risk products, as defined by the EPA. All

Program Highlights

Danny Logue (Logue Farm, Woodbury, CT) checking pheromone trap for corn earworm moths.

Lorraine Los and Doug Young at Woodstock Orchards

”...Lorraine, thank you for all the help in the IPM block! It certainly is a

tremendous cost saver.”

—Doug Young, Woodstock

Orchards

Jude Boucher teaching growers at twilight meeting at John Chapman’s Farm in Somers/Woodstock, CT

Vegetable IPM

6

growers said they would recommend the program to other growers. 63 growers attended two spring bedding plant workshops, and 98% of them rated the programs as excellent or good. The UConn Update for Greenhouse Growers was posted on the Connecticut IPM website weekly or bi-weekly throughout the growing season, and information from these updates was downloaded by growers 5,050 times from July 2004 to March 2005. In addition, an early alert system (on the web and via email) was developed for greenhouse growers across New England to alert them to emerging insect, disease, cultural and nutritional problems and solutions.

Turfgrass IPM

Several educational sessions were conducted for turfgrass commodity groups, master gardeners and homeowners to promote the use of pest and fertility management methods that protect the environment while improving lawn and turf quality. These sessions were attended by over 730 Connecticut residents. Two research projects were conducted to examine the use of biologically-based pest control alternatives that will be easy to implement by sod-producers, managers and homeowners. The first of these projects determined the current status of the parasitic wasp Tiphia vernalis, which had been introduced to Connecticut for control of Japanese and Oriental beetles. The wasp was found in almost every county in the state. The second field study evaluated the efficacy of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae in controlling Japanese and Oriental beetle larvae. Field Corn IPM

The problem of increased weed pressure from new and resistant weed populations, coupled

with the groundwater concerns of a number of corn herbicides and the development of transgenic corn, has created the need to research and implement new weed management methods. One dairy farm in the Quinebaug watershed participated in the field corn IPM training program for the third year in 2004. On that farm, the total amount of herbicide active ingredient applied to 565 acres was reduced by 349 pounds, or 24%, compared to the levels applied prior to the training in 2000. Herbicides that pose a severe threat to water quality were reduced by 673 pounds, or 63%, compared to 2000 rates. Three additional field corn growers received full-season IPM training as part of the NRCS EQIP program. Research conducted on a new herbicide with a favorable environmental profile, mesotrione, indicated that in future years it would be possible to achieve excellent, affordable weed control while significantly reducing or eliminating the use of herbicides posing a significant threat to human health and the environment.

Nursery IPM

The two growers who participated in the nursery IPM training program in 2004 both received thirteen bi-weekly trainings and field visits from April through September. During each visit, crops were scouted for pest problems and relevant information on pest control was provided to the grower. A preliminary demonstration of two new black vine weevil traps was carried out at one of the nurseries. More than 350 professional horticulturists attended the annual Perennial Plant conference, and 97% of them rated the conference as excellent or good. Approximately the same number attended the second annual Garden Conference, and 95% of them rated the conference as excellent or good.

Leanne Pundt scouting for greenhouse pests

Frank Himmelstein examining field corn that is infested with burcucumber

7

Invasive Plant IPM

The invasive plant IPM program focused on controlling purple loosestrife, a highly invasive plant that poses a significant ecological threat in Connecticut wetlands, with the Galerucella leaf-feeding beetle. In 2004, the emphasis of the purple loosestrife biological control program shifted from long-term monitoring studies to enhanced outreach education. The new approach achieved rapid success: 100 new volunteers were recruited to learn about the biological control program, rear Galerucella beetles, and release these benefitical insects into local wetlands where purple loosestrife had become invasive and control was desired. Several school classes became involved in the effort. A total of about 300,000 Galerucella beetles were reared and released into wetlands overrun with purple loosestrife, including twenty new sites. The total number of beetles released in 2004 is equivalent to the number that were released in Connecticut during the previous eight years combined. Feeding damage by the beetles was observed in purple loosestrife at all locations in which the beetles were released. A symposium on invasive plants was attended by approximately 400 people, 96% of whom stated that they were better trained to identify and manage invasive plants following the symposium.

IPM School Curriculum

This year, the IPM program released the IPM curriculum kits for kindergarten and 1st grade. These kits add to the resources already available for teachers in the IPM kits for 7th and 8th grades. The curriculum teaches the concepts and methods of IPM, including information on what pests are (insects, weeds, and diseases), how to control pests

(mechanical, biological, chemical, and cultural controls), and how to protect the environment by keeping our food and water safe to eat and drink and preserving biological diversity. The curriculum units were developed to be included in science programs and also contain strands that link the subject area to social studies, language arts, math and art. The curriculum will have wide application, not only for public and private schools but for youth in 4-H, scouting programs, science clubs, and campers. Six workshops were conducted to introduce educators to the curriculum. The curriculum received an overwhelmingly positive response from Connecticut teachers, 4-H program leaders, and also from regional IPM leaders.

Connecticut IPM Website

The IPM website - www.hort.uconn.edu/ipm - continues to be an important medium to disseminate IPM information to the general public and to growers. Weekly pest messages for vegetable, fruit and greenhouse crops, fact sheets, event information and management guides were posted on the site. This information was accessed 530,079 times between May 1, 2004 and April 30, 2005. Fourteen self-paced, non-credit courses on IPM for homeowners and gardeners were also offered. These courses were used 8,183 times during the year. In addition, the website became a major distributor of Extension publications; for example, over 6,500 copies of the publication Pest Management for Herb Bedding Plants Grown in the Greenhouse were downloaded from the website.

Simsbury middle school students collecting Galerucella beetles to rear and release for purple loosestrife control

Izzy the Praying Mantis (IPM for short), part of the

IPM school curriculum

“The time passed so quickly! And I got so much out of it. This is a great curriculum!”

—Participant in IPM Curriculum workshop

8

Vegetable IPM There are many risks associated with the use and misuse of pesticides in commercial vegetable production. Some of these risks include the increase of pest pressure due to a reduction of natural enemies, resistance, adverse impacts on crop growth, regulatory expenses, pollution of ground and surface waters, unwanted food residues, reduced farm profitability, inadvertent chemical exposure of the public or farm workers, and land devaluation due to real or perceived hazards. UConn’s Vegetable IPM program, led by Jude Boucher, teaches commercial growers how to use a variety of pest management options designed to minimize pesticide use and associated risks, while protecting their crops and maximizing farm profitability. Growers participating in the vegetable IPM program learn to combine cultural, mechanical, genetic, physical, and biological control techniques to prevent pest problems, only using chemical pesticides as a last line of defense when absolutely necessary. Thirteen growers participated in the full-season IPM & Perimeter Trap Cropping field training programs, which took place in the growers' fields on a weekly basis. These growers reduced the number of pesticide applications they made to 298.5 acres of sweet corn, peppers and cucurbits (summer squash, winter squash and cucumbers) by 22% and the amount of active ingredient they used by 2.6 pounds of active ingredient per acre or 51%. This resulted in a total reduction of 776 pounds of pesticide active ingredient. They increased their crop yields by 12%, 12%, and 18% on sweet corn, peppers, and cucurbits respectively, and saved $184,705 ($619 per acre) by reducing pest damage. IPM training for organic growers was initiated in 2004 in partnership with the NRCS EQIP program, and two growers at one vegetable farm received full-season organic IPM training. Ana Legrand, IPM Program Leader, visited the farm

operation weekly from June through early September. During each visit, the vegetable production areas were scouted and pest management issues were discussed with the growers. The goal for this first season was to introduce the major concepts and tools used in IPM, especially the concept of monitoring for pests and making decisions based on scouting results. Discussions took place regarding the use of scouting forms, the use of biocontrol agents, pest and beneficial insect identification, cultural control tactics, physical and mechanical control tactics, weed management, and conservation of natural enemies. Fact sheets were distributed on organic pest management for flea beetles, Colorado potato beetle, cucumber beetles, weed management, etc. Supplies such as scouting forms, hand lenses, botanical and biological insecticide samples, sticky trap materials, and lacewing predators were provided according to the need for each week. The practices of scouting and using pest natural enemies for pest control were established on the farm. In addition to the on-site IPM training, a variety of other methods were used to train thousands of Northeast food producers in reduced-risk methods, helping them preserve environmental quality, keep vegetables free of illegal pesticide residues, and maintain farm profitability and open space. Over 134 growers, researchers and service representatives attended the Annual CT Vegetable and Small Fruit Growers’ Conference in Vernon, CT last January. A total of 55 growers returned evaluations of the Annual CT Vegetable and Small Fruit Conference. All (100%) of the respondents rated the educational program as excellent or good, 96% said that it would result in improvements in their crop production and marketing practices, 100% said it would improve their pest management and/or crop quality, 81% said it would improve their farms’ environmental quality, 76% said it would improve their farm profitability, and 64% said they would adopt new practices as a result of attending the conference. The UConn vegetable telephone/internet pest message provided weekly reports on trap captures, disease occurrence, and management practices throughout the growing season and received over 700 calls/hits. Two plant diseases new to the New England region were detected as first

“There is no substitute for

real-life, in-field type training.”

—Andre Groszyk, Groszyk Farm,

Enfield, CT

IPM Program Impacts

9

state and county occurrences and reported to the USDA NAPIS database. Dozens of farm trouble-shooting visits and direct mailings were made.

Developing a Perimeter Trap Crop System for Cucurbit Pests

In addition to educational events, an applied research program was conducted to help drive effective programming. A recently released U. S. General Accounting Office Report on IPM criticized IPM programs for relying too much on chemical solutions and noted the low adoption rate of biologically-based pest control tactics, which have great potential to reduce the use of pesticides and their associated environmental and human health risks. Perimeter trap cropping (PTC) involves planting a highly attractive plant so that it completely encircles and protects the cash crop like fortress walls. Efficacy can often be improved by supplementing the trap crop with other biological, mechanical, cultural or chemical control tactics or with pest attractants or repellants. The PTC system functions by concentrating and/or controlling the pest population in the border area of a field, while natural enemies in the center are spared to help provide season-long pest control on the cash crop. The PTC concept has been successfully employed against papaya fruit flies in Mexico, pepper maggots in Connecticut and the diamondback moth in Florida. J. Boucher worked on the development of a PTC system for cucurbit crop pests to reduce, replace or eliminate broad-spectrum chemical pesticide applications for this crop on vegetable farms in the Northeast. The research effort focused on controlling the striped cucumber beetle on summer squash, cucumbers, and butternut squash because this pest can reduce or destroy plant stands or vector bacterial wilt disease to these popular crops, which are produced on most Northeast vegetable farms. In addition, the broad-spectrum insecticides that are commonly used to control this pest may cause secondary pest outbreaks (e.g. aphids, mites, etc.) and result in additional pesticide applications. In 2004, replicated experiments were conducted for summer squash and cucumber PTC at the University of Connecticut Department of Plant

Science Research Farm in Storrs, CT. Research on butternut squash PTC was conducted at the UMass Research Farm. Extension personnel (J. Boucher, R. Hazzard, and assistant A. Cavanagh) worked on research plots and with grower volunteers in each state who successfully installed commercial cucurbit PTC plantings to help evaluate the system under “real-world” conditions. Control fields were also assessed on conventional commercial farms.

In the spring of 2003, the USDA CSREES NE-SARE program provided over $139,000 to help continue the research in CT and MA for two years and to help popularize the use of PTC on commercial farms in New England. The UConn IPM website and UMass website were used to post fact sheets on PTC. In the replicated trials at the UConn and UMass research farms, plots of unsprayed summer squash with a sprayed perimeter of Blue Hubbard were compared with sprayed or unsprayed (control) plots consisting of all summer squash. Similar experiments were conducted to evaluate whether a sprayed perimeter trap crop could protect a centrally located main crop of butternut or cucumbers from cucumber beetle damage. PTC systems were also implemented on four to ten commercial farms per commodity. Commercial growers planted a row of trap crop around their cucurbit fields and timed insecticide sprays on the outer rows with cucumber beetle colonization. Beetle numbers and plant injury/damage were recorded and commercial growers were surveyed at the end of the season. Three twilight/farm meetings (in CT & MA) and seven vegetable conference talks on PTC were

Steve Bengtson, Berlin, CT. Next to his summer squash/melon/cucumber field surrounded by Blue

Hubbard trap crop (near row without plastic).

10

presented. Thirteen PTC publications, including two refereed journal articles, were published and sixteen presentations were made throughout New England. At least 660 New England farmers learned about PTC at grower meetings, 1,600 attended poster sessions and over 45,000 people received PTC newsletter, magazine, or manual articles. Many more people read about PTC on UConn, UMass, SARE and other web sites. An article featuring growers that have installed perimeter trap cropping was highlighted in the national Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Annual Report as one of the twelve “most innovative, interesting and results-oriented projects” SARE funded in 2004. The perimeter trap crop treatment reduced cucumber beetle numbers and defoliation compared to control plots in both summer squash and butternut squash experiments. Management of beetles and damage was comparable to plots sprayed on a regular basis. The cucumber PTC experiment was disrupted by a late frost. At least, 27 CT, MA, NH, and VT growers installed PTC systems on over 170 acres to protect eight different commodities. Ten growers are now using PTC on multiple commodities. Most growers found that PTC improved pest control, substantially reduced pesticide use, saved time and money, and was simpler to use than their conventional pest management program. Ten growers that were surveyed by J. Boucher reduced their insecticide use by 96% (1.8 pounds of active ingredient per acre) on 153 acres where PTC was used. These same growers saved 18% of their crop from damage by the cucumber beetle on 96 acres of squash and cucumbers by using PTC. Increased yields produced additional gross income of $105,930 ($1,100/acre). Yield estimates were not conducted on 56 acres of pumpkins (although growers said yields were as high as or higher than normal).

Fruit IPM The primary goal of the Fruit IPM program is to educate growers to produce high quality fruit crops with the most judicious use of pesticides. The Fruit IPM Coordinator, Lorraine Los, provided up-to-date information to tree fruit and small fruit growers on IPM methods. In addition to IPM, other related topics were addressed in educational

programs, such as crop production, pesticide applicator training, food safety, sustainable agriculture, water quality and other environmental issues. Four tree fruit growers participated in the full-season Fruit IPM training program in 2004. All training sessions included information on IPM methodology, including pest identification, biology, monitoring, chemical and non-chemical management, and issues associated with pesticide use. As a result of the training, these growers were able to reduce the amount of pesticide they applied to 103 acres of tree fruit by 3.5 pounds of active ingredient per acre. This resulted in a total reduction of 355.9 pounds of active ingredient.

In 2004, the IPM program welcomed Richard Kiyomoto, specializing in wine grape IPM. R. Kiyomoto provided IPM training to three wine grape growers, one of whom participated in the NRCS EQIP program. Vineyards were visited bi-weekly from July through September. Fields were scouted for insect and disease pests, and recommendations for control were provided to the growers. Growers were encouraged to use the “softest” and most environmentally benign pesticides possible. Currently, very little information is available to Connecticut growers regarding wine grape pests in the state and appropriate control methods. To address this shortage of information, data obtained through scouting will be used to develop a set of IPM recommendations for wine grape producers in Connecticut. At least 400 consultations with commercial and hobbyist fruit growers were made via telephone, personal visits or email in 2004. The UConn Fruit Pest Message was emailed to 80 growers weekly during the growing season, in addition to being

Doug Young, Woodstock Orchard, teaching growers at twilight meeting.

11

available by telephone and on the web. The online fruit pages received 5,785 hits. A 2005 Update to the 2003-04 New England Apple Pest Management Guide was produced and distributed to growers. An on-farm field study was conducted to compare three different management strategies for the key apple pests plum curculio and apple maggot, focusing on bio-based methods for reducing insecticide use. The results of this study were presented at the annual meeting of the Connecticut Pomological Society. L. Los also made presentations at two twilight meetings of the Connecticut Pomological Society, as well as at the Quinebaug Valley Fruit Growers annual meeting and at a fruit pest management workshop in Burlington, VT. L. Los helped coordinate the Connecticut Vegetable and Small Fruit Growers' Conference, attended by over 134 growers, researchers and service representatives. In addition, she co-authored one refereed article on the prevalence and impact of soil-dwelling pests and insect pathogenic nematodes in strawberry fields. L. Los served as program manager for the Reduced Pesticide and Nutrient Loading Demonstration Project in the Quinebaug and Shetucket River Watersheds, funded by a grant from the CT Department of Environmental Protection, Section 319 Non-Point Source Pollution Prevention Grants Program. The project's objective was to provide educational programs in IPM for Connecticut growers and groundskeepers, as well as the general public. This included intensive field training as well as general programming (e.g. presentations, etc.) to a wider audience. A total of 153 in-field training sessions were conducted in these watersheds during this reporting period. In addition to the in-depth field programs, IPM staff conducted presentations and displays at a variety of clientele and public meetings. A total of 2,087 people attended 31 presentations and 40,600 people viewed four displays during this period. A display representing integrated pest management was presented at “Celebrating Agriculture,” an agricultural education event attended by 1,000 people showcasing the benefits agriculture provides to the Quinebaug-Shetucket watershed region.

Greenhouse IPM In Connecticut, the greenhouse industry is a significant part of the agricultural industry. Over

280 wholesale commercial greenhouse growers produce greenhouse crops in the state with a wholesale value of over $87 million dollars. Greenhouse crops produced include bedding and garden plants such as specialty annuals, herbs, propagative material, herbaceous perennial plants, garden mums, and pot crops such as poinsettias. The majority of the plants produced fall into the category of bedding and garden plants. Greenhouse crops are very high value crops that are grown for their ornamental value. Customers have a very low tolerance for any evidence of insect pests or diseases. Because of this, growers must produce a very high quality, pest-free crop. In the enclosed greenhouse environment, pest populations can develop rapidly, so there is a need for timely up-to-date information to make pest management decisions. There are many concerns related to the use of pesticides in the greenhouse industry. Some of these concerns include worker safety, development of resistant insect and disease populations due to overuse of pesticides, adverse impacts on crop growth including phytotoxicity (plant damage), and pollution of ground and surface waters. Integrated pest management (IPM) is the use of a variety of pest control methods designed to protect public health and the environment and to produce high quality crops with the most judicious use of pesticides. The Greenhouse IPM leader, Leanne Pundt, held full-season hands-on training sessions at individual growers' greenhouses. Participants in the full-season Greenhouse IPM program included family run and corporate businesses ranging in size from small 6,000 square feet greenhouse operations to wholesale greenhouse businesses with twelve acres of production. Participants included both spring seasonal businesses that grow bedding plants and garden mums and year-round producers of spring bedding plants, herbaceous perennials and poinsettias. Field training focused on monitoring for key insects, diseases and cultural problems. Six growers participated in the program in 2004, directly impacting 4.7 acres of intensive greenhouse production with an estimated crop value (assume sales of $12 per square foot) of approximately $2.4 million dollars. Over 45 site visits to greenhouse businesses were also made throughout the state during which growers received direct diagnostic advice and walk-in consultations. Crop quality and pest management techniques were improved.

12

All growers participating in the full-season greenhouse IPM training said they would recommend the program to other growers. Insecticide use was calculated by comparing their current use with their use before participating in the program. All participants increased their adoption of IPM practices. For the six participating growers, insecticide use decreased. A total of 23.3 pounds of insecticide active ingredient was saved from application to 4.7 acres of production. Total cost savings of insecticide use were approximately $394. In addition, crop losses were reduced and crop quality was improved. Whenever possible, growers selected more environmentally friendly products with shorter reentry levels, lessening worker exposure to pesticides. Examples of such environmentally friendly products included abamectin (a mixture of natural products produced by a soil actinomycete), azadirachtin (an insect growth regulator derived from the neem tree), Bacillus thuringiensis (a microbial insecticide), and biologically based fungicides such as Trichoderma harzianum and Streptomyces lydicus. Growers also used more reduced risk products (as defined by the EPA) including acetamiprid, bifenazate, pymetrozine and spinosad. In the post-season interview, one grower with twelve acres in wholesale production stated, "In the past, prior to my involvement in the hands on IPM training, I would spray every week, whether I needed to or not, as an insurance spray. Now, I spray only when I need to. The routine scouting really helped me keep on top of potential pest

problems, so I was able to reduce my insecticide use by about 50%. With the IPM program, I only spent about $1,600 on insecticides." Updates for Greenhouse Growers on emerging insects, diseases and cultural issues were regularly posted on the Greenhouse IPM website. During the period from July 2004 to March 2005, over 850 downloads of the current Update for Greenhouse Growers were made at the UConn Greenhouse IPM website. Archived updates were downloaded an additional 4,200 times. During the same period, over 6,500 downloads of the Pest Management for Herb Bedding Plants Grown in the Greenhouse occurred. In 2004, four new fact sheets were also posted on the website related to Greenhouse IPM. Additional growers were reached via two articles in the national trade magazine, GrowerTalks, with a circulation of 8,000 readers. Pesticide recommendations are constantly changing: as new products are registered, other products are removed from the marketplace and labels are expanded or revised. To provide growers with up-to-date pesticide recommendations, the tables in the

two publications Pest Management for Vegetable Bedding Plants and Pest Management for Herb Bedding Plants Grown in the Greenhouse were updated and revised. The New England Floriculture Greenhouse Update – an early alert system for growers - was

also developed. Timely information and observations were collected from growers in CT, MA and RI, which was posted on the website. This project was funded in part by a regional grant (in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts), Sustainable Greenhouse Health Maintenance Program by NE USDA SARE. A Spring Bedding Plant Meeting was held at two locations in CT. Topics covered included preventing, identifying and managing bedding plant diseases; selecting, maintaining and calibrating pesticide sprayers; an update on chemical growth regulators and other production tips; and insects and mites on bedding plants. Sixty-three growers attended these workshops. Ninety-eight percent

“...prior to my involvement in the hands-on IPM training I would spray every week,

whether I needed to or not... Now, I spray only when I need to… I was able to reduce

my insecticide use by about 50%."

—Hugh Kurtz Jr, Kurtz Farms, Cheshire

Greenhouse at Halfinger Farms in Higganum, CT

13

rated the programs as good to excellent. All growers were able to identify two specific items of information that they learned and would use this upcoming production season. For example, 41 % said that they would improve their use of growth regulators, 47% said they would improve their disease management practices, 63% said they would improve their insect and mite management practices, and 47% said they would improve the care and calibration of their sprayers. One grower commented, "This meeting was very educational and interesting. A large amount of information presented in a half-day meeting." The regional New England Greenhouse Conference was held on October 18, 19 and 20th in Worcester, MA. Over 1,000 growers from throughout New England attend this conference. Extension specialists from the six New England states with New England Floriculture, Inc. (a consortium of state trade associations in New England) plan this educational program and trade show. The New England Greenhouse Floriculture Guide – A Management Guide for Insects, Diseases and Growth Regulators was distributed at this conference. Over 600 copies have been sold. This conference also supports regional greenhouse research in New England and generates approximately $225 K in gross revenue.

Turfgrass IPM The turfgrass industry in the state of Connecticut encompasses many areas of expertise including sod production, golf courses, athletic fields, residential and commercial lawn care, cemeteries, and parks, schools, and municipalities. Turf is an important part of the community landscape and the agricultural sector. The advancement of turfgrass IPM in these settings is equally as important as IPM in other managed systems. For instance, a report by the National Academy of Sciences indicated that homeowners use as much as ten times more chemicals per acre on their lawns than farmers use on agricultural land. The objectives of the Turfgrass IPM outreach/extension program are to develop improved methods of controlling turf pests and to provide continuing education to the green industry, homeowners and others that will aid in allowing them to obtain the

highest quality turf while not negatively impacting the environment. In 2004, the Turfgrass IPM leader, Steven Rackliffe, worked to support the turf managers working within these commodity groups and supported the Connecticut Master Gardener Program by teaching the turfgrass section (involving five full-day lectures) to master gardener students throughout Connecticut. Presentations to industry organizations and the general public reached approximately 732 Connecticut citizens. Personal contacts regarding lawn questions and concerns included 193 telephone calls, 52 written communications, 21 walk-ins, and 26 site visitations.

Biological Control of Scarab Beetles in Turfgrass

Turfgrass in the Northeast is attacked by several insect pests which feed on the root systems and on aboveground plant parts. The most damaging pests of turf are the immature stages of the scarab beetles or white grubs. Among these root-feeding scarab beetles are the Japanese beetle, Oriental beetle, Asiatic garden beetle, and European chafer. Conventional insecticides continue to be the major tool to manage these turfgrass pests in sod production areas, recreational and private settings. However, distress about the use of pesticides in urban areas, particularly where children are likely to come into contact with pesticide materials has energized the demand for pest management programs that rely less on chemical insecticides. Thus, this research effort, led by IPM Coordinator Ana Legrand and MS student Darryl Ramoutar, seeks to advance the use of biologically-based alternatives that will be easy to implement by sod producers, managers and homeowners. Two biological control tools were examined: the parasitic wasp Tiphia vernalis and the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Both biological control organisms attack Japanese and Oriental beetles. The parasitic wasp Tiphia vernalis was introduced from Asia to the Northeast by the USDA for the control of the Japanese beetle. Though it was known to be established in several states, current information about its status in Connecticut was lacking. Although it was released in Connecticut, it

14

had been more than 50 years since the last report about this organism in the state. Two golf courses and/or parks in every county were surveyed in 2004 to determine the status of Tiphia vernalis. This survey indicated that the wasp was present in almost every county in the state. Current work focuses on determining its seasonal dynamics at key locations in CT. Future work will look at the levels of parasitism in susceptible white grubs. A field trial was completed in 2004 to examine the efficacy of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae as a biopesticide against larvae of the Japanese beetle and Oriental beetle. Granular and liquid formulations of the biopesticide product were tested. The field trial also investigated if method and timing of application are factors that influence the effectiveness of the biopesticide. A second trial is under preparation for summer 2005. Research on the efficacy of Metarhizium anisopliae will contribute to the development of a biopesticide tool against white grubs.

Field Corn IPM Weeds negatively impact human endeavors in both agricultural and non-agricultural environments. Weed management programs are needed to provide growers with a variety of weed management options. Effective non-chemical weed control methods to replace or complement chemical methods currently do not exist for field corn. Herbicide use has been a standard practice for weed control as opposed to cultivation due to the lower labor and equipment costs, effectiveness of the treatments, and ease of application. Cultivation has not been substituted for chemical control in field corn, particularly with emphasis on reduced till and no-till cropping systems to prevent soil erosion. Rocky soils and unsuitable terrains also limit the use of cultivation. Many of the older commonly used corn herbicides have moderate to severe soil leaching potentials. Nationwide studies have shown the potential for groundwater contamination through the use of these herbicides. Concerns involving herbicides in groundwater have heightened public awareness regarding the safety of the water we drink. Contamination of groundwater is of great

concern to the residents where agricultural and suburban areas are situated in close proximity to one another. The effect of certain pesticides on water quality will continue to be a major public issue. Alternative weed management practices that reduce the use of herbicides with severe risk for soil leaching in watershed areas will reduce the potential for future contamination of groundwater. Financial hardships currently facing many farmers have led to considerations that the profitability of the farm might be increased by reducing pesticide use if effective, less costly alternatives were available. Another factor motivating farmers to seek alternative weed management strategies is the fact that many of the postemergence herbicides in field corn registered in the 1990’s have already developed resistance problems within ten years of use since their mode of action effects only a single site in the plant's metabolism. While transgenic field corn such as Roundup-resistant corn has eliminated many of these problems, public perception and shifts in weed populations remains an issue. The problem of increased weed pressure from new and resistant weed populations coupled with the groundwater concerns of a number of corn herbicides and the development of transgenic corn has created the need for additional weed management research. Strategies that can provide growers with effective weed control yet reduce the amount of herbicides required to provide this control are needed. It is not easy to change grower practices. Thus, Extension programs that continue to address the weed management needs of farmers growing field corn are vital. Most of these growers depend solely on custom applicators for their pesticide applications. They assume that these custom applicators have adequate knowledge to make the best decisions for their farms. Certainly this is not the case as we have found. The increase in herbicide-resistant and problem weeds in fields has created opportunities for agricultural chemical sales personnel to promote both an increase in the number of herbicides used and higher herbicide application rates. It is vital to have an IPM program in place that provides Connecticut field corn producers, growing over 30,000 acres of field corn in the state, with the appropriate research data and education designed to reduce weed problems, protect water quality and the environment.

15

The Connecticut weed management program has helped growers reduce the negative impact of weeds associated with growing field corn by reducing the use of high-risk herbicides in field corn. The program has improved yield and quality and played a significant role in maintaining environmental quality by reducing the use of high-risk herbicides. Growers who have followed program recommendations have reduced both the number and the application rates of herbicides currently used in field corn and either eliminated or reduced the use of herbicides. Pre-emergence herbicides, which have a far greater potential for leaching into groundwater than post-emergence herbicides, have been especially reduced through the program. This program has significantly enhanced and protected environmental quality and increased the economic viability of agriculture in Connecticut. Four growers received field corn IPM training in 2004. Training was provided to three of these growers in partnership with the NRCS EQIP program. The fourth grower, at Molodich Farm in the Quinebaug watershed, received training as part of the Reduced Pesticide and Nutrient Loading Demonstration Project in the Quinebaug and Shetucket River Watersheds.

Integrated Weed Management on the Molodich Farm

The Molodich farm is one of the largest field corn producers in the Quinebaug River Watershed. Over 500 acres of field corn have been grown annually to feed the livestock on this farm with fields scattered throughout the watershed. The Molodich farm has participated in IPM training since 2001. The farm was not only selected to participate in this training project because of the large acreage of corn grown, but also due to the fact that the farmers spray their own acreage and were looking to Extension to suggest alternative weed management practices. The following results are based on both field records and verbal communications with the Molodichs as to what pesticides were applied on their acreage. In 2004 the farm acreage was estimated at 565 acres of field corn. No pre-emergence herbicides were applied to any of the field corn acreage. 100% of the acreage that year used glyphosate-resistant corn and used either Roundup + Atrazine or

Roundup alone post-emergence. Applying atrazine with glyphosate was included to combat later emerging weeds, particularly burcucumber. Applying atrazine post-emergence reduces its potential to leach into groundwater. 36% of the total herbicides used in 2004 were classified to pose a risk due to water quality concerns. Overall herbicide application rate was 1.96 pounds of active ingredient per acre. The total herbicide reduction in 2004 compared to pre-program rates in 2000 was 24% (349 pounds of active ingredient). Reduction in herbicides that pose severe risk to water quality was 63% (673 pounds of active ingredient per acre) compared to pre-program rates in 2000.

Evaluation of a New Safe and Environmentally Benign Herbicide

Mesotrione is a new herbicide that was recently registered for use in field corn. It is sold under the trade name of Callisto. It has just received a registration for sweet corn in 2005. This compound has a favorable environmental profile since it has an extremely low potential to leach into groundwater. Due to its ability to be held tightly on soil particles mesotrione could be moved off site only under conditions that favor soil erosion. Mesotrione is not a carcinogen and has no detectable residues at harvest. The product presents negligible risks to mammals, birds and aquatic species. Weeds are expected to have a low potential to develop resistance to this product since it has a new mode of action that results in the blockage of carotenoid synthesis, unlike any other sweet corn herbicide. It can be applied either pre-emergence or post-emergence to the crop or weeds. The post-emergence use rate is only 3 fluid ounces of product per acre (0.094 pounds of active ingredient). Mesotrione can significantly reduce or eliminate the need for atrazine in sweet corn. The local sweet corn research projects conducted at the University of Connecticut provided supporting data for registration of mesotrione and valuable use information for growers. Results obtained from our sweet corn trials showed this product had good crop safety and effectively controlled crabgrass and a wide range of broadleaf weeds. The use of this herbicide should eliminate the dependence on atrazine for broadleaf weed control in sweet corn and reduce the use rate of grass herbicides for crabgrass control. The sweet corn varieties tested

16

were tolerant to mesotrione and no yield differences in the crop were found among the different varieties compared to the existing standard herbicide treatments. The use of mesotrione has the potential to eliminate the need of atrazine for control of broadleaf weeds in sweet corn. Due to both environmental concerns and resistant weed problems associated with atrazine use, this product will be of extreme value to both the user and the consumer with relatively insignificant effects on production costs or produce prices.

Nursery IPM The leader of the nursery IPM program, Donna Ellis, conducted 26 IPM training sessions on a weekly basis from April 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004. Two growers with 2.5 acres of nursery crops in Woodstock and Brooklyn, CT were visited on alternate weeks throughout the season. During each session D. Ellis discussed with the grower plant pest problems that had occurred in the two-week interval from my previous visit and pesticide records were reviewed. Nursery, greenhouse, and perennial plants were scouted for insect, disease, and weed problems and scouting report forms were filled out. D. Ellis talked with the grower about plant pest problems found during her inspection of the nursery and discussed control recommendations with the grower. Relevant information on plant pest control was provided to each grower upon request or based on pest situations observed during scouting. Specimens were collected and examined in the UConn IPM laboratory to diagnose specific plant pest problems. Consultation with other educators or researchers at the University of Connecticut or The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station occurred to accurately diagnose pest problems and make appropriate recommendations. Pre-season surveys were completed during the first IPM site visit. Each grower was interviewed during a post-season survey on the last IPM visit. Three additional IPM training sessions were conducted in 2004 with two nursery growers in Mansfield, CT. Two major conferences – the annual Perennial Plant Conference and Garden Conference – were planned and presented at the University of

Connecticut during the reporting period to further promote the educational outreach of Department of Plant Science and Cooperative Extension programs. More than 350 professional horticulturists from around the New England area attended the Perennial Plant Conference. More than 97% of the attendees rated the Perennial Plant Conference as good to excellent, and approximately the same percent who returned their evaluation forms stated that following the conference they were able to identify one or two new horticultural practices that they would use in the future. More than 350 gardening enthusiasts attended the Garden Conference in March 2005, and they also traveled from around the New England area; 95% of them rated the Garden Conference as good to excellent, and approximately the same number agreed that they were able to identify one or two new gardening practices that they would use during the upcoming gardening season. A Perennial Integrated Pest Management meeting was also held at two locations in the state for commercial growers and landscapers. The meeting addressed key insects and diseases of herbaceous perennials and IPM compatible management options. 60 members of the horticultural industry attended these meetings; approximately 95% of them were able to identify two IPM practices that they would use in the upcoming growing season. One article by D. Ellis, Anthracnose Diseases of Perennials was published in an international trade magazine, GrowerTalks, reaching 8,000 growers. D. Ellis also gave a presentation on IPM for herbaceous perennials at the national Perennial Plant Association Symposium held in NYC, reaching approximately 75 growers. With the increase in interest among homeowners in gardening, both the Perennial Plant and Garden annual conferences strive to meet the needs of professional horticulturists and garden hobbyists. A recent study estimated that the Connecticut Green Industry was worth $2.35 billion annually, a dramatic increase over previous estimates of $1 billion. As our number one agricultural commodity in Connecticut, it is imperative that we meet the needs of the industry and the demands of the public to keep the businesses involved in the Green Industry strong and thriving by continuing to provide the latest in ornamental horticulture education.

17

Invasive Plant IPM

Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife: Introducing the Beetle Farmer Program

The invasive plant IPM program, led by Donna Ellis, focuses on educating the public about invasive species and their management using IPM practices. Invasive non-native plants have become a serious concern because they decrease the abundance of native species and reduce biological diversity. Purple loosestrife is an invasive non-native perennial plant that poses a serious ecological threat to wetlands in Connecticut. As purple loosestrife takes over wetlands, native plant species are lost and the quality of these important wildlife habitats is reduced. Control methods for this invasive include hand-pulling plants, cutting or mowing, applying herbicides, and employing biological control. In established populations, physical and chemical controls are not always effective and may be cost-prohibitive. Biological control is a low-input, sustainable management strategy for purple loosestrife. Biological control is a long-term method of managing invasive plants, and thus may produce measurable impacts more slowly than other types of control, but it is recommended as a sustainable control option. From 1996 to 2004, the University of Connecticut has taken the lead in coordinating efforts to reduce purple loosestrife infestations throughout the state and restore biological diversity in natural areas. Galerucella leaf-feeding beetles have been approved by state and federal governments for biological control of purple loosestrife. The beetles feed primarily on purple loosestrife leaves, stems, and shoot tips, preferring purple loosestrife over other kinds of plants.

Feeding injury by the beetles helps to reduce purple loosestrife populations that invade wetlands throughout the United States. Raising beetles to control purple loosestrife is an exciting opportunity for community involvement and for educational outreach for people of all ages - individuals, students and teachers, youth groups, and families. The Invasive Plant IPM Educator, Donna Ellis, gave 62 presentations, field demonstrations, and workshops on purple loosestrife and invasive plants. Eighteen magazine, newsletter, and newspaper articles were written based on interviews with D. Ellis regarding this program. The presentations included four Beetle Farmer workshops conducted in March 2005 that were attended by 100 people. Step-by-step instructions on how to raise and release the beneficial beetles were provided during the workshops. D. Ellis served as a guest lecturer for four undergraduate classes in the Department of Plant Science and taught five full-day classes on invasive plants for the 2005 Master Gardener Program. Master Gardener students gave consistently high ratings for these classes on their evaluations. Information on purple loosestrife and the Beetle Farmer program was also disseminated through an adult education class at Middlesex Community College in Middletown, CT. The UConn IPM website had a large section devoted to the Beetle Farmer program which included information on purple loosestrife and biological control as well as step-by-step instructions on growing purple loosestrife and rearing the beetles, color images of the insects, consent forms for new release sites, newsletter and newspaper articles, and other relevant information. A new Beetle Farmer electronic mailing list (BEETLE-L) was created and moderated by D. Ellis, which had more than 200 subscribers receiving announcements and information about the program and purple loosestrife biological control. D. Ellis also wrote a commentary on invasive plants for the news media, several summary documents on rearing and releasing Galerucella beetles and seven technical reports that summarized program efforts with invasive plants. Participants in the Beetle Farmer program included Connecticut citizens, families, schools, scouts, and organizations that reared beetles, provided purple loosestrife plants on which to rear the beetles, and/or requested that the beetles be released on their property.

18

2004 was an extremely successful year for the purple loosestrife biological control program.

Beginning in 2004, the emphasis of the purple loosestrife biological program shifted from long-term monitoring studies to enhanced outreach education. With the redirection of this program toward public education, greater numbers of volunteers were recruited to learn about the biological control program, rear Galerucella beetles, and release the beneficial insects into local wetlands where purple loosestrife had become invasive and control was desired. Following the well-attended beetle farming workshop that was held in Yalesville in the spring of 2004, 100 new beetle farmers participated in the program during the 2004 field season. Approximately 300,000 Galerucella beetles were reared and released into twenty new wetland sites overrun with plant purple loosestrife as well as a number of supplemental releases that occurred in previously established locations. The total number of beetles released was equivalent to the number that was released in Connecticut during the previous eight years combined. The 2004 Galerucella population included 30,000 beetles reared by D. Ellis at the University of Connecticut Plant Science Research and Education Facility. Feeding damage by the beetles in the short time they were present on the plants during the 2004 summer following the releases was observed at all locations. Impacts by these biological control agents will become more evident over the next several years as the beetles become established and increase in population. As more beetle farmers are recruited to participate in the statewide purple loosestrife biological control program, the numbers of biological control agents available for control of this

widespread invasive plant increases significantly. Since the initial releases of Galerucella beetles into Connecticut wetlands in 1996, more and more release sites are showing signs of purple loosestrife control and a return of native plants to the area. As purple loosestrife populations decrease in Galerucella beetle release sites, the Galerucella beetle populations increase to the point that these sites can be used as field insectaries where beetle farmers can collect the adult beetles they need as starter colonies for their own plants. Since the purple loosestrife biological program began in Connecticut in 1996, more than 600,000 Galerucella beetles and other biological control agents have been introduced onto purple loosestrife plants in more than 60 wetlands. Of particular note are several classes of students and teachers and a Cub Scout pack who have become Beetle Farmers. One high school class is growing 24 containers of purple loosestrife on which to raise Galerucella beetles, and they have the potential to rear 30,000 new generation beetles to release into wetlands infested with this invasive plant. All beetle farmers have been encouraged to work with their town Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions to identify local sites where the beetles can be released and further distributed around the state. Some of our Beetle Farmers are homeowners who own wetlands infested with purple loosestrife, and they are anxious to gain back the use of their ponds and lakes now overrun with the dense bushy growth of this noxious weed.

The Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group

D. Ellis served as Co-Chairperson of the Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group in 2004. A symposium on the identification and management of invasive plants was presented by the Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group on October 7, 2004 at the University of Connecticut. The CIPWG invasive plant symposium was attended by approximately 400 people and was a great success. Many positive comments from symposium attendees were heard throughout the day. More than 50% of the symposium attendees filled out evaluations forms, and 94% stated that the symposium met their expectations for providing information on the identification and management of invasive plants, 98% stated that useful reference materials and handouts were provided, and 96% stated that they

North Branford students displaying the Galerucella beetles they collected to rear and release for

control of invasive purple loosestrife

19

were better trained to identify and manage invasive plants following the symposium. Nearly all symposium speakers were rated as very good to excellent, and the ten afternoon workshop sessions, all well-attended, received very positive feedback. The symposium attendees represented a diverse group with many affiliations that included conservation organizations, educational institutions, the green industry, municipal staff (public works, conservation commissions, inland wetland commissions), landscape architects, landscape designers, and state and federal agency staff. The Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group (CIPWG) website continued to provide timely information on non-native invasive plants, including a list of Connecticut invasive species, management information, invasive plant alerts, fact sheets, invasive plant legislation, photos, and a calendar of events. Invasive plant updates written by Donna Ellis were posted several times during the season. The website has received more than 36,500 hits since it was launched in 2000. In addition, the author contributed information on the identification and management of invasives and the use of non-invasive alternative plants species through numerous presentations. A new electronic mailing list (CIPWG-L) for the Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group was created by D. Ellis; more than 500 subscribers to this listserv received periodic updates on invasive plants and area events. Each year more and more requests for information on invasive plants are brought to the attention of the Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group, and this demand for information continued during the reporting period. When visitors to the CIPWG exhibit at a public event look over the numerous invasive plants displayed on the color posters, they usually recognize at least one or two of the plants and want to know how to control them. The invasive plant issue continues to escalate in Connecticut, and the Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group is dedicated to providing sound educational information on invasive plant topics so Connecticut citizens will become more knowledgeable about identification and management of invasives, as well as learning about alternative non-invasive plants that can be used as substitutes. We continue to work closely with Connecticut green industries and recommend that homeowners, landscapers and others consider native plants and

non-invasive non-native species when selecting plants for yards and other settings.

IPM School Curriculum The Connecticut Curriculum for Integrated Pest Management is a science-based curriculum that teaches the concepts and methods of IPM to school children and 4-H youth. During this fourth year of the six-year project, the IPM curriculum for kindergarten and first grade students was finalized and printed. A six-year external grant from the Bingham Trust (Dr. Richard Ashley, Principal Investigator) totaling $600,000 (2001-2006) contributed to program accomplishments. Personnel involved in the development of the new IPM curriculum included Richard Ashley, Donna Ellis, Marilyn Chase (IPM webmaster), several public school teachers (Cheryl Kusmer and Dale Schimmel), Susan Schadt [Office of Communications and Information Technology (CIT)], Kevin Noonan and Christine Jaworski (University of Connecticut student assistants at CIT), and Chris Rowlands (performer). Workshops were developed and presented to teachers at professional conferences and Regional Education Service Centers statewide. The curriculum teaches the concepts and methods of IPM, including information on what pests are (insects, weeds, and diseases), how to control pests (mechanical, biological, chemical, and cultural controls), and how to protect the environment by keeping our food and water safe to eat and drink and preserving biological diversity. The K/1 curriculum includes 5 units, 22 lessons, and supplemental activities that consist of seven literature books used in many of the lessons, a puppet of the IPM mascot, Izzy the Praying Mantis, an activity book, four sets of picture cards, a game, an original song, and a poster. One hundred and fifty full curriculum kits and an additional 150 partial curriculum kits (which do not include the literature books) were printed. To further promote the new K/1 IPM , an original show on the IPM curriculum developed by award-winning artist and songwriter Chris Rowlands was presented at twelve primary and secondary schools across Connecticut in April 2005. Several teachers commented that their students rated the assembly as the best one they ever had at their school, and they were all delighted that their school was selected to

20

be one of only twelve schools in the state for the IPM assemblies.

The curriculum units were developed to be included in science programs, but they also contain strands that link the subject area to social studies, language arts, math, and art. Partners included Connecticut public, private, and parochial school teachers, science coordinators, curriculum specialists, home school families, and 4-H. Five workshops were presented by D. Ellis and C. Kusmer from March through May 2005 to introduce the new IPM curriculum to 30 educators, and a sixth presentation was given as part of a curriculum development and implementation session attended by twenty people at the March 2005 Northeast Regional Community and Urban IPM Conference in New Hampshire. Donna Ellis also gave a presentation to nine 4-H state coordinators and delivered both the K/1 and 7/8 curriculum kits to each coordinator. More than 1,300 people visited educational exhibits of the IPM curriculum at numerous conferences and workshops. D. Ellis and R. Ashley were interviewed on WILI AM-FM radio in June 2004 to discuss the new IPM curriculum. Three magazine and newsletter articles were written about IPM and the new curriculum. Development of two additional IPM curricula for grades 2/3 and 3/4 is now underway. The curriculum received an overwhelmingly positive response from Connecticut teachers, 4-H program leaders, and also from regional IPM leaders. The 30 teachers attending the curriculum workshops

rated the workshops and the curriculum highly on their evaluations, and they were anxious to begin using the materials. As educators and IPM Extension staff learn about the new IPM curriculum, the demand for this information is growing, so much so that we are now searching for supplemental funding to print additional curriculum kits and provide training sessions in the state and the region. A key component of the IPM curriculum is that more than 85% of the revised Connecticut Science Standards are covered in the K/1 lessons, which will increase the likelihood that educators will find time in their busy teaching schedules not only to pilot the lessons with their class but to make the IPM curriculum an integral part of what their students are taught. The curriculum presents information on IPM in a format that is straightforward and engaging for both teachers and students. With the Connecticut Mastery Tests being revised to have greater emphasis on environmental science, the strong environmental ties of the IPM curriculum will provide an avenue for teachers to use the curriculum to meet the needs of these requirements. Comments from workshop participants included: “This was exceptional – a workshop that was so motivating! I’m looking forward to bringing it to my class tomorrow!” “The workshop was very informative. I can’t wait to teach the lessons to my class. I know they will love them!” “The time passed so quickly! And I got so much out of it. This is a great curriculum!” “Absolutely excellent presentation. Usable materials – can’t wait to head back and teach.” “The materials appear to fit well with our current curriculum. Looks great!” IPM is not just for farmers – it’s a lifestyle. What better way for the public to learn about IPM and make knowledgeable decisions on pest management than to bring the curriculum into school systems to teach the children, who will then share this information with their families. The IPM curriculum will serve as a useful and needed tool to promote science based pest management and protect the environment.

Cheryl Kusmer presenting the IPM curriculum to educators

“This was exceptional – a workshop that was so motivating! I’m looking forward

to bringing it to my class tomorrow!”

—Participant in IPM Curriculum workshop

Contributors to this report include:

Jude Boucher, Vegetable IPM Educator Donna Ellis, Invasive Plant & Nursery IPM Educator

Frank Himmelstein, Field Crop IPM Educator Richard Kiyomoto, Wine Grape IPM Educator

Ana Legrand, IPM Program Leader Lorraine Los, Fruit IPM Educator

Leanne Pundt, Greenhouse IPM Educator Steven Rackliffe, Turfgrass IPM Educator

This report was edited by:

Ana Legrand, IPM Program Leader Kristen Wilmer, IPM Program Assistant

Additional copies are available through:

Ana Legrand Department of Plant Science

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Connecticut

1376 Storrs Road Storrs, CT 06269 (860) 486-0869