A fire ant decapitated by an enzymereleased from a mature phorid fly larvaliving inside the host ant.

Areawide Pest Management

I n 1994, the Agricultural ResearchService launched an ongoing se-ries of areawide integrated pest

management (IPM) projects. Each proj-ect was proposed from the field andreviewed by a technical staff. Althougheach project has research, education, andassessment components, the focus hasbeen to pull together existing technologyand research results into an integratedmanagement plan that could be demon-strated for, and transferred to, users. Eachproject is funded for up to 5 years andthen carried on by cooperators, growers,and land owners.

So far, the projects have met or ex-ceeded their goals. All have shownsignificant reduction in pesticide use andhave garnered wide support, rangingfrom scientific colleagues to individualfarmers. This article profiles six areawideIPM projects for fire ants, fruit flies,stored-grain insects, leafy spurge, corn

rootworm, and codling moth.Additional areawide programs

were funded in 2001 to tackle ly-gus bug, Russian wheat andgreen peach aphids, and mela-leuca trees.

Even though the indi-vidual projects are time-limited, their success shinesthrough as users continuethem without the official

infrastructure initially pro-vided by the projects.One of the most recent ARS-

funded areawide projects, whichbegan this May, is part of a long-

fought campaign to control the redimported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta.

The Areawide Suppression of Fire AntPopulations in Pastures is a partnershipamong ARS, the USDA’s Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, the Uni-versity of Florida, and Texas A&M andOklahoma State universities.

The goal of the project is to demon-strate how to reduce fire ant populations

to very low levels by combining strategicpesticide applications with two self-sustaining biocontrol agents from SouthAmerica: the fire ant-decapitating fly,Pseudacteon tricuspis, and the pathogenThelohania solenopsae. As scientistsintroduce these agents, fewer subsequentbait toxicant treatments should be neededto maintain fire ant control, according toRichard Brenner. He is the former headof ARS’ Imported Fire Ant and House-hold Insects Research Unit at the Centerfor Medical, Agricultural, and VeterinaryEntomology in Gainesville, Florida.

Diverse demonstration sites as largeas 640 acres in the three states were cho-sen to represent the range of the fire ant’sinfestation, according to Brenner. ARSwill direct the major activities of thethree land-grant universities and other or-ganizations associated with the projectfor 5 years. ARS will also add a site inMississippi in 2002.

The fire ant has swept onto the Amer-ican landscape with an ever-increasingimpact. It now infests more than 318million acres in 12 southeastern statesand Puerto Rico. Recently, populationshave also become established in Califor-nia and New Mexico.

“The project should result in reducedlivestock and equipment losses from fireants, increased farm worker safety, andreduced pesticide risk,” Brenner says.—By Jim Core, ARS.

This research is part of ArthropodPests of Animals and Humans, an ARSNational Program (#104) described onthe World Wide Web at http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov.

For more information on the fire antprogram, contact David F. Williams,USDA-ARS Imported Fire Ant andHousehold Insects Research Unit, Cen-ter for Medical, Agricultural, and Veter-inary Entomology, 1600 S.W. 23rd Dr.,Gainesville, FL 32608; phone (352) 374-5982, fax (352) 374-5818, e-maildwilliams@gainesville.usda.ufl.edu. ◆

SANFORD PORTER (K8575-24)

An Effective Strategy for Many Pests

11

Grower Betsy Sakada shows ARS entomologist Eric Jangfruit fly damage on her peach trees.

SCOTT BAUER (K9580-2)

Jang leads the ARS Areawide PestManagement Program on Fruit Flies inHawaii. He is based at the agency’s U.S.Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Cen-ter in Hilo.

“The program involves a combinationof tactics we think will be practical,affordable, and workable, not just onemethod for going after flies in these sup-pression grids,” Jang says. The grid ap-proach is “very different from attemptingto obliterate the fruit flies everywherethey live in the Hawaiian Islands chain.

“Our program is unlike many of theother areawide IPMs,” notes Jang.“We’re targeting four key pests, not justone. We have dozens of crops at risk fromthese flies: papaya, mango, melon,squash, cucumber, tomato, pepper, and

eggplant, not just a single commoditylike corn.”

Partnering with State and UniversityScientists

Interest in the program is growingamong farmers in the Aloha State, in-cluding some who were initially reluc-tant to join the project. Today, plans callfor using at least four different controltactics—sanitation, male annihilation,bait sprays, and biological controls—at

demonstration sites on the islands ofHawaii, Maui, and Oahu.

The program is a joint venture of ARS,the University of Hawaii, and the Stateof Hawaii Department of Agriculture.Scientists and specialists from these in-stitutions are dividing up the work ofdeveloping and demonstrating technol-ogies for suppressing the voracious fruitflies. Other partners include grower or-ganizations and agricultural businesses.

Thorough and unrelenting sanitationthat removes as much infested fruit aspossible is basic for every orchard andfield. These culls may, for example, gettossed into bins, barrels, plastic bags, orpits. Another tactic some local growersuse—drowning ruined fruit—is beingscrutinized.

A procedure aptly named“male annihilation” is a provensuccess at zapping fruit fly males.That causes populations to col-lapse. Male annihilation relies ontraps that contain an irresistiblelure to bring the flies to it and asecond compound that kills themonce they touch or eat it. ARSscientists at the Hawaii labora-tory have played a key role in de-veloping powerful lures that en-tice Oriental fruit flies, melonflies, or medflies to visit thesedeadly traps.

Bait Sprays and BiologicalControls

Protein-bait sprays applied from theground provide another way to blast theflies. Key to these sprays is proteinderived from corn, wheat, or othersources, which the flies find too good toresist. When mixed with a compound thatkills the flies, such as spinosad, growershave an effective and environmentallysafe weapon in their toolkit. In outdoortests, conducted over the past severalyears in Hawaii, ARS research ento-mologist Roger I. Vargas and colleagues

I n Hawaii’s warm, mild climate,exotic tropical fruits and vegeta-bles, as well as more familiar

fare, flourish nearly year-round. Unfor-tunately, so does a quartet of subtropi-cal fruit fly pests—the Oriental fruit fly,melon fly, Mediterranean fruit fly, andsolanaceous (Malaysian) fruit fly.

These invasive insects, none native tothe Hawaiian Islands, can easily turnwhat should be a fresh, luscious tastetreat into a disgusting mess. That’s whathappens soon after the female fruit flypunctures the skin of a nicely ripeningfruit or vegetable and pumps her eggsinto it. The tiny, wriggling maggots thatlater hatch spoil what would otherwisebe a delectable crop.

ARS researchers are targeting thesetroublesome flies in one of theagency’s newest and most com-plex areawide integrated pest man-agement (IPM) programs. Thegoal: to give Hawaii’s growers thelatest and best science-based, en-vironmentally sound strategies forreducing crop losses and the needfor organophosphate and carbam-ate insecticides.

Gearing Up Grid by Grid“Our intent,” says ARS ento-

mologist Eric B. Jang, “is to helpfarmers keep the flies under con-trol in carefully delineated sup-pression grids.” These grids mightinclude not only participatinggrowers’ fields and orchards, but alsonearby vegetation where significantnumbers of exotic flies live and breed.Groves of wild guava in pastures that arewithin a few miles of a melon field ornearby backyard plantings of pumpkinor zucchini, for example, might need tobe included within a grid. If not, the in-sects could use the grove or garden as asafe haven and as the base for their at-tack on the neighboring fields.

Forcing Exotic, Invasive Insects Into Retreat:New IPM Program Targets Hawaii’s Fruit Flies

have provided some of the best availableinformation about the effectiveness ofspinosad against tropical fruit flies.

A biological control tactic known asthe sterile-insect technique offers yet an-other way to outwit the flies. It requiresreleasing flies that have been sexuallysterilized in the laboratory. When thesesterile males mate with wild, fertile fe-males, no fertile offspring result, so thepopulation dies out.

Key to this technology is the abilityto continuously rear populations ofhealthy flies that can outcompete wild,fertile males in winning the attention ofthe females. In past decades, ARSscientists in Hawaii have developed,tested, and fine-tuned all the steps neededto raise laboratory colonies of theinvasive fruit flies—a must for the sterile-insect technique.

The researchers have also refined theprocess of rearing masses of a hard-working biological control agent namedFopius arisanus. This tiny wasp is

harmless to humans. Female waspsparasitize fruit flies by inserting theireggs into fruit fly eggs. Puncturing theeggs kills some fruit fly young outright.Others die when parasite young developinside them.

Psyttalia fletcheri (above) is the only fruit fly parasitoid introduced into Hawaii capable ofparasitizing the melon fly (right) (Bactrocera cucurbitae).

Areawide site coordinator Mike Klungness services bait traps placed in this tentlikestructure called an augmentorium. He’ll collect the flies that come out of infested fruitinside the tent. The beneficial parasitoids that emerge from the fruit fly pupae can escapethrough the yellow screen at the top of the tent.

SCOTT BAUER (K9579-1)

SCOTT BAUER (K9589-1)

SCOTT BAUER (K9577-1)

New Findings Wait in the WingsNew discoveries by ARS scientists

should streamline use of the sterile malesand busy wasps. Geneticist Donald O.McInnis, based at the center’s Honolululaboratory, has bred a line of melon fliesthat can be mechanically sorted ac-cording to their sex while they arepupae—the last stage before they be-come adults. In the wild, both males and

13

females normally have a brown pupalcase, a cocoonlike covering. In McInnis’line, in contrast, only males have thisbrown casing. The females have a telltalewhite pupal case. High-speed color-sorting machines are used to segregatethe genders, according to McInnis.

White-encased females are thrownaway, while the males are put aside forthe outdoor work. Simple, fast, andreliable, this color-sorting strategy savessome of the time and expense that wouldotherwise be invested in unneeded fe-males. Though similar breeding work hasbeen done elsewhere to produce color-sorted strains of other fruit flies, McInnis’work is a first for the melon fly.

Also in the wings is a new and moreefficient way to raise the tiny F. arisanuswasp indoors. Entomologists Renato C.Bautista and Ernest J. Harris developeda new breeding cage that streamlines therearing procedure, offers savings inlabor, and enables laboratory managersto produce a steady supply of the hard-working wasps for lab and field tests.What’s more, the scientists are testing thesame cage for possible use as an outdoordelivery system for another beneficialinsect, Psyttalia fletcheri. This diminu-tive wasp is a powerful natural enemyof the melon fly. The delivery systemcould, Bautista says, provide researchersand growers with a quicker and easierway to distribute the wasps throughouttheir fields and orchards. Bautista andHarris plan to seek a patent for theirinvention.—By Marcia Wood, ARS.

This research is part of Crop Protec-tion and Quarantine, an ARS NationalProgram (#304) described on the WorldWeb Web at http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov.

To reach the scientists mentioned inthis article, contact Marcia Wood, ARSInformation Staff, 5601 Sunnyside Ave.,Beltsville, MD 20705; phone (301) 504-1617, fax (301) 504-1641, e-mailmarciawood@ars.usda.gov. ◆

Student intern Donna Ota examines papaya for larvae that may not have pupated yet. Thebucket next to her is used to rear larvae to the pupal stage.SCOTT BAUER (K9585-3)

SCOTT BAUER (K9587-2)

Fruit fly larvae in papaya.

up to 3 months.That feature reduces the need for fre-

quent sampling, keeping costs low. Theprogram generates a one-page summaryof information and specific recommen-dations, which may include cooling thegrain to reduce insect densities or, ifneeded, selling the grain sooner.

“After we talk to the managers abouttheir options, we return in 60 days toevaluate what they’ve done,” says Flinn.

Fumigation of an entire elevator thatstores 700,000 bushels of wheat couldcost about $14,000. But, if only threebins have high insect densities, the costof fumigation for those three bins maybe only $1,400. That’s a savings of$12,600.

A cost-effective alternative to fumi-gation is to cool wheat soon after it’splaced into storage in late June or earlyJuly by using fans that turn on when out-side air temperatures are 10 degrees lessthan the grain temperature.

By providing alternative strategies for

pest management, this research—and thesupport of ARS, Kansas State University,and Oklahoma State University sci-entists—has resulted in less reliance onphosphine, a widely used pesticide forinsects in raw grain.—By LindaMcGraw, formerly with ARS.

This research is part of Crop Protec-tion and Quarantine, an ARS NationalProgram (#304) described on the WorldWide Web at http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov.

Paul W. Flinn is at the USDA-ARSGrain Marketing and Production Re-search Center, Biological Research Unit,1515 College Ave., Manhattan, KS66502; phone (785) 776-2707, fax (785)537-5584, e-mail flinn@gmprc.ksu.edu. ◆

R emember that old sayingabout how important it is tomake new friends but keep

the old, for one is silver and the othergold? That’s how ARS researchers inManhattan, Kansas, feel about the rela-tionships they’ve built with grain eleva-tor managers during a 4-year areawideintegrated pest management (IPM)project, which began in 1997, in Kansasand Oklahoma.

“We’ve recently added some newelevator managers into the network whilestill keeping relationships with managerswho were involved in the study from thebeginning,” says ARS entomologist PaulW. Flinn at the Grain Marketing andProduction Research Center in Man-hattan. Flinn and retired ARS entomol-ogist David W. Hagstrum, along withresearchers from Kansas State andOklahoma State Universities, worked asa team to develop relationships withgrain elevator managers, who providedimportant feedback during the project.

“In the last phase of our work, wefound that sampling for insects with avacuum probe in the top 40 feet of grainhelped detect insect infestations andsaved time and labor,” says Flinn. Healso put the finishing touches on a riskanalysis database, designed to determinewhether treatment is needed. The data-base and the vacuum probe should helpmanagers save time and money by avoid-ing unnecessary fumigation in silos, saysFlinn. Another plus: the risk analysisdatabase helps managers determine thecondition of carryover grain in silos be-fore the new harvest.

The database analyzes insect density,grain moisture, and grain temperature forall the silos at an elevator. The infor-mation is provided to the manager in theform of a silo diagram: Silos in red areat risk and should be fumigated, whilesilos represented in green are safe. Thesoftware uses a computer model toforecast insect densities in the silos for

Spreading Good Management PracticesAmong Grain Elevator Managers

Entomologist Paul Flinn looks at the Stored Grain Advisor, a program that predicts howlong grain can be safely stored, provides advice to grain managers, and identifies insectpests.

15

At nine field events, scientists dem-onstrated the effectiveness of variouscombinations of biological controlagents, sheep grazing, and herbicide ap-plications. Landowners lined up by thehundreds to collect millions of flea bee-tles that feed on the weed.

“We distributed more than 47 millionbeetles for biological control during theprogram,” says Anderson. TEAM LeafySpurge also produced several informa-tional products, including a biocontrolmanual that has been distributed to morethan 33,000 users in 16 states and Cana-dian provinces, an updated version of theaward-winning Purge Spurge CD-ROMdatabase, and a biocontrol CD. Moreproducts are being developed.

On the scientific front, TEAM LeafySpurge scientists showed the efficacy ofbiological control and clarified theecological needs of existing controlagents, and they continue to test addi-tional agents for future release.

They also pioneered remote sensingas a viable tool for monitoring theexistence and spread of a rangeland

weed. Specific sites covering severalhundred acres illustrated combinationsof biological control, multispeciesgrazing, and herbicide application tokeep spurge at economically manageablelevels.

“All the pieces of the puzzle arecoming together,” says Prosser. “There’sno doubt in my mind that spurge will bean incidental plant when integratedmanagement plans are carried out overlarge areas using these tools.”—ByKathryn Barry Stelljes, formerly withARS.

This project is part of Crop Protec-tion and Quarantine, an ARS NationalProgram (#304) described on the WorldWide Web at http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov.

Chad W. Prosser and Gerry L. Ander-son are with the USDA-ARS NorthernPlains Agricultural Research Labora-tory, P.O. Box 1109, Sidney, MT 59270;phone (406) 433-2020, fax (406) 433-5038, e-mail ganderson@sidney.ars.usda.gov, cprosser@sidney.ars.usda.gov. ◆

Leafy spurge.

(K2601-1)

We distributed more than 47 million beetlesfor biological control during the program.

C ows and horses won’t eat it,native grasses can’t competewith it, and landowners

across at least 36 states and Canadianprovinces have lost land to it: the nox-ious weed leafy spurge.

Leafy spurge first appeared in theUnited States in 1827 and has doubledits coverage every decade for a century.To help stem its spread, ARS establishedThe Ecological Areawide Management(TEAM) of Leafy Spurge in 1997.

“The goals of this program were toincrease public awareness of the weedand pull together research results in a waythat helped ranchers and land managerschoose the best options for their situa-tion,” says ARS ecologist and TEAMLeafy Spurge program manager Chad W.Prosser.

TEAM Leafy Spurge, which officiallyended this year, was ARS’ first areawideprogram to address a weed. Co-managedby USDA’s Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, the program broughttogether a diverse collection of coopera-tors, including numerous federal agen-cies, land-grant universities, statedepartments of agriculture, cooperativeextension services, and ranchers andlandowners from across the region.

“‘TEAM’ is more than a cute acro-nym,” says ARS ecologist Gerry L.Anderson, co-principal investigator ofthe program. “Our key role and greatestaccomplishment has been establishingpartnerships that will last well beyond thelength of the official program.” BothProsser and Anderson work at ARS’Northern Plains Agricultural ResearchLaboratory in Sidney, Montana.

To accomplish their goals, TEAM setup a demonstration area covering 4 statesalong the 300-mile Little Missouri drain-age basin. The study sites included a widerange of habitats, from open plains to cru-cial riparian areas, so that managementstrategies could be demonstrated in thekinds of real-life situations ranchers face.

TEAM Leafy Spurge Links Technology and PeopleTo Manage Weed

“If used throughout the Corn Belt, the bait sprays couldreduce total pesticide use on corn by half,” Chandler says.

Corn rootworms are the target of almost half the insecticidesused in row crops in this country, requiring more insecticidethan any other pest. “About 25 million acres of corn are treatedeach year,” Chandler says. “In some years, rootworms can costfarmers up to $1 billion in crop losses and spraying expenses.”

The baits are sprayed only when IPM scouts or farmers findan average of one female beetle per plant or when populationsin various traps exceed a certain threshold. That is the level atwhich they can begin to cause significant economic harm to afarmer, enough to justify the expense of spraying.

Chandler explains that it is the beetle’soffspring—the larvae—that eatcorn roots. But the larvae areharder to count than beetlesbecause they are underground.

“Under standard methods,corn farmers apply soil insec-ticide as a preventive measure,even though it’s only needed lessthan half of the time. By targetingthe beetle parents, we attempt tokeep larvae levels low for the nextcorn season,” Chandler says.

The baits do not pose any riskto bees or other beneficial insects,such as ladybugs. And the bittercucurbitacin doesn’t appeal to anyother insects, Chandler says. “Themusky smell released when a can-taloupe is cut open comes primari-ly from cucurbitacin, which is alsofound in cucumbers and squash.”—By Don Comis, ARS.

This research is part of CropProtection and Quarantine (#304)and Integrated Agricultural Systems(#207), two ARS National Programsdescribed on the World Wide Web ath t tp : / /www.nps .ars .usda.gov.

Laurence D. Chandler is at theUSDA-ARS Red River Valley Agricul-tural Research Center, 1307 N. 18th

Street, Fargo, ND 58105-5677; phone (701) 239-1371, fax(701) 239-1395, e-mail chandlel@fargo.ars.usda.gov. ◆

Entomologists Larry Chandler (left) andWayne Buhler check a corn ear for cornrootworm damage.

F ield tests in the Corn Belt have proven that “aerialspraying with a bait slurry can drastically reduce theamount of insecticide active ingredient used,” says

ARS entomologist Laurence D. Chandler.Chandler is describing a successful conclusion to the corn

rootworm areawide integrated pest management (IPM) project.“It’s in its last year, and next year we will complete the handoverto IPM consultants who will help farmers adopt practices wedeveloped in conjunction with university scientists,” Chandlersays. He’s at the ARS Red River Valley Agricultural ResearchCenter, Fargo, North Dakota.

Chandler says the bait testing began with the 1997 corn cropand was part of one of the first areawideprojects to target pests of a row crop.Chandler is program coordinator forthe project.

“During the program, we tested twonew, low-insecticide baits that useeither a watermelon juice ingredientor wild buffalo gourd root powderbecause both contain cucurbitacinsthat act as feeding stimulants to adultrootworm beetles. We also evaluateda trap that uses corn rootwormattractants derived from plant-produced chemicals,” Chandlersays.

“All these products came fromtechnology that ARS helped devel-op and became commercially avail-able during the areawide program.The product evaluations were doneat four 16-square-mile sites acrossthe Corn Belt—at the Indiana-Illinois border and in Iowa,Kansas, and South Dakota—andat smaller study sites in Texas.”

The baits use doses of insecti-cide at rates of an ounce or lessper acre—95 to 98 percent lessactive ingredient than in conven-tional sprays. They are sprayedaerially on corn leaves where thebeetles eat. The bait lands on leaves and forms individualdrops containing cucurbitacins and insecticide. The cucurbit-acins cause the beetles to feed preferentially on the drops andingest a lethal dose of insecticide.

Bait-and-Kill Strategy Can Slash Insecticide Use in Corn Belt

17

add new techniques to the con-trol repertoire.

Success so far has relied ondisrupting mating with phero-mones and releasing sterile malemoths. The goal of both tech-niques is to reduce the ability ofcodling moths to mate andproduce offspring. This reducesthe population in each suc-ceeding generation.

Reducing pesticides has alsoled to new information on sec-ondary pests.

“At first, populations of leaf-rollers and aphids increased,”says Calkins. “But withoutsprays, their natural enemiessoon kept many of them incheck.” Research at the Wapatolaboratory was the first to showthat spiders play an importantrole as predators of fruit pests.

“The biggest problem now isstinkbugs,” says Calkins. “Al-though a sex pheromone for oneof these species has been iden-tified, stinkbugs are activeduring the day. They use severalcues, including visual cues, to

find a mate, so trapping with a sex pheromone alone is seldomeffective,” he says.

New research may give growers more tools to control themoths and other pests: lures for female codling moths; mothparasitoids; additional predators for leafrollers, aphids, and leafminers; and genetically engineered codling moths that lay eggsthat die when temperatures fall below 65˚F.—By KathrynBarry Stelljes, formerly with ARS.

This research is part of Crop Protection and Quarantine,an ARS National Program (#304) described on the World WideWeb at http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov.

Carrol O. Calkins is with the USDA-ARS Yakima Agricul-tural Research Laboratory, 5230 Konnowac Pass Rd., Wapato,WA 98951; phone (509) 454-6565, fax (509) 454-5646, e-mailccalkins@yarl.ars.usda.gov. ◆

Entomologist Brad Higbee examines a Golden Delicious applefor codling moth damage.

SCOTT BAUER (K7618-8)

hen ARS began theCodling Moth Area-wide SuppressionProgram in 1994,

many apple and pear growerswere skeptical. The aim was toreduce pesticide usage onorchards in Washington, Oregon,and California, using mating dis-ruption, biological control, andother techniques developed overthe previous 30 years.

“This program brought togeth-er, for the first time, the existingknowledge about monitoring,mating disruption, and secondarypests and showed growers thatthey can control pests at a reason-able cost while reducing pesticideuse,” says ARS entomologistCarrol O. Calkins.

Without control, codlingmoths could destroy 80 percentof the Northwest’s apple crop andhalf the pear crop. More than halfthe nation’s commercial applescome from Washington.

Normally, growers sprayed upto six times per year for codlingmoths and four to six more timesfor leafrollers, aphids, and other secondary pests. This meantusing about 2 million pounds of insecticides annually. The FoodQuality Protection Act restricts use on apples and pears oforganophosphate pesticides, which are the most effectivepesticides against codling moths.

Key to the project was grower participation. The team startedwith 5 sites and 68 participants encompassing about 3,000acres. Today, more than 100,000 acres of orchards in the threestates use integrated pest management—and new growers joinevery year. Growers have reduced their pesticide use by 80percent.

Calkins leads research at the ARS Yakima AgriculturalResearch Laboratory, Wapato, Washington, and oversaw theprogram until it ended in 1999. A second, university-led phasewith ARS participation continues to expand the project and

No Coddling for This Moth

W