This presentation provides a description of the IPM project in Alabama that is based on technology convergence in the digital age. This presentation also discusses some of the major findings of the two-year insect survey project that demonstrated that sustainable agricultural practices in the long run can reduce insect outbreaks and need for corrective action. The presentation was delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America 2010, San Diego, CA.

1. ESA 58th Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA (Symposium) Alerting Crop Producers to Pest Outbreaks: Statewide Insect Pest Surveys and A Rapid Technology Transfer System Speaker: Dr. Ayanava Majumdar Extension Entomologist (Peanuts, Vegetables) State SARE Coordinator, AU Gulf Coast Research & Extension Center 8300 State Hwy 104, Fairhope, Alabama 36532 Cell phone: 251-331-8416 Email: bugdoctor@auburn.edu

2. Presentation Layout Overview of SARE & ACES in Alabama Current & Emerging Pest Issues Constraints to Technology Adoption Participatory Ext./Res. projects: Insect Pest Monitoring Program & Synchronized Information Transfer System Net house Vegetable Production (time permitting) Summary

3. Alabama Sustainable Agriculture Program (SARE Grants, 1988-2009) SARE grants to universities: $539,827 Tuskegee U $134,488 Alabama A&M $1,276,678 Auburn U Source: http://www.sare.org/highlights/state_summaries.shtml

4. Unique Attributes of Alabama Extension & IPM Program New ACES model, 2010: Strategic Program Initiatives, TEAM projects with Regional Ext. Agents (REAs) Use of Program Theory and Logic Model (Carroll & McKenna, 2001) in grant writing & project execution Use of educational models for program maturity Evaluations are continuous: Needs Assessment, Process Evaluation, Outcome Evaluation, Impact Assessment (Taylor-Powell, 2008)

5. Major Insect Pests – Sentinel Plots (2010 - A drought year) Mexican bean beetle, Epilachnavarivestis Yellowstriped armyworm, Spodopteraornithogalli(Guenee) Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsadecemlineata(Say) Grasshopper Tomato hornworm, Manducaquinquemaculata(Linnaeus) Brown stink bug, Euschistusservus(Say) Aphid outbreak on bell pepper

6. Emerging Pest on Vegetables: Leaffooted Bugs Leptoglossusgonagra Leptoglossusphyllopus Bean plataspid, Megacopta cribraria Brown marmorated stink bug, Hyalomorphahalys Leptoglossuszonatus

7. IPM Needs/Asset Assessments, 2008-2010 Main goal: Empowering farmers, establishing a feedback system N = 132 small or limited resource farmers (LRFs) Survey locations: AL Sustainable Agriculture Network, Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, ACES Regional meetings Also referenced: Tackie et al., 2004, 2009; Molnar et al. 2002, 2006

8. Results I: Socio-economic Constraints 64% earned <$10,000 annual sales (Tackie et al., 2004) 40% high school educated (Tackie et al., 2004) 4 acres per farm Barriers to technology adoption: Lack of knowledge of Ext. resources: 40-50% Difficult to access information: 30% Difficulty in finding products: 20% High cost of organic materials: 10%* Low availability of reliable data: 10% Difficulty in implementing recommendations: 10% Lack of time: 5%* * Added by growers during surveys.

9. Results II: Technical Constraints 10-44% respondents could not identify IPM tactic 11% indicated IPM should be clearly emphasized in Ext. 44% respondents not aware of Extension IPM resources Specific pest management challenges: Timely pest detection, <10% use pheromone traps Insect pest ID poor (53% have ‘worms’, 22% ‘aphids’, 20% ‘beetles’) Crop scouting, priority 1-4 out of 5, 35% adoption rate

10. Ecological Pest Management From Altieri, Nicholls, and Fritz (2005): Manage Insects on Your Farm (SARE) Ecological Pest Management System or EPM incorporates the broad knowledge of the agro-ecosystem to choose pest management tactics that are timely, environmentally friendly and cost-effective. Goal of EPM: Maintain Healthy Plants From Root to Foliage ‘Pillars’ of EPM: Crop DiversityReduce Tillage Rotations Maintain Soil Cover Cover Crops Add Organic Matter Plant Breeding Nutrient Management Below ground factors Above ground factors

11. Starting Point for EPM… Emphasis on Pest Detection & Correct Identification: INSECT PHEROMONE TRAPS for improved scouting Trap Catch = Pest Density X Pest Activity (Taylor, 1963) Insect Monitoring Project (2009-2010) Highest trap catches in slideshow (May-Sept.) Stink bug trap Corn rootworm trap Sticky wing trap

13. ‘Quantify’ pest pressure

14. Species specific

15. Reusable

17. No info about crop injury

18. Scouting still important

20. Integrating multiple observations into ‘systems approach’

21. Improve decision making for pest management

23. Alabama Insect Survey Locations Peanut farm Vegetable farm 2010 (16,624 insects) 2009 (8,500 insects)

24. Insect Trap Catches in Alabama Vegetables NASS Zones: 3 locations each zone – NE, NW, C, SE and SW AL

25. Beet Armyworm-BAW(Spodopteraexigua) 2010 2009 13 moths/trap 10 moths/trap 11 moths/trap 21 moths/trap 46 moths/trap 53 moths/trap 53 moths/trap 55moths/trap Traps placed near vegetable fields

26. BAWPopulation Fluctuations in Alabama: Conventional Farm (A) vs. Organic Farm (B) Locations: Clay County (A) Dale County (B) Numbers indicate moth catches in 12 days. Noticeable larval feeding

27. Fall Armyworm-FAW (Spodopterafrugiperda) 2010 2009 18 moths/trap 20moths/trap 26 moths/trap 29 moths/trap 5 moths/trap 14 moths/trap 37 moths/trap 36 moths/trap Traps placed near vegetable fields

28. FAW Population Fluctuations in Alabama: Conventional Farm (A) vs. Organic Farm (B) Locations: Clay County (A) Dale County (B) Numbers indicate moth catches in 12 days. Noticeable larval feeding

29. Tomato Fruitworm-TFW(Helicoverpazea) 2010 2009 6 moths/trap 10 moths/trap 1 moths/trap 25 moths/trap 2 moths/trap 6 moths/trap 21 moths/trap 11 moths/trap Traps placed near vegetable fields

30. TFW Population Fluctuations in Alabama: Conventional Farm (A) vs. Organic Farm (B) Locations: Clay County (A) Dale County (B) Numbers indicate moth catches in 12 days. Noticeable larval feeding

31. Tobacco Budworm-TBW(Heliothisvirescens) 2010 2009 5 moths/trap 2 moths/trap 3 moths/trap 7 moths/trap 6 moths/trap 3 moths/trap 8 moths/trap 3 moths/trap Traps placed near vegetable fields

32. TBW Population Fluctuations in Alabama: Conventional Farm (A) vs. Organic Farm (B) Locations: Clay County (A) Dale County (B) Numbers indicate moth catches in 12 days. Noticeable larval feeding

33. Squash Vine Borer-SVB(Mellitiacucurbitae) 2010 2009 19 moths/trap NA 6 moths/trap NA 14 moths/trap NA 20 moths/trap NA Traps placed near vegetable fields

34. SVB Population Fluctuations in Alabama: Two Organic Farms Locations: Marshall County (A) Dale County (B) Numbers indicate moth catches in 12 days.

35. IPM COmmunicationREsource (IPM-CORE): Providing New Thrust to Technology Transfer via Technology Convergence (Grant Funded Projects) www.aces.edu 15-40% LRFs use the website info CommHort Blog IPM Kiosks at local pesticide stores IPM Exhibit at tradeshows

36. Facebook Page: Alabama Vegetable IPM 20% LRFs on Facebook 25-83 impressions per news Subscription increase rate : 1.7%

37. YouTube Channel: IPMNews Recorded Live in Field!

38. The IPM Communicator(A FREE electronic newsletter)

40. Articles: 76 Entomology, 13 Plant Pathology , 21 Home Garden

41. 22 contributing authors

42. 18 Weekly Issues (www.aces.edu/go/128; 171 page views/d)

43. Synchronized with Facebook, YouTube & Blogs

45. 53% read for 15 minutes and 22% for 30+ minutes

46. E-subscriptions growth rate = 12%

47. 94% support continuation of the newsletter in 2011

49. Insect pest pressures vary by location & farming practices

50. Growers encouraged to develop site-specific IPM plan

51. Timely information to limited resource farmers important

52. Technologies under evaluation: Net house, trap cropping, high tunnels

53. Extension IPM program must have high ‘visibility’ even with limited resourcesQuestions?