07EC Brief UpdatevF - The University of Arizona · The APMC is part of and closely parallels the organization that occurs at the federal level. The federal IPM program is guided by

University of Arizona, APMC Brief to EC July 2, 2007

1

Chronology

EC Brief, July 2, 2007

• 5/03, Concept proposedto EC

• 1/04, 1st funding forAPMC approved

• 4/04, IPM CC convened;IPM Coordinatorappointed

• 5/05, Dr. Al Fournierhired as IPM Prog. Mgr.

• 6/06, 1st APMC Summitconvened (120 attend)

The concept for the Arizona Pest ManagementCenter was conceived by John Palumbo, Paul Baker,and myself in response to various changes in thefederal climate, new opportunities that resulted,and a need to develop transparency with respect toour federal 3(d) obligation in IPM.

The concept was proposed to the Executive Council,the last time we met with this group, four yearsago. Our first formal funding through the WesternIPM Center was approved shortly thereafter. OurIPM Coordinating Committee was first convenedlater that year and plans were undertaken forrecruitment of an IPM Program Manager. Al hasbeen with us two years now & we thought it a goodtime to take stock and present our progress andsome new ideas to the Executive Council today.


2

SouthernIPM Center

North CentralIPM Center

NortheasternIPM Center

WesternIPM Center

Federal IPMCoordinating Committee

USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program

USDA RegionalIPM Centers

Stakeholder Input & Support

SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



The APMC is part of and closely parallelsthe organization that occurs at thefederal level. The federal IPM program isguided by a Coordinating Committee anda single IPM Coordinator, Dr. MikeFitzner, both of which are informed byregional IPM centers directors.

Handouts: PPT notes (this document) & APMCconceptual and organizational summary.


3

SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



These four regional centers represent theIPM interests of their member states andterritories.


4

SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



AK, AZ, CA,CO, HI, ID,

MT, NV, NM,OR, UT,WA, WY,

Pacific Isl.

In theory, this decentralized systemprovides a ready conduit fromstakeholders to the federal IPM program.

In our specific case, the Western IPMCenter is, in part, informed by Arizona’sinterests through the Arizona PestManagement Center. This is whatconnects clients & scientists to thefederal system and gets our needs andpriorities to those agencies who areseeking to fund IPM in the regions.


5

2007 EC Brief

IPM CoordinatingCommittee

Paul Baker

Pat Clay

Peter Ellsworth

Lin Evans

Al Fournier

Rick Gibson

Dawn Gouge

Kim McReynolds

Mary Olsen

John Palumbo

Jeff Silvertooth

Bob Roth

Deb Young

Rick Melnicoe

Our IPM Coordinating Committee is aninterdisciplinary group of scientists andstakeholders who represent agricultural,natural, and urban communities.Members come from campus, county, andagricultural center environments.


6

Vegetable

Cross-commodity

Cotton

Citrus

Turf

Structural

School

Invasive &Noxious Weeds

MelonInsectLosses

VegetableInsectLosses

CottonInsectLosses

Crop InsectLosses & ImpactAssessment WG

PAT

PesticideInformation &Training Office

ExtensionArthropodResistanceManagement

PesticideEducation

IPMAssessment

Community IPMAgriculturalIPM


IPMCoordinator

Arid Southwest IPM NetworkArizona Pest Management Center

Western IPM Center

IPM ProgramManager

23

4 5 6

7 8 9 10

a

b

c

d

b

c

d

a

b

a

1

a

UrbanHorticulture

e

Along with the State IPM Coordinator(Peter Ellsworth) and IPM ProgramManager (Al Fournier), the IPMCoordinating Committee oversees ourfederal obligation in IPM as well as helpsrepresent our many and diverse IPMprograms that make up the Arizona PestManagement Center.


7

Vegetable

Cross-commodity

Cotton

Citrus

Turf

Structural

School


MelonInsectLosses


CottonInsectLosses


PAT



PesticideEducation

IPMAssessment



IPMCoordinator


Western IPM Center

IPM ProgramManager

23

4 5 6

7 8 9 10

a

b

c

d

b

c

d

a

b

a

1

a

UrbanHorticulture

e

All programs are aligned along focalareas: Agricultural IPM, Community IPM,IPM Assessment (a critical andburgeoning area of program developmentcrucial in competing for extramuralresources and in developing relevantprograms), and Pesticide Education.


8

Vegetable

Cross-commodity

Cotton

Citrus

Turf

Structural

School


MelonInsectLosses


CottonInsectLosses


PAT



PesticideEducation

IPMAssessment



IPMCoordinator


Western IPM Center

IPM ProgramManager

23

4 5 6

7 8 9 10

a

b

c

d

b

c

d

a

b

a

1

a

UrbanHorticulture

e

Within each focal area there are severalprogram working groups or teams. Ourcoverage is good but spreads our verylimited human resources among manyprograms. Each faculty membercontributes to more than one team, oftentimes 4 or 5 different groups!

Some groups are so fragile that theaddition or loss of one memberdestabilizes the entire effort. E.g., thecitrus IPM effort is in question now thatDavid Kerns has left the UA and theposition ostensibly lost.


9

Vegetable

Cross-commodity

Cotton

Citrus

Turf

Structural

School


MelonInsectLosses


CottonInsectLosses


PAT



PesticideEducation

IPMAssessment



IPMCoordinator


Western IPM Center

IPM ProgramManager

23

4 5 6

7 8 9 10

a

b

c

d

b

c

d

a

b

a

1

a

UrbanHorticulture

e

Make no mistake, some of these boxesare filled by just one or two individuals attimes.


10

Vegetable

Cross-commodity

Cotton

Citrus

Turf

Structural

School


MelonInsectLosses


CottonInsectLosses


PAT



PesticideEducation

IPMAssessment



IPMCoordinator


Western IPM Center

IPM ProgramManager

23

4 5 6

7 8 9 10

a

b

c

d

b

c

d

a

b

a

1

a

Western Plant Diagnostics Network11

Arizona Plant Diagnostics Network12

Detection &Diagnostics

13

Diseases

Weeds

Insects

Nematodes

a

b

c

d

UrbanHorticulture

e

Parallel convergence has occurred withthe federalizing of a plant diagnosticsnetwork. This group, headed up by BarryPryor in Arizona, organizes our diagnosticresources around different pest groups.Again, very few people cover the array ofactivities symbolized by this org chart.


11

2007 EC Brief

CALS Commitments toAPMC

• Divestiture of 3(d) moneys from Kerns &Ellsworth lines

• Release of these funds for program use

• Investment in 50% salary and operations forIPM Program Manager

• Appointment of Ellsworth as IPM Coordinator

Four years ago, CALS made certaincommitments to the concept we proposedthen. First, it was agreed that the 3(d)moneys vested in the Ellsworth and Kernslines needed to be replaced by statefunds. This, in turn, was to have releasedthese funds for programmatic use in IPM.

We sought a College commitment (50%)towards a full-time new faculty line, IPMProgram Manager. Instead, the Collegeoffered this support from the newly freed3(d) funds.

Later Ellsworth was appointed IPMCoordinator after the first IPM CCmeeting was held.


12

2007 EC Brief

Honoring Our Commitment

• Opportunity

– Changes in federal climate

• Focused Excellence

– Re-organize our resources

• Relevancy

– Develop & deliver premiere IPM programs

Our commitment to the College was toseize on an opportunity for extramuralfunding of the APMC (and the other 50%of the IPM Program Manager faculty line)due to federal reorganization of IPMresources. We also committed to re-organizing resources around the structureshown, focusing our limited resources onprograms with achievable goals. Ourcommitment extends to developing thebest and most relevant IPM programspossible.

All this was done in an environment oftransparency and with the goal of makingArizona’s IPM programs as competitive aspossible.


13

2007 EC Brief

Honoring Our Commitment

• Re-organize fiscal & human resources

• Improve Federal reporting and communication

• Enhance visibility

• Create partnerships (provide leadership)

• Evaluate (needs and outcomes)

Our commitments are many and continueto evolve under the direction of the IPMCC. However, in order to be betterpositioned to compete for federal andother extramural resources, we haveplaced emphasis on these five areas:

Re-organization,

Communication,

Enhancement,

Partnerships,

Evaluation.

Handouts: IPM “Delivers” 4-fold & EC Brief.


14

2007 EC Brief

Carriere(UA)

Palumbo(UA)

Ellsworth,Fournier (UA)

Naranjo,Blackmer,

Hagler (USDA)Parajulee(TX A&M)

Bundy(NMSU)

Bancroft(USDA)

Goodell(UC-IPM)

Godfrey,Rosenheim(UC-Davis)

RAMP Team Collaborators

Corbett (CorbettLearning)

Dutilleul (McGill)Hutmacher (UC-Davis)

Jimenez (UC-CE)Kerns (TX A&M)Molinar (UC-CE)Mueller (UC-CE)

Spurgeon (USDA)Tronstad (UA)

This is the project team for the $2.5M grantrec’d from USDA-CSREES Risk Avoidance &Mitigation Program. Ellsworth is lead PI andUA the lead institution for this 4-year 4-stateproject. There are 13 PIs cooperating and anumber of public and private cooperators.

The APMC enabled this major grant effort.

The goal is to develop a comprehensiveresearch and outreach approach that willallow us to develop areawide suppression ofLygus bugs through improved field practicesand landscape manipulation. This requires agamut of fundamental and appliedinvestigations into the movement potentialand control of Lygus in at least 10 crops.


15

2007 EC Brief

USDA-CSREES, Risk Avoidance & Mitigation Program(RAMP)

$2,500,000 over 4 years

Developing and implementing field and landscape levelreduced-risk management strategies for Lygus in

Western cropping systems

The project team. Missing PIs: LarryGodfrey (UC-Davis); David Kerns (TexasA&M); Jay Rosenheim (UC-Davis); ScottBundy (NMSU).

This picture is from the 2nd InternationalLygus Symposium held at Asilomar ConferenceCenter, Pacific Grove, CA, 15-19 April 2007,and sponsored in part by the APMC and theUSDA-RAMP grant.


16

Term Award IDC

Arid Southwest IPM

Network

Western IPM Center

(UC-Davis)

Ellsworth, Fournier,

Palumbo, Baker5 yrs 100,000 20,000

Crop Insect Losses

Working Group

Western IPM Center

(UC-Davis)


Palumbo5 yrs 50,000 10,000

150,000 30,000

APMC Foundation Awards

Because the IPM Program Managerposition is only 50% funded throughlocal, 3(d) funds, we had to establishlines of support through the Western IPMCenter in Davis, CA, for the remainder.These two grants and their associatedactivities form the core foundation ofsupport for this position and the APMC.

We have been very successful innurturing these lines and securingconsistent, on-going support; however,these grants are often year to year or atbest for 2 year terms. This makes usvulnerable.


17

2007 EC Brief

Term Award IDC

Cotton Pest

Management Strategic

Plan

Western IPM Center

(UC-Davis)


Palumbo, Baker1 yr 12,000 2,400

National School IPM

PMSP

Western IPM Center

(UC-Davis)

Gouge, Fournier,

Green1 yr 10,000 2,000

Western School IPM

Working Group

Western IPM Center

(UC-Davis)

Gouge, Snyder,

Fournier et al.1 yr 10,000 2,000

32,000 6,400

Stakeholder Engagement

A broad consistent theme across all IPMfunding, indeed most of Extension andnow Research funding federally, isstakeholder engagement for purposes ofpriority setting (program identification)and evaluation (impact assessment).Without this effort, many of our programswould fail to compete extramurally. Weenvision continued, year-to-year, supportfor these activities, such as PestManagement Strategic Planning andregional working groups.


18

2007 EC Brief

APMC Enabled Projects

$248,513 to partner institutions

Term Award IDC

Reduced-Risk IPM for

Melon Aphid

USDA Pest

Management

Alternatives

Palumbo, Jones,

Teegerstrom3 yrs 178,700 35,740

Measuring Adoption of

IPM

USDA Regional IPM

Competitive Grant

Ellsworth, Carriere,

Fournier, Palumbo2 yrs 60,000 0

Areawide Lygus

management

USDA Risk Avoidance

and Mitigation

Program

Ellsworth, Palumbo,

Carriere, Fournier, et

al.

4 yrs 2,500,000 504,351

Whitefly Resistance

ManagementNRI

Carriere, Tabashnik,

Dennehy, Ellsworth

et al.

3 yrs 359,000 175,910

3,097,700 716,001

Total Competitive 3,279,700 752,401

Probably the most exciting developmentto have come from the APMC re-org hasbeen the enhanced competitiveness ofour efforts. These projects were all insome way enabled or synergized by theAPMC. Most notable of course is the verylarge, multi-institutional RAMP grant thatwe lead. But our efforts have activatedefforts that span the continuum of pureoutreach to pure research in IPM.


19

2007 EC Brief

Term Award IDC

Nematodes for Urban

Pest Control

USDA Regional IPM

Competitive GrantStock & Gouge 2 yrs 60,000 12,000

Cotton Pesticide Data

2004

Western IPM Center

(UC-Davis)Baker 1 yr 5,000 1,000

Enhancing Agricultural

Productivity Through

Educational

Partnerships

Technology Research

Initiative FundBrown et al. 1 yr 125,360 0

190,360 13,000

APMC Supported Projects

In addition to those efforts directlyenabled by Center involvement, we alsohave a number of efforts that have bornefruit as a result, in part, of support fromthe APMC.

As they say, a high tide floats all boats. Itis our goal to produce visibility for ourprograms such that all benefit, even ifonly indirectly.


20

2007 EC Brief

Grants Awarded Fournier Commitment

FF

YearQty. Amount Salary Operations

Total

Expended

3(d)

Allocation

2005 7 39,400 16,038 15,000 70,438 100,408

2006 8 50,000 37,724 0 87,724 100,408

2007 9 46,000 38,593 5,000 89,593 100,408

*$4,103 in salary savings generated.

IPM 3(d) Funds

*

**

** ca. $15,000 in start-up, plus $5K from FF04.

The IPM CC decided to formalize a mini-grant program with the residual 3(d)funding. In the last 3 years, we haveawarded 24 IPM projects over $135K.Each award is typically quite small, butserves to initiate new efforts in IPMleveraging other resources, or providescapstone moneys to existing efforts.

Most of the balance of the 3(d) moneysgoes towards Al’s salary and operations.


21

2007 EC Brief

IPM Effort Amount IDC

APMC Foundation Awards 150,000 30,000

Stakeholder Engagement 32,000 6,400

APMC Enabled Projects 3,097,700 716,001

APMC Supported Projects 190,360 13,000

Total Competitive 3,470,060 765,401

Extension Support 27,500

Total IPM Effort 3,497,560

APMC Summary

Over this period, and only accounting forthose grants for which we have the mostinformation, we can see a ratherimpressive return on the College’sinvestment in the APMC. Our programshave been exceptionally successful incapturing highly competitive and highlyprized federal grant dollars. But we cando even better, with increasedinvestment in the APMC.


22

$1.33M, Cotton IPM 3(d)

400

98

28

59 36

76

100146159

97

139

x $1000 / yr

11 “boll weevil” states receivehistoric Cotton IPM 3(d) line

As a matter of perspective, we thought itwould be instructive to examine supportstructures for IPM nation-wide. Al and Iconducted a very brief survey of IPMCoordinators from across the country anddid some additional research.

Because of a historical quirk whereby bollweevil was NOT present in AZ at the timethe formula was constructed, we do notreceive any “Cotton IPM” 3(d) funds asdo these 11 cotton states. Over onemillion is distributed each year.


23

Total IPM Support, 3(d)

634

233

232

193 240

212

335246328

265

274

x $1000 / yr

266

169135

135

100

135

Looking at the total 3(d) IPM support tothese and a sampling of other states, westart to see a pattern emerge withrespect to funding. It will becomeapparent in a moment why we’veselected these other states (in blue) toexamine. But just looking at total 3(d)IPM support, even Massachusetts with aland mass smaller than Maricopa Countyreceives as much as Arizona ($100K).


24

State-Based IPM Support

Alaska*

American Samoa

Guam26 states provide

no support

In our survey, we asked if there were anystate-based initiatives or lines of supportthat were provided to their IPM programsbeyond some nominally leveraged facultysupport. Of the 35 responses, only 9 citedsignificant state-based investments intheir IPM programs. Based on my ownknowledge, of the 17 that did notrespond, I believe it likely that none ofthese receive support either (26 states inorange reported no state investment).

Note the pattern of states (blue) that doreceive state-based commitments. Theytend to be our largest agricultural oracademic centers for IPM in the country.


25

3(d) + State-BasedCommitments

1.99M

233

232

193 360*

212

335371328

265

274

x $1000 / yr

1.0+M

3531.54M

235

250

555

100

9 states receive state-basedlines or other legislative action

in support of IPM

The states in blue receive significantstate-based commitments to their IPMprograms. This map shows the total 3(d)plus state investment in IPM by state.

Now, even Massachusetts receives 2.5times the investment in IPM than doesArizona! And most states have a 3.5 to20-fold investment over our own here inArizona.

These 9 states do tend to represent someof our best institutions academically andbest IPM programs nationwide. Cornell,Texas A&M, UC system, Michigan State,North Carolina State, Auburn, WashingtonState and Penn State have made majorleveraging investments in IPM.


26

2007 EC Brief

State-Based Commitments• State Initiatives (TX, NY, CA, MI)

– Project GREEEN ($184K, MI)

• Targeted Program dollars (NY, AL, CA, TX)– Fire ant management ($150K in AL, $350K in TX)

– Community IPM (line offered by state senator, NY)

• Partnership with state’s dept. of ag & nat. res.(PA, CA, TX, MA, NY, WA)– Washington State Commission on Pesticide Reg., $420K

• Broad-based marketing orders, check-offsystems or user fees (NC, TX)– Texas Pest Management Assoc., personnel, $250K

– “Nickels for Know-how”, $1.2M annually

So how have they done this? The vehiclesfor investment are diverse. Some start asstate initiatives earmarked for IPM andoften later turn into base funding (e.g.,TX). Project GREEEN (MSU) capitalizes ona very politically active segment of thereclientele interested in the Green /Landscape industry. Some are parlayedfrom very specifically targeted programdollars, as with fire ant management inthe south or urban efforts in NY. Somereflect broad partnerships with the stateand their agencies. And a few have beensuccessful at developing funding streamsdedicated to IPM (e.g., TX) or thatsupport agriculture broadly (e.g., NC).


27

2007 EC Brief

Goals

• Establish the University of Arizona’s IPMprogram as one of the nation’s premier effortsin economic, environmental, and health riskreduction due to pests and pest managementtactics

• Develop the Arizona Pest Management Centeras the hub for IPM research & outreachresources in the Western U.S. and as aresource for IPM in arid environments aroundthe world

After 4 years, what are our goals todayfor the APMC and UA’s IPM programs?


28

2007 EC Brief

Constraints

• Full accounting control of federal IPM 3(d)

• APMC Human Resources

– IT / Data Management / Web staff line

– 0.5 FTE IPM Program Manager, state line

– Interdisciplinary campus & county IPM faculty

• Access to significant & consistent state-basedoperating dollars

The constraints we have in reaching ourgoals are easy to define, though notnecessarily easy to overcome.

We need full accounting control over theIPM 3(d) funds. Placing control at MACwill provide us the access needed toeffectively report to our Federal partners.

We also have significant human resourceneeds. A state of this size and complexityand burgeoning population will need tohave more feet on the ground to bring thebest we have to offer to citizens (&students) of this state.

Lastly, we need significant and consistentstate-based operating dollars.


29

IPM, An InterdisciplinaryEnvironmental Science

• Sustainability

• Agricultural change

– Biofuels

– “New” crops

– Novel crops

– Food safety

• Urban growth

– Green industry

– Consumer interest in agricultural inputs and outputs

– More people, more pest problems (e.g., invasives)

“But we’re already doing such a good job!” yousay. True, but our effort is still overall verysmall and not nearly upsized to the pointwhere we can deal with a wave of change thatis already upon us. IPM is an agriculturalscience, but also an interdisciplinaryenvironmental science that will take us intothe future where issues of sustainability are allaround us every day! Where major agriculturalchange is likely, and where urban pressureswill only intensify consumer interest in thesource, and quality of their food as well as thesafety of their children and environment.Demand for IPM (unlike traditional agriculturalprograms) is only going to increase.


30

Cotton Saves $Millions

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '060

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fo

liar

Sp

ray In

ten

sit

y

Whitefly Pink bollworm Lygus bugs Other

$142,000,000 saved in control costs

$72,000,000 saved from yield loss

$214 M saved!

What we have done so far is significantand often held up by this College andothers around the country as a model forsuccessful transformation of an entireindustry.

Cumulatively, we have saved cottongrowers over $214M over the last 11years in control costs and yield.

Statewide average cotton foliar insecticide sprayintensity by year and insect pest (Ellsworth &Fournier, 2007).


31

Health & Environment

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '060

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fo

liar

Sp

ray In

ten

sit

y

Whitefly Pink bollworm Lygus bugs Other

1.7M lbs reduction in insecticide use

Lowest usage in28 yrs!

And, we have lowered the environmentalburden of broadly toxic insecticides froma 28-year high in 1995 to a 28-year low in2006, reducing usage by 1.7 millionpounds.

But we can achieve more! The benefits tothis state, our citizens, students andCollege will be immeasurable.


32

Getting from Here to There

• Decision Package

– Other legislative action

• IPM Endowment

– Chair

– Broad programmatic support

• ADA / ADEQ / UA Partnership

– Feed & fertilizer mill tax

– Pesticide sales and/or user fees

– Line item legislative support for IPM

Photo by Tim Knight

http://homepage.mac.com/wildlifeweb/).

Photo by Tim Knight

So how do we get from here to there, andsuccessfully remove the remainingconstraints in advancing our goals in IPMresearch, education, and outreach?

Only last week, after 40 years, the baldeagle, once threatened in part by thewidely-used insecticide, DDT, wasremoved from the Endangered Specieslist. This progress did not occur overnight.

To advance our goals, the model is clear.A greater state investment is needed. Adecision package, active endowment forIPM and significant state agencypartnership will be needed.

Photo by Tim Knight ©http://homepage.mac.com/wildlifeweb/).

Documents

07EC Brief UpdatevF - The University of Arizona · The APMC is part of and closely parallels the organization that occurs at the federal level. The federal IPM program is guided by