Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Reviewer’s Initials
CRITERIA FOR RANKING EVALUATIONS OF IR-4
ADVANCED STAGE BIOPESTICIDE PROPOSALS-2014 Proposal number/Title/PI: 18A, Evaluating the efficacy of biopesticides and entomopathogenic nematodes against plum curculio larvae in blueberry and peach soil types, Tewari
The following criteria were established to assist the reviewers in selecting biopesticide projects for funding that: (1) are either in a more advanced stage of development (as opposed to exploratory or early stage of development) or involve expansion of the label; (2) have a high probability of being registered/marketed in a reasonable period of time; and (3) will be useful in meeting pest control needs involving minor crops (uses), including minor uses on major crops.
Criteria Score
(0 to 10 or 20)
1. Adequacy of investigators and facilities. of 10
2. Experimental design, work plan and preliminary research. of 10
3. Does experimental design allow to determine performance relative to conventional control practices and how the biopesticide might fit into IPM programs.
of 10
4. Evaluation of Budget of 10
5. Relevance of the proposal toward the development of data for
registration or label expansion of the biopesticide. of 10
6. Evidence of Efficacy. Positive supporting data provided. of 20
7. Probability of biopesticide being used by growers (factors such as effectiveness and economics of use rates should be considered). of 10
8. Other control measures currently available to control target pest. of 10
9. Probability of biopesticide being registered, time to registration,
and if label expansion, time to market. of 10 TOTAL* of 100
Funding Recommendation YES ____________ (Check appropriate line) NO ____________
MAYBE ____________ Note: Attach a comment page, should you have specific comments related to the proposal not covered in the above criteria. * There is a possibility of 10 points per criteria (except efficacy=20) for a total of 100 points. A rating of 0 means that the proposal does not meet the criteria at all, while a rating of 10 means it is ideal.
Page 7
IR-4 BIOPESTICIDE GRANTS COVER PAGE
2014
Proposal Number(For IR-4 Use): Principal Investigator: Sunil Tewari Proposal Title: Evaluating the efficacy of biopesticides and entomopathogenic nematodes against plum curculio larvae in blueberry and peach soil types Institution: Rutgers University Total dollars Requested (Year 1 only) $24, 765
Enter each biopesticide /crop/ pest combination
No. Biopesticide and/or Conventional Product TRADE Name
Active Ingredient
Crop Pest (Weeds, Diseases, Insects)
1 PFR 97 Paecilomyces dgafumosoroseus Peach, Blueberry Plum curculio 2 Mycotrol O Beauveria bassiana Peach, Blueberry Plum curculio 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
18A
Page 8
Biopesticide Grants Contact Information Form
Proposal Title: Evaluating the efficacy of biopesticides and entomopathogenic nematodes against plum curculio larvae in blueberry and peach soil types
Name
Address
Phone Number &
Fax Number
E-mail Address
Street
City/State
Zip+4
Project Director (Principal Investigator): Sunil Tewari
125A Lake Oswego Chatsworth, NJ 08019 609-726-1590 ext. 4453, Fax: 609-726-1593
Administrative Contact: Melissa Vinch
3 Rutgers Plaza, ASB III New Brunswick, NJ
08901-8559 848-932-4026 [email protected]
Financial Grant Officer: Michele Conlin
3 Rutgers Plaza, ASB III New Brunswick, NJ
08901-8559 848-932-4146 [email protected]
Authorized Grant Official: Casandra Burrows
3 Rutgers Plaza, ASB III New Brunswick, NJ
08901-8559 848-932-0150 [email protected]
Individual Responsible for Invoicing: Jackie Hlavsa
88 Lipman Drive New Brunswick, NJ
08901-8525 848-932-3731 [email protected]
NOTE: THIS IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE SIGNED. DO NOT DELAY SUBMITTING YOUR PROPOSAL BY ATTEMPTING TO GET THIS SIGNED. THIS IS NOT MEANT AS A REPLACEMENT FOR ANY INSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL PAGES.
18A
Page 9
I. Grant Stage What is the grant Stage to which you are applying? Early or Advanced
(Check appropriate line)
Early – Biopesticide not yet registered and has not completed the
Tier I toxicology data requirements.
X Advanced – the biopesticide is registered or at least has completed
the Tier I toxicology data requirements.
If you are applying for any Advanced Stage Proposal, and the product is not currently
registered with EPA, provide a list of the toxicology work that has been completed. Ask
registrant or have company provide information to IR-4.
II. Introduction (Limit 1 page) Include the objective, description of the pest problem
and justification.
Plum curculio (PC), Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst), is native to eastern North America and is an extremely destructive pest of commercially cultivated Rosaceous and Ericaceous fruits like apple, peach, plum, and blueberries (Johnson et al. 2005, Jenkins et al. 2006, Chouinard et al. 1992, Polavarapu et al. 2004, Chen et al 2006, Leskey et al. 2013). In the eastern US, blueberry and peach are two high value specialty crops with an economic value estimated to be in the millions of dollars. There is zero threshold for PC injury in marketable fruit and feeding scars result in rejection of fruit by consumers. PC adults enter the orchards from their overwintering sites in spring and damage the fruit through feeding and oviposition. The larvae develop inside fruit (Fig. 1) and fall to the ground for pupation in the soil. After emergence from soil, the adults may attack the fruit again late in the growing season and eventually move to their overwintering sites. PC is one of the most important pests of blueberries in NJ and growers rely on at least one application of broad spectrum insecticides like organophosphates for its control (P. Oudemans, personal communication). Similarly, multiple applications of different insecticides are used to manage PC in the peach orchards of mid-Atlantic region along with other lepidopteran and hemipteran pest complexes (Nielsen 2013).
18A
Page 10
Figure 1. Plum curculio adult and larva developing inside blueberry fruit.
Historically, calendar-based application of organophosphate insecticides provided excellent control of adult PC in commercial fruit orchards (Pereault et al. 2009, Akotsen-Mensah et al. 2010). However, passage of the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996 mandated a gradual phase out of broad spectrum insecticides like organophosphates. For example, Azinophosmethyl was used to effectively control PC for more than 50 years until its use was terminated in 2012. Newer chemistries such as neonicotinoids, spinosyns, and insect growth regulators including benzoylphenylurea are being evaluated against PC but development of resistance and potential negative impacts on beneficial pollinators and other non-target arthropods remains a concern (Pereault et al. 2009, Leskey et al. 2013). Furthermore, current insecticide based management practices do not target any of the four soil dwelling stages of PC (soil-burrowing last instar larvae, pupae, emerging adult, and the overwintering adult) and thus the full potential of IPM remains unutilized (Kogan 1988, Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2013). IPM programs yield most benefits when judicious application of insecticides is combined with other preventative measures such as the use of biopesticides and biological control agents (entomopathogens, predators, parasitoids, etc.) to target the various life stages of the pest (Kogan 1988). Biopesticides, in conjunction with other biological control agents like entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN), can be a safe and sustainable option for the control of soil-dwelling life stages of PC in blueberry, peach, and other specialty crops. Biopesticides may also provide a feasible PC control option for the organic blueberry and peach farms in the mid-Atlantic region. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate a promising biopesticide (PFR-97) against soil-dwelling PC larvae and compare it to other commercially available biopesticides and entomopathogenic nematodes in two soil types (blueberry and peach). The fungal entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana has been shown to be effective against PC larvae in the lab and field (Tedders et al. 1982, Pereault et al. 2009). Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN), particularly strains of Steinernema riobrave, S. feltiae, S. carpocapsase, and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, have been used to successfully suppress PC larvae in the lab and field (Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2002, Alston et al. 2005, Kim and Alston 2008, Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2013). For example, S. riobrave caused high level of PC suppression (> 90 % control) in peach orchards in Georgia and Florida (Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2004). Similarly, S. riobrave provided excellent control of PC larvae in apple orchards in Massachusetts and West Virginia (Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2013). Results from our preliminary lab study suggests that PFR-97 applied at manufacturer recommended rate causes at least 33% (± 14) mortality of PC larvae compared with 50% (±13) caused by EPN S. feltiae and 27% (±10) caused by EPN S. rarum. Our proposed study will investigate the potential of PFR-97 in controlling the soil-dwelling stages of plum curculio (lab and field) and compare the results with biopesticide (B. bassiana) and EPN species. If
18A
Page 11
effective, PFR-97 will give growers of multiple specialty crops (apple, blueberry, peach) an additional option to manage PC and thereby eliminate the sole reliance on broad spectrum synthetic insecticides. Integrating the use of biopesticides with conventional insecticides for the control of PC will also help in resistance management and reduce the risk of adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target arthropods.
III. Experimental Plan (Please limit this section to 10 pages)
1. Provide a numerical list of all treatments including the products (Trade names and active
ingredients, rate (units), application timing, etc. A majority of the treatments must be
biopesticides (see http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Biopesticides/LabelDatabase/index.cfm).
Laboratory Study
1. PFR-97 (2 lb/100 gal; application method - soil drench), Certis
2. PFR-97 (4 lb/100 gal; application method - soil drench), Certis
3. Mycotrol O - active ingredient Beauveria bassiana (8 fl. oz./1000 square feet; application
method - soil drench), Laverlam International.
4. S. feltiae- entomopathogenic nematode (1000 IJs/larva; application method - soil drench), Lab
Colony.
5. S. rarum - entomopathogenic nematode (1000 IJs/larva; application method - soil drench), Lab
Colony.
6. S. riobrave (355) - entomopathogenic nematode (1000 IJs/larva; application method - soil
drench), Lab Colony.
7. UTC
Field Study
1. PFR-97 (2 lb/100 gal; application method - soil drench), Certis
2. PFR-97 (4 lb/100 gal; application method - soil drench), Certis
3. Mycotrol O - active ingredient Beauveria bassiana (8 fl. oz./1000 square feet; application
method - soil drench), Laverlam International.
4 & 5. Top two EPN species based on soil-specific laboratory study (see treatments 4, 5, and 6 of
18A
Page 12
the laboratory study).
6. UTC
Treatment Application:
EPN species will be reared in the Nielsen lab (RAREC, Bridgeton, NJ) using the methods outlined
in Kaya and Stock (1997) in Galleria mellonella larvae within 2 weeks of application and stored at
18oC prior to use.
a) Laboratory Study: Treatments will be applied 24 hours after the release of PC larvae into the
bioassay tubes.
b) Field Study: Treatments will be applied 24 hours after the release of PC larvae into the field
plots. Soil cores will be taken 1 week prior to treatment and baited with G. mellonella to identify
entomopathogens present in the soil.
2. What crops or sites will this study be conducted on?
Blueberry: Bluecrop variety, at the Marucci Center for Blueberry and Cranberry Research and Extension located in Chatsworth, New Jersey. Bushes are planted with 9’ row spacing and 5’ between plant spacing.
Peach: Fantasia nectarine variety, at the Rutgers University Agricultural Research and Extension Center (RAREC) located in Bridgeton, New Jersey. Trees are planted with 25’ × 20’ row spacing.
3. What experimental design will be utilized? (Such as Randomized Complete Block. Will
there be a complete factorial arrangement of treatments? Also include plot size, statistical
tests, etc. Please see section Treatment lists and design of biopesticide studies on page 40).
Note: EPA requires an Experimental Use Permit if the total treated area is above 10 acres.
It may also require destruction of a food crop if there is no existing tolerance. Please
document the existence of an EUP if applicable.
The efficacy of biopesticides and entomopathogenic nematode treatments in causing mortality of PC larvae will be evaluated through a randomized complete block design. In the lab evaluation the blocking factor will be time- the experiment will be repeated thrice. In the field study tree row (peach) and bush row (blueberry) will be the blocking factor.
Lab Study: Soil will be collected from the experimental farms at Chatsworth (blueberry) and Bridgeton (peach) and baked for 24 hours at 100o C. A third soil type; washed sand will also be
18A
Page 13
included in the experiment. Water will be added to the baked soil to bring moisture level to 15% (v/v). The bioassays will be conducted in 12 cm tall PVC tubes (5.08 cm diameter) and soil will be filled to a height of 10 cm (Fig. 2). A single late-instar PC larva will be added to each soil column. Treatments will be applied 24 hours later to allow larvae sufficient time to burrow into the soil. Each treatment will be replicated 10 times per soil type. After 7 days PC larvae will be extracted from the soil and the physical state will be recorded (dead or alive). Confirmation of mycosis (biopesticides) and infection by EPN will be done by dissecting the larvae under microscope. The whole experiment will be repeated two more times (blocks). A χ² based categorical data analysis test, with treatment as the explanatory variable, will be used to determine if there was difference in mortality
Figure 2. 12 cm tall PVC bioassay tubes with soil filled to a depth of 10 cm. A single larva will be placed on the surface of the soil and allowed to burrow for 24 hrs prior to the application of treatments.
Field Study:
Emergence cages will be constructed from boll weevil traps and plastic jars (Fig. 3). The plastic jars (11.43 cm diameter and 17 cm length) with the bottom cut out will be buried 15 cm in soil and lab-reared PC larvae will be added to the soil surface inside the jars. Fifty PC larvae will be added to each emergence cage. Treatments will be applied to the plots 24 hours after the release of PC larvae and boll weevil traps will be placed on the top of buried plastic jars to capture the emerging PC adults (Fig. 3). In blueberry fields, the emergence cages will be put between individual blueberry bushes in a row (Fig. 3) and each row will be treated as a block. There will be a total of five replicate blocks. In peach orchards, the emergence cages with be established under the canopy of a tree and at a distance of approximately 1 m from the trunk. The cages will be monitored for PC adult emergence for approximately 8 weeks post treatment application. Soil temperature and precipitation will be monitored during course of the experiment. The number of PC adults that emerge will be compared among the treatments using
18A
Page 14
ANOVA. If needed, square root transformation on the number of adults that emerge will be carried out prior to analysis.
.
Figure 3. Emergence cage between two blueberry bushes. Boll weevil trap is placed on top of a plastic jar that is buried 15 cm in soil. The trap captures emerging PC adults.
4. How many locations (field or greenhouse)? How many replications?
Field Study: The experiment will be carried out at research farms in two locations: 1) Marucci Blueberry and Cranberry Research Center, Chatsworth, NJ (Blueberry) 2) Rutgers University Agricultural Research and Extension Center (RAREC), Bridgeton, NJ (Peach).
The experiment will follow a randomized complete block design and at each location 5 blocks will be established. Treatments will be randomized separately within each block. For blueberry, block will be a row of blueberry bushes. For peach, block will be a row of peach trees.
5. Describe how this proposal is designed to provide information on how it fits into an
integrated pest management program. (Note: We favor proposals that determine the utility of
biopesticides as early season treatments or in rotation with conventional products, rather than
only a direct comparison of conventional products versus Biopesticides). Please see section:
Treatment lists and design of biopesticide studies begin on page 40. Keep in mind that the
data need to be sufficient to determine the value of the biopesticide product to the pest control
program.
The main objective of this proposal is to evaluate the efficacy of biopesticides against
18A
Page 15
the soil-dwelling stages of PC. Current options available for the control of PC target only the adult stage and thus availability of biopesticides that suppress the soil-dwelling immature stages will diversify the tactics available for its control and contribute to an integrated approach for PC management. IPM programs are most effective when the use of conventional insecticides are combined with the use of biopesticides and biological control agents to target multiple life stages of a pest (Kogan 1988). Targeting both the adult and larval stages of PC will result in a more comprehensive control program and may even reduce the population pressure over time. Since the proposed biopesticides will have a very different mode of action than the conventional insecticides, integrating their use will reduce the risk of resistance development.
Biopesticides may also play a role in the success of ‘trap-tree’ strategy currently being developed against PC in New Jersey blueberry and peach orchards. Trap-tree technique, deployed successfully against PC in apple orchards of several northeastern states, involves baiting select perimeter row trees with a synergistic two-component lure consisting of synthetic host plant derived volatile benzaldehyde (BENZ) and the synthetic male-produced aggregation pheromone grandisoic acid (GA) (Leskey et al. 2008). As a result, PC adults aggregate at the baited trees along the perimeter of orchards. Significant reduction in the use of insecticides can be achieved by limiting application to only the baited trees instead of the standard whole-orchard spray. For example, compared with standard full block insecticide applications for PC, limiting treatment to baited ‘trap’ trees provided satisfactory suppression of fruit injury in commercial apple orchards (Leskey et al. 2008). However, it was estimated that approximately 93% fewer trees were treated with insecticides in the ‘trap tree’ approach (Leskey et al. 2008). Biopesticides can be used to further enhance the effectiveness of this ‘attract and kill’ approach by providing an alternative option to target the PC larvae that fall to the soil to pupate in the ‘trap tree’ zone. Application of biopesticides in and around the ‘trap’ trees will help reduce the overall PC population pressure by eliminating the soil-dwelling life stages not targeted by current insecticide applications. Furthermore, adding biopesticides to the management program of PC will provide better control of the pest without adverse effects on natural enemies and other beneficial insects like pollinators. 6. Data collection – (Describe what data will be collected such as crop yields, crop quality,
etc. If visual efficacy evaluations will be collected, describe the rating scale used and the
evaluation timings).
Lab study: Seven days after the application of treatments, PC larvae will be extracted from the soil to assess mortality. The larvae will also be dissected under the microscope to detect mycosis (biopesticides) and infection by EPN. The mean proportion of larvae infected within each soil type and treatment will be analyzed with ANOVA.
Field study: The field cages will be monitored for approximately 8 week post treatment application for emergence of surviving PC adults. Mean PC adults per treatment will be analyzed with ANOVA. If control mortality is high, emergence cages will be dug up and the soil sifted for larvae to identify mortality factors. Abbott’s correction will be applied if needed, prior to analysis.
18A
Page 16
7. Describe the pests to be controlled, the degree to which they are a problem in your state or
region and the frequency that they occur (season long problem, every year, every few years).
Plum curculio is an extremely destructive pest of specialty crops like apple, blueberry, peach, and plum. Plum curculio is a primary hurdle to organic fruit production in the East. There is zero tolerance for PC injury in marketable fruit and damage due to feeding and oviposition results in rejection of fruit by consumers. PC adults enter fruit orchards in spring from their overwintering habitats and remain a problem for the entire fruit development period as their feeding and oviposition activity can impact both developing and mature fruit. Infected fruit typically drops to the soil, allowing the larvae to emerge directly onto the soil surface before burrowing into the top soil layer for pupation. We suspect that there is two generations of PC in southern New Jersey, which can result in live larvae in peaches at harvest. Currently, there is no recommendation for second generation management and the proposed project would reduce the second generation emergence and thus the likelihood of infestation at harvest.
8. Will the crop be inoculated with the target pest or otherwise be brought into the test
system to ensure that it will be available for evaluation? If not, describe the frequency of
occurrence.
For both our lab and field experiments, we will use lab-reared PC larvae. The larvae will be obtained from PC colonies maintained in the entomology lab at the Marucci Blueberry and Cranberry Research Center, Chatsworth, NJ and the Appalachian Fruit Research Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV (collaborator: Dr. Tracy Leskey, Research Entomologist, USDA ARS).
9. What is the proposed start date and completion date? Also describe this in
chronological order in the context of the experimental plan.
Laboratory Study: Lab bioassay will begin on May 1, 2014 and repeated thrice a total of three complete trials (May, 2014 - June, 2014). All species of EPNs will be evaluated.
Field Study: Field experiment will begin on June 15, 2014 for blueberry targeting the larvae leaving the fruit for pupation in the soil. For peach, the experiment will begin on June 30, 2014. The traps will be monitored for PC adults until emergence stops (approximately 8 weeks after the initiation of the experiment). The field study is expected to be completed by end of September, 2014.
10. Describe the test facilities where these studies will be conducted.
Field experiments will be conducted at the Marucci Blueberry and Cranberry Research Center, Chatsworth, NJ (blueberry) and the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center (RAREC), Bridgeton, NJ (peach). The Chatsworth facility comprises of blueberry and cranberry research farms dedicated to basic and applied research on pest management and plant breeding. The RAREC facility is a 300+ acre fruit and vegetable research farm with approximately 50 acres
18A
Page 17
of tree fruit, primarily peaches and nectarines in production. Laboratory experiments will be carried out in the Nielsen lab at RAREC, Bridgeton, NJ.
11. Budget: Provide an itemized budget, with categories such as labor, supplies, travel, etc.
Provide a grand total. Note: Overhead costs are not permitted. Funding is only awarded on a
per year basis, if this is a multiple year proposal, divide the budget for each year. Also
include a list of support from the registrant and/or other sources. Provide information on
other sources of monetary support and in-kind contributions from growers (land, plant
material, etc).
Proposed Budget (2014)
Salaries $15, 680
Fringe benefits $ 3, 585
Plot charges $2, 000
Supplies $1, 500
Travel $2, 000
Total $24, 765
We are requesting funding to support the salary of PI (Sunil Tewari) at 20%. The PI will be responsible for managing the overall project. The specific tasks of PI will include designing and conducting the experiments, supervising an hourly worker, and analyzing the data upon completion of the study. We are also requesting funding to support hourly worker (40 hours/week @ $12 per hour) for four months (16 weeks). Hourly worker will aid in assembling the traps for field study, collecting and baking soil for laboratory experiments, and monitoring the laboratory and field traps after application of treatments. Plot charges for the use and maintenance of peach trees at RAREC is requested at $2, 000. We are requesting $1, 000 for travel between the Chatsworth and RAREC research centers (100 miles round trip). We are requesting an additional $1, 000 to attend the Entomological Society of America meeting where
18A
Page 18
the results of this research will be presented. Co-PI Nielsen (salary not requested) is responsible for maintenance of the EPN colonies and treatments as well as monitoring PC populations in peach to initiate onset of applications. The budget for supplies is $1, 500 and includes, Mycotrol O (Laverlam International: $200), Nematode colony maintenance ($180 - $30/month for 6 months), boll weevil base and top ($400), plastic jars ($200), PVC pipes ($200), and soil temperature probe ($300).
References:
Akotsen-Mensah, C., R. Boozer, H. Y. Fadamiro. 2010. Field evaluations of traps and lures for monitoring plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Alabama peaches. Journal of Economic Entomology 103: 744-753.
Alston, D. G., D. E. N. Rangel, L. A. Lacey, H. G. Golez, J. J. Kim, and D. W. Roberts. 2005. Evaluation of novel fungal and nematode isolates for control of Conotrachelus nenuphar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) larvae. Biological Control 35: 163-171.
Chen, H., C. Kaufmann, and H. Scherm. 2006. Laboratory evaluation of flight performance of the plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 99: 2065-2071.
Chouinard, G. S. B. Hill, C. Vincent, and N. N. Barthakur. 1992. Border-row sprays for control of the plum curculio in apple orchards: Behavioral study. Journal of Economic Entomology 85: 1307-1317.
Jenkins, D., T. Cottrell, D. Horton, A. Hodge, and G. Hodges. 2006. Hosts of plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in central Georgia. Environmental Entomology 35: 48-55.
Johnson, D., R. F. Mizell III, and D. Horton. 2005. Plum Curculio. Southeastern Peach Growers’ Handbook pp. 240-243.
Kaya, H. K., and S. P. Stock. 1997. Techniques in insect nematology, in Manual of Techniques in Insect Pathology, ed. by Lacey L. A. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 281-324.
Kim, H. G., and D. G. Alston. 2008. Potential of two entomopathogenic nematodes for suppression of plum curculio (Conotrachelus nenuphar, Coleoptera: Curculionidae) life stages in northern climates. Environmental Entomology. 37: 1272-1279.
Kogan, M. 1988. Integrated pest management theory and practice. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 49: 59-70.
Leskey, T. C., J. C. Pinero, and R. J. Prokopy. 2008. Odor-baited trap trees: A novel management tool for plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 101: 1302-1309.
Leskey, T. C., S. E. Wright, J. Saguez, and C. Vincent. 2013. Impact of insecticide and fungicide residue contact on plum curculio. Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst), mobility and mortality: implications for pest management. Pest Management Science 69: 464-470.
18A
Page 19
Nielsen, A. 2013. 2013 New Jersey commercial tree fruit production guide. https://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/publication.asp?pid=e002
Pereault, R. J., M. E. Whalon, and D. G. Alston. 2009. Field efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi and nematodes targeting caged last-instar plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Michigan Cherry and apple orchards. Environmental Entomology 38: 1126-1134.
Polavarapu, S., V. Kyryczenko-Roth, and J. D. Barry. 2004. Phenology and infestation patterns of plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) of four highbush cultivars. Journal of Economic Entomology. 97: 1899-1905.
Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., R. F. Mizell III, and J. F. Campbell. 2002. Susceptibility of the plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar, to entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Nematology 34: 246-249.
Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., S. E. Wright, A. F. Tuttle, D. R. Cooley, and T. C. Leskey. 2013. Using entomopathogenic nematodes for biological control of plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar: Effects of irrigation and species in apple orchards. Biological Control 67: 123-129.
Tedders, W. L., D. J. Weaver, E. J. Wehunt, and C. R. Gentry. 1982. Bioassay of Metarhizium anisopliae, Beauveria bassiana, and Neoaplectana carpocapsae against larvae of plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology 11: 901-904.
Note: See appendix for attachment of additional information.
18A
Page 20
Appendix 1
PCR Forms. Please fill out the attached Project Clearance Request Form for each biopesticide/crop combination involved in your proposal. (Not needed for Demonstration Stage Proposals).
Appendix 2
Labels – Supply the label or the proposed label of the biopesticide(s) to be evaluated. (Note: Labels of conventional products are not needed.).
Appendix 3
Supporting preliminary data (Attach tables, graphs of the current data that coincide with the proposed use. Please include complete efficacy reports and do not only list literature citations. If appropriate, attach the full copy of actual literature. Summarize the significance of the efficacy data. In order to compare your proposed list of treatments to the data make sure the products are identified in the same way or if the names of the products are different, provide a key to all the names so that they can be compared directly. Do not assume the reviewers know which code names or active ingredients match with a given trade name. Avoid color graphs or any low quality graphics that do not copy well in black and white copies. Note: Proposals without supporting data are less likely to be funded.
Appendix 4
Attach resume for Principal Investigator and Co-PI’s. Please limit the size of resumes to 3 pages. Please do not submit an exhaustive list of publications. Only those showing experience with the crop and pest in the proposal and any experience with biopesticides.
Appendix 5
If you were funded last year, submit a progress or final report. This must be submitted regardless of whether or not the current proposal is related to the previous one.
Appendix 6
Registrant support. Please submit your proposal to the registrant and request the registrant or potential registrant fill out the registrant questionnaire form and submit this to IR-4. Letters of support from the registrant as well as grower or commodity groups are encouraged.
18A
Page 21
Appendix 1—Registrant Questionnaire Please fill out the first page of this form for each crop/biopesticide combination and send to the registrant.
Registrant please return to IR-4 Project Headquarters, Michael Braverman, Biopesticide and Organic Support Program Manager, 500 College Road East; Suite 201 W; Princeton, NJ 08540-6635, Tel: (732) 932-9575 ext. 4610, Fax: (609) 514-2612, [email protected]
Principal Investigator: _ Sunil Tewari
Address: Marucci Cranberry & Blueberry Research Center, 125a Lake Oswego, Chatsworth, NJ
Telephone: 609-726-1590 ext. 4453
Proposal Title: Evaluating the efficacy of biopesticides against plum curculio larvae in blueberry and peach soil types.
Registrant name and address: H. Brett Highland, 1069 Eisenhower Dr, Nokomis, FL 34275
______________________________________________________________ Product Name:PFR 97 WG
Active Ingredient: Paecilomyces fumosoroseus
Trade Name:PFR 97
18A
Page 22
The following section is to be completed by the Biopesticide Registrant. The PCR form is to be completed by the researcher for Early and Advanced Stage Proposals (Due Oct. 21, 2013 )
1) Is this product EPA registered through BPPD? Yes x No
Is this use covered by your current label? Yes x No
If this product is not yet registered with EPA, describe where you are at in collecting the toxicology data or Stage of the registration process. If this project was previously funded, describe how the registration status has changed since last year.
Is label and toxicology work currently limiting product only to non-food uses?
2) Assuming the efficacy data are favorable, what is the likelihood that this use will be added
to your label? High 3) Considering the use rate(s), what is considered to be the farm-level cost for the treatment in
$/acre? 50$ 4) How would you rank the importance of the proposed use compared to other potential uses? High
5) If you are only considered a potential registrant (do not currently own rights to the product),
rank your degree of interest in this product. 6) Were you involved or consulted in the development of the treatments or proposal? Yes
7) What financial support are you planning on providing, if any? None, product only
H. Brett Highland 11/25/13
Name of Registrant representative Date Field Development Manager Certis USA
Title Other comments – Please attach a letter of support for this project by December 9, 2013
18A
Page 23
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date: Cat: PR#:
IR-4 Minor Use Biopesticide (*Required Fields) Project Clearance Request (PCR) Form
1. *Requestor: Sunil Tewari Affiliation: Rutgers University
*Address: 125 a Lake Oswego *City: Chatsworth *State/Territory: NJ *Zip: 08019 *Telephone: ( 609 ) 726-1590 ext. 4453 FAX: ( ) *E-mail address: [email protected]
2. *Pest Control Product (Active Ingredient {a.i.}): Paecilomyces fumosoroseus
*Trade Name/Formulation: PFR 97 Registrant (manufacturer): Certis, USA Method of Production (Fermentation, in vivo, extraction from plants): 3. *Commodity (one crop or crop group per form): blueberry and peach
*Use Site (e.g., field, greenhouse, post-harvest): field and laboratory Parts Consumed: Animal Feed By-Products: Yes No Planting Season: Harvest Season: State/Territory Acreage: % National: Average Field Size:
4. Insect/Disease/Weed: Insect – plum curculio
Damage caused by pest: adults cause feeding and oviposition scars on fruits; larvae develop inside fruit.
5. *Why is this use needed?: To control soil dwelling stages of plum curculio, a pest of blueberry and peaches.
6. *Proposed Label Instructions
*Rate per Application (lbs a.i. per acre or 1000 linear ft): 2 pounds per 100 gallons (drench application) Type of sprayers that may be used (e.g., fixed wing, ground boom sprayer, chemigation, air blast, ULV, granular spreader): soil drench Range of Spray Volume (if applicable): Maximum Acreage Treated per Day:
*Crop Stage during Application(s): early fruit development *Maximum no. of applications: 1 Minimum interval betw. applications:
Maximum lbs active ingredient per acre per year/season: *PHI: NA 7. *Availability of Supporting Data1: *Phytotoxicity(P) NA_ *Efficacy(E) NA *Yield(Y) NA
1Supporting data may be required before a residue study will be initiated.
8. *Submitted By (print name): Sunil Tewari *Signature: *Date: 12/5/13
Send this completed form to: IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East; Suite 201 W; Princeton, NJ 08540-6635;
Telephone (732)932-9575 ext 4610 (Michael Braverman) FAX (609) 514-2612 or e-mail: [email protected]
18A
Page 24
Final Report Recipients are also required to submit two (2) hard copies of a Final Report consisting of:
A one page Executive Summary describing the project and its accomplishments that could be used in a press release.
A standard scientific format of abstract, introduction, materials and methods, statistically analyzed data in tables or graphs and a results and discussion section.
Alternatively, an electronic version of the Executive Summary and Final Report on a CD in MS Word or PDF format or via e-mail. Send one copy to Bill Barney [email protected] and be sure to copy the IR-4 Regional Coordinator.
The Final Report is due 30 days following the completion of the projection or end of the project period whichever comes first. Any materials published whether print, video, etc. must include language that funding was provided in whole (or part) by the IR-4 Project.
Deadline:
Proposals must be received at the IR-4 Project Headquarters offices, 500 College Road East; Suite 201 W; Princeton, NJ 08540-6635, on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, December 9, 2013. The review and selection timing is dependent upon when funds are made available to the IR-4 Project.
Address:
Submit one original copy of the proposal and the electronic version to Dr. Michael Braverman, 500 College Road East; Suite 201 W; Princeton, NJ 08540-6635; Tel: 732-932-9575, ext. 4610; Fax: 609-514- 2512; e-mail: [email protected].
Budget:
Provide an itemized budget, with categories such as labor, supplies, travel, etc. Provide a grand total. Note: Overhead costs are not permitted. Funding is only awarded on a per year basis, if this is a multiple year proposal, divide the budget for each year. Also include a list of support from the registrant or other sources. Provide information on other sources of monetary support and in-kind contributions from growers (land, plant material, etc).
18A
Page 25
$ $ $ $ $ $ NOT ALLOWED $ $ $
Project Period: From: BIOPESTICIDE PROJECT BUDGET
To: Funds Requested Matching Funds
Totals ($)
A. Senior/Key Person $8000 $ B. Other Personnel 1 $7680 Total Number, Other Personnel C. Fringe Benefits $ 3585 Total Salary, Wages and Fringe Benefits $ 19265
D. EquipmenNOT ALLOWED $
E. Travel $2000 $ 1. Domestic $2000 $ 2. Foreign NOT ALLOWED $
F. Participant Support Costs $ $ 1. Travel $ $ 2. Other $ $
G. All Other Direct Costs 1. Materials and Supplies 1500 $ 2. Publication Costs $ 3. Consultant Services $ 4. Computer Services $ 5. Subawards/Consortium/Contractual Costs $ 6. Equipment or Facility Rental/User Fees 2000 $ 7. Alterations and Renovations $ 8. Other 1 $ 9. Other 2 $ 10. Other 3 $
Total Direct Costs $24,765 $
**Each budget item requires documentation**
**IMPORTANT** On a separate sheet provide the following information: Project title, PI name and one paragraph statement of work Identify each budget item individually - provide cost and a written description and/or purpose for the cost. For rentals and fees: identify type of rental or fee and provide rental rate & purpose for the cost Any contractual work will require a separate budget and statement of work including rate and purpose
The Other category MAY NOT include construction or indirect overhead. These costs are not permitted, under any circumstances, under this grant. 1Indicate in a footnote if the matching funds are monetary or in kind and their source Please enter all values to the nearest hundred dollars.
18A
Page 26
On a separate sheet provide the following information: Project title, PI name and one paragraph statement of work
18A
Page 27
Project Title: Evaluating the efficacy of biopesticides against plum curculio larvae in blueberry and peach soil types. PI Name: Sunil Tewari Statement of Work:
The main objective of this proposal is to evaluate the efficacy of biopesticides
against the soil-dwelling stages of PC. Current options available for the control of PC
target only the adult stage and thus availability of biopesticides that suppress the soil-
dwelling immature stages will diversify the tactics available for its control and contribute
to an integrated approach for PC management. IPM programs are most effective when
the use of conventional insecticides are combined with the use of biopesticides and
biological control agents to target multiple life stages of a pest (Kogan 1988). Targeting
both the adult and larval stages of PC will result in a more comprehensive control
program and may even reduce the population pressure over time. Since the proposed
biopesticides will have a very different mode of action than the conventional
insecticides, integrating their use will reduce the risk of resistance development.
Furthermore, adding biopesticides to the management program of PC will provide better
control of the pest without adverse effects on natural enemies and other beneficial insects
like pollinators.
18A
Page 28
18A
!!!November 21, 2013 Dr. Sunil Tewari PE Marucci Center for Blueberry & Cranberry Research 125a Lake Oswego Rd. Chatsworth, NJ 08019 Dear Dr. Sunil Tewari: The New Jersey Blueberry Industry Advisory Council would like to endorse your proposal, “Evaluating the efficacy of biopesticides against plum curculio larvae in blueberry and peach soil types”. The broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide Imidan is currently used to control plum curculio adults in blueberry fields. However, it does not give good control alone, nor is an ideal option due to negative effects on pollinators and other beneficial insects. Furthermore, there is no effective strategy to target the larvae of plum curculio that fall to the soil. Alternative control options like the biopesticide PFR-97, that is environmentally benign and compatible with IPM practices, will be an important and useful addition to the limited options available against this destructive pest. Sincerely, !
!!Dennis!Doyle!Vice!Chair!!
1
Sunil Tewari Contact Information________________________________________________________________________ Address: 125A Lake Oswego, Chatsworth, NJ, 08019 Email: [email protected] Phone: 609-‐726-‐1590 ext. 4453 Educational Background___________________________________________________________________ UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS-AMHERST – Amherst, MA PhD (Entomology) – February 2013.
Dissertation Title: Interactions between a gall making fly, Dasineura oxycoccana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), and its host plant, cultivated cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon).
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY – Baton Rouge, LA Master of Science (Entomology), 2007
Thesis Title: Impact and interaction of Samea multiplicalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Cyrtobagous salviniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on Salvinia minima in south Louisiana and the foraging behavior of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on Salvinia minima.
GOVIND BALLABH PANT UNIV OF AGRI & TECH – Pantnagar, India Bachelor of Science (Agriculture), 2004 (degree awarded with Distinction).
Research Background___________________________________________________________________ January 2013 – present: Post Doctoral Research Associate, Department of
Entomology, Rutgers University. Development, implementation, and evaluation of
novel strategies to monitor and manage multiple pests of fruit crops, including plum
curculio and cranberry weevil. The ultimate goal is to deliver a sustainable IPM
program to blueberry and peach growers. Conduct Dual-‐Choice Still Air bioassays to
optimize pheromone-‐based lures of the cranberry weevil. Investigate the spatial and
temporal distribution of plum curculio in blueberry farms. Evaluate the efficacy of
biopesticides and entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN) against plum curculio in
blueberry and peach orchards. Assess the utility of Trap-‐Tree approach to manage
plum curculio in blueberry and peach orchards.
2
2007 – December 2012: Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Plant, Soil, &
Insect Sciences, University of Massachusetts-‐Amherst. Investigate the impact of
tipworm damage on cranberry production in the northeastern US. Test the efficacy
of an unregistered compound against cranberry tipworm under field conditions.
Carry out semi-‐field topical bioassays to determine the sub-‐lethal effects of
pesticides on the foraging behavior of bumblebees. Identify native pollinators and
manage specimen collection.
2007 – December 2012: Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Entomology,
Louisiana State University. Determine the impact of two herbivores on a nuisance
aquatic weed (Salvinia) in south Louisiana.
Refereed Publications_____________________________________________________________________ [in print] Tewari, S., J. P. Buonaccorsi, and A. L. Averill. Physiological integration
plays key role in cranberry for tolerance of damage by tipworm larvae, Dasineura
oxycoccana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Environmental Entomology.
[in print] Tewari, S., J. P. Buonaccorsi and A. Averill. Developing fruit inhibit the
regrowth of cranberry shoots after apical meristem injury by larvae of Dasineura
oxycoccana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). The Canadian Entomologist.
Tewari, S., J. P. Buonaccorsi, and A. L. Averill. 2013. Impact of early season apical
meristem injury by gall inducing tipworm (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) on reproductive
and vegetative growing of cranberry. Journal of Economic Entomology 106: 1339-‐
1348.
Tewari, S., J. P. Buonaccorsi, and A. L. Averill. 2012. Injury to apical meristem of
cranberry by Dasineura oxycoccana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) reduces floral-‐units in
the next growing season. Journal of Economic Entomology 105: 1366-‐1378.
3
Tewari, S. and S. J. Johnson. 2011. Impact of two herbivores, Samea multiplicalis
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Cyrtobagous salviniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), on
Salvinia minima in south Louisiana. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 49: 36-‐43.
Welch, A., F. Drummond., S. Tewari., A. Averill, and J. P. Burand. 2009. Presence and
prevalence of viruses in local and migratory honeybees (Apis mellifera) in
Massachusetts. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 75: 7862-‐7865.
Book Chapter________________________________________________________________________________ Tewari, S., T. C. Leskey, A. L. Nielsen, A. L. Piñero, C. R. Rodriguez-‐Saona. 2014. Use
of pheromones in insect pest management, with special attention to weevil
pheromones. In: Integrated Pest Management: Current Concepts and Ecological
Perspectives. D. P. Abrol (Ed.). Elsevier Inc.
Honors and Awards_________________________________________________________________________ 1) Harry Rosenfeld Research Scholarship (University of Massachusetts-‐Amherst,
2009)
2) Student and Young Professional Award (2008): Presented by the Entomological
Society of America.
3) Duncan Merit Scholarship (Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture &
Technology, multi-‐year scholarship).
25 November, 2013. Re: Letter supporting research of PFR 97 for plum curculio larvae in soil Dr. Michael Braverman Biopesticide and Organic Support Program IR-4 Project, Rutgers University 500 College Road East, Suite 201W Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Dear Dr. Braverman This letters confirms the support of Certis US, L.L.C. for the research proposal by Dr. Anne Neilsen, entitled “PFR 97 for plum curculio larvae in soil ”. Certis USA is committed to providing environmentally safe tools for pest management. PFR 97 is currently labeled for control of this pest. The studies proposed will aid in determining effective strategies for using this product. Certis USA will maintain collaborative links with Dr Neilsen and supply support in kind (product). I recommend this proposal be funded. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. ___________________________ H. Brett Highland Field Development Manager Eastern US Certis USA 941.484.4523
Certis USA 9145 Guilford Road Suite 175 Columbia, MD 21046
(301) 604-7340
FAX: 301-604-7015 www.certisusa.com
ANNE LILLEMOR NIELSEN
Assistant Extension Specialist in Entomology Rutgers University Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center 121 Northville Rd. Bridgeton, NJ 08302-5919
856-455-3100 x4110 (office)
610-731-3799 (cell) [email protected]
WORK EXPERIENCE: 2012 - present Assistant Extension Specialist, Entomology Dept, Rutgers University 2010 - 2012 Research Associate, Entomology Dept, Michigan State University 2008 - 2010 Postdoctoral researcher, Nematology Dept, University of California, Davis Research and extension responsibilities: Responsible for conducting a research and extension program on management and population biology of fruit pests, with a focus on developing sustainable, systems-level control programs. Research includes investigation of biological control or orchard pests and the abiotic and biotic factors influencing life history and behavior. Much work is focused on invasive insects including Brown Marmorated Stink Bug. Extension activities utilize novel approaches to reach growers and end-users through diverse activities. EDUCATION: Ph.D. Entomology – Rutgers University, 2008 “Ecology and Population Biology of the Invasive
Stink Bug Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in NJ and PA”
B.S. Biology (Concentration Entomology, Minor Chemistry), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2000
GRANTS/FUNDING (past 2 years): C. Rodriguez-Saona, T. Leskey, A. Nielsen, A. Zhang. 2013. “A novel attract-and-kill approach for
managing the invasive spotted wing drosophila in multiple small fruit crops” NE Regional IPM ($175,000)
A. Nielsen. 2013 “Developing a reduced risk early season management program for BMSB in peach” IR-4 Biopesticide Program ($6,041)
D. Polk and A. Nielsen. 2013. “Reduced Risk Methods to Control Peach Pests and Brown Marmorated Stink Bug” NE SARE Demonstration: ($17,000)
C. Rodriguez-Saona, T. Leskey, and A. Nielsen. 2012 “An Integrated Multi-Tactic Approach for Managing Native Weevil Pests of Multiple U.S. Fruit Crops.” USDA-PMAP ($200,000)
A. Nielsen, G. Hamilton, M. Grieshop, et al. 2012 “Whole-Farm Organic Management of BMSB and Endemic Pentatomids through Behaviorally-Based Habitat Manipulation.” USDA OREI ($2,672,327)
EXTENSION PRESENTATIONS (NJ - Past 2 years):
o MD Grape Growers Summer Mtg. “Managing the Alphabet Soup: BMSB, SWD, GBM” June 2013
o eOrganic webinar “Brown Marmorated Stink Bug: Invasion, Biology, Monitoring and Management” Feb 2013
o N. Jersey Commercial Fruit Growers Mtg, March 2013 — “BMSB Phenology and Management in Fruit (What to spray and when)”
2
o NJ Vegetable Mtg, Feb 2013 -“A new invasive pest, SWD, attacking small fruit” o Grape Expectations, Feb 2013 -“Two invasive late-season pests in wine grapes” o Mid-Atlantic Fruit and Vegetable Conference – Hershey “Using a Phenological Model and
Border Spray for brown Marmorated Stink Bug” Jan 2013 o Cumberland-Shenandoah Fruit Workers Conference – Winchester, VA “Steps towards
BMSB Management in Peach” Nov. 2012 o NJ Fruit Twilight Mtg, May 2012 — “BMSB biology and management in diverse
landscapes” o NRCS NJ twilight, Oct. 2012 —“Steps toward a sustainable management for BMSB and key
orchard pests” o NJ Fruit Twilight Mtg May 2012 – “Managing BMSB in diverse landscapes”
HONORS AND AWARDS:
o Travel Award, University of California – Davis, Postdoctoral Scholars Association (2010) o Travel Award, Rutgers University Graduate School (2007) o Wilbur Runk Graduate Fellowship, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (2007) o Headley Entomology Fellowship, Rutgers University (2007-2008) o Compton Markle Outstanding Graduate Student Entomological Award, Rutgers
University and USDA IR-4 (2006)
PEER- REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS (selected): 1. Nielsen, A., G. Hamilton and D. Matadha. 2008. Life table analysis for Halyomorpha halys (Stål)
(Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) under constant temperatures. Environ. Entomol. 37: 348-355. 2. Nielsen, A.L., P. Shearer, and G.C. Hamilton. 2008. Toxicity of insecticides to Halyomorpha halys
(Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) using a glass-vial bioassay. J. Econ. Entomol. 101: 1439-1442. 3. Nielsen, A.L., K.O. Spence, and E.E. Lewis. 2008. Efficacy patterns of biopesticides used in
potting media. Biopestic. Int. 4: 87-101. 4. Nielsen, A.L. and G.C. Hamilton. 2009. Seasonal occurrence and impact of Halyomorpha
halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in tree fruit. J. Econ. Entomol 102: 1133-1140. 5. Nielsen, A.L. and G.C. Hamilton. 2009. Life history of the invasive species Halyomorpha
halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in the Northeastern United States. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 102: 608-616.
6. Nielsen, A.L., G.C. Hamilton, and P. Shearer. 2011. Seasonal phenology and monitoring of the non-native Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in soybean. Env. Entomol. 40:231-238
7. Nielsen, A.L., J. Nakatani, K.O. Spence, and E.E. Lewis. 2011. Effect of soil salinity on entomopathogenic nematode survivorship and behavior. Nematology 13:859-867.
8. Nielsen, A.L. and E.E. Lewis. 2012. Designing the ideal habitat for entomopathogen use in nursery production. Pest Manag. Sci. 68:1053-1061. DOI: 10.1002/ps.3267.
9. Leskey, TC, GC Hamilton, AL Nielsen, et al. 2012. Pest status of the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys in the USA. Outlooks in Pest Management. 23: 218-226.
10. Nielsen, A.L., J. M. Pote, K. Beuhrer, M.J. Grieshop. 2012. Rhynchaneus pallicornis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), an emerging pest of organic apples J. Int. Pest. Manag. 3:D1-D4.
11. Nielsen, A.L., G. Hamilton, K. Holmstrom, J. Cambridge, and J. Ingerson-Mahar. 2013. State-wide monitoring of an invasive species: A case-study with Brown Marmorated Stink Bug J. Econ. Entomol. 106: 1495-1502.
12. Xu, J., D. Fonseca, G.C. Hamilton, K.A. Hoelmer, and A.L. Nielsen. 2013. Tracing the origin of US brown marmorated stink bugs, Halyomorpha halys. Biological Invasions July. DOI: 10.1007/s10530-013-0510-3
13. Tewari, S., Leskey, T.C., Nielsen, A.L., Piñero, J.C., and Rodriguez-Saona, C.R. Use of pheromones in insect pest management, with special attention to weevil pheromones. In:
3
Integrated Pest Management: Current Concepts and Ecological Perspectives. D.P. Abrol (Ed.). Elsevier Inc. In Press.
14. Lee, JC., PW Shearer, LD Barrantes, EH Beers, HJ Burrack, DT Dalton, AJ Dreves, LJ Gut, KA Hamby, DR Haviland, R Isaacs, AL Nielsen, T Richardson, CR Rodriguez-Saona, CA Stanley, DB Walsh, VM Walton, WL Yee, FG Zalom, and DJ Bruck. 2013. Improving trap design for monitoring Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Env. Entomol. (In press)
15. Lee, D-H., BD Short, AL Nielsen, TC Leskey. Accepted. Impact of organic insecticides on the survivorship and mobility of Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in the laboratory. Florida Entomologist (In press). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EN13148
16. Wallner AM, GC Hamilton, AL Nielsen, N Hahn, E Green, and CR Rodriguez-Saona. In review. Landscape factors facilitating the invasive dynamics and distribution of the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), after arrival in the United States (Submitted to PLOSone 10/13).
TEACHING
• Insect Ecology (graduate) alternate Spring semesters
