Arkansas Agriculture Department Scbgp-Fb Final

ARKANSAS AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

SCBGP-FB FINAL REPORT

Agreement Number 12-25-B-1214

Contact: Zachary Taylor,

Director of Marketing

Arkansas Agriculture Department

[email protected]

501-219-6324

December 29, 2014 (Revised April 1, 2015)

Project 1; Muscadine Grape Variety Development for Arkansas Growers: 2011 Activities (proposed, work done in 2012)

1. PROJECT SUMMARY • Provide a background for the initial purpose of the project, which includes the specific issue, problem, or need that was addressed by this project.

Our native grape, the muscadine grape Vitis rotundifolia, is found from Arkansas eastward and throughout the deep south. The first varieties of muscadine, including the famous ‘Scuppernong’ were wild vines which were propagated for commercial production. In the early 1900s (confirm this) formal muscadine breeding was undertaken by the USDA in conjunction with North Carolina State University and by the University of Georgia. Other programs have also been active at times including those at the University of Florida and Florida A & M University along with the private program operated by Isons Nursery in Georgia. The larger programs were most active from the 1940s to late 1980s. A number of improved varieties have developed from these efforts and these have served as the basis of the commercial production for fresh, juice, wine, and other uses. Two major areas of genetic advancement included the incorporation of perfect or self-fruitful flowers (allowing a single vine to pollinate itself thus not requiring a pollen source from a separate vine) in the USDA/NC State program, and large fruit size emphasized in the University of Georgia effort. Advances in the late 1970s and 1980s included fruit with thinner skins, crisper texture, reduced stem scars, and overall higher consumer acceptance. Only limited breeding has been done since the 1980s, however, and further improvements can be achieved to further expand muscadines as a fresh fruit choice.

Muscadine grapes are adapted to all but the extreme northwest corner of Arkansas, and are limited there by low winter temperatures. Although once commonly harvested from wild vines, improved varieties grown by farmers provide most of the fruit consumed currently. Muscadines offer a range of positive attributes. Foremost is that this is a native species, and has good to very high resistance to most diseases and insects that attack bunch grapes and can allow more sustainable production than their more common grape cousins which require 10-15 pesticide applications each growing season. Arkansans and southerners as a whole enjoy the very fruity flavor of muscadines, with a flavor profile much greater than most bunch grapes. The newer varieties (from the 1980s primarily) also have improved characters such as edible skins and a more desirable texture (crisper). Finally, muscadines are a good source of

2 antioxidants, another potential marketing attribute. Expansion in production can occur if growers have improved varieties with high quality fruit borne on adapted vines. This expanded production could be marketed at the ever-increasing number of farmers markets, with on-farm sales, and potentially in retail grocery store outlets. Currently, fresh muscadines are found in some grocery stores in Arkansas, but are from production primarily in Georgia.

• Establish the motivation for this project by presenting the importance and timeliness of the project.

The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture began its fruit breeding program in 1964. This effort, has been one of the most productive fruit breeding efforts in the United States in recent years. More than 50 varieties of fruits have been commercialized from the program, including blackberries, table grapes, peaches, nectarines, strawberries, and blueberries. These variety options have expanded fruit potential for Arkansas growers allowing enhanced profitability. The newest variety development effort was begun in 2005 focusing on fresh-market muscadines. Reasons to begin this endeavor included a potential for muscadine production in the State, Division personnel with training and experience to successfully carry out breeding activities, and a potential to make some substantial genetic improvements in muscadine quality and adaptation to Arkansas conditions. Only a rather low level of breeding has been done on muscadines since the 1980s, and traits for increased quality have not been fully exploited. Further, the most adapted varieties are developed where breeding and selection is done in the region where the crop is grown, and breeding and testing at Clarksville and Hope will allow evaluation for diverse areas of Arkansas. All key components are in place for a successful breeding effort. The overall motivation for this project is to provide new, adapted muscadine varieties for Arkansas growers.

• If the project built on a previously funded project with the SCBGP or SCBGP-FB describe how this project complimented and enhanced previously completed work.

The project was funded this second of two years of the SCBGP grant program; the program funding similar activities in 2010 for 2011 for the muscadine breeding project.

2. PROJECT APPROACH • Briefly summarize activities performed, targets, and/or performance goals achieved during the reporting period. Whenever possible, describe the work accomplished in both quantitative and qualitative terms. Include the significant results, accomplishments, conclusions and recommendations. Include favorable or unusual developments.

The muscadine breeding program activities for funding proposed in 2012 were completely carried out as proposed in the 2011 proposal. These include:

-For a second spring the project helped fund the start of the breeding cycle, the spring a hybridization plan. This plan was developed by the project leader (J.R. Clark) and was designed to combine complementary traits from a range of parents. A total of 21 crosses were performed yielding just over 6,000 seeds with 1,923 seedlings field planted in 2013. This was an expansion over the crossing numbers in 2011 and prior and provided for some of the most exciting genetic combinations thus far in the program. For the first time, most of the parents were selections made in the Arkansas program, a key achievement due to this allows the assembling of genes from adapted plants selected in the Arkansas environment. These seedlings will be evaluated in 2015 and 2016. A total of 1,209 seedlings were field-planted from 2011 crosses. The 2012-planted seedlings will be evaluated for the first time in 2014.

- New selections from 2011 were established at the Fruit Research Station Clarksville (FRS) or the SW Research and Extension Center, Hope in 2012, total of 21 in addition to the 45 selections planted at these locations prior from 2006-2009 evaluated seedlings. Since this time, additional selections made in subsequent years have been established at both sites.

-Seedlings from 2008 and 2009 crosses were evaluated resulting in 22 new selections in 2012. Further selection in 2012-2013 has resulted in 117 selections made in the program thus far.

-Evaluations were done on existing selections in place at FRS for a range of traits including fruit size, sweetness, dry scar percentage, flavor, crop potential, texture/skin,

4 flavor and overall quality. It was a good year of evaluation with a good crop and although very hot the fruit quality was generally quite good. No losses of crop occurred due to excess heat due to the adaptation of the plants plus the care the plants were given including irrigation.

- All field work involving planting, training, pruning, irrigation, weed control, irrigation and other practices were carried out as needed at both locations and as proposed.

-The 2012 work led to overall further progress in this long-term breeding program. Several elite selections have been moved to advanced testing from that year’s and subsequent year’s efforts.

A grower meeting and field day was held September 12, 2013 the following topics stated in the Agenda below were followed. Over 40 growers attended the field day and meeting.

• Present the significant contributions and role of project partners in the project.

The project leader (John R Clark) led this funded effort in his role as project leader and University Professor in the Division of Agriculture. He designed all crosses, did all field evaluations, made the selections in seedling populations, evaluated the data, and determined progress made. Others involved with this project were the support staffs at the UA Fruit Research Station, Clarksville, and the Southwest Research and Extension Center, Hope. The staff members carried out tasks such as making the controlled hybridizations, propagating vines from seeds or cuttings, planting, training, trellising and other activities in establishing the plants in the field along with some data collection on the selections in the program.

3. GOALS AND OUTCOMES ACHIEVED • Include the activities that were completed in order to achieve the performance goals and measurable outcomes for the project.

As stated earlier, the hybridization plan is the key foundation to breeding progress and requires adequate genetic variation and breeding skills to make progress, The 2012 plan was developed by the project leader (J.R. Clark) and was designed to combine complementary traits from a range of parents. It was the most exciting plan constructed as yet in the young program. A total of 21 crosses were performed yielding just over 6,000 seeds with 1,923 seedlings field planted in 2013. These seedlings will be evaluated in 2015 and 2016 . A total of 1,209 seedlings were field-planted from 2011 crosses.

Every year of breeding progress requires an annual additive but repetitive process of crossing, selecting, identification of the best selections to advance to further trial, use as subsequent parents, or discarding those seedlings or selections not worthy of keeping. The 2011 seedlings will be first evaluated in 2014.

The new selections from 2010 were established at the Fruit Research Station Clarksville (FRS) or the SW Research and Extension Center, Hope in 2011, total of 14 in addition to the 31 selections planted at these locations prior from 2008-2009 evaluated seedlings. Since this time, additional selections made in subsequent years have been established at both sites.

In 2012, seedlings from 2008 and 2009 crosses were evaluated resulting in 22 new selections in 2012. Further selection in 2012-2013 has resulted in 117 selections made

6 in the program thus far. This is considered good progress in this or any breeding program of this size and crop type.

Further, evaluations were done on existing selections in place at FRS for a range of traits including fruit size, sweetness, dry scar percentage, flavor, crop potential, texture/skin, flavor and overall quality. The annual evaluations are critical to move selections either toward further evaluation toward release or removal due to one or more trait weaknesses.

A key part of this project activity is the work to conduct the annual breeding cycle. All field work involving planting, training, pruning, irrigation, weed control, irrigation and other practices were carried out as needed at both locations and as proposed.

• If outcome measures were long term, summarize the progress that has been made towards achievement.

The 2012 work led to overall further progress in this long-term breeding program. Several elite selections were identified for further close evaluation. This is a LONG TERM endeavor, and good progress as proposed was carried out and completed. The annual work however is only one of up to 20 years of annual effort to go from the crossing to public release and naming of a variety. Very good progress has been made in the program for 2011-2012, the two years of SCBGP funding.

• Provide a comparison of actual accomplishments with the goals established for the reporting period.

All goals were accomplished as outlined in the proposal and reporting in the annual report.

• Clearly convey progress toward achieving outcomes by illustrating baseline data that has been gathered to date and showing the progress toward achieving set targets.

As described above all activities proposed were carried out. Documents at the end of this report reflect data collected, selections made, crosses completed for 2012. As this is a long –term project, each year’s efforts build on the prior year, leading to cultivar

7 improvement. Thus the 2012 efforts have yielded progress in subsequent years through 2013.

6. BENEFICIARIES

• Provide a description of the groups and other operations that benefited from the completion of this project’s accomplishments.

The intended beneficiaries were primarily two fold: growers and consumers. The initial beneficiary, the grower, will benefit from this project by having a high-quality, adapted variety to produce fruit; this is coming along nicely as described previously. Consumers will benefit due an enhanced eating experience, along with fresher fruit from local production. Due to the long-term nature of the breeding effort, the measureable outputs cannot be reported until a variety is publicly releases as discussed prior. Progress is being made however!

The major benefactors of this project are the producers once new varieties are released to the public. All the data and research collected in this project brings the release of new varieties closer and it is believed that over 80 Muscadine producers in the state will benefit.

Results have been shared through a field day, at the Association of Grape Growers conference, and through university newsletters. There seems to be a lot of interest, especially if a thin skin seedless variety is developed.

• Clearly state the quantitative data that concerns the beneficiaries affected by the project’s accomplishments and/or the potential economic impact of the project.

Data on production of fresh-market muscadines (the primary fruit type targeted by this project) is not well documented in Arkansas. This is due to no viable statistics being gathered on this crop by statistical entities. Thus, there is no quantitative data to reflect impact at this point. It is known by observation and grower inquiry that muscadines are produced over much of the state, and are often found in farmers markets, and this marketing could be expanded to retail grocery store markets if more substantial plantings could be made of adapted varieties.

7. LESSONS LEARNED

• Offer insights into the lessons learned by the project staff as a result of completing this project. This section is meant to illustrate the positive and negative results and conclusions for the project.

As reported in the 2011 final report, there were limited “lessons learned” due to the nature of this project as it was not a project on cause and effect or the result of some treatment or practice in a targeted crop or entity. Since the Division’s fruit breeding program has been operating since 1964, and mechanics of the program have been experienced year after year, no new items of major substance were learned in the 2012 activities. However, since this is a newer breeding effort, initiated in the mid 2000s, each year continues to yield practice and completion of the breeding cycle which was achieved in 2012. It was encouraging to see the strength of the muscadine vines in the intense heat of 2012, and how the stood up to this extreme environmental stress.

• Provide unexpected outcomes or results that were an effect of implementing this project.

There were no unexpected outcomes in the project activities for 2012.

• If goals or outcome measures were not achieved, identify and share the lessons learned to help others expedite problem-solving.

Outcomes were achieved as envisioned. Due to the long-term nature of the 2012- funded work, the commercial outcome is still several years from being realized. However, good progress is being made as determined any annual, additive progress in the breeding effort.

8. CONTACT PERSON

John R. Clark, University Professor, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture 479-575-2810 [email protected]

9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

2012 Muscadine Selections

AM-67 8/21 - Black; muscadine foliage; light crop; selected due to shape, oblong; very firm; fair flavor not muscadine like;

AM-68 8/21 - Bronze; medium size, Southern Home foliage; ave to slightly better skin & texture; nice flavor; excellent vine and crop

AM-69 8/21 - Bronze; large crop & vine; medium size; nice flavor; excellent health; processing berry

AM-70 8/21 - Black; very large vine marked PF; very large; crisp; excellent flavor; shatters easily; fair crop

AM-71 8/21 - Bronze; very elongated for muscadine; shape P; marked PF; v nice texture; OK vine & crop

AM-72 8/21 - Black; excellent crop; med-large; Southern Home leaf shape; very nice texture; excellent flavor

AM-73 8/23 - Bronze; very large; fabulous crop for 09 seedling; Wow! Soft; OK texture & skin though not crisp; nice flavor; very very precocious!

AM-74 8/23 - Bronze; very large; excellent quality; very light crop; fair vine

AM-75 8/23; Bronze; very large; nice quality; smallyoung vine so precocious

AM-76 8/23 - Bronze; crisp & firmest flesh seen in muscadine; med-small; weak vine; muscadine foliage

AM-77 8/27 - Black; very very uniform ripe; med; huge crop early ripe; exc scar; nice flavor; Mg chl; for processing

AM-78 8/27 Bronze; large; nice flavor; nice texture; attractive; ok crop

AM-79 8/27 Black; very very large; excellent scar; nice flavor; improved skin; nice grape!; ok vine & crop

AM-80 8/27; bronze; med-lg; nice texture; standard muscadine foliage; huge crop; later ripe date; nice flavor; v firm

AM-81 8/27; bronze; marked PF; lg; huge crop; muscadine foliage; semi-crisp; later; exc vine; interesting shape – oval

AM-82 8/29; bronze; med-lg; lt crop; merit is crisp texture; v v firm; v interesting fruit

AM-83 8/29; black; med-lg; lt crop; standard muscadine foliage; unusual shape more teardrop- like; interesting flavor rather neutral for muscadine; thick skin; fair texture

AM-84 8/28; bronze; med; nice crop; nice texture; v sweet; good scar; standard muscadine foliage

AM-85 8/29; black; maple-leaf SH foliage; nice crop; med-lg; nice texture; ave skin; nice vine

AM-86 9/11; bronze; med; huge crop; good skin; int reddish color; int flavor; SH foliage

AM-87 9/11; black; v even ripe; for processing use; exc crop; SH foliage; nice flavor; med to med small; marked PF

AM-88 9/11; black; med; semi-oval; exc crop; mid-late; muscadine foliage; improved skin

Muscadine Selection Data Sheet 2012

Flower First Full Harvest Crop Vine Selection Type Bloom Bloom Date Load Flavor Attract Skin Texture 25 Wt Avg Wt Dry Scar % SS Type Comments

AM-1 PF 14-May 29-May 10-Aug 5 4 2 2 2 110 4.4 92 24.2 Plot Uneven Ripe AM-2 PF 10-May 25-May 10-Aug 3 5 3 2 3 200 8.0 68 18.6 Plot AM-3 PF 14-May 25-May 22-Aug 4 4 3 3 3 166 6.6 100 27.4 Orig V D AM-4 PF * 31-May 22-Aug 2 3 2 2 3 120 4.8 56 18.0 Orig VD Early Ripe AM-5 PF 12-May 29-May 22-Aug 4 4 4 3 3 198 7.9 64 22.4 Orig Early Ripe AM-6 PF * 25-May 22-Aug 3 4 3 3 3 206 8.2 68 21.6 Orig Early Ripe AM-7 PF 12-May 29-May 24-Aug 3 4 4 2 4 256 10.2 36 21.4 Orig AM-8 PF * 29-May 24-Aug 3 3 3 2 2 196 7.8 100 23.6 Orig Early Ripe AM-9 PF 14-May 29-May 14-Aug 4 5 4 2 3 310 12.4 100 20.0 Orig Uneven Ripe AM-10 PF * 29-May 22-Aug 2 3 2 2 3 172 6.9 76 18.0 Orig Early Ripe VD AM-11 PF 14-May 25-May 22-Aug 3 5 4 3 4 274 11.0 48 18.4 Orig VD AM-12 PF * 31-May 24-Aug 4 3 1 2 2 76 3.0 36 26.8 Plot AM-13 PF 10-May 21-May 14-Aug 3 4 3 2 3 198 7.9 32 19.8 Orig AM-14 PIST * 25-May 8-Aug 2 4 4 3 3 300 12.0 100 20.2 Orig AM-15 PF 18-May 21-May 8-Aug 2 3 3 2 2 214 8.6 60 19.8 Orig AM-16 PF 14-May 29-May 22-Aug 3 3 3 2 3 132 5.3 16 24.2 Orig VD Early Ripe AM-17 PIST * 29-May 10-Aug 1 3 3 3 2 298 11.9 76 19.4 Plot VD AM-18 PF 10-May 31-May 22-Aug 4 4 4 4 4 246 9.8 44 18.6 Orig VD AM-19 PIST * 29-May 8-Aug 1 3 3 2 4 258 10.3 100 22.2 Orig VD AM-20 PF 14-May 31-May 24-Aug 4 4 3 3 3 148 5.9 44 18.4 Plot AM-21 PF * 31-May 10-Aug 1 4 3 2 2 236 9.4 96 24.6 Plot VD AM-22 PIST 10-May 25-May 10-Aug 1 4 4 2 2 288 11.5 80 18.2 Plot AM-23 PIST * 29-May 22-Aug 2 4 3 2 3 186 7.4 36 18.8 Orig Early Ripe VD AM-24 PF * 29-May 22-Aug 1 4 2 2 3 162 6.5 16 20.8 Orig VD AM-25 PIST * 29-May 24-Aug 2 5 4 3 3 284 11.4 92 20.4 Plot VD AM-26 PF 10-May 29-May 10-Aug 4 4 4 3 3 220 8.8 92 21.0 Plot AM-27 PF * 31-May 10-Aug 3 4 3 3 2 164 6.6 96 20.0 Plot AM-28 PIST 14-May 29-May 10-Aug 2 4 4 3 3 366 14.6 88 20.2 Plot AM-29 PIST * 29-May 8-Aug 2 4 3 2 3 320 12.8 96 21.6 Orig Varmit Damage (VD) No Water AM-30 PF * 25-May 20-Aug 5 4 4 2 3 214 8.6 60 19.2 Plot Early Ripe AM-31 PF * 31-May 10-Aug 5 4 3 2 2 234 9.4 96 22.2 Plot AM-32 PIST * 25-May 8-Aug * * * * * * * * * Plot Young - No Crop - Varmit Damage AM-33 PF 18-May 4-Jun 10-Sep 3 3 2 3 3 60 2.4 76 19.2 Orig AM-34 PIST 14-May 25-May 8-Aug 3 4 3 2 2 236 9.4 80 23.0 Orig AM-35 PIST 18-May 25-May 22-Aug 1 3 2 2 3 178 7.1 60 21.0 Orig VD - Crop Gone AM-36 PF 18-May 31-May 22-Aug 3 3 3 2 3 138 5.5 68 22.6 Orig Early Ripe VD AM-37 PIST * 29-May 8-Aug 2 3 3 3 3 228 9.1 88 24.6 Orig AM-38 PF 14-May 25-May 22-Aug 1 4 2 3 4 154 6.2 92 20.6 Orig Early Ripe VD AM-39 PF 10-May 29-May 10-Aug 2 5 3 2 3 234 9.4 96 22.2 Orig Pick Early Cause VD AM-40 PIST * * * No Fruit * * * * * * * * * No Water, Vine Very Little Growth AM-41 PF 10-May 25-May 10-Sep 3 3 3 2 3 140 5.6 44 18.0 Orig No Water AM-42 PIST * 31-May 14-Aug 1 4 3 4 4 232 9.3 60 22.8 Orig No Water, Very Little Crop AM-43 PF 18-May 4-Jun 22-Aug 1 3 3 3 3 206 8.2 76.0 19.0 Orig Early Ripe AM-44 PF 14-May 31-May 22-Aug 1 4 4 2 4 200 8.0 76.0 20.0 Orig V D AM-45 PF 14-May 31-May 10-Sep 4 4 3 2 4 198 7.9 88 24.8 Orig AM-46 PF * 31-May 10-Sep 3 4 3 2 3 190 7.6 56 20.2 Orig AM-47 PIST * 25-May 22-Aug 1 3 3 2 3 178 7.1 52 19.2 Orig Early Ripe VD AM-48 PIST * 29-May 14-Aug 1 4 4 3 3 260 10.4 92 20.4 Orig V D AM-49 PIST 18-May 31-May 8-Aug 3 3 4 3 3 170 6.8 52 21.0 Orig AM-50 PIST * 29-May 24-Aug 1 5 4 3 4 288 11.5 64 22.4 Orig V D AM-51 PIST * 29-May 24-Aug 1 5 3 2 4 258 10.3 40 23.4 Orig V D AM-52 PF 25-May 8-Jun 10-Sep 1 4 4 2 4 240 9.6 76 19.4 Orig AM-53 PF 18-May 8-Jun 10-Sep 2 4 2 3 3 102 4.1 76 22.6 Orig AM-54 PF 29-May 11-Jun 10-Sep 4 5 3 4 4 130 5.2 76 23.8 Orig AM-55 PIST 29-May 8-Jun 10-Sep 3 4 4 4 3 172 6.9 60 17.4 Orig Early Ripe VD AM-56 PF 25-May 14-Jun 17-Sep 3 4 3 3 3 94 3.8 32 20.0 Orig Nice Clusters AM-57 PIST * 29-May * * * * * * * * * * * No Water, No Sample AM-58 PIST * 29-May 8-Aug 1 3 2 2 3 * * * 22.2 Orig Very Little Crop, VD, No Water AM-59 PF * 4-Jun 22-Aug 1 3 2 2 3 182 7.3 80 17.2 Orig Early Ripe AM-60 PF * 29-May 22-Aug 2 3 3 4 4 258 10.3 76 17.6 Orig AM-61 PF 14-May 31-May 22-Aug 1 4 3 2 4 186 7.4 48 20.2 Orig Early Ripe AM-62 PF 25-May 14-Jun 17-Sep 2 4 3 2 2 216 8.6 28 16.8 Orig Early Ripe AM-63 PIST 25-May 8-Jun 14-Aug 2 4 4 2 3 258 10.3 40 19.0 Orig AM-64 PF 25-May 11-Jun 14-Aug 2 3 2 2 2 130 5.2 96 18.6 Orig Early Ripe AM-65 PIST 25-May 8-Jun 14-Aug 1 4 3 2 3 216 8.6 60 21.2 Orig V D AM-66 PF * 31-May 24-Aug 3 4 2 3 3 138 5.5 60 21.6 Orig Early Ripe

Black Beauty PIST * 31-May 24-Aug 3 4 4 3 3 270 10.8 44 19.8 Plot Black Fry PIST * 31-May 24-Aug 3 4 3 2 3 200 8.0 52 18.4 Plot Early VD Carlos PF * 31-May 24-Aug 4 3 2 2 2 100 4.0 100 19.4 Plot Cowart PIST * 29-May 24-Aug 3 4 2 2 2 126 5.0 0 24.2 Plot VD Darlene PIST * 31-May 24-Aug 2 4 3 3 3 360 14.4 80 21.4 Plot VD Delicious PF * 25-May 10-Aug 2 3 3 2 2 202 8.1 92 20.2 Plot VD Doreen PF * 4-Jun 10-Sep 5 3 3 2 2 110 4.4 52 23.6 Plot Early Ripe VD Eudora PIST * 29-May * * * * * * * * * * Plot No Crop Varmits Fry Pist * 25-May 24-Aug 3 3 3 2 3 192 7.7 20 24.2 Plot GA 05-1-38 PF * 31-May 24-Aug 4 4 3 2 3 192 7.7 68 17.4 Plot Early Ripe VD GA 05-1-45 PF * 29-May 10-Aug 1 4 3 2 3 146 5.8 76 23.6 Plot VD GA 33-2-1 PIST * 31-May 24-Aug 1 4 3 3 3 252 10.1 92 25.0 Plot VD Granny Val PF * 29-May 10-Sep 4 4 4 212 2 198 7.9 32 18.6 Plot Early Ripe Ison PF * 29-May 24-Aug 3 3 2 2 3 130 5.2 68 21.8 Plot VD NC 67A015-17 PF * 29-May 24-Aug 3 3 1 2 2 80 3.2 84 18.8 Plot VD NC 67A015-26 PF * 4-Jun 24-Aug 3 4 1 2 2 102 4.1 72 20.2 Plot VD Nesbitt PF * 4-Jun 24-Aug 4 4 3 2 2 210 8.4 36 21.2 Plot Early Ripe Noble PF * 29-May 24-Aug 3 3 2 2 2 82 3.3 32 19.6 Plot Very Early Ripe Southern Home PF 18-May 11-Jun 24-Aug 3 3 1 2 2 110 4.4 48 19.2 Plot Early Ripe VD Southern Jewell PF * 29-May 24-Aug 4 4 3 2 2 164 6.6 64 18.2 Plot Early Ripe Sterling PF * 31-May 24-Aug 3 3 2 2 2 154 6.2 72 18.4 Plot Extreme VD SugerGate PIST * 29-May 24-Aug 2 5 4 2 3 206 8.2 24 22.4 Plot VD Summit PIST * 29-May 24-Aug 1 4 2 3 3 206 8.2 92 25.0 Plot Crop Gone Supreme PIST * 31-May 24-Aug 3 5 4 3 4 348 13.9 40 21.0 Plot Early Ripe Tara PF * 29-May 10-Aug 4 4 3 2 2 196 7.8 16 23.8 Plot Triumph PF * 29-May 24-Aug 3 3 2 2 3 134 5.4 100 19.0 Plot VD

* Some 1st Bloom dates were missed while working on crosses * VD in Comment means Varmit Damage Several Seln's picked early ripe due to Varmit Damage Project 2: Expanding Specialty Crop Production with High Tunnels

Project Summary

The University of Arkansas proposed to offer a series of two high tunnel workshops to specialty crop producers at three locations, Hope, Clarksville and Fayetteville. The first workshop was to instruct and demonstrate high tunnel structures and styles, high tunnel construction, management equipment, and considerations for safety and good agricultural practices. The second workshop was to teach high tunnel production management skills to enhance and expand specialty crop production, specifically small fruits, vegetables and other crops in Arkansas

Project Approach

High tunnels were constructed during the early spring of 2013. A high tunnel workshop was held June 12, 2013 in Fayetteville Arkansas. Topics covered included Production management with a movable high tunnel, irrigation under high tunnels, fruit production/ insect management under high tunnels, along with NRCS programs and support for high tunnels.

At the workshop, tour’s were given of the three different brands of high tunnels that were purchased. Presentations were given by extension specialists, Mike Bollinger of Four Seasons Tools, Michael Pippen of Irrigation Mart and by John Lee of NRCS.

 Attendance at the workshops has been very high. Over 75 attended the Fayetteville workshop. U of A. The other locations also had a large turnout.

This research, by default ended up collaborating with other hoop house research.

Goals and Outcomes Achieved

The goal was to increase producer knowledge and the likelihood that they would build and use a high tunnel. Surveys showed that most producers were likely to use the knowledge and obtain a hoop house.

 Turnout for the workshops were over 60 plus people.  The information has been downloaded at least 100 times.  Tunnels where constructed at the Hope and Clarkesville research stations.  Test scores after the workshop were above 90%.  Producer and consumer awareness for high tunnels is at an all-time high. NRCS reports that since the beging of this project the demand for the NRCS high tunnel program in Arkansas is at an all time high.

Beneficiaries

The beneficiaries are the specialty crop producers of Arkansas that choose to embrace this technology.

Lessons Learned

The biggest lesson learned was budgeting issues. By the time USDA AMS approved the project, costs had already increased.

Contact Person Dr. Elena Garcia, University of Arkansas 316 PTSC, Fayetteville AR 72701, 479-575-2790(P), 479-5758619(F), [email protected]

Project 3: Classical biological control of the Japanese beetle in Arkansas

PROJECT SUMMARY Background

The Japanese beetle is a new Arkansas pest that defoliates (Fig. 1), damages fruits and flowers, and prunes turf roots which impact vineyards, orchards, ornamental nurseries, homeowners, businesses, and all turf‐related companies in the state. The purpose of this project is to provide long‐term economical, biological control of Japanese beetle through the introduction of Ovavesicula popilliae Andreadis into Arkansas, a microsporidian pathogen of Japanese beetle larvae. O. popilliae was found at 69% of Connecticut sites, and infected 25% of all Japanese beetle larvae statewide (Hanula and Andreadis 1988). Smitley (2008) reported that after release of Ovavesicula in Michigan in 1999, it spread to infect 5% of the local Japanese beetle population within 3 years of release and 10‐50% of the larvae by 7 years. This project is timely because Japanese beetle is currently well established in NW Arkansas and is spreading quickly throughout the state. The time to establish effective natural enemies of the Japanese beetle, such as Ovavesicula, is now because it takes time for natural enemies to become established, spread, and provide biological control.

We are beginning to investigate alternative strategies against this pest. We have documented the yearly increases in the Japanese beetle population in Elkins, Fayetteville, and Hindsville, AR and Purdy, MO since 2005. In 2008, we had 17 baited traps placed in trap line around the perimeter of a grape vineyard. These traps captured 1,039,732 Japanese beetles (61,161 beetles per trap) but the grower still had to apply four weekly insecticide sprays to prevent foliar and grape berry yield quality loss. In 2009, we have captured over 516,283 Japanese beetles in 15 traps (34,418 per baited trap) at the University of Arkansas Farm‐Fayetteville and still see foliar damage in adjacent unsprayed apple trees. In 2010, we captured over 407,662 Japanese beetles in 15 traps (27,177 per baited trap).

Sampling of adult and larval beetles in 2010 showed an extremely low prevalence of natural enemies in northwest Arkansas which offer control for the beetle population. In 2010, no O.

popilliae or Paenibacillus popilliae, the milky spore bacterium, were found in the larval population, and only 3 percent of larvae were found to be infected with nematodes. In the adult population, O. popilliae was found in only 0.2 percent of beetles and nematodes in 0.1 percent. In August of 2010, O. popilliae was successfully imported from Michigan as live trapped Japanese beetles that were frozen and mailed with a PPQ permit. These frozen adults were released at four sites in northwest Arkansas. In 2011, a survey of larval pathogens showed an increase in O. popilliae prevalence to 2.9 percent, with infections increased at one of the release sites. These research findings indicate the need to introduce natural enemies to suppress the local population of Japanese beetles in Arkansas, specifically to release additional O. popilliae in order to increase the area where the pathogen becomes established. The goal is to enhance the potential for biological control of the Japanese beetle in Arkansas to lessen the need to apply insecticides on commercial fruit crops, turf and ornamental plants.

Other Granting Programs

There was no previously funded project on Japanese beetle with the SCBGP or SCBGP‐FB.

This project has a potential impact on all apple, bramble, blueberry, grape, and peach growers in Arkansas, and on all homeowners with Japanese beetle susceptible ornamental plants, golf courses, and anyone with turf. Essentially, this means it could impact most of the people in the state. This impact will be positive through permanent, economical, biological control of a new pest, the Japanese beetle.

The intended beneficiaries are vineyard owners, fruit orchard owners, golf courses, nurseries producing Japanese beetle‐susceptible ornamental plants, and all people and businesses in Arkansas with areas of fruit, ornamental plantings, turf, or lawns. In short, this project could have a tremendous impact on Arkansans by reducing costs of controlling Japanese beetles. These costs include: direct costs of insecticides (four weekly sprays from late June through July), replacement of ornamental plants damaged or killed by beetles, yield losses of fruit, and contamination of the environment by pesticides. Organic fruit growers are experiencing plant defoliation due to lack of effective and/or inexpensive control strategies approved for organic production.

Expected Measurable Outcomes

We will quantify how successful the releases of O. popilliae microsporidia are in introduced plots versus control plots (no release) and the impact the microsporidian has on local Japanese beetle populations in Arkansas. The year after each release of Ovavesicula‐infected Japanese beetle adults and larvae in Arkansas from Michigan in 2010, 2011 and 2012, we will introduce these infected beetles into the four release plots in Arkansas which were selected in 2010. In year one after

introducing Ovavesicula ‐infected beetles to Arkansas, we plan to sample Japanese beetle larvae at all released and control plots to confirm the continued presence of Ovavesicula microsporidian in Japanese beetle larvae. For years two and three, we expect to see at least 5‐10 percent increases, yearly, in the percentage of Ovavesicula‐infected larvae in the released plots compared to the control plots and more than 5‐10 percent decrease in the densities of Japanese beetle larvae per ft2 in turf and numbers of adults captured in traps. Previous reports by Smitley (2001) noted that two years after Ovavesicula was released to two plots in Michigan that one released plot had 100 percent Ovavesicula‐infected larvae with a decrease in larva density and Ovavesicula‐infected larvae were found in the turf in the area surrounding released plots indicating natural spread of the Ovavesicula. Later, Smitley (2008) noted that survival of all Japanese beetle larvae was reduced by 50 percent where Ovavesicula was active and egg production of infected Japanese beetle females was reduced by 50 percent. Hanula (1990) noted that over a 3‐yr period at four sites in Connecticut the incidence of Ovavesicula‐infected Japanese beetle larvae increased from 40 to 80 percent which resulted in the density of Japanese beetle larvae decreasing from 8.0 per ft2 to 1.0 to 3.0 per ft2 of turf. We hope to use our proposed release plots in Arkansas as “Ovavesicula nurseries” where we can have other people come and collect Ovavesicula‐infected larvae and release them to other Japanese beetle infested locations of the state. After several years of releases, we expect to see significantly fewer Japanese beetle larvae per ft2 and fewer adults emerging at those release sites and less damage or need for insecticide sprays of fruit crops, ornamental plants and turf in Arkansas.

Work Plan. The microsporidian, Ovavesicula popilliae infects larvae of Japanese beetles. In Connecticut it can infect up to 50% of the larvae. Entomologists in Michigan collected infected larvae from Massachusetts and were able to introduce and establish this natural enemy into Michigan (Smitley 2008). We already have both a USDA‐Plant Protection permit and Quarantine PPQ 526 permit to move live biological control agents from Michigan to each of four NW Arkansas release plots. In late May 2012, we will travel to Michigan and work with entomologist, Dr. David Smitley (see letter of support), to either collect Ovavesicula‐infected Japanese beetle adults or sift soil under turf in an insecticide‐free, irrigated rough of a golf course in order to collect 3rd instar Japanese beetle larvae infected with Ovavesicula. In August 2012, as in 2010, Dr. David Smitley’s hourly crew will again drive from Lansing, MI to Battle Creek, MI, set out lure baited Japanese beetle traps, collect live Japanese beetle adults, and FedEx these Ovavesicula‐infected adults to Arkansas. Dr. Smitley (personal email 27 August 2009) reported 10% of Japanese beetle adults and 50% of larvae infected with Ovavesicula. Infected Japanese beetle adults and larvae will be frozen and placed in Ziploc bags (small air holes) inside a screen cage in a cooler. Frozen Japanese beetle adults and larvae will be transported (car or FedEx air freight) to Arkansas to release plots where frozen, Ovavesicula‐infected Japanese beetle larvae and adults will be put into soil using a screw‐driver to make a small hole. Release plots used in 2010 will have O. popilliae re‐released in 2011 (use other funding) and 2012 (Arkansas Agriculture Department funding) for the purpose of permanent establishment of the pathogen in Arkansas.

Field Sites in Arkansas. We identified 10 fruit orchards, vineyards, and horticultural nurseries in NW Arkansas that have plant damaging Japanese beetle populations. These 10 sites were randomly assigned to be either one of four Ovavesicula release sites (introduced plot) or one of six sites with no release (control plots). Each introduced plot was a 50 by 75 ft. rectangular area delimited by wire flags and GPS coordinates recorded for each corner. An equal number of infected beetles from Michigan were released uniformly across the turf area of each release plot. A golf course cup‐cutter (4 inch diameter) will be used to remove 4 inch deep soil cores (at least 5.0 ft. apart) and place an infected frozen larva or adult in each hole and gently replace the soil plug. These releases will be a repeated in 2011 and 2012 (if funded) with the goal of a widespread establishment of O. popilliae.

Sampling of Larvae for Prevalence of Ovavesicula. Preliminary data for the prevalence of O. popilliae in northwest Arkansas was established in 2010 and the spring of 2011. In May the year after each we release O. popilliae ‐infected Japanese beetle in 2011 and 2012, we will inspect live, local Japanese beetle larvae for presence of O. popilliae infections at each release site (indicates establishment). In 2010, no O. popilliae or was found in the larval population. In 2011, a survey of larval pathogens showed an increase in O. popilliae prevalence to 2.9 percent, with the number of infections increased at one of the O. popilliae release sites. At each site, 50 larvae per plot will be collected, dissected and examined with a phase contrast microscope at 400X (available in Dr. Steinkraus’ laboratory). Contents of interior gut wall of midgut and hindgut as well as the Malpighian tubules are of primary interest as these are the main sites of O. popilliae infection (Andreadis and Hanula 1987). Each year for three years after the release, 50 Japanese beetle larvae per released and control plot will be collected and assessed for presence of Ovavesicula infection to note changes in infection over time. We will determine if there are differences in larval density at the released plots, control plots and surrounding grass areas at year 0 (pre‐introduction Ovavesicula) and at years 1, 2 and 3 after releases of Ovavesicula‐infected larvae. In May each year, a golf course cup‐cutter will be used to collect soil cores to record the number of Japanese beetle larvae per core and estimate the number per ft2. We will take six randomly selected cores in both the released or control plot areas and in areas at least 300 ft. outside these plots. These larvae will not be dissected for pathogens and parasites. This sampling will determine if the Ovavesicula is reducing the Japanese beetle larval densities in released versus control plots over the three year period and if it is spreading naturally to infect larvae in turf areas adjacent to released plots.

Sampling for Adults for presence of natural enemies: At each plot sampled from 1 June to 1 September, we will make weekly records of Japanese beetle counts from two yellow funnel Expando Japanese beetle traps baited with a dual lure: floral odor and Japanese beetle sex pheromone (trap capture volume of 150 ml of Japanese beetles = 300 Japanese beetles). These counts will be used to compare local Japanese beetle population densities across treatment plots (released vs. control) and across next three years after making releases of Ovavesicula‐infected larvae. Also from 1 to 30 July (major flight period of Japanese beetle), we will make four weekly collections of 50 live Japanese

beetle adults/week/plot using a baited Japanese beetle trap or a sweep net. Beetles will be returned to the laboratory and inspected for presence for Ovavesicula as previously described for Japanese beetle larvae. Preliminary data from the summer of 2010, O. popilliae was found in only 0.2 percent of adult beetles. The increase of O. popilliae within the adult population will continue to be monitored after each yearly release of the microsporidian.

How will the results of this study be disseminated? As we make progress, we will contact Arkansas newspapers and work with them to publicize our research findings. We will incorporate project findings on pest management and success of introducing microsporidian for biological control of Japanese beetles into a new version of the Arkansas Extension Fact Sheet titled, Questions about Japanese beetle (2003) and the Arkansas Master Gardener workbook section on Japanese beetles for use at Master Gardener meetings. We will submit articles to refereed scientific journals whenever our results warrant publication. Drs. Johnson, Steinkraus, Richardson (turf management), and Mr. Petty will give talks or posters and compose articles for proceedings that will alert the public as to our project progress. These talks will be presented at the following annual meetings: Arkansas/Oklahoma Horticulture Industry Show; Arkansas Turfgrass Association Conference and Trade Show; Arkansas Entomological Society; Arkansas Crop Protection Association, Entomological Society of America; and the Society for Invertebrate Pathology. Once the microsporidian and possibly other natural enemies, like milky spore bacteria, are established in Arkansas, the public will be invited to collect infected Japanese beetles and release them to Japanese beetle‐infested areas of Arkansas devoid of natural enemies.

Timetable (all work will be done by graduate student Bryan Petty, our hourly, Program Associate Barbara Lewis, and Drs. Don Steinkraus and Donn Johnson)

May 2012:

 Collect Japanese beetle adults and larvae in release and non‐release sites and record the number and percentage infected with microsporidian (Ovavesicula).  Quantify Japanese beetle larva densities at each site.  Drive to Michigan, collect Ovavesicula‐infected Japanese beetle adults and larvae and return these for release in Arkansas. June 2012:

 Continue inspections and recording the number and percentage of Japanese beetle infected with microsporidian (Ovavesicula). July 2012 and late September 2012:

 Return to Arkansas to release adults and larvae in five release sites. July 2012:

 Weekly, collect live Japanese beetle adults in four local sites and inspect and record the number and percentage infected Ovavesicula, and quantify Japanese beetle adult densities at each site. August 2012:

 Inspect and record number and percentage of infected Japanese beetle adults.  Dr. David Smitley’s crew drives from Lansing, MI to Battle Creek, MI, sets out baited Japanese beetle traps, collects live Japanese beetle adults, and FedEx these to Arkansas. September 2012:

 Collect larvae from all sites and record the number and percentage infected with microsporidian (Ovavesicula) May and July 2012, 2013:

 Collect Japanese beetle larvae in May from all sites, collect adults in July from four sites and record the number and percentage infected with the microsporidian (larvae only).  Quantify larval and adult densities at each site and compare to previous years to see effect of natural enemies on local populations of Japanese beetles.

Fig. 1. Japanese beetle damage on grape (left), blueberry (middle) and apple (right) in northwest Arkansas in 2008

GOALS AND OUTCOMES ACHIEVED The overall goal of this project was to collect, transport, release and monitor establishment of a microsporidian pathogen of Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica. We proposed a continuation of our biological control program begun in 2010 where the objectives were:

1. To travel to Michigan and/or have collaborators in Michigan collect Japanese beetle larvae infected with the microsporidian fungal pathogen Ovavesicula popilliae Andreadis and release this biological control agent into larval populations in NW Arkansas vineyards, orchards, and nurseries in order to provide long‐term biological control of this serious new pest. 2. To monitor local Japanese beetle populations to determine if the released microsporidian is reducing Japanese beetle populations in Arkansas. List of completed activities: All work was completed by graduate student Bryan Petty; who was assisted by Dr. Donn Johnson, Dr. Don Steinkraus, Program Associate Barbara Lewis and an hourly; and in collaboration with Dr. David Smitley at Michigan State University.

May 2010:

 Collaborators, Dr. David Smitley’s crew, drove from Lansing, MI to Battle Creek, MI, collected and froze Japanese beetle larvae infected with Ovavesicula, mailed larvae by FedEx to Arkansas where frozen larvae were released in soil under turf in four sites.  Beetles infected with O. popilliae were released at four locations in Northwest Arkansas. A second introduction of O. popilliae was made in 2012. August 2010:

 Surprisingly, O. popilliae infected a very small portion of Japanese beetle adults (0.2%) and no larvae in Arkansas prior to the release of this pathogen for biological control purposes in August 2010. This suggests that O. popilliae in Arkansas was providing little, if any control of Japanese beetles (Petty et al. 2012a). (Tables 1, 2). In 2012 and 2013:

June through July 2012:

 Weekly, Jumbo Jug (Trécé Inc., Adair, OK) yellow funnel mouth traps (1.89 L) with a Japanese beetle floral and sex lure (rebaited monthly) were monitored at each site. Live Japanese beetle adults were removed from traps, dissected and recorded the number and percentage of Japanese beetles infected with microsporidian (Ovavesicula) and other pathogens or parasitized. August 2012:

 Continued dissections of previously trapped Japanese beetle adults and recorded number and percentage of infected or parasitized Japanese beetle adults.  Dr. David Smitley crew drove from Lansing, MI to Battle Creek, MI, set out baited Japanese beetle traps, collected live Japanese beetle adults, froze adults and mailed frozen adults by FedEx to Arkansas where frozen adults were released in soil under turf in four sites. September 2012:

 Japanese beetle larval densities were quantified at each site.  Collected Japanese beetle larvae from all sites, dissected and recorded the number and percentage infected with microsporidian (Ovavesicula) and other pathogens or parasitized.  Only in 2012, were Japanese beetle larval densities abundant enough for collection from release and non‐release sites, dissected and recorded the number and percentage infected with microsporidian (Ovavesicula) and other pathogens or parasites. June and July 2013 and 2014:

From June through August in 2013 and 2014, very low numbers of Japanese beetle adults were captured weekly from baited Japanese beetle traps at the University Farm site.

Results:

In 2010, a total of 217 third instars were collected and dissected. The most common larval pathogen found was Stictospora villani, a Eugregarine protozoan pathogen of the gut (up to 81.3%). This protist was found at five of the ten larval sampling sites. Larvae collected in the spring and fall exhibited 40.5% and 27.7% infection, respectively, for an average of 37.8%. Only 1.8% of the third instars contained nematodes. Three of the nematode specimens belonged to the Steinernematidae and one specimen belonged to the Heterorhabditidae. No O. popilliae, Paenibacillus spp. (milky spore bacteria), Adelina sp. (protozoa) or parasitic tiphiid wasp, Tiphia vernalis, were found in any of the larvae sampled (Table 1).

In 2011 and 2012, 76 and 12 third instar Japanese beetles, respectively, were collected and dissected (Table 2). In 2011, again the most common larval pathogen found was the protozoan, S. villani (up to 77.8%) (Table 1). This pathogen was found at six of the ten larval sampling sites averaging 35.5% infection. The protist, Adelina sp., was found in average of 1.3% of the larvae. To our knowledge, this is the first report of an Adelina sp. in P. japonica. The infection of Japanese beetle larvae by O. popilliae increased from 0% in 2010 to 13.3% in 2011 but this was only at the Westfork horticultural nursery which was one of four where O. popilliae was released in August 2010. No nematodes, Paenibacillus spp. or T. vernalis were found in any of these larvae. In 2012, there were no O. popilliae detected in the 12 larvae dissected. This small number of larvae collected was attributed to hot and dry conditions the previous summer that caused high larval mortality (Table 2).

In 2010, 2011 and 2012, a total of 978, 649 and 515 adult Japanese beetles, respectively, were collected and dissected. Only two adults, 0.2%, were infected with O. popilliae in 2010 and none in 2011 or 2012. A single nematode belonging to the family Mermithidae was found in one adult. The protist, Adelina sp., was found infecting the midgut of 0.4% of adult beetles. No S. villani, Paenibacillus spp., or the parasitic Tachinid fly, Istocheta aldrichi, were found in any adult beetles. In 2011 and 2012, no S. villani, I. aldrichi, O. popilliae, Paenibacillus spp., Adelina sp., nematodes or parasitoids were found in any adult beetles (Table 3).

This pathogen, O. popilliae, was found to have a narrow physiological host range outside of the Japanese beetle. It did infect another pestilent scarab larvae, the green June beetle, Cotinis nitida. Primarily, O. popilliae infected Japanese beetle larvae and was incapable of infecting adult beetles. However, infected larvae which survived to adulthood remained infected, with the adults capable of producing on average 25 million spores (Table 4).

Temperature data analysis. Japanese beetle larval densities differed significantly by year (P = 0.0381). Mean larval density was higher in 2010 and 2011 than in 2012 (Table 5) and trap counts of adults dropped more than 3‐fold from 2010 to 2012 at all sites. There was greater than a 19‐fold drop in trap catches in non‐irrigated sites like Razorback Gulf course, Fayetteville Apple Orchard Wilson, Lewis and Gulley Parks compared to only a 3‐fold drop at the irrigated golf courses and the Westfork Nursery (Table 6). Many of these collection sites were flooded during the spring of 2011, with a total of 44.2 cm of precipitation above average falling in April and May 2011. July precipitation fluctuated from 6.4 cm below average in 2011 to 10.5 cm above average in 2005. In

addition, July and August temperatures fluctuated from 2.6°C below average in 2004 to 3.1°C above average in 2011 (NOAA 2012). This flooding followed by an unseasonably hot and dry July and August appeared to significantly reduce larval survival. This was illustrated by the initially high trap captures of adults prior to 2011 and the very low trap captures of adults from June 2011 to August 2014 (Tables 6, 7; Fig. 2). Mean weekly trap counts from 2005 to 2012 compared to the mean temperature of the previous year during July (Fig. 3) and August (Fig. 4) were both negatively correlated (r2 = ‐0.6 and ‐0.7), respectively. During fall 2010 and spring 2011, a total of 300 soil samples were collected. From these samples, 123 P. japonica larvae, 14 Phyllophaga spp. larvae and 34 Cyclocephala spp. larvae were collected. In spring 2012, a total of 200 soil samples were examined from 10 sites. From these samples, 12 P. japonica larvae, 7 Phyllophaga spp. larvae and zero Cyclocephala spp. larvae were collected. No larvae were collected in 2013 or 2014 due to extremely low densities of Japanese beetles.

To date, several presentations were made to growers, extension agents and at entomology meetings and articles were published (listed below). The Arkansas fact sheet on Japanese beetles (Shanklin et al. 2003) is being revised.

6. BENEFICIARIES The beneficiaries of this project include any land, nursery, fruit plantings or golf course owners in northwest Arkansas who use insecticides to prevent economic and aesthetic damage to their plants susceptible to root pruning, defoliation or fruit feeding by Japanese beetle larvae or adults. Over time, the release of this biological control agent will increase in percentage infection of local Japanese beetles leading to a natural reduction in its density and hopefully lessen the need to use insecticides to prevent plant damage.

7. LESSONS LEARNED Japanese beetle numbers had continued to increase as noted by season numbers of 8,778 (2007) and 20,680 (2010) adult Japanese beetles per baited trap (Fig. 2). In 2010, there was significant economic defoliation of numerous fruit and ornamental host plants like apple, crepe myrtle, elm, grape, rose, sassafras, etc. In addition, the average Japanese beetle larval density in turf exceeded 0.57 larvae per 0.1 m2. As a result, it was common to see turf damage where insectivores dug up turf and removed and fed on these larvae. Thus, our goal was to release a natural pathogen, O. popilliae, in 2010 and 2012 into Japanese beetle infested turf sites in Arkansas. This pathogen was to spread and become prevalent enough in NW Arkansas to biologically reduce the local Japanese beetle densities to sub‐economic levels. However, the record flooding in April and May 2011 followed by summer droughts and high temperatures in July and August 2011, 2012 and high August temperatures in 2013 appeared to reduced densities of Japanese beetle larvae in turf and reduced captures of adults in dual lure baited traps from 20,680 in 2010 to 4,098 (2011), 884 (2012), 376 (2013) and to 258 in 2014 (Fig. 2; Table 5 and 6). The in ability to collect adequate numbers of larvae did not allow for confirmation of the establishment of the released pathogen in

local Japanese beetle populations. As a result, Bryan Petty (Ph.D. student working on this project) added an objective to develop a method of modeling the abiotic effects of high temperature and excessive rainfall on Japanese beetle larval mortality. The purpose was to better predict Japanese beetle density increases and declines during periods of excessive rainfall and drought from 2011 to 2013. These findings were noted in a dissertation (Petty 2013) and a manuscript was published (Petty 2015).

8. CONTACT PERSON  Dr. Donn T. Johnson  Telephone Number: (479) 575‐2501  Email: [email protected] 9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Citations

NOAA. 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: United States Department of Commerce. Washington, DC. http://www.noaa.gov. (September 2012).

Petty, B. M., D. T. Johnson, and D. C. Steinkraus. 2012. Survey of pathogens and parasitoids of Popillia japonica (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in northwest Arkansas. J. Invert. Pathol. 111:56‐59.

Shanklin, D., K. Loftin, and J. Hopkins. 2003. Common questions about Japanese beetles in Arkansas. FSA 7062. http://uaex.edu/publications/PDF/FSA‐7062.pdf

Publications and web pages

Petty, BM, D.T. Johnson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2015. Changes in abundance of larval and adult Popillia japonica Newman (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) and other white grub species in northwest Arkansas and their relation to regional temperature. Florida Entomologist (accepted).

Petty, B. M., D. T. Johnson, and D. C. Steinkraus. 2012a. Survey of pathogens and parasitoids of Popillia japonica (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in northwest Arkansas. J. Invert. Pathol. 111:56‐59.

Petty, B.M., D.T. Johnson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2012b. Ovavesicula popilliae (Microsporidia: Ovavesiculidae) spore production in naturally infected adult Japanese beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) J. Invert. Pathol. 111:255‐256.

Petty, B. M., A.D. Tripodi, A.L. Szalanski, D.T. Johnson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2013. Evaluating spore count and sporophorous vesicle size in Ovavesicula popilliae (Microsporidia: Ovavesiculidae) in adult Japanese beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Fl. Entomol. 96: 1626‐1627.

Dissertation:

Petty, B. 2013. Abiotic and biotic factors affecting the Japanese beetle in Arkansas. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 174 pp.

Presentations/Meetings:

 D.T. Johnson. 2014. Spotted wing drosophila and Japanese beetle. Invited talk at Invasive Species Conference in Oklahoma City, OK.  B.M. Petty, E.G. Rivera‐Valentin, D.T. Johnson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2013. Effects of harsh climate on wild Japanese beetle populations. Paper at SEB‐Entomological Society of America Meeting.  N. Wright, D.C. Steinkraus, and B.M. Petty. 2013. Biological control of the small hive beetle. Paper at SEB‐ Entomological Society of America Meeting.  B.M. Petty, D.T. Johnson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2012. Overview of current research on Ovavesicula popilliae, a microsporidian pathogen of the Japanese beetle. Paper at National Entomological Society of America Meeting.  B.M. Petty, D.T. Johnson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2012. Host range of Ovavesicula popilliae, a microsporidian pathogen of Japanese beetles used as a biological control agent. Paper at SEB‐ Entomological Society of America Meeting.  B.M. Petty, D.T. Johnson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2012. Overview of current research on Ovavesicula popilliae, a microsporidian pathogen of the Japanese beetle. National Entomological Society of America Meeting.  B.M. Petty, D.T. Johnson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2011. Establishing biological control of P. japonica in Arkansas using a microbial pathogen. Paper at National Entomological Society of America Meeting.  B.M. Petty. 2011. Managing Japanese beetles in landscape environments. University of Arkansas Turfgrass Field Day.  B.M. Petty, E.G. Rivera‐Valentin, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2011. Predictive model for temperature related mortality in Japanese beetle. Paper at SEB‐Entomological Society of America Meeting.  B.M. Petty, D.T. Johnson, M. Richardson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2010. Classical biological control of Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica) in Arkansas using Ovavesicula popilliae. Arkansas Crop Protection Association.  B.M. Petty, D.T. Johnson, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2010. Microbial pathogens and classical biological control Popillia japonica in Arkansas. Paper at National Entomological Society of America Meeting.  B.M. Petty, and D.C. Steinkraus. 2010. Developing method of mass rearing Japanese beetle larvae in Northwest Arkansas. Paper at SEB‐Entomological Society of America Meeting.

Table 1. Prevalence of pathogens in third instar Japanese beetles in Northwest Arkansas in 2010 and

Percentage Infected by Year

2011.

# Larvae O. Adelina dissected popilliae sp. Paenibacillus S. villani Nematodes 2010 / spp. 2010 / 2010 / 2010 / 2010 / 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 / 2011 2011 Site

University of Arkansas 56 / 6 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 16 0 / 0 4 / 0 Farm

Razorback Park Golf 32 / 28 0 / 0 0 / 0 50 / 50 0 / 0 0 / 0 Course*

Lost Springs Golf Course* 32 / 9 0 / 0 0 / 0 81 / 77 0 / 11 6 / 0

Valley View Golf Course

Wilson Park* 13 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 69 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0

Gulley Park

Lewis Park 41 / 5 0 / 0 0 / 0 66 / 60 0 / 0 0 / 0

Westfork Horticultural 8 / 5 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Nursery* 3 / 6 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 20 0 / 0 0 / 0 Springdale Peach Orchard 20 / 15 0 / 0 0 / 13 0 / 7 0 / 0 0 / 0

Fayetteville Apple Orchard 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Total

12 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 33 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0

217 / 76 0 / 0 0 / 3 37 / 35 0 / 1 2 / 0

* Denotes release sites of Ovavesicula popilliae in 2010 and 2012

Table 2. Infection prevalence of Ovavesicula popilliae in larval Japanese beetles in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

# Larvae Dissected % Infected by Year

Site 2010 / 2011 /2012 2010 / 2011 /2012

University of Arkansas Farm 56 / 6 / 0 0 / 0 / 0

Razorback Park Golf Course* 32 / 28 / 1 0 / 0 / 0

Lost Springs Golf Course* 32 / 9 / 3 0 / 0 / 0

Valley View Golf Course 13 / 1 / 0 0 / 0 / 0

Wilson Park* 41 / 5 / 0 0 / 0 / 0

Gulley Park 8 / 5 / 0 0 / 0 / 0

Lewis Park 3 / 6 / 0 0 / 0 / 0

Westfork Horticultural Nursery* 20 / 15 / 4 0 / 13.3 / 0

Springdale Peach Orchard 0 / 1 / NA 0 / 0 / NA

Springdale Vineyard NA# Adults / NA / dissected 4 %NA/ infected NA/ 0by year

FayettevilleSite Apple Orchard 201012 / 0/ 2011/ 0 /2012 20100 / / 0 2011 / 0 /2012

Total 217 / 76 / 12 0 / 2.6 / 0

* Denotes release sites of O. popilliae in 2010 and 2012

University of Arkansas Farm 100 / 82 / 71 1 / 0 / 0 Table 3. Infection Razorback Park Golf Course* 100 / 70 / 38 0 / 0 / 0 prevalenc Lost Springs Golf Course* 100 / 70 / 48 1 / 0 / 0 e of Ovavesicu Valley View Golf Course 100 / 65 / 44 0 / 0 / 0 la popilliae Wilson Park* 90 / 60 / 51 0 / 0 / 0 in adult Gulley Park 100 / 53 / 44 0 / 0 / 0 Japanese beetles in Lewis Park 100 / 43 / 47 0 / 0 / 0 2010, 2011 and Westfork Horticultural Nursery* 100 / 68 / 57 0 / 0 / 0 2012. Springdale Peach Orchard 90 / 71 / NA 0 / 0 / NA

Springdale Vineyard NA / NA / 62 NA/ NA/ 3.2

Fayetteville Apple Orchard 98 / 67 / 53 0 / 0 / 0

Total 978 / 649 / 515 0.2 / 0 / 0.4

* denotes release locations of O. popilliae in 2010 and 2012.

Table 4. Results of larval insects inoculated per os with approximately 50,000 spores of O. popilliae. Typical infection refers to completion of life cycle of O. popilliae in two weeks. Atypical infection refers to presence of O. popilliae but a failure to complete its life cycle.

Infected

Species Uninfected Atypical Typical

Green June beetle 71 8 1

Wax moth 45 1 2

Small hive beetle 44 0 0

Lesser mealworm 38 0 0

Tent caterpillars 28 0 2

Phyllophaga spp. 16 0 2

Cyclocephala spp. 16 0 0

Elaterids 6 0 0

Yellow armyworm 2 0 0

True armyworm 2 0 0

Sod webworm 1 1 0

Black cutworm 1 0 0

Table 5. Mean ±SE larval densities of scarab beetles: Popillia japonica, Cyclocephala spp. and Phyllophaga spp. per 0.1 m2 sample of soil under turf in northwest Arkansas from 2010 to 2012.

Scarab larvae/0.1 m2

Sample year P. japonica Cyclocephala spp. Phyllophaga sp.

2010 0.57 ± 0.14a 0.05 ± 0.05a 0.06 ± 0.03a

2011 0.41 ± 0.10a 0.11 ± 0.04a 0.05 ± 0.02a

2012 0.05 ± 0.14b 0.00a 0.04 ± 0.03a

P = 0.0381 P = 0.0867 P = 0.8577

Means within the same column followed by same letter are not statistically different (Student’s T‐test, P > 0.05).

Table 6. Mean ±SE weekly trap count per site for adult Japanese beetles in 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Year

Site 2010 2011 2012

Wilson Park* 656.9 ± 151.0 238.8 ± 70.1 46.4 ± 15.4

Lewis Park 1,900.6 ± 586.6 321.9 ± 122.3 48.8 ± 14.1

Gulley Park 1,971.7 ± 404.3 384.4 ± 120.9 84.8 ± 28.2

Valley View Golf Course 3,196.7 ± 718.8 1,946.7 ± 750.2 701.8 ± 218.7

Lost Springs Golf Course* 4,122.2 ± 1,411.5 1,572.3 ± 488.9 1,346.7 ± 395.5

Razorback Golf Course* 3,901.4 ± 994.1 784.9 ± 238.4 140.2 ± 38.1

Westfork Nursery* 1,908.9 ± 441.8 1,250.4 ± 413.2 644.1 ± 251.3

Fayetteville Apple Orchard 1,952.8 ± 449.5 584.2 ± 154.6 100.8 ± 34.8

Springdale Peach Orchard 5,468.7 ± 1101.0 1,140.8 ± 347.6 N/A

* denotes release locations of O. popilliae in 2010 and 2012.

Table 7. Mean weekly counts ± SE of Japanese beetle adults in dual lure baited yellow funnel trap from 2005 to 2014 at the University of Arkansas Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Fayetteville, AR.

Year Mean weekly capture

2005 3,528.5 ± 488.5b

2006 5,228.2 ± 226.1a

2007 908.9 ± 199.4d

2008 2,992.2 ± 218.5b

2010 2,244.9 ± 218.5c

2011 464.8 ± 267.5de

2012 116.3 ± 189.2e

2013 377.0 ± 46.8de

2014 51.7 ± 19.7f

Means within a column followed by same letter(s) are not statistically different (α=0.05, P>0.05)

9,000 2007 8,000

trap 2010

/ 7,000 2011 6,000 2012 2013 5,000 2014 Japanese beetles

4,000 No. 3,000

Mean 2,000

1,000

Figure 2. Yearly numbers of Japanese beetle adults captured per Jumbo Jug yellow funnel trap baited with a floral and sex lure in Fayetteville, AR. April and May 2011 had 44.2 cm above average rainfall, whereas July and August of 2011 to 2013 were 3°C above average (NOAA 2012)

Figure 3. Changes in Japanese beetle adult weekly mean trap captures from 2005 to 2012 in relatiion (solid line) to the average July temperature of the previous year (dashed line) shown as the fluctuation in the average temperature (ΔT) of the month of July as compared to the historical average for northwest Arkansas

Figure 4. Changes in Japanese beetle adult weekly mean trap captures from 2005 to 2012 in relatiion (solid line) to the average August temperature of the previous year (dashed line) shown as the fluctuation in the average temperature (ΔT) of the month of August as compared to the historical average for northwest Arkansas.

Project 4: Assisting Arkansas Pecan Industry to Improve Production Efficiency and Nut Quality

1. PROJECT SUMMARY

 What is the specific issue, problem or need to be addressed by the project? Currently, Arkansas pecan production is among the least efficient in the United States. This inefficiency can be attributed both to the lack of knowledge about efficient production practices and to the lack of knowledge growers have about recommended practices in the areas of pest management, orchard management, and food safety. For the past two years, the Arkansas Pecan Growers Association has subcontracted the UA Division of Agriculture to conduct a needs assessment for the industry and provide educational opportunities to growers and industry representatives. To accomplish this, 12 commercial pecan growers (16 sites) geographically located in the various production areas of the state were selected to be monitored to gather information about horticultural and pest management practices. In addition, we continue to deliver information to growers and industry representatives to equip them with the ability and skills to make more effective management decisions. To gain more detailed information from a broader demographics, a survey of the industry was conducted and based on the results of this survey, we propose to continue monitoring for important pests such as pecan nut casebearer and start monitoring for stink bug, nutritional status of trees, and to offer growers educational opportunities to increase their knowledge and skills to improve production practices, minimize input and make the industry more economically sustainable. Project Purpose. Pecans are regarded as the most important commercial nut crop grown in the eastern United States. In 2010, the United States exported 40,622 metric tons (MT) of unshelled, or in-shell, pecans valued at $143 million and 12,948 MT of shelled pecans valued at nearly $109 million. The top buyer of U.S. in-shell pecans was Hong Kong. In the past 10 years, exports of pecan have grown, on average, 9% yearly. According to USDA statistics, the estimated pecan production for 2009 in Arkansas was 2.5 million pounds with a value of $2.5 million. On average, net wholesale returns from a pecan orchard are $300-400 per acre. There are reported to be 10,700 acres in pecan production with 275 farms in the state (USDA, 2005). However, the reality may be higher than what is reported because there are many small orchards that are not counted in these statistics. Most of the reported pecan orchards in the state are small with 43 percent of the 275 pecan farms having less than 5 acres and only 19 percent of the orchards being larger than 100 acres. The price trends in Arkansas might be considered among the best. The overall price across the decade for improved varieties was $1.06 per pound, second to Texas, with $1.07 (national average was $.95/lb). Arkansas’ price per pound of native pecans is highest: $.72/lb, where the national average is $0.66.  Establish the motivation for this project by presenting the importance and timeliness of the project. For the past year, we have been gathering information about horticultural and pest management current practices. To gather information about current practices a survey was given to growers to provide us with a comprehensive picture of current practices in the state – including management, nutrition, and processing, pest level data, and

38 nutritional status of orchards. Preliminary survey data indicate growers’ major insect problems are pecan nut casebearer (PNC) (Acrobasis nuxvorella Neunzig) and a stink bug complex. We have been working with growers in developing a comprehensive monitoring and prediction model for growers to utilize in their pest management decisions. Stink bugs are emerging as pests in many crops following a national trend to reduce the use of broad spectrum insecticides and require studies to develop improved monitoring methods and management tactics. Our grower survey indicated that growers are spraying up to five times during the season to control this pest. An important step in reducing the severity of stink bug infestations is the elimination of weed hosts from within and around the orchard. In some orchards cover crops are used to enhance the presence of beneficial arthropods and to improve soil fertility. Some of these cover crops are hosts to stink bugs and if used, they should be carefully monitored to ensure that they do not cause a buildup in the numbers of these insects within the orchard. Cultivated crops grown adjacent to, or near the orchard, such as corn, soybeans, and cotton also should be carefully monitored for stink bugs, and if possible, they should be controlled within these crops. Several insecticides are registered for control of stink bugs, but trying to control them on pecan with insecticides is difficult. Determining when to apply insecticides can be a problem because stink bugs are present throughout the growing season, they are difficult to detect in the trees and no treatment threshold has been established on pecans. Insecticide applications for control of other late season pests such as black pecan aphid, Melanocallis caryaefoliae (Davis), hickory shuckworm (Cydia caryana) and pecan weevil, Curculio caryae (Horn), can sometimes help in reducing the infestation levels of stink bugs within an orchard. Proper tree nutrition is imperative for yield, nut quality, and overall tree heath. Foliar and soil analyses (conducted as part of the industry’s needs assessment) indicate serious problems such as lack of testing for nutritional status, many deviations from normal range for pecans in mineral content in both soil and leaves, and in many orchard, the soil pH is either too acidic or too basic. Building a nutritional status baseline of a perennial system such as pecan is very important in determining nutritional needs and fertilizer applications. Several years of data collection are necessary to best determine the plant nutritional needs because weather conditions, crop load, etc., can affect the results of the analysis. Adaption of cultural practices that increase yield and nut quality will make the Arkansas pecan industry more able to compete in local, national, and international markets. Educational opportunities will be coordinated at the Arkansas Pecan Grower Association (APGA) annual meeting. At these meetings, data gathered from project will be disseminated to grower to help them make informed, since-based decisions in their orchard operation. In addition, growers will also be trained to perform pest monitoring and how to use current management tools for the same pests. The overall goal of this project is to improve pecan yield and quality. This goal will be accomplished by the following objectives: • Continuing to monitoring and trapping of pecan nut casebearer (as part of the Pecan IPM PIPE project). • Improving the management of stink bugs that attack pecan. • Assessing and determining nutritional orchard needs.

• Educating and training growers on cultural practices that increase orchard productivity and nut quality.  If the project built on a previously funded project with the SCBGP or SCBGP‐FB describe how this project complimented and enhanced previously completed work. Production efficiency of Arkansas pecan orchards must to be improved so growers can receive the best economic returns possible and remain sustainable in their farming operations. The first step in increasing production efficiency is to determine the factors that are influencing this problem. We have begun to find factors that are impeding the production efficiency of pecans and are continuing to find solutions to these to these problems. Through previous funding from the ADD through SCBGP, the following activities have been accomplished and information gained from these activities been delivered to growers at the annual meeting. • Pecan Nut Casebearer (PNC) trapping was conducted at 13 cooperator sites throughout Arkansas. It was determined that in some sites, the application of pesticides for this insect was not necessary because the insect was not found at these locations. At other sites, growers have not been applying pesticides because they did not think the insect was present. Trappings indicated the presence of this insect. Impact: Pesticide applications are used more effectively. • A total of 29 soil and foliar samples were collected from the 13 locations. It was determined that more than one sample of each, soil and foliar, was necessary to determine the fertilizer needs of a site because of the differences in soil types, cultivars, and management practices. Impact: Awareness of plant nutrition as it relate to nut quality and yield has been raised. • A highly comprehensive written survey was designed to gather information on all aspects of pecan culture. Impact: Survey data was tabulated and results will be used to guide outreach and research to better serve the Arkansas pecan industry. • Two workshops have been presented to educate growers on horticulture and pest management practices, GAP and food safety, risk management, and marketing.

2. PROJECT APPROACH The overall goal of this current project was to improve pecan yield and quality. This goal was accomplished by the following objectives: 1. Continuing to monitoring and trapping of pecan nut casebearer (as part of the Pecan IPM PIPE project). 2. Improving the management of stink bugs that attack pecan. 3. Assessing and determining nutritional orchard needs. 4. Educating and training growers on cultural practices that increase orchard productivity and nut quality. Objective 1) Pecan nut casebearer (PNC) trapping commenced in April at 12 cooperator sites and data from 17 orchards were collected three times per week until the end of PNC activity in June. During visits, growers/scouts were shown specimens of PNC larva and damage and trained how to set and monitor traps. Growers that attended the annual Arkansas Pecan Growers Association meetings each year, were also taught how to recognize pecan nut casebearer moths in traps. In 2014, 25 more growers were given a trap and lure to set out in

their pecan groves and monitor traps and record trap cattch. Work accomplished: Pecan nut casebearer was not found in some areas of the state where growers were routinely spraying insecticides for this pest, but found in areas where growers were not aware of the presence of this pest and had not applied management measures for its conntrol. On April 19, 2014, 16 participating pecan growers were given PNC traps per sex pheromones and were taught to record weekly counts of pecan nut casebearer moths in the traps and report trap counts back to Dr. Johnson. However, none of the participants provided data, so we could not upload pecan grove GPS coordinates nor trap counts to Pecan ipmPIPE PNC Risk Map (http://pecan.ipmpipe.org/Maps/pncRiskMap). We had planned after first trap catch for the season to upload data so growers could acccess the Pecan Nut Casebearer Risk Map: http://pecan.ipmpipe.org/pecanipmpipe_dev/map/pnc/index.cfm. It was recommended that growers visit this web site twice weekly in May. The grower finds their location on the U.S. map and watches the symbols: when a green triangle turns to yellow triangle means you have a period of four to six days in which to estimate the number of clusters with PNC eggs or larvae on 310 nut clusters and treat if count exceeds Economic threshold = 2 or more PNC-infested clusters before inspecting 310 nut clusters. Objective 2) Sampling methods were compared for effectiveness in estimating the biweekly numbers of stink bugs from mid-June through harvest and predict percentage stink buug damage at harvest. Four sampling methods were compared for biweekly stink bug counts from June to harvest for two or three years: 1) Three yellow pyramid traps baited with Euschistus (brown stink bug and dusky stink bug) aggregation pheromone were set out on each of four sides and in center in each of seven (2012), five (2013) and eight (2014) pecan orchards. 2) In 2013 and 2014, the number of stink bugs seen on 20 nut clusters were recorded for a pecan tree near each trap. 3) In 2013 and 2014, a black light trap was set at 5’ height near an electrical outlet at the perimeter of six pecan groves and run one hour biweekly to capture stink bugs. 4) A quarter of the lower canopy of five pecan trees in each of five (2013) and eight (2014) pecan orchards were sprayed by water using a pressure washer to dislodge stink bugs to a ground cloth where they were counted. Three methods were used to collect nuts and dissect nuts to estimate percentage of nuts with stink bug punctures and nut meat damage including: 1) hand picking and 2) tree shaker to thin nuts from tree was used in three groves on 12 August 2014; and 3) higgh lift used in five pecan groves on 18 September 2014. 1) A tree shaker thinned nuts from pecan trees and a sample of 100 pecans was collected off the ground per thinned tree. In Blackwell 2 grove, there were four trees thinned and sampled in each of the four perimeters (N, E, S, W) and the center totaling 2000 nuts. The second location (Blackwell 5) had 100 pecans collected off the ground from three thinned trees on the East and West pecan grove perimeters totaling 600 pecans. The third location (Atkins) had 100 pecans collected off the ground from three thinned trees on the East and West pecan grove perimeter and the center totaling 900 pecans. 2) The hand method sampling was conducted at the same three pecan groves where the tree shaker method was used. In each of these three pecan groves 10 pecans were collected from the same previously described locations as the tree shaker method was conducted, but instead of collecting the pecans from the ground the nuts were collected from the lowest branches of

the pecan tree that could be reached by hand. Using this method 150, 60, and 90 pecans were collected from the pecan groves Blackwell 2, Blackwell 5 and Atkins respectively. 3) A high lift (GVF 25’ orbit lift; Gillison’s Variety Fabrication, Inc.) was used to sample nuts from five pecan groves (Blackwell 2, Blackwell 3, Blackwell 4, Blackwell 5 and Atkins) at three canopy sections of pecan trees: lower (0 – 3 m), middle (3‐6 m); and upper (6‐9 m). In four pecan groves, samples of 50 pecan were collected from each of five trees at three different heights totaling 750 pecans per grove. The Atkins pecan grove had samples of 50 pecans collected from each of six trees at 3 different heights. Only two of the six selected trees were tall enough to collect pecans from the upper level, causing the total number of pecans collected from Atkins pecan grove to be 700 pecans. The refrigerated pecans were dissected within 14 days of collection (rotted if stored longer). Numbers of stink bugs captured and percentages of nuts punctured or damaged by stink bug feeding were compared to determine significant effects of sample location on trap counts or percentage nut damage for each sampling method. Then a regression analysis was run to determine which of these stink bug sampling methods was most correlated to the percentage of stink bug punctures and stink bug nut meat damage in order to establish an economic threshold value for future validation. Work accomplished (Cowell et al. 2015): The Arkansas grower survey indicated a high priority to develop a monitoring and management program for stink bugs in hopes of significantly reducing pecan nut feeding damage by stink bugs from water stage to harvest. This water stage damage is referred to as black pit or black heart and causes nut drop whereas nuts remain on the tree if damaged during the dough stage and thereafter (Fig. 1). In 2012, we began to study the methods for monitoring the stink bug complex, assessing stink bug damage of pecan nuts and effects of timing of insecticide sprays against stink bugs to prevent nut damage. Results indicated several sub-optimal practices were likely contributing to reduced pecan production in Arkansas. From Late-June to harvest in 2012, 2013, and 2014 biweekly estimates of the numbers of brown stink bugs, Euschistus servus (Say), per yellow pyramid trap baited with Euschistus aggregation pheromone were recorded from several pecan groves. Three baited pyramid traps were staked to the ground at four sides and the center in each of seven (2012), six (2013), and eight (2014) pecan groves that differed in adjacent crops or wild habitat and pest management practices. In 2013, two black light traps were hung in separate pecan trees out of sight of each trap and captured stink bugs over a 24 hr. period biweekly from July to October. In 2014 this was altered to one black light trap in each of seven pecan groves. Biweekly in 2013, a pyrethroid spray (July 9) or pressure washer of water (rest of season to harvest) were used to spray/jar stink bugs from the lower canopy of pecan trees onto a 6m x 6m ground cloth in each grove in Blackwell, Mayflower and Humphrey. In 2014, the water pressure washer sprays were expanded to eight Arkansas pecan groves in Blackwell, Atkins, Mayflower and Humphrey. Also in 2014 a forth sampling type (visual counts) was added to the study. Biweekly, 200 pecans in each of the eight pecan groves were visually inspected and counts made of the number of stink bugs. These data from each monitoring method will be correlated to percentage stink bug punctures and damage. The method with the best correlation will be used to predict percentage of stink bug punctures and damage. Yellow pyramid traps baited with Euschistus aggregation pheromone captured mostly brown stink bugs, Euschistus servus (Say). It was reported in 2012, that a 20 acre pecan grove in Humphrey, AR had soybeans planted along 50% of the perimeter and from late-

August to mid-October had higher brown stink bug trap counts and percentage nut damage than recorded in the other six groves. A 160 acre pecan grove in Blackwell, AR had a significant trap location effect with greater counts of brown stink bugs in the center than perimeter locations on five sample dates. The perimeter of this grove was cropped as follows: 50% fallow or pasture; 30% in rice, 20% in soybean. Trap location had less significant effect on numbers of stink bug trapped in the other six groves. Table 3 compares the percentage damage by stink bug, pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella (Neunzig), hickory shuckworm, Cydia caryana (Fitch), and pecan weevil, Curculio caryae (Horn) in seven pecan groves in 2012. During 2012, we learned to identify a puncture on the shuck caused by a stink bug stylet (Fig. 6). Then, we sliced under the puncture to confirm whether or not the puncture was only in the shuck or penetrated to the kernel causing damage (dark stain) to the meat (Fig. 6). Table 4 compares percentage of harvested nuts either punctured by stink bugs or punctured and the meat damaged in four pecan groves similarly sampled in 2013. It was apparent that stink bug damage began in early August when the earliest nut cultivars were entering the water stage and that hickory shuckworm damage was occurring after late-August (Table 1). Table 3 compares percentage of harvested nuts either punctured by stink bugs or punctured and the meat damaged in eight pecan groves sampled in 2014. The shuck of the pecans were continually being punctured through the season but the stink bug damage to the internal developing nut didn’t begin to occur until the last day of July to early-August when the earliest nut cultivars were entering the water stage. When comparing the damage from 2012 (Table 3) to the damage/punctures from 2013 (Table 4) it first seems that the amount of punctures increased for Blackwell 1 and 2 and decreased for Mayflower and Humphrey sites from 2012 to 2013. This was attributed to the fact that the damage assessment was much more precise in 2013 and broken down into punctures only and damage (puncture with nut meat damage). The punctures observed in 2013 have two main peaks. The first peak of punctures can be seen between July 9 and August 20. All four of the groves checked for damage had this peak. The second peak of punctures was seen mainly in Mayflower and Humphrey between the dates of September 18 and October 30. Pecan trees in both Mayflower and Humphrey are older, native cultivars of trees that are later to mature. This second peak of punctures caused increasing meat damage which was most evident in Humphrey (Table 4). The two Blackwell sites consisted of improved pecan cultivars that mature earlier in the season than native pecan cultivars and did not have the second peak of punctures. When comparing the damage/punctures from 2013 (Table 4) to the damage/punctures from 2014 (Table 5) it can be seen that the punctures and damage increased for Blackwell 1 and 2 and that the punctures for Mayflower and Humphrey decreased for the early season but had greater punctures and damage in the later season. Once again the later maturing pecans cultivars at Mayflower and Humphrey were in the phenological stage of the pecan that can be damaged while the pecans from the Blackwell sites were fully mature and in the process of being harvested. Survey Pesticide Applications. In November 2013, a written survey was mailed to pecan growers participating in the stink bug monitoring study. The purpose was to acquire a list of insecticides and dates of applications to each participating pecan grove in 2012 and 2013. Of all the surveys sent out in 2013 only one was returned with insufficient information

to use. In 2014 each pecan grower participating in the stink bug monitoring study will be asked in person about formulations applied and times of applications. This information will be used to determine the effects of each spray treatment on numbers of stink bugs counted by each sampling method in each monitored pecan grove. Cage Study. The type of stink bug damage varies with changes in pecan nut phenological stage (Fig. 6). On July 17, the pecan was in the nutlet stage (pre-water stage) when stink bugs only puncture the pecan shuck (Fig. 6A). During the young nutlet stage some of the punctured nuts did drop but that number was similar to number dropped in the control group indicating a natural June drop. The puncture marks to the shucks dissipated over time as the pecan nut swelled and the meat began to fill the space inside the shell. On August 8, the pecan was at the water stage and was very susceptible to stink bug punctures and feeding on nut meat resulting in damage to nut meat (Fig. 6B). During the pecan water stage, stink bugs feed on the developing meat of the pecan turning it brown to black and the pecan will fall from the tree. On September 16, the pecan was in the dough stage which was also very susceptible to stink bug stylet feeding but this feeding damaged pecan meat turning it brown to black (Fig. 6C). During full dough stage the stink bug damaged pecans no longer fell from the tree. On October 8, the pecan was nearing maturity (meat nearly filling nut shell cavity) but there were still some pecans in the field that were in late dough stage (Fig. 6D) causing damage to still occur at a reduced rate. A close up of a stink bug puncture mark in the shuck and darkening of nut meat is visible in Fig. 6E. By October 18, the pecans were mature with no meat damage (Fig. 6F). The pecan phenological period damaged by stink bugs was from the water stage to late dough stage. Any attempted feeding or puncture caused by the stinkbugs outside of this time did not cause damage to the nut meat. These findings are supported by the 2013 cage study which found nearly identical results. Water Jarring Tree. Temporal changes in the numbers of stink bugs in the pecan canopy in each of eight groves (Blackwell 1, Blackwell 2, Humphrey, Mayflower, Blackwell 3, Blackwell 4, Blackwell 5, Atkins) were estimated by using a spray gun to spray pressurized water into the lower canopy via a gas powered pressure washer connected to a 44 psi primer pump feeding water from a 50 gal tank. Five pecan trees in each of eight groves were water sprayed biweekly from July 16 to October 18. The insects water jarred from each tree onto a 6m X 6m plastic drop cloth were placed in a labeled bag and later identified to species and counted. Initially, on July 16th most of the stink bugs jarred from pecan trees by a pressure water spray were brown stink bugs with numbers remaining steady through the early season until September 26 when the brown stink bug numbers significantly increased in the pecan groves. This pattern of brown stink bugs being more prevalent in the later season is similar to the findings from the water jarring sprays in 2013 (Fig. 1). One big difference is that in the 2013 water jarring sprays (Fig. 1) there were relatively no green stinkbugs found but in the 2014 water jarring sprays (Fig. 2) the green stink bugs began to increase from August 28 to September 26 with a large decrease in the green stink bugs found on October 18. This large decrease in green stink bugs is most likely due to the application of Imidan pesticide in the Atkins pecan grove which had the greatest number of green stink bugs overall, but that spray did not kill the brown stink bugs. In 2014, mean numbers of stink bugs jarred by the water sprays were directly related to the percentage nut damage by stink bugs (Table 5) but not as correlated as yellow trap catches. The Atkins site had the strongest relationship between

mean numbers of stink bugs water jarred from tree to percentage stink bug damage of nuts (Table 6 and Fig. 2). Black Light Trap. Green stink bugs were rarely captured in the baited yellow pyramid traps in 2012. Therefore, the black light traps were used to note presence and estimate numbers of green stink bugs in pecan groves. One BioQuip Universal black light trap with a 22w Circline black light tube was placed in each of seven groves (Blackwell 1, Blackwell 2, Humphrey, Mayflower, Blackwell 4, Blackwell 5, and Atkins). Each trap was connected to a pole so that the opening of the trap with the light was at two meters above the ground. Black light traps were placed near an electrical outlet along the perimeter of each grove. Biweekly from June 18 to October 18, black light traps were plugged in for 24 hr. The insects were removed, placed in a labeled bag and later identified to species and counted. These black light traps captured green, dusky, and brown stink bugs periodically throughout the season with no overall pattern for the stink bugs caught. On June 18, black light traps in Blackwell 2 and Mayflower captured 6 and 8 green stink bugs, respectively, which is far more than all the other pecan groves which caught zero green stink bugs on that date. The largest catch of 3, 3, 2, and 1 brown stink bugs occurred on June 18 in Mayflower, Blackwell 4, Blackwell 5 and Blackwell 2, respectively. Throughout the rest of the season the brown stink bug counts remained relatively low except on September 24 when 2 brown stink bugs were caught at Blackwell 4 (Fig. 3). In Blackwell 1, these black light traps caught zero stinkbugs of any species on every date. The sporadic stink bug catches of all species are most likely due to rainfall that often occurred on the day the traps were run and the phenological stages of surrounding plants. Visual Counts. Visual counts of stink bugs were conducted biweekly in each of the eight pecan groves (Blackwell 1, Blackwell 2, Humphrey, Mayflower, Blackwell 3, Blackwell 4, Blackwell 5, and Atkins). This study was conducted by choosing 10 trees in each of the pecan groves and within each tree selecting 20 clusters of pecans to examine if stink bugs were on or near them. The numbers of stink bugs counted by this monitoring method was very low compared to the other monitoring methods (Fig. 4). Predicting Nut Punctures/Damage. These data from each monitoring method were analyzed to determine how well each was correlated to percentage stink bug punctures and damage. The baited yellow pyramid trap had the highest significant R2 values of 0.84 for puncture and 0.60 for damage. The other three monitoring methods were rarely significantly correlated (Table 6; Fig. 5). Damage by Canopy Levels. On September 19, a study was conducted to determine if stink bug damage to nuts was evenly distributed through the pecan tree canopy. A hydraulic cherry picker was used to collect 50 pecans from three different levels of the tree canopy: lower (0-3m); middle (4-6m); and upper (7-10m). Samples were collected on September 19- 20, 2014 from five trees in each of five pecan groves (Blackwell 2, Blackwell 3, Blackwell 4, Blackwell 5, and Atkins). Each nut was sliced to note presence of punctures, dried and later cracked to record stink bug punctures into the nut shell and meat. There were significantly more punctured nuts removed from the lower canopy than in the middle or upper canopy (Fig. 7).

Objective 3) Two surveys were conducted to assess the industry’s needs (Garcia et al. 2015). In the first survey, biological and edaphic data were collected for three years from 13 pecan groves located in various geographical areas of the state where pecans are grown (field

survey). In order to determine fertilizer needs of each pecan grove, soil and foliar samples were collected using standard methods (Garcia, 2009) and records made of the pecan cultivars planted and management practices followed in each of 13 pecan groves. A total of 29 foliar and soil samples were collected. Soil samples were analyzed at the Soil, Water & Forage Analytical Laboratory at Oklahoma State University. Foliar samples were analyzed at the Agricultural Diagnostic Service Laboratory at the University of Arkansas. The second survey was an extensive written survey mailed to 80 recipients (growers, industry representatives, and shellers). This survey was divided into five sections: 1) land use, acreage, and tree number (11 questions); 2) cultural practices (34 questions); 3) postharvest practices (9 questions); 4) production costs, economics, and marketing (12 questions); 5) information sources (10 questions); and demographics (9 questions). The survey consisted of 85 questions with a response rate of 45% representing approximately 40% of the industry. Work accomplished: Field Survey. The soil samples taken on site indicate a number of soil chemical fertility imbalances, including low Ca:Mg ratio; low K; high P, Zn, and Fe; and pH values ranging from 4.9 to 8.0. Foliar analyses indicated low or deficient nutrient levels for P, K, S, Fe, Cu and Ni. High or excessive nutrient levels were found for Ca, Zn, and Mn. Only Mg and N were found to be within sufficiency ranges. Pecan scab (Fusicladium effusum G. Winter) was the most prevalent disease observed in the orchards. Written Survey. The grower responses indicate that the pecan industry in Arkansas is growing where 41% and 37% of respondents, respectively, have planted or plan to plant new pecan trees. The number planted varied from 10 to 2000 trees. For 75% of respondents, pecan is the major farm crop commodity while some famers combine cattle, soybeans, and winter wheat in their production system. The average number of managed hectares is 28 and the average number of trees/orchard is 790. Results from questions on cultural practices indicate most growers are not following best management horticultural or pest management practices. To determine the fertilizer needs of their orchard, 44 and 15% of growers have used soil and foliar analysis, respectively. The majority of growers estimate their orchard nutrition needs. Only 22% or 51%, respectively, of growers have submitted soil samples or foliar samples for analysis within the last five years and only 4% or one grower submitted a yearly soil or foliar sample (Fig. 1). More growers were applying zinc (72%) compared to those that applied N (55%) as foliar amendments. Other elements including Ni, Mn, B, and Fe were foliar-applied by a small number of growers (Fig. 2). These results corresponded to the data obtained from soil and foliar analyses where some groves had problems with foliar deficiency and toxicity of some elements. Fertilizer recommendations were given to each individual that participated in the foliar collection survey. Results were presented at the Annual APGA meeting and recommendations were given to any grower who requested them (Table 7). Pecan scab and powdery mildew (Microsphaera penicillata (Wallroth) Léveillé) were the two most reported diseases in the orchard and management of these diseases varied widely with one grower spraying fungicide only once during the year while another grower applied fungicides eight times during the year. Insect damage is the main factor that influences the price received by growers for their pecan crop. The four major reported insect pests are stink bug complex (brown and green stink bugs), pecan weevil, PNC, and phylloxera (Phylloxera devastatrix Pergande).

These survey results demonstrated the current status of the industry, helped to determine the educational needs of the pecan growers, and provided a baseline upon which grove management recommendations can be made. A majority of pecan growers (66%) reported that they obtain their orchard management information from educational meetings and other extension resources (Fig. 3). Objective 4) In April, Dr. Elena Garcia, Dr. Donn Johnson and Association President Dan Chapman met with the Arkansas Pecan Growers Association board to organize annual educational meetings that included invited speakers (research, extension and chemical company representatives), and grower demonstrations to teach use of insect traps, pruning, grafting or planting new trees. Work accomplished: Dr. Garcia and Dr. Johnson attended the annual Arkansas Pecan Growers Association board meetings to help organize the annual educational meetings, field workshop, and invite speakers (Table 1). Grower evaluations indicated they thought that the speakers provided good to excellent information. Some growers planned to Resume foliar zinc spray, another said, Will do more research on this (pesticides) and another said, Put up traps (Table 2). Implementation of this newly acquired knowledge should result in improved orchard efficiency, higher economic results, and enhanced farm sustainability. In early-August 2012, July 2013, and March 2014 pecan growers were either emailed or informed about the web site for the Arkansas Pecan Growers Association (http://arkpecangrowers.org/). Other sites containing pecan production information include: Dr. Johnson’s University of Arkansas Fruit / Nut Pest Management web page (http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/Pecan_Links.html); Arkansas Fruit and Nut News (http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/Arkansas_Fruit_Newsletter.html); Pecan ipmPIPE (http://pecan.ipmpipe.org/index.cfm) that is dedicated to pecan production, pest management, search engine of pesticides currently registered for use on pecan and risk models for a pecan nut casebearer (http://pecan.ipmpipe.org/Maps/pncRiskMap).

5. GOALS AND OUTCOMES ACHIEVED  Include the activities that were completed in order to achieve the performance goals and measurable outcomes for the project.  If outcome measures were long term, summarize the progress that has been made towards achievement.  Provide a comparison of actual accomplishments with the goals established for the reporting period.  Clearly convey completion of achieving outcomes by illustrating baseline data that has been gathered to date and showing the progress toward achieving set targets.

Information generated by this project were summarized annually and presented at the annual Arkansas Pecan Grower Association meeting in Little Rock, AR on 19 March, 2014 (also plan to summarize project highlights at the 2015 meeting). Pecan information was also disseminated to pecan growers in 2013 and 2014 issues of Arkansas Fruit and Nut News: http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/.

The Multistate Research Project S-1049 titled, Integrated Management of Pecan Arthropod Pests in the Southern U.S. was the 2014 Southern Region Nominee for

Experiment Station Award for Excellence in Multistate Research and runner up for the National Experiment Station Award for Excellence in Multistate Research. This award document was assimilated by Dr. Donn Johnson and Regional Administrative Advisor, Dr. Clarence Watson.

Presentations/Meetings • Presented research results at the annual AgroExpo conference in Texarkana Arkansas‐ 2/7/13 • Annual educational meeting of the APGA on Aug. 24th 2013 at the UA Southwest Research and Extension Center, Hope AR • Cowell, B., D. Johnson (Pecan Insects), and M.E. Garcia (Pecan Nutrition). 2014. Spoke to 35 growers at the annual Pecan Grower Association meeting at the Cooperative Extension Service Center in Little Rock, AR on 19 March (Agenda in Table 1). • Cowell, B, D. Johnson, and E. Garcia. 2014. Monitoring stink bug density in pecans to predict percentage nut damage Presented at the Entomological Society of America 62nd Annual Meeting in Portland, OR on 17 November. • Cowell, B. 2014. Production of the pecan, Carya illinoinensis in North America. Presented as a seminar to the University of Arkansas Horticulture department in Fayetteville, AR on 16 April. • Cowell, B, D. Johnson, and E. Garcia. 2014. Relating stink bug density to percentage pecan nut damage. Presented at the Entomological Society of America Southeastern Branch Meeting in Greenville, SC on 4 March. • Cowell, B, D. Johnson, and E. Garcia. 2014. Relating stink bug density to percentage pecan nut damage. Presented findings to the S1049 Pecan Regional Meeting.

6. BENEFICIARIES The beneficiaries of this project include the commercial and backyard pecan growers and consumers of locally grown pecan nuts and pecan value added products will benefit from this project. 40 Arkansas pecan growers, several County Extension agents in Arkansas counties producing pecans, and a Ph.D. graduate student, Brian Cowell, who conducted and is in the process of completing his dissertation titled: stink bugs: Spatial distribution, pecan phenological susceptibility and sampling program for pecan (Objective 2). Better understating for the need of foliar and soil analysis to be done on a regular basis to improve tree health, yield and nut quality. Better understanding of role of nutrition and fertilizer applications to improve tree health, yield and nut quality. Clearly state the quantitative data that concerns the beneficiaries affected by the project’s accomplishments and/or the potential economic impact of the project.

Potential Impact. We envision that knowledge from the first five objectives on improved cultural and pest management practices will be presented at grower workshops to help growers to adopt best cultural management practices and best pest management practices that improve nut yield and quality by Arkansas pecan growers and increase income. Awareness of plant nutrition as it relates to nut quality and yield has been raised. Improved timing of insecticides will not only prevent insect damage to nuts but is expected to minimize usage of insecticides per acre.  How many beneficiaries will be impacted?

o The Arkansas pecan industry, approximately 275 farms, has benefitted from results of this project. Our educational meetings (open to all pecan growers) have provided science based information upon which growers can make informed decisions to improve tree health and nut yield and quality.  How will the beneficiaries be impacted by the project? Pecan growers who have interacted with this project by either attending educational meetings, by participating in the surveys, or being part of the farms where insect data was collected have learned best management practices for pecan production, nutrient management, pest scouting and timing of management tactics. Pecan growers will get a copy of a Pecan Production Guide and fact sheets on stink bugs, pecan weevil and pecan nut casebearer. Pecan nut yield and quality is expected to improve after adopting these best management practices.  What is the potential economic impact of the project if available? According to USDA statistics, the estimated pecan production for 2009 in Arkansas was 2.5 million pounds with a value of $2.5 million. On average, net wholesale returns from a pecan orchard are $300-400 per acre. There are reported to be 10,700 acres in pecan production with 275 farms in the state (USDA, 2005).

7. LESSONS LEARNED  Offer insights into the lessons learned by the project staff as a result of completing this project. This section is meant to illustrate the positive and negative results and conclusions for the project.  Provide unexpected outcomes or results that were an effect of implementing this project.  If goals or outcome measures were not achieved, identify and share the lessons learned to help others expedite problem‐solving. Information gathered from the industry survey has given us much insight into what areas of research and education are needed by the industry to improve their production practices so growers become more competitive in the market place with high quality pecans that bring much higher prices than low quality pecans. For example:

 Most growers get their pecan management practices information from grower meetings such as annual Arkansas Pecan Grower Association meeting supported by this grant.  Growers now recognize that the nutritional status of their orchards is not what it should be in order to maximize nut production and quality. Several growers have taken action to ameliorate their grove nutritional problems by taking soil and foliar sample, submitting samples for analysis, following the recommendations to add soil and/or foliar amendments in order to produce higher nut quality and yields per acre.  We are developing a monitoring method for stink bugs that will be needs to be validated and then help pecan growers implement its use. Monitoring will enable growers to decide if and when to apply insecticide spray against stink bugs to prevent economic damage to nuts. Currently, we need to fine‐tune the monitoring method for stink bugs in order to predict percentage nut damage and make decision to apply insecticide against stink bugs. Biweekly percentages of stink bug damage of nuts in the trees appears to increase until shuck split and then drop as nuts mature, whereas percentage of nuts damaged by internal Lepidoptera and the pecan weevil appears to increase after mid‐August.  Baited yellow pyramid traps attracted and captured mostly brown and dusky stink bugs and not green stink bugs or leaffooted bugs that may also be feeding on pecan nuts. The yellow

pyramid trap is the best monitoring method for stink bugs and it looks like it can be used to predict increases in stink bug punctures and damage of nuts. The next step is to determine how to use stink bug counts per yellow pyramid trap to predict the need for and time an application of insecticide against stink bugs to prevent significant nut damage.  At least 35 pecan growers state that they are benefitting from the project findings and the information that we disseminate during the annual meetings of the Arkansas Pecan Growers Association and/or the Tristate ArkLaMiss Pecan Trade Show and Convention.

8. CONTACT PERSON Dr. M. Elena Garcia Phone: 479‐575‐2790 Email: [email protected]

9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION  Provide additional information available (i.e. publications, websites, photographs) that is not applicable to any of the prior sections.

Cited Publications: Garcia, M.E. and Chapman, D. 2009. Fertilizer and cultural recommendations for pecan trees. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. Ext. Bull. FSA 6131.

Publications: Cowell, B., D.T. Johnson, M.E. Garcia, and R. Mizell. 2015. Monitoring insect and pest damage in pecan in Arkansas. ISHS ActaHort. 1070:151-157. Garcia, M.E., D.A. Dickey, D.T. Johnson, and B. Cowell. 2015. Assessment of Arkansas pecan industry to increase the industry's competitiveness and economic and environmental sustainability. ISHS ActaHort. 1070:231-234. Garcia, E. 2011. Means and frequencies for the Arkansas Pecan Growers’ Survey.

Websites:  Fruit / Nut Pest Management: http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/  Pecan web site: http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/Pecan_Links.html  Arkansas Pecan Growers Association: http://arkpecangrowers.org/

Appendix: Cited Tables and Figures

Table 1. Agenda for 2014 Annual Arkansas Pecan Growers Association Annual Educational Meeting in Little Rock, AR on April 19

9:00- 9:30 Welcome and Up-date on Pecan Project 9:45-10:15 Weed Management and Pre-Plant Preparations- Ray McEachern (TX A&M) 10:15-10:30- Break 10:30- 11:15- Care and Training Young Pecan Trees- Ray McEachern- (TX A&M) 11:15-12:00- Insect Management- Setting Traps- Donn Johnson- (UA-Entomology) 12:00-1:00- Lunch - What is New? Chemical Industry Representatives 1:00-1:30- Stink Bug- A Research Update- Brian Cowell (UA-Entomology) 1:30-2:00- Pecan Nutrition- M. Elena Garcia (UA-Horticulture) 2:00-2:45- Overview of Pecan Industry- Past, Present, and Future- John Turner (UA-CES)

Table 2. Arkansas Pecan Grower Association Meeting in Little Rock, AR on 19 April 2014 (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 being excellent, 1 being poor): evaluation of topics presented and whether or not a grower may change a practice or recommendation. 1. Pecan Orchard Renovation- George McEachern (invited speaker) Based on the information provided today will you: Change practices/recommendations 6 Consider changing practices/recommendations 6 Not change practices/recommendations 1 Average reply = 4.8 2. Care and Training of Young Pecan Orchard- John Turner (Miller County Extension Agent) Based on the information provided today will you: Change practices/recommendations 8 Consider changing practices/recommendations 4 Not change practices/recommendations 2 Other: Add to what I'm doing 1 Average reply = 4.9 3. Stink bug- Research Update- Brian Cowell (UA student) Response ranged from haven't had a stink bug problem to would like to see more research on stink bugs. Based on the information provided today will you: Change practices/recommendations 3 Consider changing practices/recommendations 8 Not change practices/recommendations 2 Average reply = 4.2 Very Good 4. Insect Management-Setting Traps- Donn Johnson (UA) Based on the information provided today will you:

Change practices/recommendations Put up my trap 4 Consider changing practices/recommendations 4 Average reply = 4.4 5. Pecan Nutrition- Elena Garcia (UA) Based on the information provided today will you: Change practices/recommendations Resume foliar zinc spray 3 consider changing practices/recommendations 5 Not change practices/recommendations 1 Average reply = 4.4 6. Overview of the Pecan Industry- George McEachern (invited speaker) Based on the information provided today will you: Change practices/recommendations 4 consider changing practices/recommendations 3 Average reply = 4.7 7. Pesticide Updates- Industry Representatives Don Thompson (Dow), Brian Sweeden (Bayer), David Black (Syngenta) Based on the information provided today will you: Change practices/recommendations Will do more research on this 6 Consider changing practices/recommendations 5 Average reply = 4.7

Table 3. Seasonal changes in percentage of nuts damaged by stink bugs (SB), pecan weevils (PW) and internal Lepidoptera (IL = either pecan nut casebearer or hickory shuckworm) in five Arkansas pecan groves (2012).

Blackwell 1 Blackwell 2 Mayflower Humphrey Garland City P P P P Date SB W IL SB W IL SB PW IL SB W IL SB WIL Aug. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 15 0 0 - - - 16 Aug. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.7 0 18 0.7 0.7 - - - 30 Sept. 2 0 0 2 0 0 4.7 0 0.7 22 0 10.7 - - - 13 Sept. ------4 0 12 18 Sept. 4 0 5.3 2.7 0 2 8.7 0.7 3.3 21 2.7 10 - - - 27 Oct. 2.7 0 3.3 2 0.7 2 7.3 0.7 4.7 21 21 11.3 5.3 0 26.7 10

Table 4. Seasonal changes in percentage of nuts either punctured (Punc; no nut meat damage) or with nut meat damaged (Dam) by stink bugs in four Arkansas pecan groves (2013).

Blackwell 1 Blackwell 2 Mayflower Humphrey Date Punc Dam Punc Dam Punc Dam Punc Dam 6/25 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 . 0.0 7/2 . 0.0 . 0.0 . 0.0 . 0.0 7/12 . 0.0 . 0.0 . 0.0 . 0.0 7/9 6.7 0.0 5.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 7.3 0.0 7/23 12.7 0.0 9.3 0.0 8.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 8/9 8.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 6.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 8/20 7.3 0.0 5.3 0.0 8.0 4.0 4.7 0.0 9/4 4.7 1.3 2.7 0.0 4.7 2.0 5.3 0.0 9/18 4.7 0.0 2.0 0.7 4.0 0.7 6.7 0.7 10/2 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 6.7 1.3 10.0 4.7 10/1 6 2.7 1.33 2.7 0.0 6.0 1.3 16.7 5.3 10/3 0 5.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 16.7 8.7

Table 5. Seasonal changes in percentage of nuts either punctured (Punc; no nut meat damage) or with nut meat damaged (Dam) by stink bugs in eight Arkansas pecan groves (2014).

Blackwell 1 Blackwell 2 Humphrey Mayflower Blackwell 3 Blackwell 4 Blackwell 5Atkins Date Punc Dam Punc Dam Punc Dam Punc Dam Punc Dam Punc Dam Punc Dam Punc Dam 7/26.70.02.00.02.00.0..1.70.05.00.0.... 7/1610.00.04.70.03.30.02.70.015.00.07.50.0.... 7/3013.30.012.00.04.70.01.30.08.31.78.30.0.... 8/1211.30.011.31.34.00.01.30.06.70.05.00.0.... 8/28 11.3 0.7 8.7 2.0 6.0 2.0 3.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 9/12 8.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 9.3 2.0 2.0 0.0 3.3 1.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 1.1 9/26 8.7 0.0 12.0 0.7 16.0 4.7 4.7 0.7 11.7 6.7 7.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 12.2 3.3 10/18 4.2 1.7 6.0 0.0 22.0 14.0 9.3 7.3 50.0 36.7 4.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 7.8 4.4

Table 6. Correlation (R2) of using each of the four stink bug monitoring methods to predict the resulting percentage of stink bug punctures or percentage nut meat damage in Arkansas pecan groves (2014). It is predicted to take 4 or 3 stink bugs captured per yellow pyramid trap, respectively, to cause either 1% puncture or 1% nut meat damage.

Monitoring Method R2 values Yellow pyramid trap 0.84 0.60 Water knock down 0.01 0.30 spray Visual count 0 0.37 Black light trap 0.10 0.11

Table 7. Example of foliar and soil analyses and ferilizer recommnedations given to growers

pH – in 2011 when tested, soil pH was low

Nitrogen

2.7 – 3.0% Normal. Nitrogen application can be reduced without affecting yield or nut quality. Decrease application rate by 50%.

Phosphorous

<0.14% Low. Apply 100 lbs/acre P2O5.

Applying phosphorus as a banded application rather than a broadcast application has been more effective in increasing phosphorus absorption. Adjust the spreader to deliver the recommended amount of phosphorus per acre. Apply the phosphorus in a band about midway between the trunk and dripline on one side of the tree by leaving the spinners on the spreader off or blocking their spreading the phosphorus, thus applying the phosphorus in a band typically about 18 to 24 inches wide on one side of the tree. If the trees are small apply the band 6 to 8 feet from the trunk on one side of the tree. Urea should not

be applied as a band application because loss of nitrogen by volatilization will be increased. Other forms of nitrogen can be applied as a band with the phosphorus.

Potassium

<1.0% Low. Apply 100 lbs/acre K2O.

Applying potassium as a banded application rather than a broadcast application has been more effective in increasing potassium absorption. Adjust the spreader to deliver the recommended amount of potassium per acre. Apply the potassium in a band about midway between the trunk and dripline on one side of the tree by leaving the spinners on the spreader off or blocking their spreading the potassium, thus applying the potassium in a band typically about 18 to 24 inches wide on one side of the tree. If the trees are small apply the band 6 to 8 feet from the trunk on one side of the tree. Urea should not be applied as a band application because loss of nitrogen by volatilization will be increased. Other forms of nitrogen can be applied as a band with the potassium.

Iron

<50 ppm Iron deficiency can be induced by cool, wet environmental conditions in the spring that inhibit Fe translocation from the roots to the top. Improved environmental conditions will permit translocation and the shortage eliminated. Corrections of iron deficiency will normally not be needed unless the shortage persists for two years or the deficiency is acute. Use commercially available products for foliar application following the manufacturer’s recommendation.

Boron

≥15 ppm —Normal. None needed.

Figure 1. Mean number of three species of stink bugs by date jarred from three trees by a pyrethroid water spray (July 9) or water spray from a pressure washer (other dates) in each of three Arkansas pecan groves in Blackwell 2, Humphrey, and Mayflower (2013). Arrows indicate two dates when insecticide were applied.

Figure 2. Seasonal changes in mean number of three species of stink bugs jarred by a pressure water spray from five trees in each of eight Arkansas pecan groves in Atkins, Blackwell (sites 1- 5), Humphrey, and Mayflower (2014).

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman

Figure 3. Seasonal changes in number of three species of stink bugs captured in black light trap in each of six Arkansas pecan groves in Blackwell, Humphrey, Mayflower, and Atkins (2014).

Figure 4. Seasonal changes in visual counts of stink bugs per 200 nut sample in each of eight Arkansas pecan groves in Blackwell, Humphrey, Mayflower, and Atkins (2014).

Figure 5. Mean numbers of stink bugs per yellow pyramid trap causing given percentage of pecan punctures or given percentage of pecan nut meat damage and corresponding predicted straight line for punctures and curved line for nut damage (Arkansas data from 2014).

Figure 6. Stink bugs caused different types of damage to pecan nuts (inside rectangles or circles) during different nut development stages: immature pecan shucks had only darkened stylet punctures on A) July 10, B) August 13, and C) September 4; whereas stink bugs puncturing more

60 mature nuts on October 3 caused D) darkened spots on nut meat and E) stylet puncture and damaged darkened meat, compared to F) undamaged nut meat on October 23 (Photos: B. Cowell).

Figure 7. Seasonal changes in mean numbers of pecan nuts punctured by stink bugs at three different heights in five Arkansas pecan groves in Blackwell (sites 2-5) and Atkins (2014).

Project 5: Making Arkansas Specialty Crop Producers More Competitive Through Internet Delivery of Videos.

Project Summary

This project will multiplied the impact of four short DVDs that had been previously produced by Southern SAWG. These twenty-minute videos feature the operations and voices of successful specialty crop producers who know profitable approaches to production and marketing. These high-quality videos were formatted for the Internet and posted for free online viewing. Their availability will be promoted to farmers in Arkansas, especially young and beginning farmers, and electronic communication, including social media, will be used extensively in this promotion. Viewers of the videos will be counted and surveyed about the helpfulness of the information that the videos contain.

Project Approach

SSAWG converted the videos to online format and posted them on our page. We then promoted them through email blasts and online media. Southern SAWG then continued to monitor the number of viewers of the online videos and analyze the responses to the volunteer online survey.

The video was marketed through email blasts, social media, and word of mouth. It was posted on the SSAWG website and sent to all of those people on the SSAWG email list.

Goals and Outcomes Achieved

Actual web hits and video downloads were pretty high when compared to other SSAWG videos. The following survey was given to users of the video.

The survey questions are as follows:

Zip code ______

Are you currently farming? ___Yes ___No 64% yes Do you plan to begin farming? ___Yes ___No 40% yes

Did you find this video useful? ___ Not at all 11% ___ Somewhat 25% ___ Very 64%

How likely are you to put into use any of the practices presented in the video? ___ Very likely 55% ___ Likely 35% ___ Not likely 11%

What was your knowledge of specialty crops before viewing this video? (1 very high, 5 very low) __1 Average Answer was 4.11 __2 __3 __4 __5 What do you believe your knowledge of specialty crops is after viewing this video? (1 very high, 5 very low) __1 Average Answer was 3.20 __2 __3 __4 __5

Beneficiaries

The primary beneficiaries of this project were the 35,000 small- to medium size farms in Arkansas that were looking to diversify production and or sales through specialty crops. These videos benefited producers from the increased availability of knowledge and the decreased barrier of entry into specialty crops. Unique viewers, actually unique IP addresses, was over 400.

Lessons Learned

There was confusion on the part of SSAWG on who they were supposed to request funding from. AAD has spoken with them and has ironed out the problems. Funding was sent to SSAWG during the spring of 2013.

Contact Person

Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (Southern SAWG) Jim Lukens, Executive Director P.O. Box 1552 Fayetteville, AR 72702 479-251-8310 [email protected]

Project 6: Grafting as a Novel Management Tool for Control of Fusarium Wilt of Heirloom Tomatoes.

Activities Performed

Project Abstract

The cultivation of grafted vegetable plants began in the early 20th century and has been adopted as a management strategy for many soilborne diseases, including Fusarium wilt of tomato. Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Fol) causes Fusarium wilt of tomato and is economically important in Arkansas. There are 3 reported races of Fol and all 3 races are known to occur in Arkansas. Resistance to all 3 races of Fol are available, but resistance is not available in older heirloom tomatoes. The tomato cultivar Bradley is commonly grown in Arkansas for its favorable color and flavor as well as its stable and favorable price. A major limitation in growing Bradley and other heirloom tomatoes in Arkansas is that they are only resistant to race 1 of Fol. The objective of this proposal is to determine if Fusarium wilt can be managed by grafting Bradley and other heirloom tomatoes onto a rootstock resistant to Fol. Bradley and other heirloom tomato cultivars will be grafted onto Crista rootstock. Crista is a vigorous cultivar resistant to Fol races 1, 2, and 3. Disease incidence and severity will be evaluated under both greenhouse and field conditions and yield will be assessed under field conditions.

Activities Performed

The project objectives include the following:

1. Assess distribution of Fusarium wilt in Ashley, Bradley and Drew Counties

2. Assess the effectiveness of grafting of heirloom tomato on disease incidence and severity of Fusarium wilt disease.

3. Assess the effect of grafting on yield of heirloom tomatoes.

4. Assess the time and cost for local tomato growers to conduct their own grafting efforts.

5. Conduct a cost/benefit analysis of grafting based on cost of production, disease control, and yield

Project Update

Fusarium wilt disease, caused by the soilborne fungus Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici, is an economically important disease in most tomato production areas including Arkansas. There are a number of strains of the pathogen, and race 3 of this pathogen is prevalent throughout the tomato growing areas of Arkansas. Most commercially grown advanced hybrid varieties grown in the state have effective resistance to races 1, 2, and 3. However, most “heirloom” (defined as older, traditional, open pollinated varieties) have little or no resistance to the various strains of this pathogen. The heirloom varieties have become quite popular in recent years but are are difficult to grow due to their disease susceptibility. Thus grafting a desirable scion (top) onto a disease resistant rootstock allows growers to produce heirloom tomatoes in Arkansas.

Three heirloom tomato varieties, Bradley, Brandywine, and Cherokee Purple, were evaluated either ungrafted or grafted onto one of two different disease resistant hybrid rootstocks, Crista or Amelia. The nine treatments were planted at two locations, Warren and Kibler, AR. Yield and marketability of were evaluated during the course of the season for 2012 and 2013. The yield data for 2012 is summarized in Table 1 for Warren, AR and Table 2 for Kibler, AR.

Problems and Delays and Future Plans

Grafted plants in 2013 were damaged during transplanting in 2013 due to weather and prevented us from collecting useful data. Thus, the 2012 experiments are being repeated this season (2014).

Funding Expended to Date

Financial Report:

A total of $50,000 was awarded. We have spent $40,362.23, with $9,637.77 left to spend by 9/29/14.

Table 1. The grafting tomato data from Warren, ARa

Treatments Brandy‐ Brandy‐ Cherp‐ Cherp‐ Bradley‐ Bradley‐ Brandy Cherp Bradley Amelia Crista Amelia Crista Amelia Crista Marketable Fruit 34.3 35.5 30.5 60.5 48.7 29.3 70.8 38.0 33.0 Fruit Number Fruit / Plant 5.5 6.4 3.6 6.8 8.0 5.7 10.5 14.1 4.3 Fruit Wt. (g) 7892 8261 7064 13891 11872 7222 10260 4006 4022 Fruit Wt. (g) 1238 1441 842 1555 1802 1258 1227 1720 522 Per plant Non- Fruit 6.5 9.8 6.8 10.0 8.0 4.8 3.8 0.3 1.0 marketable Number Fruit Fruit / Plant 1.1 1.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.2 Fruit Wt. (g) 1808 2797 1652 2881 2706 1397 557 38 187 Fruit Wt. (g) 306 385 195 323 442 214 95 5 37 Per plant a Seed of the tomato varieties were planted in the greenhouse on 02/29/2012, and all plants were grafted by using tomato varieties Crista and Amelia as root stock and Bradley, Brandywine, and Cherokee Purple as scions after 4 weeks. Grafted plants were transferred immediately to the dew chamber maintained at high humidity. After 20 days, all the plants were transferred into the Donnelly commercial field in Warren, AR. The data were collected at four times during the season and the data summarized by treatment. Each treatment consisted of four replications with 10 plants per replication. The plants were placed at a 20 in commercial spacing.

Treatments included the varieties: Brandy = Brandywine Brandy-Amelia = Brandywine on an Amelia rootstock Brandy-Crista = Brandywine grafted onto a Crista rootstock CherP = Chrerokee Purple CherP-Amelia = Cherokee Purple on an Amelia rootstock CherP-Crista = Cherokee Purple on a Crista rootstock Bradley = Bradley Bradley-Amelia = Bradley on an Amelia rootstock Bradley-Crista = Bradley grafted onto a Crista rootstock

Table 2. Summary of tomato yields from Kibler, AR in 2012.

Varia Treatment ble

Brand Cher Cher Bradle Bradle Brand Bran y- Cher P- P- Bradl y- y- y- dy Ameli P Amel Crist ey Ameli Crista a ia a a Crista

Marketa Fruit ble Numb 40.6 42.2 46.6 32.2 44.2 26.6 55.8 - 26.6 er

Fruit / 4.40 4.55 4.79 5.16 6.36 6.90 5.79 - 5.71 Plant

Fruit 1079 Wt. 11615 11933 12092 4587 5842 9414 - 8254 8 (g)

Fruit Wt. 1254 1381 1362 1410 1507 1217 973 - 960 (g) per plant

a Seed of the tomato varieties were planted in the greenhouse on 02/29/2012, and all plants were grafted by using tomato varieties Crista and Amelia as root stock and Bradley, Brandywine, and Cherokee Purple as scions after 4 weeks. Grafted plants were transferred immediately to the dew chamber maintained at high humidity. After 20 days, all the plants were transferred into the filed at the Kibler, AR vegetable substation. The data were collected at four times during the season and the data summarized by treatment. Each treatment consisted of five replications with 10 plants per replication. The plants were placed at a 20 in. commercial spacing.

Treatments included the varieties: Brandy = Brandywine Brandy-Amelia = Brandywine on an Amelia rootstock Brandy-Crista = Brandywine grafted onto a Crista rootstock CherP = Chrerokee Purple

CherP-Amelia = Cherokee Purple on an Amelia rootstock CherP-Crista = Cherokee Purple on a Crista rootstock Bradley = Bradley Bradley-Amelia = Bradley on an Amelia rootstock Bradley-Crista = Bradley grafted onto a Crista rootstock

Project 7: Specialty Crop Education Fund

Project Summary

In past SCBGP-FB proposals producers groups had requested funding to host educational conferences and to attend educational workshops for their respective area of production. However, one disadvantage was that a group would need to know almost a year in advance when a workshop was to be held so that they could submit a proposal to request funding. This proposal allowed more than one specific group to be able to request funding for educational workshops without a yearlong wait for funding.

Five functions were funded through this project.

Project Approach

Starting in the spring of 2012, AAD started informing eligible organizations of the available of the funding. Four groups exercised the offer of the funding. Those groups were:

 Arkansas Association of Grape Growers  East Arkansas Enterprise Community  Arkansas School Nutrition Association  Downtown Argenta

The Arkansas Association of Grape Growers held two annual educational conferences. Below is the agenda of the meeting. No meals were covered by the SCBGP funds.

EAEC used their funds to conduct Good Agricultural Practices workshops for minority farmers. They held him them during 2014 in the delta region of the state. They conducted the workshops because GAP is usually a hurdle for minority farmers to be able to sell specialty crops into retailers.

Funds were used to hold a workshop and secure booth spaace at the 2014 Arkansas School Nutrition Conference for specialty crop farmers wanting to sell to local schools. Five farmers took part.

The downtown Argenta group used their funds for an online food safety workshop on cucumbers and the processing of pickling the cucumbers.

Over 100 plus farmers attended these workshops.

Goals and Outcomes Achieved

Groups who used the funds were surveyed and the results are below:

SPECIALTY CROP EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCE FUND PROGRAM SURVEY

On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being highly likely, 1 being highly unlikely) please rank how likely you are to use this info.

Did this program help to promote your sales?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NO YES

Avg Reply was 9.0

How likely are to recommend a continuance of this program?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NO YES

Avg Reply was 9.20

If offered again would you use this program?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NO YES

Avg Reply was 9.30

Beneficiaries

The beneficiaries of this project are the groups and their members who used this project to fund continuing education of its members. Over 100 farmers’ benefited from this project.

Lessons Learned

The main lesson learned by this project is to make sure that those wanting to utilize the project understand the requirements. In addition, when a group asks to use the funds a representative of AAD needs to attend the event to verify that they are following the rules of the project.

Contact Person

Zachary Taylor, Director of Marketing

Arkansas Agriculture Department

501-219-6324

[email protected]

Project 8: Produce Marketing Association Fresh Summit Show

Project Summary

This project was also covered in agreement 1054.

Five specialty crop companies participated in the Arkansas Agricultural Department’s (AAD) booth at the 2012 Produce Marketing Association (PMA) Fresh Summit International Convention and Exposition in Anaheim, CA on October 26-28th, 2012. The companies are:  Mathews Ridgeview Farms  Clanton Farms  Post Familie Winery  JYC/ Edamame  Old Dominion Farms

JYC/ Edamame were new participants in the AAD booth at the PMA Fresh Summit.

The companies were surveyed and the results are given under the goals section.

Project Approach

JYC/ Edamame were new participants in the AAD booth at the PMA Fresh Summit.

The following crops were showcased:  Sweet Potatoes  Grapes/Muscadines/Juice  Tomatoes  Cucumbers  Squash  Watermelons  Edamame

The participant companies produce the following:  Sweet Potatoes  Grapes/Muscadines/Juice  Tomatoes  Cucumbers  Squash  Watermelons  Onions  Hot Peppers  Bell Peppers  Edamame

These growers are a very broad representation of AR specialty crops. They represent some of our biggest specialty crops, such as tomatoes, watermelons, and sweet potates.

Participants were recruited by a letter and email to all Arkansas producers who were GAP/GHP inspected or that AAD had knowledge of and were of a size that could benefit from the event.

A survey was sent to all participants after the event and written survey results will be tallied and used to prepare for the 2013 show.

Verbal reports from participants and the notable increase in the number of buyers visiting the AAD booth indicate participation in the AAD booth was successful and beneficial for the companies. The increase in the traffic at the AAD booth is a direct result of the better booth location which AAD earned by being a six year participant at the PMA Fresh Summit. All participants have indicated to AAD they want to participate in the AAD booth at the 2013 PMA Fresh Summit.

2012 PMA FRESH SUMMIT Anaheim, CA

1. WAS THIS SHOW HELPFUL? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 YES No 2. WILL YOU RETURN NEXT YEAR? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 YES No 3. DID YOU THINK ATTENDING “DID OR WILL” INCREASE YOUR SALES? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 YES No 4. ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THE BOOTH SETUP? YES NO: ______

______

5. HOW MANY SALES LEADS OR POTENTIAL SALES LEADS WERE MADE? ______

6. HOW MANY CONTACTS WERE MADE? - ______

7. HOW MANY LEADS OF:

NATIONAL: ______REGIONAL: ______LOCAL: ______

8. HOW ELSE WAS THIS SHOW HELPFUL? ______

9. SUGGESTIONS:______

Goals and Outcomes Achieved

AAD achieved its goals and outcomes by constructing a booth at the 2012 PMA show and recording 20 potential sales leads as indicated in the survey results below.

Survey Results:

1. Average Score 1.8 2. Average Score 1.0 3. Average Score 2.1 4. All attendees responded with “Yes”. 5. Average sales leads were 18.25 6. Average contacts were 35 7. Averages were: NATIONAL: 9 REGIONAL: 3 LOCAL: 1 8. One of the response that was commonly reported was,” This show allows me to see all of my buyers”.

Verbal reports from participants and the notable increase in the number of buyers visiting the AAD booth indicate participation in the AAD booth was successful and

74 beneficial for the companies. The increase in the traffic at the AAD booth is a direct result of the better booth location which AAD earned by being a five year participant at the PMA Fresh Summit. All participants have indicated to AAD they want to participate in the AAD booth at the 2013 PMA Fresh Summit.

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries were the specialty crop producers of Arkansas and especially those that attended the show with AAD. When Arkansas has a presence at these national shows all of Arkansas can benefit.

Lessons Learned

AAD has been attending this show and constructing this booth for a number of years now and thus most of the problems have been worked out.

Contact Person

Zachary Taylor Director of Marketing Arkansas Agriculture Department #1 Natural Resource Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Phone: (501) 219-6324 Fax: (501) 312-7052 E-mail: [email protected]

Project 9: Arkansas Gleaning Project

Project Summery

According to a USDA survey Arkansas ranks 1st in the nation (tied with Mississippi) for the number of individuals who are food insecure. Also, a Feeding America report indicates Arkansas is 9th in the nation for childhood hunger. These statistics mean that over 500,000 people in Arkansas are hungry or wondering where their next meal will come from. The state is combating the lack of availability of nutritious foods for low income families as well as a high rate of hunger. Due to this the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance (AHRA) set a goal in 2008 of acquiring and distributing more fresh fruits and vegetables through their member organizations.

Fresh fruits and vegetables are more difficult to store and transport within the hunger relief system. When they are available they must be transported immediately to local pantries and shelters and then made available quickly to clients. The transporting of fruits and vegetables from out of state sources is expensive and risky. Since they are perishable items they must be transported on refrigerated trucks and often arrive bruised and rotting.

Due to our need for more nutritious food and the complexities of delivery and storage the Alliance began looking for new and innovative ways to provide access to fresh fruits and vegetables to the families served by hunger relief organizations in our state. Through this search the Alliance became aware of the Society of St. Andrew’s (SOSA) gleaning efforts and formed a partnership to develop a gleaning network in Arkansas. Gleaning is simply the act of following behind farmers after their harvests and picking produce left in the field. The concept was perfect for Arkansas due to our large agricultural base to access foods and a high rate of volunteerism throughout the state.

The project began in May 2008 with the development of an advisory council to help develop and link resources needed for the network and resulted in three gleaning efforts during the summer. Approximately 150,000 pounds of fresh, nutritious food from Arkansas fields was gathered during these first efforts. Unfortunately much more than that was left behind and unutilized. The gleaned food was made available to pantries and shelters, where it was distributed quickly and efficiently to Arkansas families. Volunteers and farmers are the key building blocks of this system and require hours of

76 networking to build strong and lasting commitments. Additionally, there must be transportation and distribution methods to ultimately get the food to needy Arkansans. These require staff time and funds to adequately move the product in a timely and efficient manner. The development of this network will take time and resources but the end result of a long standing network providing fresh fruits and vegetables to hungry Arkansans will far outweigh the costs.

Project Approach

The partnership with the Society of St. Andrew is a natural. SOSA has over thirty years gleaning experience and would like to develop relationships in Arkansas. The Alliance is the distribution system with almost one thousand feeding agencies in all seventy-five counties of Arkansas.

The Director of Food Sourcing for the Alliance called on farmers, producers, and packers to gain their involvement in the gleaning network. Our staff worked with SOSA to develop volunteer networks across the state to participate in gleaning activities. This included presentations to civic groups, churches, schools, state agencies, media outlets and other organizations that may be interested in promoting the project. We worked to develop and track printed materials to distribute with the produce to educate Arkansans about preparation and use of the produce they are receiving. Written surveys were developed and distributed to select pantries and shelters to collect and track data regarding the increased interest in and consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. The staff of the Alliance provided SOSA complete access to and assistance with the local network of hunger relief organizations in the state to help with volunteer staffing and distribution of gleaned products.

The Director of Food Sourcing provided logistical support with transportation and supplies for each gleaning during the 2013 season. This included:

Boxes, bins or bags needed for storing and transporting

Transportation costs from the field to the distribution points

Onsite assistance at gleanings

Coordination of local distribution points to ensure freshness of produce gleaned

The Director of Food Sourcing for the Alliance will continue to work with the Governor’s Office to coordinate use of State of Arkansas Regional Maintenance Crews to staff gleanings.

The Alliance staff publicized the gleaning project on its website, at meetings and forums, and within its memberships. The staff assisted SOSA with any recruitment of volunteers as requested.

According to a USDA survey Arkansas ranks 1st in the nation (tied with Mississippi) for the percentage of individuals who are food insecure. Also, a Feeding America report indicates Arkansas is 9th in the nation for childhood hunger. These statistics mean that over 500,000 people in Arkansas are hungry or wondering where their next meal will come from. The state is combating the lack of availability of nutritious foods for low income families as well as a high rate of hunger. Due to this the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance (AHRA) set a goal in 2008 of acquiring and distributing more fresh fruits and vegetables through their member organizations.

The hunger alliance followed the work plan very closely. What is reported above seems to correlate very closely with the work plan.

Expected Measurable Outcomes:

1. Increase partnerships with farmers by 50%. The Arkansas Gleaning project saw a significant increase in partnerships with farmers during 2013, reaching the goal of a 50% increase. Eight farmers were added to the program, making the total farmer participation to 23. The addition of new farmers gave the opportunity to glean new crops. Edamame, pinto beans and onions were offered to Arkansans in need for the first time. New farms for 2013 include 2 central Arkansas urban farms: Felder Farm & Busy‐Scott urban farm. New, traditional partnerships include Jeff Wardlaw, Craig Wardlaw, Eagle Creek Farms, Harvey Williams, Shawn Peebles, & Barnhill Orchards.

2. Glean a minimum of 1,500,000 pounds of produce in 2013. Although 2013 was a difficult growing season, to date over 1.4 million pounds have been gleaned. A wet, cold spring pushed back planting. A frost on May 1st caused irreparable damage to some crops. This caused donations from historically large donors to be down by more than half. Yet, with new donors and a great deal of work, the efforts resulted in more than 1.4 million pounds with pecan gleanings yet to come.

3. Hire a gleaning coordinator. A gleaning coordinator, Jeremy Adams, was hired in March 2013. The additional staff for the Gleaning project has already allowed the scope of the Arkansas Gleaning Project to grow. With one gleaning season under his belt, he anticipates a record 2014 season.

Beneficiaries

The ultimate beneficiary of the Arkansas Gleaning Program is the people of Arkansas. Alliance clientele are typically considered the “at risk” population, mostly families with children and the elderly. The fresh, nutritious food the Arkansas Gleaning Project provides helps fight many health issues including obesity and diabetes. Participating farmers benefit, not only through tax deductions, but for the satisfaction of seeing food they have raised being utilized and not wasted, as well as a rise in yields.

Alliance food banks are also beneficiaries. Produce donated from sources outside of Arkansas cost thousands of dollars to transport and usually arrives in poor condition. The average cost of produce for the Arkansas Gleaning Project in 2013 is 2.1 cents per pound. That product is given to the food banks and feeding agencies free of charge, making it an indispensable source of valuable product. The Arkansas Department of Correction benefits by participating in an activity that allows inmates to make a positive impact on the lives of people in need and help pay back their debt to society. The press coverage also brings a positive light to ADC for their work in this area.

Lessons Learned

Despite the setbacks experienced by farmers, 2013 has been the most successful year of the Arkansas Gleaning Project. This is a testament to the commitment of all the partners, particularly farmers. Last year, the Alliance detailed a plan to reach the long term goal of 5 million pounds by 2020. Because of partnerships made with funding organizations like the USDA through the Arkansas Agriculture Department, Kroger and the Walmart Foundation; the Alliance is well on the way to developing the resources required to meet that goal. Funding secured during 2013 will allow the Alliance to add equipment and expand the program even further during 2014. Because of these partnerships, more low‐ income Arkansans have received fresh produce at no cost. An additional benefit has been national recognition. The Arkansas Gleaning Project has become an example and mentor to food banks across the country. Presentations about the Arkansas Gleaning Project were made at the Feeding America Food & Operations Conference in Chicago and the Texas Hunger Summit at Baylor University. This national attention has led to the launch of similar efforts in other states. Attendees are always amazed at the multiple partnerships made and required for the success of the program. This is the most important lesson learned.

Follow‐up Questions

 How many farmers, producers and packers did the Director of Food Sourcing call on? What were the results of these activities? See section 1.  How many presentations to civic groups, churches, schools, etc. did you make and what were the results? How many more volunteers do you have now as a result of these efforts funded by this specific grant? Among others, presentations about the Arkansas Gleaning Project were made at the Feeding America Food & Operations Conference in Chicago and the Texas Hunger Summit at Baylor University. This national attention has led to the launch of similar efforts in other states. Because of our outreach, volunteer participation at our largest gleaning doubled from 100 participants to 200 participants.  How many organizations are a part of the network? The Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance represents seven regional food banks that serve over 800 agencies in all 75 counties of Arkansas.  What printed materials were developed? How were they distributed and to whom? What was the result of these efforts funded by this specific grant? Recipes are being updated for the educational materials developed last year with grant 12‐25‐B‐0909. However, in the budget of this grant we did not request funding for that activity and are continuing those efforts as a basic part of the program.  Please provide more information on the surveys. What was asked? How many were completed and by whom? What were the results of the surveys? A survey was developed last year with grant 12‐25‐B‐ 0909. However, in the budget of this grant we did not request funding for that activity.  What is meant by “the Director of Food Sourcing provided logistical support, etc…” Did he provide the boxes, bins, etc. or give money to someone to cover this? How many/much and to whom? Logistical support means that the Food Sourcing & Logistics department makes sure that supplies (boxes, bins, and bags), transportation and volunteers or inmates are at each gleaning event.  What is onsite assistance at gleaning? A staff member of the Food Sourcing & Logistics Department is at each gleaning coordinating the activities of all involved parties and resources.  How did he coordinate and what was the result? Was there an improvement in freshness? How was it measured? The results are measured by the number of farmers participating in the program and the pounds of produce gleaned. Eight farmers were added to the program, making the total farmer participation to 23. The amount of gleaned produce also grew to 1,469,287 pounds.

How many people benefited from this project? This question was not addressed. How many people in Arkansas benefited? How many farmers benefited? How many food banks benefited and how many do they serve? According to Hunger in America 2010, a study produced by Feeding America, the Alliance network serves over 434,000 unduplicated Arkansans annually by six Feeding America food banks and on independent food bank. These food banks serve over 800 feeding agencies in all 75 counties of Arkansas. Produce donated from sources outside of Arkansas cost thousands of dollars to transport and usually arrives in poor condition. The average cost of produce for the Arkansas Gleaning Project in 2013 is 2.1 cents per pound. That product is given to the food banks and feeding agencies free of charge, making it an indispensable source of valuable product.

Twenty‐three farmers participated in the Arkansas Gleaning Project during 2013. Participating farmers benefit, not only through tax deductions, but for the satisfaction of seeing food they have raised being utilized and not wasted, as well as a rise in yields.

Contact:

Michelle L. Shope Director of Food Sourcing & Logistics Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance Phone 501.399.9999 Fax 501.399.9996 www.arhungeralliance.org

Project 10: Spotted Wing Drosophila Workshop and Monitoring in Arkansas 2013

Project Title. Spotted Wing Drosophila Workshop and Monitoring in Arkansas 2013 Partner Organization: University of Arkansas System Applicants: Donn T. Johnson and Elena Garcia Contact Person: Dr. Donn T. Johnson, Professor AGRI 320 Department of Entomology, Division of Agriculture University of Arkansas System, Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: 479-575-2501; FAX: 479-575-2452; E-mail: [email protected];

Administering the project: Dr. Donn T. Johnson

Project Summary (accomplishments in 200 words or less)

In July 2012, spotted wing drosophila (SWD) were first captured in apple cider vinegar baited SWD traps in ripening blackberry plantings in Arkansas. In 2013 and 2014, four SWD workshops and state and regional fruit grower and Extension Agent training meetings educated over 180 fruit growers and 60 County Extension Agents about how to detect and manage SWD. In 2013 and 2014, SWD traps were distributed to all Arkansas fruit producing counties. In 2013, a total of 29,587 flies were confirmed by us as SWD from 18 Arkansas counties. In 2014, fewer sites were sampled but produced 8,284 SWD flies. In 2014, most of the Arkansas growers of brambles experienced tremendous pressure from SWD with eggs and/or larvae found in all unsprayed ripe fruit. SWD flies were reared from samples of ripening blackberry fruits (< 13% egg infested), wild and commercial ripe blackberry and raspberry fruits (up to 100% egg infested) and SWD eggs and larvae were found in phomopsis lesions on ripe peaches. No significant SWD infestations were found in blueberries and strawberries that end harvest before SWD fly numbers increase in late June. Johnson attended: eFly SWD Working Group; OREI SWD Planning meeting; and the WERA 1021 SWD meeting. Johnson is collaborating on composing a national USDA/NIFA/OREI proposal on Organic management of SWD. The 2013 Arkansas spotted wing drosophila survey showed that fruit growers applied insecticides weekly, using Malathion and Mustang Max insecticides to prevent SWD infestation. In 2014, collaborating bramble growers continued to use Malathion and Mustang Max to manage SWD.

Project Purpose (What is the specific issue, problem or need to be addressed by the project?)

The spotted wing drosophila (SWD) is an invasive fruit pest species from eastern Asia. This pest was first reported to cause fruit damage in California in 2008, spread up both North American coasts in 2009 and then dispersed into the rest of the continent in subsequent years (Burrack et al. 2012). Starting in late May 2012, County Extension agents or research station personnel were monitoring apple cider vinegar baited SWD traps for SWD in seven Arkansas counties: Crawford, Faulkner, Franklin, Hempstead, Johnson, Washington and White. On 9 July 2012, the first spotted wing drosophila (SWD) flies were captured and confirmed from baited SWD traps placed in White County Arkansas. Later, SWD flies were captured in

82 traps in Johnson and Washington Counties. In other states, the SWD flies were reported to lay eggs in soft skinned ripening and ripened fruits causing severe SWD larval infestations in blackberries, raspberries, and cherries and less severe infestations blueberries, grapes, peaches, and strawberries (Lee et al. 2011). There was a need to sample various ripe fruits in fruit growing counties in Arkansas to determine which crops are susceptible to SWD. We will also train county agents and growers about the biology, identification and how to manage SWD on susceptible crops in Arkansas. Johnson has a SWD fact sheet online at http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/ and updates about SWD as needed. All new information will be incorporated into SWD workshops distribution to Arkansas fruit growers. In 2014, Johnson is participating in the 2014 USDA Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) planning meeting project with the intention to be collaborator in a USDA OREI or SCRI project to develop and implement alternative tactics against SWD.

Describe the objectives and purpose of the project, including the specific issue, problem, or need that was addressed by the project.

Objective 1) In February 2013, we began advertising, and organizing three SWD training workshops and purchasing supplies that will be distributed to participants. Our announcement of the three SWD workshops was sent out last week and to date we have registered 18 growers and 16 county agents. Objective 2) Four workshops were conducted: 13 March 2013 at the SWREC in Hope; 3 April 2013 at the Faulkner County Office in Conway; and 10 April 2013 in Pauline Whitaker Animal Science Center in Fayetteville; and 31 July 2014 in Fayetteville for 10 Farmers’ Market berry vendors. At each workshop, growers and County Extension agents were trained to identify, monitor, and manage SWD in susceptible fruits in Arkansas. In 2013, each workshop occurred from 9am to 4pm with County Extension agents meeting in the morning and fruit growers meeting afternoon. Both groups overlapped at noon for a combined lunch where there was a question and answer session about SWD and initiated collaboration between fruit growers and their corresponding County Extension agents concerning detection of SWD in baited traps and timely management of this new pest in Arkansas. The funds paid for lunch for all registered growers and County Extension agents, and paid travel for agents to attend one of these workshops. Each participant received: 15X, lighted magnifying hand lens with the Division of Arkansas logo printed on the lanyard; vial with voucher specimens of the SWD flies (males and females); one prototype SWD fly cup trap; Arkansas SWD fact sheet (available at: http://www.uaex.edu/publications/pdf/FSA-7079.pdf); and a laminated reference sheet containing pictures of SWD flies, larva, fruit damage, liquid bait recipe, trap monitoring program to detect SWD flies, floatation method to detect SWD larvae in fruit, and spray recommendations (updated as needed at: http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/Handout_SWD_30_July_14.pdf). In addition, we gained knowledge about the seasonal changes in abundance of SWD in traps and percentage of sampled ripe fruit infested with SWD in Arkansas. Objective 3) Workshop attendees were given the knowledge and tools to identify and manage SWD, but it was highly recommended that they work with their County Extension agent to mail fly specimens sieved from SWD traps in a vial of alcohol for Drosophila fly species identification and confirmation by: Ms. Barbara Lewis, AGRI 319, Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701; Email: [email protected]; Phone: 479-575-3398. Objective 4) In each year, an Arkansas County map was updated noting where SWD fly trap samples had confirmed SWD flies (available online: http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/). From 2012 to 2014, several issues of The Arkansas Fruit and Nut News had updates about the status and management of SWD in

Arkansas (online at: http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/Arkansas_Fruit_Newsletter.html). These updates were about new trap and lure designs, efficacy charts for insecticides for conventional and organic fruit growers (online at: http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/SWD_Insecticide_Efficacy_Nov_13.pdf), new registrations for insecticides and relative susceptibility to SWD infestation of fruits crops in Arkansas. Objective 5) Weekly from early-May to mid-November, Barbara Lewis and an hourly monitored baited SWD traps to describe the seasonal changes in SWD biology in Arkansas, floated samples of 30 ripening fruit for SWD larvae, reared Drosophila flies from these samples and identified and counted number of emerged SWD flies. In 2014, a comparison was made in the percentage of SWD infested berries collected from a screened high tunnel (attempt to exclude SWD flies) and in open fields of organically produced blackberries and raspberries at the Arkansas Agricultural Research and Extension Center (AAREC) in Fayetteville. Objective 6) On 7 August 2013, the University of Arkansas Institutional Review Board authorized a SWD survey of Arkansas fruit growers and its cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey. Once approved, we printed 150 copies of the survey and cover letter and purchased and addressed envelopes, addressed return envelopes, and in October 2013 mailed surveys to 80 fruit growers across Arkansas. The objectives of the survey were to: inform growers of SWD information available online (http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/); determine how well the information about SWD was disseminated; determine how many growers had SWD damaged fruit and which fruit were damaged; keep percent fruit damage from SWD to near zero; help growers use recommended insecticide sprays or other tactics as needed; document changes in the number of insecticide sprays growers applied per crop after appearance of SWD; determine practices that were effective against SWD; and list grower suggested research and extension priorities regarding SWD management. Grower survey responses were tabulated as they were returned to Barbara Lewis. Responses by question were tabulated and included in this Project Report. Objective 7) Compile project report and submit by 1 December in 2013 and 2014.

 Does the project have the potential to enhance the competitiveness of non-specialty crops Yes, we will use this grant funding to announce and conduct three SWD Workshops in 2013, and one in 2014 and present SWD findings from Arkansas at state, regional and national fruit grower and professional meetings. Trained County Extension agents will help inform berry growers how to monitor for and manage SWD below economically damaging levels. This will result in growers being able to continue to produce high quality, marketable fruit that in many cases is sold at farmers’ markets or other local sales outlets. On 31 July 2014, we held a special SWD workshop for ten berry venders at the Fayetteville Farmers’ Market after SWD larvae were detected in berries being sold.

o When will your performance monitoring/data collection plan activity be accomplished? From May to the end of fruit harvest in 2013 and 2014, we suggested that Workshop participants place SWD traps near fruit plantings and check traps weekly for fly capture. Growers placed trapped flies in sample vials and had County Extension agents mail vials to Ms. Barbara Lewis. Barbara identified and confirmed that over 29,587 (2013) and 8,284 (2014) flies were SWD. Confirmed SWD captures by County were noted on an Arkansas County map and made available on the Fruit/Nut Pest Management website: http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/SWD_AR_Co_Map_May_to_Oct_13.pdf.

o How will outcomes measured be completed or measured inside the grant period? Grower survey responses were tabulated as they were returned to Barbara Lewis. Responses were tabulated and included below.

 Who will do the work of each activity? All these tasks required at least 10% FTE of Donn Johnson (PI), Barbara Lewis (Program Associate II), and 5 to 10hr/week of an hourly person. Donn Johnson and Barbara Lewis composed a laminated SWD reference sheet, ordered materials for Workshop handouts, coordinated Workshop registration, had participants sign-in at the Workshop and ordered lunches. In 2013, samples of sieved flies were received from 26 county agents for identification but SWD was confirmed in only 18 counties (listed below). Barbara supervised processing suspect fly samples sent in by County Extension agents for confirmation as SWD. Johnson sent SWD updates in Arkansas Fruit and Nut News as needed (http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/Arkansas_Fruit_Newsletter.html), and updated the map of Arkansas counties with confirmed SWD samples: http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/. During the 2014 season, we continued to inform fruit growers and County Extension agents about: new counties where SWD was detected; what, when and to what extent different fruit crops were being damaged; and insecticide programs or other tactics reported as effective against SWD. Weekly from early-May to the end of harvest or December 2014 (still getting weekly samples to note winter flight activity), Barbara and an hourly sieved flies from baited SWD traps (compared two baits: grape juice + apple cider vinegar spiked to 11% with ethanol versus Trécé SWD dual lures over apple cider vinegar drowning solution) from: 1) bramble plantings in screened high tunnel and in open field plantings at AAREC in Fayetteville; 2) commercial blackberry and blueberry planting in Tontitown; and 3) commercial raspberry and blackberry planting in Springdale, AR. Weekly from 2 July through 21 October 2014, Barbara confirmed/counted all SWD flies from samples collected by Taunya Ernst (Program Associate I) at the Fruit Station in Clarksville. Taunya sieved flies from SWD traps, replaced bait and vinegar and collected 30 ripe fruit from three sites: 1) sprayed blackberries; 2) sprayed blueberries; and 3) unsprayed blackberries. The objective was to compare the effect of multiple insecticide sprays on SWD numbers per trap and SWD infestations in fruit. The SWD traps were baited with Trécé SWD dual lures over apple cider vinegar (ACV) drowning solution. Weekly from 28 April to 18 November 2014, the County Extension agent, Sherri Sanders, near Searcy had two blackberry sites from which she sent us weekly sieved samples of flies from 11 traps with 5 baited with fermenting yeast + flour + sugar + water and 5 baited with Trécé SWD dual lures + drowning solution of ACV. Through the winter, Sherri plans to continue sampling two sites with traps baited only with Trécé SWD dual lures + drowning solution of ACV. A stereomicroscope was used to identify and count the number of SWD flies (males and females) in each SWD trap sample, and to scan for SWD eggs and larvae from each fruit of each sample of 30 ripe fruit. After scanning, each sample of 30 ripe fruits was held for two weeks in a screen-covered rearing jar on top of a convex piece of ¼” screen to allow larvae to mature, exit fruit and for flies to emerge. All emerged flies were sorted and SWD flies counted. Occasional muscadine samples were processed from Fruit Station, but no SWD were found. In 2013, a few African fig flies (or fig fruit fly), Zaprionus indianus Gupta, were detected in SWD trap samples in Clarksville, Arkansas but none were collected in 2014 samples. The African fig fly is originally from Africa but in recent years has been expanding its range. It has moved west to

Brazil, and east to India. It was found in Florida in 2005 and South Carolina in 2007. In September 2012, this exotic drosophilid was found to be common in some vineyard blocks in Virginia.

Describe the importance and timeliness of the project.

This project gave us two years to begin understanding control and biology of the SWD in Arkansas before populations built to a size which began affecting our growers. In 2013, one large commercial grower in White county experience the loss of two shipments of blackberries which were rejected by USDA for larval infestation. However, no samples were forwarded to us for confirmation of SWD in these berries. In 2014, eight traps, four with commercial Trécé SWD lures and four with liquid fermenting bait, were placed in his plantings and monitored weekly (Figure 4). A spray plan was developed also to help control his SWD population. Two U-pick growers of raspberry, blueberry and blackberry in Washington County were also monitored weekly for SWD and fruit were collected and processed for larvae throughout the season. In 2014, most of the Arkansas growers of brambles experienced tremendous pressure from SWD and larvae were found in all unsprayed/unprotected fruit.

If the project built on a previously funded project with the SCBGP or SCBGP-FB, describe how this project complemented and enhanced previously completed work.

There was no previously funded project since this was a new invasive pest to Arkansas.

Briefly describe the work accomplished during the grant period.

We have confirmed the presence of SWD infested fruit (blackberries and raspberries) from 18 counties: Benton, Calhoun, Carroll, Crawford, Faulkner, Franklin, Hempstead, Howard, Johnson, Lonoke, Madison, Nevada, Pike, Polk, Pope, Van Buren, Washington, and White. This year, SWD has been damaging ripe fruit of both wild and commercial blackberries, raspberries, and ‘Wye’ berries in Arkansas. To date, no blemish free peaches have been infested with SWD. However, on 24 July a peach sample collected at the University of Arkansas Fruit Station in Clarksville had SWD eggs and larvae in circular lesions possibly caused by phomopsis (Fig. 1). We have not confirmed any SWD infestation in samples of blueberry or grape or strawberry.

SWD traps were placed on Arkansas Agricultural Research and Extension Center (AAREC) organic plantings and monitored from 9 June through 6 November 2014. We monitored SWD trap catch weekly or biweekly and recorded % of 30 ripe berry sample infested with SWD in several locations: 1) Compared traps either baited with a solution of grape juice + ACV spiked with ethanol to 11% or AB lures + ACV in blackberries and raspberries planted in a high tunnel with sides and ends screened with ProTeknet 25g and adjacent outside planting of blackberries and raspberries at AAREC in Fayetteville, AR (Fig. 2). As a result, the screened high tunnel effectively

excluded SWD allowing only a couple SWD flies to be trapped inside (Fig. 2) and 0% SWD-infested ripe fruits compared to 30% or more SWD-infested fruit outside. 2) Monitored for SWD and % SWD infestation of blackberries in Tontitown and raspberries then blackberries in Springdale, AR (Fig. 3); 3) Sprayed or unsprayed blueberry and blackberry plantings at the Fruit Station in Clarksville, AR (Fig. 4); 4) White Co. agent in Judsonia monitored SWD traps. She compared fermenting bait (yeast + sugar + flour + ACV drowning solution) to bait of Trécé AB lures + ACV (Fig. 5). 5) Organic pesticides were applied weekly for SWD control of organic field fruit at AAREC in Fayetteville (Table 1).

Recommended Effective Management Program for SWD: 1) Thin or open up canopy to improve future pesticide spray coverage and make picking easier. 2) Three weeks before ripening starts, begin weekly monitoring of SWD traps (bait with Trécé AB lures + apple cider vinegar) (see newest trap designs, Fig. 6) in earliest ripening fields and adjacent landscapes where there may be wild SWD host plants. 3) Weekly, from first fruit ripening through harvest apply registered insecticides (re-apply after rain) and rotate mode of action insecticide in order to delay development of resistance in SWD population. Note: No biological control agents are available as yet.  Alternative tactic: use row cover or screen (mesh < 1 mm holes) during harvest in small plantings or on sides/ends of high tunnels to exclude SWD from laying eggs on fruit. 4) Weekly, evaluate spray effectiveness by looking for SWD eggs or larvae in fruit by inspecting samples of at least 30 ripe fruits per planting (Fig. 1). A grower can place these fruit in a cloth covered jar, hold for 10 days, remove emerged flies and confirm if flies are SWD in fruit (Fig. 1 E). 5) Daily, pick ripe fruits and keep the crop picked clean to minimize build-up of SWD in a fruit planting. Immediately refrigerate fruit to slow down egg and larval development if present. Also, tell consumers to keep berries refrigerated (> 2 days at 36°F will kill SWD eggs; it takes > 5 days to kill SWD larvae). Prompt refrigeration or freezing of fruit upon harvest will reduce losses to fruit rot from pathogens introduced during egg-laying. There is no known risk to human health posed by ingesting SWD eggs or larvae, and they are so small many people won’t even know they are there (Grubinger 2014). 6) Field sanitation involves removing all overripe fruits and those on ground to minimize build-up of SWD in a fruit planting. 7) Stay informed about new findings and management tactics for SWD:  http://swd.ces.ncsu.edu/swd-resources/  www.ipm.msu.edu/SWD.htm  http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/

Each spring, Donn Johnson talks (provides handouts) at state and regional Horticulture meetings and various fruit workshops (see below: Talks and Poster Presentations) about pest management. This is when fruit growers learn the newest information about SWD: biology; host preference; the role of wild hosts in adjacent landscapes that lead to high-risk for SWD attack (Dreves et al. 2014); how SWD numbers buildup during the season on various

susceptible fruit crops in Arkansas; efficacy of insecticides and newly registered insecticides for SWD; and other promising pest management tactics.

In 2014, a SWD degree day model became available online that growers can see daily map of SWD development anywhere in the North American continent. This model can predict development of SWD near a grower’s location using weather underground max./min. temperature data near their planting: (Coup et al. 2014; scroll down to III. Development Maps - updated daily). This model may (still being tested) help predict when overwintering flies become active and could start to lay eggs. Objective 6: Grower SWD Survey. The survey was mailed to 80 Arkansas fruit growers in October 2013. There were 23 responses from 16 counties: 3 in Pope; 2 each in Faulkner, Pulaski, Washington and White; and 1 each in Benton, Garland, Grant, Hot Springs, Howard, Independence, Jackson, Logan, Lonoke, Miller, Ouachita, and Sebastian. Growers (number) learned about SWD from these sources: County Extension agent (9); information on Survey (5); SWD workshop (6), other grower (2), newspaper (2), radio (1), and TV (1). All the respondents felt that the SWD was a threat to their fruit production. As a result of information being disseminated to growers, 68% were prepared for SWD compared to 18% not prepared for SWD and 14% had no response. Only five growers (23%) monitored for SWD using the recommended baited trap, and all five mailed in fly specimens for SWD confirmation. Only these five growers completed the whole survey. The total acreage under production for these growers by crop were: 29 acres of blueberries; 3.5 and 1 acres of floricane and primocane fruiting blackberries, respectively; and 0.5 acres of floricane fruiting raspberries. Growers trapped the first SWD flies in blackberries on 22 May, in blueberries between 1 to 17 June and floricane raspberries on 8 June. It was not until 15 August that 60% of these growers detected larvae in floricane blackberries and floricane raspberries but only 20% reported a loss to SWD. No larvae were reported in blueberries. Four of five growers that applied insecticides thought the sprays were effective. Growers (numbers in parentheses) applied one or more insecticides: Malathion (3); Mustang Max (2); Entrust 80 WP or Monterey Garden are spinosad formulations (1 each); Neem Oil (1); and Sevin (1). One grower used five different insecticides, including Mustang Max, Malathion, Entrust, Neem Oil, and Sevin. Other growers only applied one pesticide formulation to their fruit plantings. Growers rated insecticides (E = excellent; G = good; F = fair; P = poor) as follows: Malathion = P, G, and G; Mustang Max = G and F-G; Entrust 80 WP = G; Monterey Garden = E; Neem Oil and Sevin were not rated. As for cultural tactics: one grower reported that it was effective to pick fruit slightly early and refrigerate fruit immediately to reduce noticeable SWD infestation of fruit. Another grower mass trapped SWD in their planting but did not comment if this was effective. The research and Extension priorities listed by growers included: degree ranges, pesticide effectiveness, monitor SWD in various locations around Arkansas, continue to inform growers and agents about new findings on SWD biology, especially when flies are on plants and laying eggs, SWD development in Arkansas relative to cumulative degree-days, hosts, improved bait/lures and trapping methods and management tactics.

A B C

D E F

Figure 1. Peach samples collected on 24 July 2014 at the University of Arkansas Fruit Station in Clarksville with (A) sunken, circular lesions (possibly phomopsis) (B) infested with spotted wing drosophila (SWD) eggs and larvae. Comparing Drosophila spp. eggs: (C) SWD egg inserted under raspberry fruit skin (top) has two threadlike spiracles on fruit surface, whereas egg of another Drosophila species has wide tipped spiracles (bottom) and is laid on thee fruit surface and (D) SWD egg inserted under the blackberry fruit skin. (E) SWD larva in raspberry. (F) Rearing SWD flies from ripe fruit in covered jar. (Photos: D. Johnson) 200 Emerging SWD from 30 Blackberries (outside) in Fayetteville, AR (2014) 180 Outside Dual Lure + ACV A 100 160 Fermt+ACV 90 Females Males B 140 HT (screen) Lure + ACV 80

120 70 flies

100 60

80 50 60 emerged SWD 40

40 No. 30

No. SWD flies / baited trap / baited flies SWD No. 20 20

0 10

Figure 2. (A) Mean number of spotted wing drosoopphila (SWD) per trap baited with either: fermt = grape juice + apple cider vinegar (ACV) spiked to 11% with ethanol or Trécé dual lures + ACV drowning solution placed in blackberries and raspberries either inside ProTeknet 25g screened high tunnel or in an adjacent outside bramble planting and (B) mean numbers of male and female SWD flies emerging from outside bramble berries. Outside plants were sprayed alternate weeks with Entrust then Pyganic (Fayetteville, AR (2014).

Figure 3. Mean number of spotted wing drosophila (SWD) flies per trap baited with either: fermented bait = grape juice + apple cider vinegar spiked to 11% with ethanol or Trécé dual lures + apple cider vinegar drowning solution placed in blackberry planting in Tontitown and % of ripe raspberry/blackberry fruits infested with SWD in Springdale, AR (2014)

Figure 4. Mean number of spotted wing drosophila (SWD) flies per trap baited with Trécé dual lures + apple cider vinegar drowning solution and % of ripe blackberries infested with SWD in three sites: blackberry and blueberry plots sprayed weekly with insecticide or an unsprayed blackberry site all at the Fruit Station in Clarksville, AR (2014)

200 180 Ferment

trap 160 Lure / 140

120 flies

100 80

SWD 60

40 No. 20 0

Figure 5. Mean numbers of spotted wing drosophila (SWD) flies per traps baited with either: ferment bait = yeast + sugar + flour + apple cider vinegar or Trécé dual lures + apple cider vinegar drowning solution placed in commercial blackberry planting in Judsonia, AR (2014)

A B C

Figure 6. Spotted wing drosophila (A) trap with Trécé dual lures wired to cover and apple cider vinegar drowning solution poured inside trap and (B) trap placed by blackberry planting in screened high tunnel in Fayetteville, AR (2014) and (C) newest trap design for SWD with screen on side.

Table 1. Insecticides applied to the organic bramble plantings in Fayetteville, AR (2014) Date Compound Rate Cultivar 15‐Jul Entrust WP 0.3g/gal Raspberries 23‐Jul Pyganic EC 1.4 1 oz/gal Raspberries 31‐Jul Entrust WP 0.3g/gal Raspberries 6‐Aug Pyganic EC 1.4 1 oz/gal Blackberries and Raspberries 13‐Aug Entrust WP 0.3g/gal Blackberries and Raspberries 20‐Aug Pyganic EC 1.4 1 oz/gal Blackberries and Raspberries 26‐Aug Entrust WP 0.3g/gal Blackberries and Raspberries 4‐Sep Pyganic EC 1.4 1 oz/gal Blackberries and Raspberries 9‐Sep Entrust WP 0.3g/gal Blackberries and Raspberries 18‐Sep Pyganic EC 1.4 1 oz/gal Blackberries and Raspberries 24‐Sep Entrust WP 0.3g/gal Blackberries and Raspberries 4‐Oct Pyganic EC 1.4 1 oz/gal Blackberries and Raspberries

Goals and Outcomes Achieved Beneficiaries

Describe the specialty crop groups and other stakeholders that benefited from the completion of this project’s accomplishments.

In 2013 and 2014, SWD baited traps were distributed to all Arkansas fruit producing counties. In 2013, a total of 29,587 flies were confirmed by us as SWD from 18 Arkansas counties: Benton, Calhoun, Carroll, Crawford, Faulkner, Franklin, Hempstead, Howard, Johnson, Lonoke, Madison, Nevada, Pike, Polk, Pope, Van Buren, Washington, and White. In 2014, fewer sites were trapped, but we sorted, confirmed and counted over 11,480 SWD flies from trap samples and from fruit samples we counted over 1,103 eggs on fruit and flies that emerged. The 2013 Arkansas spotted wing drosophila survey showed that fruit growers applied insecticides weekly, using recommended insecticides, Malathion and Mustang Max, to prevent SWD infestation. In 2014, bramble

growers continued to use these same compounds to manage SWD and organic growers alternated Entrust and Pyganic (Table 1).

How many benefited from the project?

In 2013 and 2014, four SWD workshops and state and regional fruit grower and County Extension Agent training meetings educated over 180 fruit growers and 60 County Extension Agents about SWD presence in 18 Arkansas counties and how to manage SWD to prevent infestations in ripening fruit of blackberries and raspberries (most susceptible to SWD attack). We continue to monitor ripe fruit from strawberries, peaches and grapes for SWD infestation but have not detected any SWD larvae.

How did they benefit from the project?

Fruit growers that apply the weekly recommended insecticides continued to produce fruit relatively free of SWD.

Lessons Learned

If goals or outcome measures were not achieved, identify and share the lessons learned to help others expedite problem-solving.

All objectives were achieved.

Describe any lessons you learned in the administration of the project that might be helpful for others who would want to implement a similar project.

 We learned to distinguish between SWD eggs that are inserted under fruit skin with very thin threadlike spiracles on outside of skin whereas other Drosophila spp. are usually laid on the fruit surface and have wider tipped spiracles (Fig. 1).  The most attractive and easiest SWD bait for growers to use was the Trécé dual lure held inside the SWD trap above the apple cider vinegar drowning solution. The current trap design is a 1 quart deli cup with 10 to 20 holes (3/16” diameter) and strips of red and black duct tape (Fig. 6).  The weekly organic spray program alternating Entrust with Pyganic achieve 0% SWD infestation with (Table 1 and Fig. 2). The weekly conventional insecticide sprays applied to a blackberry planting significantly reduced the percentage of berries infested with SWD from above 72% to below 45% (Fig. 4). Contact Person

Dr. Donn T. Johnson

Phone: 479-575-2501 Email: [email protected]

Citations  Burrack, H.J., J.P. Smith; D.G. Pfeiffer, G. Koeher, and J. Laforest. 2012. Using volunteer- based networks to track Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) an invasive pest of fruit crops. J. Integrated Pest Management 3(4):B1-B5.  Coup, L., V. Walton, A. Dreves, D. Dalton, and P. Jepson. 2014. Spotted wing drosophila phenology and overwintering mortality models and maps for the US. http://uspest.org/swd/  Dreves, A., A. Ohrn, and T. Winfield. 2014. Hot on S. suzukii’s trail: identifying and managing high-risk areas inside and outside the crops.http://uspest.org/swd/pubs/SWD_Landscape_Hotspots_10-14-2014.pdf  Grubinger, V. 2014. Spotted wing drosophila update. University of Vermont Extension. http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/SWD/SWD_Grower_Update_2014.pdf  Lee, J.C., D.J. Bruck, H. Curry, D. Edwards, D.R. Haviland, R.A. Van Steenwyk, and B.M. Yorgey. 2011. The susceptibility of small fruits and cherries to the spotted-wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii. Pest Manag. Sci. 67:1358-1367. doi: 10.1002/ps.2225 Additional Information (i.e., publications, websites, photographs) Published Article  Johnson, D., and J. O’Neill. 2013. Biology, Identification and management of spotted wing drosophila. University of Arkansas Research & Extension FSA7079.  Kim, S-H.S., A.D. Tripodi, D.T. Johnson, and A.L. Szalanski. 2014. Molecular diagnostics of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) using PCR-RFLP. Short Comm. J. Econ. Entomol. 107 (3): 1292-1294.

News Letters with SWD Updates: (http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/Arkansas_Fruit_Newsletter.html)  2014 Arkansas Fruit and Nut News: 5 May, 30 May, 12 June, 3 July, 28 July, 2 August  2013 Arkansas Fruit and Nut News: 22 May, 7 June, 17 June, 27 June, 15 July, 19 August  2012 Arkansas Fruit and Nut News: 12 July, 28 August

Links to SWD information on Arkansas Fruit web site at (underline indicates a link): http://comp.uark.edu/~dtjohnso/  SWD Pictures, ID, Trap, Management (pdf) (July 2014)  Making SWD Traps (YouTube) (April 2014)  Sugar Water Floating SWD from Fruit (YouTube) (April 2014)  Boiling Method Floats SWD from Fruit (YouTube) (April 2014)  Netting to Exclude SWD (YouTube) (May 2011)  SWD Fact Sheet (pdf) (March 2013)  SWD Insecticide Efficacy (Nov. 2013) (pdf)  SWD Training Workshop (pdf) (July 2014)  SWD in Arkansas Counties (2013): October  Daily U.S. Map of SWD Emergence in 2014 (link)

 Organic Management SWD - 11 February 2014 (webinar link)  eFly Eastern U.S. SWD Information (link)

Radio, Newspaper and TV Interviews on SWD  20 August 2014, KTSB ArkLaTex - Fruit damaging flies on the rise in Arkansas. By Julie Parr http://www.ktbs.com/story/26330823/fruit-damaging-flies-on-the-rise-in-arkansas  17 August 2014, NW Arkansas Times - 18 counties record alien fruit fly, bane of berries, grapes, cherries (Donn Johnson, Sherri Sanders, Barbara Lewis)  17 August 2014, Benton Co. Daily Record - 18 counties record alien fruit fly, bane of berries, grapes, cherries (Donn Johnson, Sherri Sanders, Barbara Lewis)  14 August 2014, De Queen Bee - SWD in 18 counties (Donn Johnson, Sherri Sanders)  14 August 2014, Nashville News - Fruit-damaging fly population is on the rise in Howard County (Donn Johnson, Sherri Sanders)  14 August 2014, Malvern Daily Record - Spotted wing drosophila: fruit-damaging flies on the rise (Donn Johnson, Sherri Sanders)Aug. 17 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette - 18 counties record alien fruit fly, bane of berries, grapes, cherries (Donn Johnson, Sherri Sanders, Barbara Lewis)  12 August 2014, Pine Bluff Commercial - Fruit-damaging flies on the rice (Donn Johnson, Sherri Sanders)  11 August 2014, Agfax - Arkansas Berries: Fruit-damaging flies on the rise (Donn Johnson, Sherri Sanders)

Talks and Poster Presentations  Johnson, D.T. 2014. State report on spotted wing drosophila research and extension in Arkansas. Annual WERA1021 Spotted Wing Drosophila Biology, Ecology, and Management meeting in Portland, OR on 18 November. Johnson, D.T. 2014. State report on spotted wing drosophila research and extension in Arkansas. OREI Planning meeting on organic spotted wing drosophila biology, ecology, and management in Atlanta, GA on 14 October.  Johnson, D. 2014. Spotted wing drosophila in Arkansas. Invited speaker at the Florida Entomological Society meeting in Jupiter, FL on 5 August.  Johnson, D. 2014. Strawberry insect pest management. Talk to 15 growers/Extension agents at the Strawberry Production In-Depth School in Fayetteville, AR on 5-6 May.  Johnson, D., B. Lewis, and E. Garcia. 2014. Pest management of strawberries grown in high tunnels. High Tunnel Strawberry Production Workshop/Open House Field day in Fayetteville, AR on 16 April.  Johnson, D. 2014. Spotted wing drosophila update. Talk to 30 growers at the Arkansas Blueberry Growers Association in Fayetteville, AR on 29 March. Johnson, D. 2014. Arthropod pest management. Talk to 22 growers at the Organic High Tunnel Strawberry Production Workshop at the Fruit Station in Clarksville, AR on 27 March.  Johnson, D. 2014. Spotted wing drosophila and Japanese beetle. Invited speaker to 75 attendees at the Invasive Species Conference in Oklahoma City, OK on 25 March.  Johnson, D. 2014. Insect pest management of fruit crops. Invited speaker at the 2014 Alabama Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association Annual Conference and Tradeshow in Opelika, AL on 7-8 February.

 Johnson, D. 2014. Management of the Spotted Wing Drosophila & Other Insects of Fruit & Berries. Invited speak at Missouri Organic Assoc. Conference Springfield, MO on 6 February. Johnson, D., and B. Lewis. 2014. 1) Update on spotted wing drosophila and game plan for 2014 and 2) hands-on insect identification. Invited speaker 5th Annual Mid-South Commercial Horticulture-- Fruit Producers Meeting in Conway, AR on 23 January.  Johnson, D. 2014. IPM strategies for peaches and blueberries (Johnson, Smith, Burgos, Garis); spotted wing drosophila update (Johnson); apple and blackberry pest management (Kirkpatrick, Johnson, Burgos). Invited speaker at Statewide Fruit Agents Hands-on Fruit Production In-service Training in grower orchards in Guy and Conway, AR on 22 January.  Johnson, D., B. Lewis, E. Garcia, and C. Rom. 2014. Pest monitoring and management in berries grown in high tunnels. OK/AR Horticulture Industry Show in Tulsa, OK on 11 January.  Johnson, D., E. Garcia, B. Lewis, T. Ernst, and J. LeFors. 2014. Spotted wing drosophila 1styear experiences and perspectives in Arkansas. Invited panelist at Blackberry & Raspberry section at the Southeastern Fruit & Vegetable Conference in Savannah, GA on 9 January.  Johnson, D. 2014. Spotted wing drosophila in conventional field and organic high tunnel brambles in Arkansas. eFLY Working Group of Researchers/ Extension/ berry growers training conference in Savannah, GA on 8 January.