The Biologic and Economic Assessment of Chiorpyrifos And

^'^ÍTX

^^^ United States ÍA à. à\\ Department of Agriculture The Biologic and

Cooperative Extension Economic Assessment System of Chiorpyrifos and National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program Diazinon in Ornamentals and Sod Production

Technical Bulletin Number 1837

i "y J

: j The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrinninatjon in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-5881 (voice) or (202) 720-7808 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). Mention or display of a trademark, proprietary product, or firm in text or figures does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products or firms. The Biologic and Economic Assessment of Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Omamentals and Sod Production

November 1994

Dr. Ronald D. Getting Dr. John R. Allison

Document Prepared by the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program U.S. Department of Agriculture Authors

Cooperators

Dr. S. Kris Braman Department of Entomology Georgia Experiment Station University of Georgia Griffin, Georgia 30223

Dr. Joyce G. Latimer Department of Horticulture Georgia Experiment Station University of Georgia Griffin, Georgia 30223

Dr. Will Hudson Extension Entomologist Cooperative Extension Service Rural Development Center Tifton, Georgia 31793

Dr. Beverly Sparks Extension Entomologist Cooperative Extension Service University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602

Co-Editors

Thomas J. Kergel, M.A. USDA/NAPIAP Technical Writer {Biologic Science) U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC 20250

Mary Ann Wamsley Information Impact 2725 Fort Scott Drive Arlington, VA 22202 ATTENTION: 1. Use one set for each title or document. 2. Use ball-point pen or typewriter for clear copies. Û.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995-617-521 3. Keep Part 4 of this form for your file. 4. This form is for USD A use only. Form AD 245^4 (8/84) NAL. CALL NO. SPECIAL REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION REPORT TO REQUESTER □ HOLD NOT SENT BECAUSE: □ SEND U.S. Department of Agriculture r—l NOT rn NOT □ IN USE National Agricultural Library '—' OWNED •—' LOCATED □ PHONE Lending Division j—] NON- n INSUFFICIENT Beltsville, Maryland 20705 ^—' CIRCULATING '—^ DESCRIPTION THE UBRARY HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ACTION ON YOUR REQUEST: YOUR NAME. AGENCY, à BUSINESS ADDRESS (Include ZIP COde) rn RESERVE PLACED, WILL SEND WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE NAL IS TRYING TO OBTAIN FROM ANOTHER LIBRARY □ PURCHASE ORDER PLACED p^^^^éUi^^j V'fi :^dÔé - NOTICE - TELEPHONE: DATE OF REQUEST: WARNING CONCERNING YOU MUST / have read the warning on copyright restrictions and accept full responsibility for COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS SIGN HERE compliance. • The copyright law of the United States TO ENSURE (Title 1 7, United States Code) governs the SERVICE m> ¿Hcà^^y^^'tuî^ making of photocopies or other reproductions DESCRIPTION OF PUBLICATlON-Aufhor, title, periodical title, volume, year, page, etc. of copyrighted material. • Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any pur- df..- /tf4 pose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes '^ in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. • This institution reserves the right to refuse REFERENCE SOURCE OF THE REQUESTED PUBLICATION. IF AVAILABLE to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere appreciation to the to obtain data for analysis. The Cooperative Extension individuals who contributed to the ornamentals and sod System and Experiment Station personnel provided usage assessment project. Special thanks are extended to the information. The USDA Agricultural Research Service, Professional Plant Growers Association, Lansing, Michigan; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Society of American Florists, Alexandria, Virginia; American Sen^ice, and National Agricultural Statistical Service were Association of Nurserymen, Washington, D.C.; and the instrumental in planning, providing information, coordinating, American Sod Producers Association, Rolling Meadows, and implementing this study. Without the combined efforts of Illinois, for helping prepare the questionnaire and for providing all of the individuals from these organizations, this report grower lists from their commodity groups, which were sampled would not have been possible. Contents

Executive Summary 1 List of Tables

Introduction 5 Tables in Executive Summary 1. Chlorpyrifos and diazinon usage in the green- Chapter I: Pest/Crop Interaction house, nursery, and sod industries 3 Floriculture 7 Nursery Production 9 2. Estimates of cost change from the removal Sod Production 10 of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from use in greenhouse, nursery, and sod industries 4 Chapter II: Pest Management Current Management Systems 11 Tables in Text Available Management Alternatives 11 3. Summary of pest management strategies 11 Integrated Pest Management 12 Pesticide Resistance 12 4. Percent of greenhouse insecticide applications of chlorpyrifos and diazinon Chapter III: Economics (by pest group) 16 Estimable Losses 14 5. Percent of gross sales represented by pro- Greenhouse 17 ducers using chlorpyrifos and diazinon 16 Nursery 18 Sod 19 6. Percentof nursery insecticide applications of Economic Summary for Ornamentals chlorpyrifos and diazinon (by pest group) 18 and Sod Industries 20 7. Percent of sod insecticide applications of chlorpyrifos and diazinon (by pest group) 19 Literature Cited 22

Appendixes Appendixe—Pesticide Usage and Efficacy Data 39 CI. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for Appendix A—Labeling of Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest (Insects and Mites) 24 categories (National) Appendix B—Pesticide Impact Questionnaires 25 C2. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for Figure 1—Regions of the United States as greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest Used in the Biological categories, Region 1 (AK, ID, MT, ND, NE, OR, SD, and Economic Assessment WA. WY) of Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon 37 C3. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for Figure 2—Imported Fire Ant Quarantines 38 greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories. Region II (CT, DE, lA, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, Ml, MN. MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH. PA, Rl, VA, Appendix C—Pesticide Usage and Efficacy Data 39 VT, Wl. WV) Appendix D—Pest Management Strategies 57 C4. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for Appendix E—Insecticide Impact Data 63 greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories. Region III (AZ. CA, HI, NV, UT) C5. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region IV (CO, KS, NM, OK, TX)

IV C6. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for Appendix D—Pest Management Strategies 57 greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest D1. Percentage of nonchemical pest mange- categories. Region V (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN) ment strategies C7. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for D2. Pest management strategies used by green- nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest house operations categories (National) D3. Pest management strategies used by nursery operations C8. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest D4. Pest management strategies used by sod categories, Region I (AK, ID, MT, ND, NE, OR, SD, operations WA, WY) D5. Insecticide and/or acaricide use strategy by C9. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for operators when treating insect or mite nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest infestations categories. Region II (CT, DE, lA, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, Ml, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, Rl, VA, Appendix E—Insecticide Impact Data 63 VT, Wl, WV) El. Cost per pound of active ingredient and cost C10. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for per application by formulation and by common nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest name categories. Region III (AZ, GA, HI, NV, UT) E2. Chemical alternatives to chiorpyrifos and 011. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for diazinon. Greenhouse operations (National) nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest E3. Chemical alternatives to chiorpyrifos and categories. Region IV (CO, KS. MN, OK, TX) diazinon. Nursery operations (National) 012. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for E4. Chemical alternatives to chiorpyrifos and nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest diazinon. Sod production operations categories, Region V (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, (National) SC, TN) E5. Current use of chiorpyrifos and diazinon, 013. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for by pests, and projected quantities of alter- sod operations and efficacy ratings by pest natives that would be used, quality loss, categories (National) material cost increased, and net loss 014. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for realized if chiorpyrifos and diazinon were sod operations and efficacy ratings by pest not available to the greenhouse industry categories, Region I (AK, ID, MT, ND, NE, OR, SD, E6. Current use of chiorpyrifos and diazinon, WA, WY) by pests, and projected quantities of 015. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for alternatives that would be used, quality sod operations and efficacy ratings by pest loss, material cost increased, and net loss categories, Region II (CT DE, lA, IL, IN, KY, MA, realized if chiorpyrifos and diazinon MD, ME, Ml, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, Rl, VA, were not available to the nursery VT Wl, WV) industry 016. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for E7. Current use of chiorpyrifos and diazinon, by sod operations and efficacy ratings by pest pests, and projected quantities of alternatives categories, Region III (AZ, CA, HI, NV, UT) that would be used, quality loss, material cost increased, and net loss realized if chiorpyrifos 017. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for and diazinon were not available to the sod sod operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories. Region IV (CO, KS, MN, OK, TX) 018. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for sod operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region V (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN) Executive Summary

The purpose of this assessment is to examine chlorpyrifos and applied in 5, 10, or 15 percent granule formulations. diazinon usage in the ornamentals and sod industries as well Chlorpyrifos is registered for use on 74 different insect or mite as the economic impact on these industries if these chemicals species on ornamentals. This pesticide is also registered for were to be discontinued. These chemicals have numerous 33 insect or related invertebrate pests on turf, including sod trade names and formulations and are registered for a broad production. range of insect and mite pests on ornamentals and sod (Appendix A). The ornamentals and sod production industries Diazinon is a broad-spectrum insecticide and acaricide that is are among the fastest growing components of U.S. agriculture, registered for controlling many pests in greenhouse and field accounting for 11 percent of all farm crop cash receipts. production of ornamentals. Diazinon is no longer registered for sod farms. Forty different insect or mite species are listed The ornamentals industry produces plants for use in the on diazinon labels. The most common trade names used in beautification of the home, landscape, and surrounding the industry are Diazinon and Knox Out. Diazinon is environment. The industry is divided into two production formulated in several formulations; however, those used most areas, floriculture and nursery, which are handled separately frequently in the ornamentals industry are 25 (25EC) and 50 in the assessment because the plants grown are very different. (AG500) percent emulsifiable concentrates and 2 lb per gallon The two sections of the ornamentals industry are considered encapsulated flowable concentrate (2FM). different site categories for insecticide labeling. Floricultural crops are soft, rapidly growing plants and are usually produced under greenhouse culture. A small portion of the Arthropods Controlled industry produces flowers outside in field production. In this assessment, the term "greenhouse crops" refers to floriculture. Numerous different species are listed on the chlorpyrifos and The floricultural industry includes producers of cut flowers and diazinon labels for greenhouse and nursery use. To facilitate greens (leaves used in arrangements), potted flowering plants, analysis of the potential economic impact, this report groups bulbs and tubers, foliage plants, decorative greens, bedding pests into broad categories, based on groupings of similar plants, and flower and vegetable seeds. The nursery industry species and importance determined by professional is represented by growers of woody plants under entomologists (Table 1). Most of the groupings consist of an screenhouses for plants requiring shade or in the open field. important family of pests (such as whiteflies) or an order of The crops produced include shrubs, trees, ground covers pests (such as beetles). Because the grouping of all pests (herbaceous and woody), and propagation material. was not feasible, a general grouping of "other pests" was also included. This grouping was a major usage category for some The sod industry produces sod (primarily grasses) for urban commodities. turf. Sod farmers grow grasses in fields, then lift sections of the sod for transport to landscape sites for installation. The A less diverse pest complex is found in sod production than in sections of sod consist of growing grass and a small amount of ornamental production. In this report, all categories except for soil; these sections resemble a piece of carpet. The sod can sucking pests and "other" are based on taxonomic groupings, be installed as total ground cover for an instant lawn, or it can which vary from a few species in the same genus (billbugs, be broken up into sprigs or plugs to cover the area over time. chinch bugs, fire ants, and mole crickets) to several species in an order (lepidopterous larvae, for example).

USAGE OF CHLORPYRIFOS AND DIAZINON IN GREENHOUSE, NURSERY, AND SOD INDUSTRIES Alternatives to Chlorpyrifos or Diazinon

Usage There are chemical alternatives to chlorpyrifos and diazinon in all categories. These alternatives vary from equivalent to less Chlorpyrifos, a broad-spectrum insecticide and acaricide that economically efficient. In many situations, these two is used in the production of ornamentals (greenhouse and insecticides are important (along with other chemicals that are field), is primarily applied as a foliar spray. The formulations used in an overall pest management program). The removal most commonly used are 2 lb per gallon emulsifiable of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from ornamentals and/or sod concentrate (2E), a 50 percent wettable powder (50WP), and production would result in a generally significant reduction of a 2 lb per gallon encapsulated flowable concentrate. In these industries. Commodities in ornamentals and sod addition, a 2.5 percent granule formulation (2.5G) is used in production are produced with a low tolerance for insect and the nursery industry for treatment of potting media for imported mite damage. With more occurrences of pesticide resistance, fire ant control. Chlorpyrifos is marketed under several trade growers are looking to non-insecticidal alternatives. The sod names, but is most commonly known as Dursban for industry reported less use of chemicals than either the ornamentals and sod production. In sod production, greenhouse or nursery industries. The major Integrated Pest application is with tractor-drawn sprayers—or granules may be Management (IPM) practices listed by respondents were the detection of pests (monitoring) and reduction in the potential of pest invasion (sanitation and exclusion) (Table 3, page 11). Potential Losses Although these practices help reduce the use of pesticides, they do not necessarily replace pesticides. Practical Another anticipated loss to the ornamentals and sod application of alternative methods, such as biological control, industries for which cost is difficult to estimate pertains to the is still limited in these industries. need for alternative pesticides to be available for the rotation of insecticides for resistance management programs. Most greenhouse growers use a rotation (57 percent) or tank mixes ECONOMIC IMPACT (33 percent) of insecticides to control pests. Nursery growers also use rotation (65 percent) and tank mixes (26 percent) for Greenhouse pest management. Many pests are already resistant to chemicals or classes of chemicals, thus requiring the In greenhouse production, several insecticides are similar in availability of alternative chemicals. efficacy for control of major pests (Table 1). Chlorpyrifos and diazinon have a cost advantage per application over most other alternatives on some pests (Table 2). However, the Non-Estimated Losses quality loss difference between these two pesticides and the alternative chemicals projects a very modest net gain from the The ornamentals industry is faced with a difficult task of removal of chlorpyrifos and diazinon (Table 2). maintaining adequate control of many pests with the available insecticides. In some situations, pests are resistant to most insecticides. Consequently, resistance management requires Nursery rotation of different insecticides and different classes of chemicals to maintain the effectiveness of the chemicals that A major use of chlorpyrifos in the United States is for soil- are still available (Denholm and Rowland, 1992). borne pests (primarily imported fire ants) in the Southeast to meet quarantine requirements for shipment out of the fire ant Respondents to the sun/ey confirmed that most growers of zone. Recent changes in fire-ant-free certification may have ornamentals are practicing rotation of insecticides for removed 80 percent of this use, reducing the projected loss resistance management, and that many growers are using that would have resulted from the removal of chlorpyrifos. combinations. Therefore, more than economics and the availability of a few alternative chemicals must be considered The projected increase in cost for the nursery industry, when assessing the need for any particular chemical. There adjusted for the reduced chlorpyrifos usage, would be $1.5 are situations where chlorpyrifos is an important chemical and million if chlorpyrifos were to be discontinued. (Table 2). The the loss would have an economic impact, as discussed net projected loss for the nursery industry if diazinon were not above. In other situations, however, chlorpyrifos is not the available would be less ($47,000). This cost difference is best economic choice, but is still a very important component constantly changing as new materials are approved for of a chemical program for pest management. The meeting quarantine requirements and changes occur in management of thrips, under greenhouse conditions, is a insecticide usage. good example. Several compounds with control ratings of 3.4 to 3.7 play important roles in thrips management. No single Sod Production insecticide is adequate to manage thrips when used alone, and each would lose efficiency very rapidly if used exclusively. Although insecticides were used less frequently in sod These compounds currently are used in rotations to manage production than in the production of ornamentals, chlorpyrifos thrips. In addition, the most frequently used chemical, is a major use chemical for insect control. The net projected abamectin, does not list thrips on the national label, and the loss for the sod industry, which would result from the removal third most frequently used compound has been removed by of chlorpyrifos, would be $3.46 million (Table 2). the manufacturer from the ornamentals market. Although chlorpyrifos and diazinon are not listed as primary chemicals for thrips management, and have control ratings less than Summary those of alternative products, both of these insecticides play important roles in insecticide rotation management programs The total projected loss that would result from the removal of for thrips. chlorpyrifos for use in the ornamentals and sod industries would be $4.9 million, of which $5.4 million is from cost increase and $.5 million from quality gain (Table 2). There is a small net projected economic loss of $33,000 expected from the removal of diazinon. Table 1. Chiorpyrífos and díazínon usage in the greenhouse, nursery, and sod industries

Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Industry/ Iba.i. Percent of Control^ Iba.i. Percent of Control^ Pest Group Used Applications Rating Used Applications Rating

Greenhouse Thrips 7,437 6 3.4 1,387 1 3.2 Aphids 2,768 2 3.4 3,175 1 3.5 Whiteflies 3,129 2 3.1 863 (b) 3.2 Mites 30 (b) 4.0 281 (b) 2.9 Scales 189 4 4.2 990 12 3.1 Leaf miners 2,699 2 3.7 675 (b) 2.9 Worms 1,095 a 4.8 297 1 4.0 Other 358 1 4.0 4,885 9 4.0 Total 17,704 3 12,555 1 Nursery Wood-boring 9,888 46 3.6 (b) 3.6 Foliage-feeding. Worms 3.749 4.3 2,764 4.2 Foliage-feeding Beetles 1,764 2 4.0 1,795 1 4.2 Scales 7,620 26 3.7 2,401 4 4.1 Mites 6,467 3 3.9 392 (b) 3.4 Sucking Insects. 10,966 13 4.0 9,324 5 4.6 Soil-borne*^ 3,590 7 3.9 2,290 4 3.6 Other 134 4 3.7 104 2 4.5 Total 44,178 8 19,070 2 Sod Billbugs 6,776 26 3.6 Chinch Bugs 22,736 85 3.6 Fire Ants 7,318 66 3.3 Mole Crickets.... 7,362 15 3.0 Sucking Insects. 2,732 4 3.3 White Grubs 43,400 65 2.9 Lepidopterous Larvae 63,419 97 4.1 Other 57,430 89 4.3 Total ¡73,055 28

Total 273.055 10 31,625

a. Control ratings used are 5 = excellent control (0 to 5% quality loss); 4 = very good (6 to 15 % quality loss); 3 = good (16 to 25% quality loss); 2 = fair (26 to 35% quality loss); 1 = poor (36 to 45% quality loss); and 0 = no control. b. Equals less than .5 percent. c. Calculated, assuming 80 percent of survey usage no longer occurs because of the current 24-month fire ant certification requirements. Table 2. Estimates of cost change from the removal of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from use in greenhouse, nursery, and sod industries^

Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Industry/ Quality Cost Net Quality Cost Net Pest Group Impact^ Change^ Impact'' Impact* Change'' Impacf'

Greenhouse Thrips $32,501 -$88,649 $121,150 $19,020 -$3,287 $22,307 Aphids -8,720 -32,891 24,171 -14,055 -7,465 -6,590 Whiteflies 59,007 104,194 -45,188 5,778 17,467 -11,688 Scales 5,109 21,308 -16,199 99,651 59,361 40.290 Leafminers 91,924 94,897 -2,973 43,327 14,290 29.037 Worms -3,628 -12,689 9,061 -774 -655 -119 Other -913 5,149 -6,061 -6,226 52,667 -58.892 Total 175,281 91,319 83,961 146,721 132,377 14.344

Nursery Wood-boring 128,678 -83,455 212,133 -684 -69 -615 Foliage-feeding Worms -21,774 -70,295 48,521 -7.707 -11,186 3.478 Foliage-feeding Beetles 792 -8,573 9.365 65 2,082 -2,017 Scales 75,959 602,931 -526,972 -5.444 22.181 -27,624 Mites -14,249 38,956 -53,205 1,388 2.588 -1,200 Sucking Insects -15,837 -155,250 139,413 -54,317 -32.529 -21,788 Soil-borne^ -129,678 1,273.341 1,403,019 329 -5,084 5,413 Other 31,899 1,050 30,849 -2,103 781 -2,884 Total 55,790 1,598,705 •1.542,916 -68.473 -21,235 -47.238

Sod Billbugs 26,611 310,476 -283.865 Chinch Bugs 83,034 1,261,635 •1.178,602 Fire Ants 1,664 256,569 -254,905 Mole Crickets 7,880 57,571 -49,691 Sucking Insects 0 196,212 -196,212 White Grubs 49,396 -116.950 166,346 Lepidopterous Larvae -365,559 1,495,196 •1.860,755 Other 428.514 226,274 202,240 Total 231,540 3,686,984 ■3,455,444

Total 462,611 5,377,009 4,914,399 78,248 111,142 -32,894 a. Quality impact is the change in value of output if alternatives to chlorpyrifos or diazinon are used. b. Cost change results from using alternatives to chlorpyrifos or diazinon. c. Net impact = quality impact - cost change. Positive net impacts are financial gains, negative net impacts are financial losses. Cost changes are subtracted because cost decreases are financial gains and cost increases are financial losses. d. Soil-borne insect control costs are adjusted for the removal of the 24-month fire-ant-free certification for chlorpyrifos. Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine how the to all wholesale grower members of the Society of American withdrawal of insecticides, in particular chlorpyrifos and Florists and the Professional Plant Growers Association to diazinon, would affect the ornamentals and sod industries. obtain data for the floriculture industry, with 27 percent (131 of Data were collected for the various pests and insecticide 480) and 15 percent (155 of 1,018) of the growers of these usage, as well as for general pest management strategies two groups responding, respectively. Wholesale grower used by growers. Chlorpyrifos and diazinon are both labeled members of the American Association of Nurserymen (217 of for many of the economically important pests of ornamentals 1,115 responding, or 19 percent) were used as the sample of and sod production (Appendix A). nursery operators; members of the American Sod Producers Association (121 of 484 responding, or 25 percent) were used Ornamentals and sod production are two of the fastest as the sample of sod producers. The data for this growing industries in U.S. agriculture. In 1991 these industries assessment were collected in late 1991 and early 1992. accounted for 11 percent of all farm crop cash receipts and ranked sixth in total grower cash receipts (Johnson and Johnson, 1993). The recent rapid growth of these industries QUESTIONNAIRES made it difficult to accurately characterize economic impacts. However, it is clear that any change in regulations on the use The questionnaires (Appendix B) requested insecticide usage of broad-spectrum and widely used insecticides, such as and efficacy information for these industries that was to reflect chlorpyrifos and diazinon, would have a significant impact on average annual usage and efficacies over a 3-year period. the economics of these industries. The usage and efficacies were categorized by pests and/or pest groups. Pest groups were selected to represent the The floriculture industry includes greenhouse production of cut gamut of pest problems experienced by growers, as flowers and greens, potted flowering plants, bulbs and tubers, determined by entomologists who were responsible for pest foliage plants, decorative greens, bedding plants, and flower management recommendations for the commodities of and vegetable seeds. A greenhouse grower's acreage is not interest. Data on pest problems, pest control strategies, and limited to the physical facilities of glass or poly-sheet houses; nonchemical pest control practices were also obtained the acreage may also include field-grown plants. There were (Appendix D). Sales data and information on crops produced 9,185 recorded growers of commercial floriculture crops in were obtained to provide data on sample size relative to 1990, using a total covered growing area including glass, industry size as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics plastic, and shade houses of 16,469 acres and an additional Service and the Census of Agriculture. The respondents 26,188 acres of production on open ground, with a wholesale reported their 1991 gross income or sales income in ranges. sales value of $2.8 billion (USDA, 1990). This study estimated The midpoint of the reported range was used as the that 1.4 million applications of 100-gallon units of diluted observation value. Respondents also separated out their insecticides and acaricides are made each year for treatment sales (as percent of total) by season and crop (or type of of pests affecting greenhouse crops. crop).

The nursery industry is represented by growers of woody ornamental plants (shrubs and shade trees); ground covers REGIONS OF ANALYSIS (herbaceous and woody); and propagation material. The number of establishments devoted to nursery stock production Respondents were also requested to identify the State where was 5,151 in 1987, with a wholesale value of nearly $4.0 they were located. State identification of respondents billion. It is estimated from this study data that more than 1 enabled us to divide the United States into five regions for million applications of 100-gallon units of diluted insecticides data tabulation-and for expansion of sample data into and acaricides are applied in nurseries each year. regional and national projections (Appendix B, Fig. 1). The five regions were: (1) the western part of the Northern United The sod industry includes producers of sod, which is used in States, AK, ID, MT, NE, ND, OR, SD. WA and WY. (2) the the establishment of turf in public, commercial, and private eastern part of the Northern United States, CT, DE, lA, IL, IN, lawns and parks. In 1987, this industry was estimated to KY, MA, MD, ME, Ml, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY. OH. PA. Rl, VT. include 826 establishments, 94,363 acres of production, and VA, WV, and Wl, (3) the far western part of the Southern sales of $392 million (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1989). It is United States, AZ, CA, HI, NV, and UT. (4) the central part of estimated that more than 600,000 applications of 100-gallon or the Southern United States, CO, KS. NM, OK, and TX, and (5) per-acre units are applied each year for sod. the eastern part of the Southern United States AL, AR. FL. GA, LA, MS, NC, SC. and TN.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Data from greenhouse operators, nursery operators, and sod producers were obtained to determine usage and efficacy of pesticides in these U.S. industries. Questionnaires were sent ACREAGE/COMMODITY VALUES not feasible to discuss the impact of each pest species. Insect and mite pests were categorized in taxonomic or The data base was not from the same year for nursery, behavioral groupings based on the major pest problems. As a greenhouse, and sod industries; therefore, some of the result, the data received from the respondents contained a descriptive statistics have limitations. Thus, a different data set large amount of undefined usage of chlorpyrifos and diazinon was used to describe the population of each industry and on pests that did not fit into one of the defined categories. thereby provide the expansion basis. This collection of a wide variety of minor pests was placed in a category called "other." Because of the variety of pests in this The square feet of covered growing area, as published in category, it was impossible to accurately predict what specific Floriculture Crops 1990 Summary (USDA, 1990), was alternatives would be used on these pests if chlorpyrifos and originally planned to be used as the estimate of the size of the diazinon were discontinued. greenhouse industry in each region. However, greenhouse revenue per square foot was highly variable among States. Data obtained directly from professional growers consisted of Therefore, the sample of greenhouse and plant growers was actual pesticide usage records and experiences and are expanded by the ratio of sales in regional samples to 1990 considered more accurate than estimates from State sales for each region as listed in the Floriculture Crops 1990 representatives. Validation of results was accomplished by Summary. comparing the survey responses with those of horticulturists and entomologists for the respective regions. Working with The crop revenue density of areas in nurseries is highly national grower organizations and the individual growers variable. The revenue density between potted plants and resulted in improved communication with these groups, while field-grown trees or shrubs can be excessive, and insecticide providing enhanced feedback on problems incurred during the use would be more dependent on crop price (in revenue) than analysis of the data. on the commodity area. Therefore, sales of nursery stock, adjusted to 1991 by the wholesale price index from the 1987 Regarding the data in the tables throughout the assessment, Census of Agriculture, was used as the regional size statistic it should be noted that rounding may cause the sum of values for each region. in these tables to be slightly different from listed totals.

The acres of sod production were used as the estimate of the size of the regional sod production (U.S. Department of DETERMINATION OF LOSSES Commerce, 1989). The sample expansion multiplier was the ratio of sod acreage to the sum of the acreage of sod producer The losses by respondents were estimated by using the respondents in the region. products of one minus the estimates of current control for each pest. The respondents rated their pest infestation by crop and season on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = very small, 2 = LIMITATIONS AND RAMIFICATIONS OF DATA small, 3 = average, 4 = severe, and 5 = very severe). In all of the discussions in this report, insecticides, acaricides, and The intent of the assessment was to determine how the other materials used for the management of insect and discontinuation of the insecticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon related pests such as mites, slugs, snails, etc., are called would affect the ornamentals and sod production industries. insecticides. Respondents also rated their control level for Data on insecticide usage and general management practices each insecticide/pest group on a scale of 1 to 5: 1 = poor (36 were collected directly from growers. Membership lists of to 45 percent quality loss); 2 = fair (26 to 35 percent quality national commodity organizations were used as sources of loss); 3 = good (16 to 25 percent quality loss); 4 = very good ornamentals and sod producers, and questionnaires were (6 to 15 percent quality loss); and 5 = excellent (0 to 5 percent mailed to all wholesale growers on the lists. The low response quality loss). The midpoint of either respective State rate (15 to 27 percent) produced a smaller sample than was application rates, or of the rates recommended by the expected. A higher response rate would have increased the insecticide manufacturer, was used as the application rate for strength of the sample and allowed greater detail in the determining cost per treatment. Prices used in the analysis analysis of State and regional impacts. were estimates of national prices, with no regional adjustments. Where available, prices determined by EPA The response rate limited the smallness of the regions for the were used. In situations where specific packaging was analysis. The United States was divided into five regions that performed for the ornamentals industry, suppliers were were designed to reflect usage based on the professional contacted for prices. judgment of assessment personnel and the respondents of the questionnaires.

Because of the large number of pests affecting ornamentals and sod commodities and the smallness of the sample, it was Chapter I: Pest/Crop Interaction

There are 666 trade names and formulations of chlorpyrifos chemical management because of this pest's resistance to and 739 of diazinon listed for ornamentals and turf (including numerous insecticides (Immaraju et al., 1992). sod) in the August 1993 PEST-BANK Pesticide Product Data. Many of these formulations of chlorpyrifos and diazinon are Forty-two percent of the chlorpyrifos used in greenhouses formulated for the home market rather than for commercial was applied for the control of thrips. Growers rated production. These two broad-spectrum insecticides are chlorpyrifos at 3.4 (good to very good) for thrips control. registered on a large number of pests that affect the Diazinon is also important in thrips control, with 11 percent of ornamentals and sod production industries (Appendix A). diazinon applied by greenhouse growers for a control rating of Therefore, pest interactions may be classified into the 3.2. Growers consider both of these insecticides important for general categories of pests and host plants for each industry. thrips management, as reflected by these responses. A brief overview of these interactions is presented below.

Aphids FLORICULTURE Aphids are small, soft-bodied, plant-sucking insects. Several Pests of floricultural crops are discussed in Powell and generations of these insects consist of parthenogenetic Lindquist (1992). This report divides pests into pest groups to females that are viviparous (Dixon, 1985). However, aphids discuss chemical usage and effectiveness. Questionnaire can reproduce sexually as well as asexually. Plants are responses concerning pest control for floriculture and the colonized primarily by flying aphids. Aphids have minimal amount of active ingredients of insecticides applied are found control over flight direction, and can control their flight only in Appendix C, Table CI for the United States (National) and when within proximity of still air around vegetation (Kennedy, Tables C2-C6 for the regions. More than half of the diazinon 1975). usage was in Region 2 and more than 40 percent of the chlorpyrifos usage was in Region 5. Many species of aphids cause problems for commercial ornamental plant growers. Two species have become very difficult to control with available chemicals: melon aphid. Thrips Aphis gossypii Glover, and green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer). Both species are present on a wide variety Thrips (Thysanoptera) are the smallest winged insects. They of plant hosts, but are most evident on the inflorescence of are 0.5 to 5mm long (most are 1 to 2 mm) and some have chrysanthemum and other flowering plants. Aphids also wings. Mouthparts are piercing-sucking, with only a single attack the new growth of many plant species (Vehrs et al., mandible (Hunter and Ullman, 1989). Many thrips species are 1992). plant feeders. Larvae and adults feed on flowers, leaves, twigs, or buds, using their piercing-sucking mouthparts. This Twenty-two percent of greenhouse operators applied diazinon feeding causes abnormalities of foliage, such as leaf with a 3.5 control rating, and 14 percent applied chlorpyrifos malformations (distorted, dwarfed, and matted), leaf fold, leaf with a 3.4 rating for aphid control. In aphid management for roll, leaf blisters, and sometimes defoliation or discoloration of greenhouse production, diazinon and chlorpyrifos play a petals and deformation or scarring of flowers (Lewis, 1973). significant role. Thrips also serve as vectors of virus diseases. Tomato spotted wilt virus is commonly transmitted by these pests (Amin et al., 1981). There are four known North American Whiteflies thrips vectors. The primary vector is the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), which also is the most Whiteflies damage crops by inserting their piercing-sucking troublesome thrips on floricultural crops in North America mouthparts and extracting sap from the phloem, which can (Stobbsetal., 1992). result in tremendous reduction in crop yield (Byrne and Bellows, 1991). The large quantity of sap consumed is Thrips became significant pests of ornamentals with the filtered, and the excess is excreted as honeydew. This spread of western flower thrips in the early 1980's (Hsu and honeydew serves as a medium for sooty mold fungi to Lawson, 1991). Western flower thrips have a generation time develop, which discolors plant parts. Some whitefly species of 12 to 44 days, depending on the temperature variations. also serve as vectors of several economically important viral This species became difficult to control in the 1980's and has plant pathogens (Muniyappa, 1980). continued to be a problem in the 1990's. During this period, growers focused on thrips management with chemicals. Whiteflies are poor fliers. Even though they can easily move Western flower thrips have hundreds of hosts and can cause short distances, they need assistance by humans, wind, or severe damage, especially to flowering plants. Several other other mean^ to travel long distances. Once these pests enter species of thrips are present on ornamental crops; however, an area containing suitable hosts, whiteflies respond to color the western flower thrips has had the greatest impact on as a cue to land on a plant for feeding and oviposition (Coombe, 1982). Two species of whiteflies, greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes multiple generations each year, and overlapping generations vaporariorum (Westwood), and sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia often occur, with several developmental stages found at any (abaci (Gennadius), have an important impact on ornamentals one time. production. Both species have broad host ranges and damage numerous ornamental plants. The greenhouse Scale insects feed on slow-growing foliage and woody whitefly has been a major pest of ornamental plants for years, ornamental crops. Scale development is slow. A crop must while the sweetpotato whitefly, which first became a exist in a growing area for a prolonged period to allow scale greenhouse pest in 1986-87, is now the major whitefly pest populations to increase to damaging levels. Since scale affecting ornamental crops. In recent years, poinsettia has insects have a waxy covering which is difficult for an suffered extensively from the sweetpotato whitefly (Prabhaker insecticide to penetrate, management is often difficult. et al., 1992). Both of these whitefly species are difficult to Mealybugs secrete a protective covering of waxy material control with insecticides. Whitefly management accounted for similar to cotton. This covering is also resistant to insecticide 18 percent of chlorpyrifos usage and 7 percent of diazinon penetration. Survey respondents applied 8 percent of usage. Grower respondents rated control at 3.1 for diazinon for scale insect control, rating the material at 3.1. chlorpyrifos and 3.2 for diazinon.

Lepidopterous Larvae Mites "Worms" is a term applied to larvae or caterpillars of Mites include some of the most important arthropod pests of butterflies and moths. Many lepidopterous species are pests agricultural crops. Phytophagous mites feed on foliage, of ornamentals. Different plants may have specific flowers, or fruit by inserting stylet-like chelicerae into plant lepidopterous pests. For example, Spodoptera exigua cells of the host and sucking up the contents (Krantz, 1978). (Hübner), beet armyworm, is an especially difficult pest to Aside from feeding injury, some of the eriophyid mite species manage on chrysanthemums and other crops. Several transmit plant viruses (Oldfield, 1970). Mites are often found insecticides are registered for lepidopterous larvae and are on the underside of leaves or hidden within the flowers or effective for management of these pests. An estimated 1,095 growth terminals and are therefore difficult to detect. Eggs are lb of chlorpyrifos (6 percent of total usage) was applied laid on the plant. The immatures develop and feed on plant nationally for control of lepidopterous larvae, with an almost tissue. Mites undergo development from the egg to the adult excellent control rating of 4.8. stage very rapidly. During warm weather, development from egg to reproductive adult can be completed in as few as 4 to 5 days. Leafminers

Many species of phytophagous mites are pests of orna- In the late 1970's and early 1980's, a dipterous leafminer, mentals. Most mites are in the tetranychid, eriophyid, or Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess), was difficult to manage on tarsonemid families. The twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus flowering and bedding plants. Although this insect pest has urticae Koch, occurs more frequently on ornamentals than any not been as difficult to control in recent years, it may return to other mite pests. This pest has a very broad host range, major pest status in ornamentals production. Chlorpyrifos was affecting many floricultural and nursery crops. Several important in leafminer management prior to registration of insecticides are registered for management of the twospotted abamectin and cyromazine. Growers estimated an annual spider mite. Growers have been able to obtain satisfactory usage of 2,699 lb of chlorpyrifos (15 percent of usage) against control using these insecticides. Grower responses indicated leafminers in the last 3 years, with a control rating of 3.7. limited use of chlorpyrifos and diazinon for mite control. Diazinon was not as important, with 675 lb applied annually (5 percent of usage), with a control rating of 2.9.

Scales Other Species Three groups of scale insects are found in large numbers on floricultural crops: soft scales (Coccidae), armored scales Several insects are secondary pests on ornamental crops. (Diaspididae), and mealybugs (Pseudococcidae). Soft scales Fungus gnats and shore flies are a problem on bedding and mealybugs feed on a wide variety of host plants and are plants, poinsettias, and other crops. Slugs and snails are found on ail parts of the plant: leaves, stems, bark, crowns, pests on all plants, especially in environments with high and roots (Hamon and Williams, 1984). Armored scales are humidity. Weevils and leaf beetles, gall midges, bulb flies, more abundant on woody ornamentals than on floricultural sav\^lies, ants, plant bugs, leafhoppers, stalk borers, grubs, plants. Because female scales are wingless, dispersal and etc. can be secondary pests of ornamentals and require migration of scales most often occurs by ballooning of first application of insecticides for control. Typically, some of these instars in air currents. Populations can also be transported by pests are management problems. However, these secondary human beings or on plants from one place to another. Adult pests do not occur as frequently as the primary pests, and male scales have wings, but are weak fliers (Miller and therefore do not have as great an impact on floricultural crop Kosztarab, 1979). Under greenhouse conditions, scales have production. NURSERY PRODUCTION Scales

The estimated national usage of chlorpyrifos was 58,537 lb of In some U.S. regions, soft and armored scales are common active ingredient in nursery production. Sixty-six percent of pests of nursery crops. The scales' waxy covering protects the chlorpyrifos was used in the South (Regions 4 and 5) and them from insecticide penetration. Some scales and 43 percent was applied against soil-borne pests. The primary mealybugs have a broad host range, while others are limited. use listed for chlorpyrifos for soil-borne pest control pertained Lack of effective scale control will limit the marketability of the to meeting quarantine requirements for imported fire ants in host plant (i.e., euonymus scale, Unaspis euonymi nursery stock. This use accounted for most of the 16,651 lb [Comstock], on euonymus) in some areas. The fourth largest used in Regions 4 and 5 for soil-borne pests. Estimated usage of chlorpyrifos in nursery production was scale control usage of diazinon in nursery production was 19,180 lb. (7,620 lb), with a 3.7 control rating. The third largest usage of diazinon was for control of scales (2,401 lb), with a 4.1 control Nursery crop pests are discussed in several publications (e.g., rating. Johnson and Lyon, 1988). This report divides major pests Into various pest groups in order to ascertain impact and effectiveness of insecticide usage in control programs. Mites Questionnaire responses concerning pest control on nursery crops and the amount of active ingredient of pesticides applied Problems with mites in nursery production are similar to those are found in Appendix C, Table C7 for the United States in greenhouse production. Although the twospotted spider (National) and Tables C8-C12 for the regions. mite is the most prevalent pest on nursery plants, attacking many plant species, many other mite species are often primary or secondary pests. An estimated 6,467 lb of Wood-Boring Larvae chlorpyrifos were applied for treatment of mites, with a 3.9 control rating. This pest category includes insects that bore into wood or tunnel between the bark and wood. It also includes twig girdlers that do not penetrate wood. Borers may be beetles, Sucking Pests lepidopterous larvae, or dipterous midges that feed on evergreen or deciduous nursery plants. Boring larvae may be This category includes a large group of thrips, Hemiptera, found on bark, wood, stems, twigs, needles, or shoots of Homoptera, and other pests that have piercing-sucking plants. In the initial larval stages, the wood-borer penetrates mouthparts and feed on plant fluids. Scales, mealybugs, and the host, making this pest difficult to reach with chemicals. mites are sucking insects, but have been included in other Management of these pests requires accurate timing of categories. The most common pests included in this group pesticide applications in orderte control the most vulnerable are aphids, adelgids, whiteflies, lace bugs, leafhoppers. larval stages still present on the outside of a tree or shrub. thrips, plant hoppers, tree hoppers, psyllids, and spittlebugs. The third largest usage of chlorpyrifos (9,888 lb) was directed The second highest usage of chlorpyrifos (10,966 lb applied) at wood-boring pests, with a control rating of 3.6. and the highest usage of diazinon (9,324 ib applied) were for control of sucking pests. Chlorpyrifos (4.0) and diazinon (4.6) were both rated high for control of this group. Foliage-Feeding Lepidopterous Larvae

Numerous lepidopterous larvae species feed on the foliage of Soil-Borne Pests evergreen and deciduous nursery plants. Larvae are often specific to the host plant and the region of the country where Soil-borne pests often dwell in soil or potting media during the plant is grown. Most of these pests can be managed with part of their life cycle. There are two groups of these pests: timely insecticide treatments. Some lepidopterous pests spin those that damage plants by feeding on roots, and those that bags (e.g., bagworms), as well as tents, webs, or other are present in potting media. Soil-borne pests that feed on protective coverings. In these cases, management with roots include root weevils, grubs, root mealybugs, root aphids, conventional sprays can be difficult. Control ratings for and others. The second soil-borne pest group that is a chlorpyrifos and diazinon for control of foliage-feeding nuisance in potting media includes species of imported fire lepidopterous larvae were 4.3 and 4.2, respectively. ants. Fire ants are quarantine pests; therefore, potting media must be treated with insecticide before nursery stock can be shipped out of the fire ant infested zones. Fire ant treatments Foliage-Feeding Beetles accounted for a major portion of soil treatment with chlorpyrifos in fire ant infested regions (Appendix B, Fig. 2). Foliage-feeding beetles are not as numerous as lepidopterous An estimated 17,948 Ib, or 31 percent of the total usage of larvae, but can be more difficult to manage. In some chlorpyrifos, was for soil-borne pest control. Much of this use situations, these beetles may feed on foliage in one was to fulfill fire ant quarantine requirements. The average developmental stage (adult) and on the roots or other regions control rating for chlorpyrifos used against soil-borne pests of the plant during another stage (grubs). Control ratings for was 3.9. chlorpyrifos (4.0) and diazinon (4.2) were very good. other Pests found aggregated in the periphery of brown sod areas. Chinch bugs cause the most trouble in the Eastern United Other secondary pests of nursery production Include several States. The southern chinch bug, Blissus insularis Barber, insects, mites, slugs, and snails. Most of these pests were causes the most damage to St. Augustine grass; however, included in the above categories. Some of these pests are of this pest will also feed on other sod species. The average major importance in certain regions of the country, affecting control rating for chinch bugs was 3.6. Eleven percent of interstate shipments because of quarantines, e.g., the chlorpyrifos usage was for treatment of chinch bugs, primarily European brown snail. Helix aspersa (Müller), which infests in Regions 4 and 5. some nursery shipments from the West Coast.

Mole Crickets SOD PRODUCTION Mole crickets are the most destructive sod insect pests in the There are several foliage-feeding and soil-dwelling pests of Southeastern region. Mole cricket control is diffícult because turfgrasses (Potter and Braman, 1991; Tashiro, 1987). Most infestations are difficult to predict and populations may be well U.S. insecticide usage for sod production pest control is established before damage is observed. These pests are applied for soil-dwelling pests. Questionnaire responses diffícult to manage with the available insecticides. Region 5 concerning pest control in sod production, and the amount of was the only region to report estimated pesticide usage for active ingredients of pesticides applied, are found in Appendix mole cricket control. Chlorpyrifos was one of five insecticides C, Table C13 for the United States (National), and Tables C14- used. An estimated 7,362 lb of chlorpyrifos were applied (3.0 C18 for the regions. Fewer insecticides were used for control control rating). of sod pests than were used in the floriculture and nursery industries. Chlorpyrifos was the only compound used for control of all pest categories and in all U.S. regions. According Billbugs to respondents, 30,495 lb of diazinon were applied for white grub control, 3,241 lb for control of worms, and 4,664 lb for Biilbugs, which are weevils, cause the greatest damage to treatment of insects in the "other" category in sod. However, cool-season grasses, especially bluegrass. Billbug damage as of August 1991, diazinon is no longer labeled for control of was most common in the Northern United States. Damage insect pests affecting sod. occurs when lan/ae feed on the crown and stems of grasses, which can severely weaken plants. Maximum plant damage occurs during July and August when temperatures are high White Grubs and moisture is low. Chlorpyrifos was one of two compounds for which the respondents reported a control rating above 3.0. White grubs are the larvae of a variety of scarabaeid beetles, Chlorpyrifos was rated at 3.6 and isofenphos at 4.0. many of which are similar in general appearance, habits, and type of damage inflicted. White grubs are the primary turfgrass pest in the Northeast and are a major pest in the South and Sucking Pests Midwest. In many instances, adults are pests of nursery or greenhouse plants. White grub life cycles may last more than Numerous sucking insects are pests in sod production areas. 1 year. These pests can move deep into the soil. There were The more common sucking pests are greenbugs, mealybugs, 43,400 lb of chlorpyrifos applied for the treatment of white ground pearis, mites (several species), spittlebugs, and grubs (21 percent of total usage), with a 2.9 control rating. leafhoppers. Most of these insects are secondary pests, but can be of major importance when populations are large. Some of these pests are very difficult to manage with Lepidopterous Larvae insecticides. Chlorpyrifos, with a 3.3 control rating, was used in more than 90 percent of the pesticide applications for Lepidopterous larvae that damage sod include sod controlling sucking pests (other than chinch bugs). Only one webworms; various cutworms and armyworms; fiery skipper, other insecticide was used for this purpose. Hylephila phyleus (Drury); and other pests. Most larvae that are sod pests feed on grass blades at night and hide in the thatch or soil during the day; however, some species feed just Other Pests below the surface on roots. The importance of lepidopterous larvae species varies with the type of grass and region. Other secondary pests of sod production include: Lepidopterous larvae management was the largest usage grasshoppers, wireworms, weevils, crickets, crane and fruit category for chlorpyrifos on sod. Control levels were very flies, and ants. The type of pest management used for good (4.1). controlling these insects varies. Some of these pests have regional and sporadic importance, which prevents the categorization of insecticide usage for a specific pest. The Chinch Bugs second greatest amount of chlorpyrifos (27 percent, with the primary usage in Region 3 of the U.S.) was reported to be Chinch bugs have piercing-sucking mouthparts, sucking sap used against pests in the "other" category. from the crown and stems of grasses. These pests are usually

10 Chapter II: Pest Management

CURRENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS are used in both chemical and nonchemical management as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Many The current management system in greenhouse, nursery, and growers listed IPM as the alternative to chemical control. It sod production is dependent on conventional chemical should be noted that IPM is a management strategy that insecticides. However, growers are investigating and using reduces quantities of chemical use; it is not necessarily a alternative management systems. Chlorpyrifos was applied nonchemical practice. Other growers listed more specific for pest control in all categories for greenhouse, nursery, and management practices. The most common responses from sod production (Appendix C). Although diazinon use was not greenhouse growers were (by percent of respondents): as common, diazinon was used for control of all pest methods of sanitation (25) [e.g., weed control (16)]; categories in greenhouse production and ail but two pest monitoring for pests (21) [e.g., sticky cards (20) scouting (15)]; categories in nursery production. According to respondents, cultural practices (11); and biological control (10) (Table 3). diazinon was used heavily for control of grubs in sod The most common responses for nursery crops, which were production. similar to greenhouse responses, were: cultural practices (23) [e.g., crop rotation (8)]; monitoring (17) [e.g., scouting (15)]; mechanical control (12) [e.g., manual removal of pests (11)]; AVAILABLE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES and sanitation (10) [e.g., discarding of infested plants (7)]. Sod production responses represented a smaller percentage All greenhouse and nursery producers used insecticides for of growers. The most common response was: cultural management of insect and mite problems; however, only 69 practices (64) [crop rotation (5), re-till field (3), proper harvest percent of sod producers used insecticides. Most pest time (2), and higher mowing (2)]. When asked what percent management programs rely on insecticides as the primary of their pest management was nonchemical, respondents method of control; however, most greenhouse, nursery, and stated that the largest category was zero percent for sod producers have adopted some alternative biorational pest nonchemical in all three production areas, with most management practices (Tables D2-D4). These types of production using less than 25 percent nonchemical pest alternative management systems are both preventive and management (Table D1). Most alternative management curative in nature. Producers frequently identified such strategies are directed at obtaining a better understanding of practices as surveying or monitoring pest populations as a pest populations and preventing their increase. For actual nonchemical management practice. In reality, these practices pest control, most respondents relied on chemical control.

Table 3. Summary of pest management strategies

Greenhouse Nursery Sod Production Strategy Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Monitoring^ 51 21 27 17 0 0 Sanitation^ 61 25 16 10 2 5 Exclusion^ 21 9 8 5 0 0 Cultural Practices 26 11 38 23 25 64 Biological Control 25 10 13 8 3 8 Mechanical Control 18 7 19 12 0 0 IPM (notspecific) 35 14 35 21 8 21 Soap, Oil, Plant Derivative 7 3 8 5 13 34

a. Use of sticky cards, scouting, etc. b. Removal of weeds, discarding leftover plants, etc. c. Use of screening, double doors, etc.

Note: Strategies are expressed in number of respondents and percent of total responses in a particular strategy.

11 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PESTICIDE RESISTANCE

Results of this study indicated that more than 50 percent of the The development of resistance to insecticides can be either a sod and greenhouse producers used at least one alternative qualitative change in the insect's biochemical target, pest nnanagement practice that reduced either pest rendering it less sensitive, or a quantitative change in activity populations or pesticide usage. The diversity of Integrated of the pre-existing metabolic defense enzymes (Devonshire Pest Management practices in greenhouse arthropod control and Field, 1991). The greater the exposure to a particular is addressed by van Lenteren and Woets (1988) and Powell insecticide, the greater the opportunity for resistance to and Lindquist (1992). Much of IPM in nursery and sod is develop. In the last few decades, old insecticides often were directed towards landscape woody ornamentals (Raupp et al., replaced by new chemicals. Resistance was avoided or 1992) and turfgrass (Potter and Braman, 1991). The major delayed through the introduction of new compounds or new IPM methods currently being implemented are aimed at chemistry. Production was thus placed on a pesticide reducing the potential of pest problems as well as monitoring treadmill. Today, the availability of new chemicals has been population levels. Only a limited amount of biological control reduced, and the threat that insecticide resistance poses to or other direct pest population management, other than agricultural productivity subsequently has increased. For chemical, is being used. some pests, the availability of efficacious pesticides is already very limited; in some cases, none are available (Knight and Integrated Pest Management is an important component of the Norton, 1989). Reduction in pesticide efficacy, as a result of future management of pests in ornamentals and sod. pest resistance, has major economic implications for However, for the immediate future, it appears that chemical agricultural production. Resistance can influence insecticide control will remain the primary method of managing costs and crop yields, affecting both the level and stability of established pest populations. As pests develop resistance to agricultural income (Knight and Norton, 1989). many of the available insecticides, an increased emphasis will be placed on resistance management through using either Controlling pesticide resistance through proper pesticide rotation or a combination of chemicals (Denholm and usage is currently a major area of concern for entomologists Rowland, 1992). For effective pest management, resistance (Denholm and Rowland, 1992). Different tactics have been management requires the continued availability of different explored for resistance management, such as reducing compounds with different modes of insecticidal activity. overall chemical usage on a pest population, applying chemicals at sufficiently high dosages to kill all resistant Insecticides that are compatible with alternative management genotypes, or leaving a portion of the pest population not strategies must remain available. Several sources of exposed to the insecticide. Future research will focus on information on the interaction of chemicals and biological developing effective insect resistance management tactics control agents exist, such as the International Organization for that can be used to preserve chemical management systems. Biological Control, which has compiled lists of pesticide The only factors that can be manipulated to reduce selection compatibility with natural enemies (Hassan, 1985). Hussey pressure for resistance on a particular crop are operational and Scopes (1985) also have a chapter on the integration of factors, such as which insecticides are used; the area of biological and chemical control in their text on biological coverage; and the timing, rate, and method of application control. Additionally, there are numerous articles on the (Denholm and Rowland, 1992). Cultural management compatibility of specific natural enemies and environmentally strategies can also be implemented (e.g., choice of crop, crop friendly insecticides, horticultural practices, and conventional rotations, etc.). Unfortunately, resistance management is chemicals (e.g., Oetting and Latimer, 1991; Osborne and complicated because insecticide uses must address other Petitt, 1985; Rock, 1979). concerns, such as water pollution, pesticide residues on food, and the dangers to human health and nontarget species. Reliable alternative control methods are currently unavailable These concerns can cause the socially optimum level of for the ornamentals and sod industries. However, the insecticide use (what people want) to differ from the private increased use of pest population monitoring and cultural economic optimum level (what is needed for control) (Knight practices are important steps toward greater reliance on and Norton, 1989). alternative management strategies (Binns and Nyrop, 1992). Biological control, host plant manipulation, host plant A common resistance management tactic used by growers of resistance, and other methods will gain greater usage and ornamental plants is applying a combination of chemicals, or become increasingly important in management systems of the alternating chemicals that have different modes of action. future. The limitations of most management programs are Respondents indicated a shift towards reliance on more than largely those of implementation (Croft, 1992). Problems one chemical in their pest management programs (Table D5). continue to exist for the implementation of these alternative Greenhouse growers relied more on chemical rotation (57 management strategies because of lack of data monitoring, percent of respondents) than on the mixing of chemicals (33 economic benefits, education of growers, program percent of respondents). Only 19 percent of the greenhouse organization, and ecological information (Wearing, 1988). growers indicated use of a single chemical to manage a pest.

12 Similar results were obtained for nursery production; however, used each year, with a control performance of 3.1 to 4.8 for responses indicated that sod producers relied more heavily on chlorpyrifos (good to excellent control) and 2.9 to 4.0 for a single chemical. A fundamental difference between using diazinon (good to very good control) (Table CI). Similar mixtures and rotating chemicals isthat insects resistant to only results were obtained from nursery growers: chlorpyrifos one insecticide may gain a temporary selective advantage usage was 58,537 lb a.i. per year, with a performance rating within a rotation, but are not favored by a mixture (Denholm of 3.6 to 4.3, and diazinon usage was 19,180 lb a.i., with a and Rowland, 1992). Mixtures tend to overcome or delay performance rating of 3.4 to 4.6 (Table C7). The pounds of resistance temporarily; however, overcoming insect resistance chlorpyrifos used were the largest of any compound for soil- with mixtures or high dosage of chemicals may not always be borne pests in the nursery industry, primarily for fire ant possible or desirable. Use of multiple chemicals necessitates management to meet quarantine requirements in Southern the availability of several effective chemicals with different States. The largest quantity of chlorpyrifos was used by sod action mechanisms for pest management. producers (211,172 lb per year, with a pest control rating of 2.9 to 4.3) (Table CI3). Both diazinon and chlorpyrifos are Chlorpyrifos and diazinon are organophosphates. Insects and important components of pest control programs in these three mites probably already have developed some resistance to industries; respondents reported that these two chemicals both of these insecticides. Greenhouse growers estimated that were effective for pest control. 17,704 lb a.i. of chlorpyrifos and 12,555 lb a.i. of diazinon were

13 Chapter III: Economics

ESTIMABLE LOSSES

The impact of removing chlorpyrifos and diazinon from the approval list of chemicals for use on ornamental crops was evaluated in this assessment. Factors used to estimate expected economic losses were: realized grower gross sales and grower gross saies- at-risk if the pesticides were unavailable; the insecticide cost per lb a.i. and per application on ornamentals and sod (Table E1); and realized current pesticide efficacy. Economic losses were defined as change in sales loss due to insect damage and insecticide cost if chlorpyrifos and diazinon were unavailable for ornamentals crop protection. The following is an explanation of the steps used in these calculations.

1. Sales data and grower estimates of pest infestations were used to determine sales-at-risk. Sales-at-risk, defined as sales of ornamentals and sod that would have been lost without insect control, were estimated for each pest group. Growers reported the severity of insect infestation in the categories of "most severe," "severe," "average," "small," and "very small" infestations. These groupings of infestations represented the sales-at-risk categories if no treatment occurred. The expert judgment of entomologists involved in the analyses was utilized to quantify the sales-at-risk for each infestation category. The "most severe" infestation was defined as when all of the crop would be lost without treatment. The "very small" infestation denotes that 10 percent of the crop would be lost without treatment. The other three categories were classified as follovy^: severe-75 percent loss, average-50 percent loss, and small-25 percent loss without treatment. Sales by crop for each record were multiplied by the record's pest infestation loss percentage for the crop by pest group and summed over each region. The regional sums were multiplied by regional expansion values and summed over regions to estimate a sales-at-risk value for each pest group. Sales-at-risk equals:

5 n ^ ^ sales • pest infestation loss percentage • regional expansion value reglon=1 crop=1 The sales-at-risk for thrips in the greenhouse segment equals $598,234,833.

The basis for loss estimations (and sales-at-risk estimations) was the actual sales, and not estimated sales that would have been realized without any losses from insect damage. Sales-at-risk is a measurement of potential loss without insect control, based on insect populations experienced by the growers.

2. The dollar loss under current practices for each pest group was computed. The dollar loss was equal to the sales-at-risk for each pest group multiplied by one minus the weighted average control for all insecticides used to control that pest group. The weighted average control for each pest group is the sum of the ratios of numbers of applications for each insecticide to the total applications for the pest group, multiplied by their ratings. Weighted average control by pest group equals:

5 n number of insecticidej applications • regional expansion value • insecticide rating \^-nil region=1 crop=1 insecticide=i "[I ^ " number of insecticidej applications • regional expansion value

¡nseclicide=1 reglon=1 crop=1

There were an estimated 191,352 applications of effective insecticides for thrips control in the greenhouse segment, with weighted average control of 3.4 or 84 percent control (.16 loss.) (Note: for these calculations, only the applications for effective insecticides as listed in Tables E2-E4 were used.) Crop loss by pest group for all insecticides equals:

Crop sales-at-risk • (1 - weighted average control rating for pest group)

For thrips in the greenhouse segment, sales loss for all pesticides equals $598,234,833 • (1-.84) = $95,717,573. The standard terminology used in insecticide labeling for ornamentals, which was an application of 100 gallons of diluted insecticides, was used as the basis for comparing compounds. For those situations in sod production where treatment areas were needed for application comparisons, the standard application unit of 1 acre was used. In special situations, other application units were used (e.g., per yard, per 10,000 sq ft, etc.).

14 3. Current loss amounts realized for chlorpyrifos and diazinon were determined. These loss amounts were determined by estimating the ratio of applications of chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) to total applications for each pest and multiplying this ratio by the sales-at-risk value for each pest. Crop loss for specific pesticides by pest group equals:

5 n V y number of insecticidej applications • regional expansion value • Insecticide rating regional crop=1 "2, 5 n number of insecticidej applications • regional expansion value

zL-i c—à ^_i ¡nsecticide=1 region=1 crop=1 • (1 - average control rating for insecticidej) • crop sales-at-risk for pest group

when i equals chlorpyrifos or diazinon.

Chlorpyrifos was used for 6 percent of all thrips control applications and 7.77 percent of effective insecticide applications for thrips control in the greenhouse segment, and diazinon was used for 1 percent, with control ratings of 3.4 and 3.2, respectively. The estimated crop loss to thrips controlled by chlorpyrifos equals .0777« (1-.84). $598,234,833 = $7,440,000 (see earlier note on effective pesticides).

4. Alternatives to chlorpyrifos and diazinon were selected. The respondent ratings and respondent use of specific insecticides (Tables C1, C7, and C13) were evaluated to select a list of insecticides to compare as alternatives (Table E2-greenhouse, Table E3-nursery, and Table E4-sod). The cost per application, efficacy rating, amount of use recorded, toxidty, and professional judgment of entomologists were used to select alternative insecticides. The selected alternatives categorized by pest are listed in Table E5-greenhouse, Table E6-nursery, and Table E7-sod.

An exception to the selection procedure mentioned above was used in selecting an alternative to chlorpyrifos for control of soil- borne insects and fire ants in nurseries. Research data concerning the efficacy of bifenthrin for fire ants was used because this alternative was not available for growers at the time of the survey. In this selection, both the assumption of equal efficacy and the midpoint of the recommended application rate for a 24-month treatment were used.

The selected application rates of the alternative chemicals used as chlorpyrifos and diazinon replacements were either close to or, in many situations, the same as the rates reported by the respondents using these alternatives. These selected alternatives to chlorpyrifos and diazinon were our best estimates of the alternative pesticides that would be used if chlorpyrifos and diazinon were not used.

5. The replacement quantities for the specific chlorpyrifos and diazinon alternatives were estimated. These quantities are the products of quantities replaced, number of applications as a ratio of total alternative applications, and ratio of the application rates of the alternative compounds and chlorpyrifos (or diazinon).

Replacement quantity for specific alternative insecticides (lb a.i.) equals:

pounds a.i. chlorpyrifos (or diazinon). current number of applications of alternative insecticide current number of applications of all selected alternative msectcides

application rate of chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) application rate of alternative insecticide

Acephate and endosulfan are the selected alternatives for chlorpyrifos for thrips control in the greenhouse segment. These alternatives have estimated current applications of 51,764 and 8,822 lb, respectively, and application rates of 0.5 lb a.i./lOO gal. Chlorpyrifos (7,437 lb a.i. and application rate of 0.5 lb a.i./100 gal.) projects a replacement quantity of acephate as follows:

7,437 lb a.i. chlorpyrifos . 51,764/(51,764 . 8,822) • g^^riSappSon Se = ^'^^^ '" ^'- °^ ^«^^P^^*^"

The estimated replacement quantities are in Tables E5-E7. Estimated replacement quantities for chlorpyrifos and diazinon provided the basis for determining changes in sales losses by providing quantity estimates to be used with differences in efficacies between chlorpyrifos and diazinon alternatives.

15 6. The differences in sales value loss between chlorpyrifos and diazinon and the selected alternative were estimated. The difference in sales value loss for each pest was the sum of estimated loss in sales value realized for chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) for that pest, multiplied by the difference in efñcacy between the alternative insecticide and chlorpyrifos or diazinon (expressed as percent protected or controlled), and by the ratio of its number of applications to the total number of alternative insecticide applications (Tables E5-E7). Difference in loss by pest group equals:

y current number of applications of alternative insecticide alternative current number of applications of all alternative insecticides Insecticldesi • (chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) efficacy - selected alternative efficacy) • current loss for chlorpyrifos (or diazinon)

The quality impact or change in sales value for thrips in the greenhouse segment equals:

51,764/(51,764 + 8,822) • (.84 - chlorpyrifos efficacy - .84 - acephate efficacy) • $7,440,000 + 8.822/(51,764 + 8,822) • (.84 -- chlorpyrifos efficacy - .87 - endosulfan efficacy) • $7,440,000 = -$32,500

7. The cost differences between chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) and the selected alternatives were computed (Tables E5-E7). The cost difference of each pest was the cost of chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) minus the sum of the costs of the alternatives (product of respective price and replacement quantities). Difference in cost of alternative insecticides by pest group equals:

lb a.i. chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) • cost/lb a.i. chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) 1 X chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) replacement quantities • cost/lb a.i. replacement insecticide alternative insecticidesl

The cost difference for thrips control in greenhouses equals:

7,437 • $27.18 - (6,354 lb a.i. acephate • $15.56 cost/lb a.i. acephate) + (1,083 lb a.i. endosulfan • $13.50 cost/lb a.i. endosulfan) = -$88,649.

8. The net difference between using chlorpyrifos (or diazinon) and the selected alternative was computed (Tables E5-E7). The net difference for each pest was the sum of the sales loss difference and cost-of-m ate rial difference. The assumptions of equal number of applications and equal application costs were used for this costing. The net difference by pesticide group equals: 1 ^ cost difference + insecticide quality loss difference alternative lnsectlcide=1

The net difference for thrips control for chlorpyrifos replacement in the greenhouse segment equals -$32,500 + -$88,650 = -$121,150 for a net gain in thrips control if chlorpyrifos were not available.

16 GREENHOUSE effective for controlling these arthropods. The level of control depends upon thrips population and varies from one population Chlorpyrifos and diazinon applications represented only 3 and to another. Regarding the questionnaire responses, no new 1 percent of the applications respectively of the total use of compounds were available for thrips management. Due to the insecticides (Table 4). However, use is large enough that lack of new compounds, removal of chlorpyrifos and diazinon significant quantities were utilized. Thirty-nine percent of would result in an economic loss to growers. The selected greenhouse operators, as represented by the percent of sales, alternatives, acephate and endosulfan, have higher efficacies use chlorpyrifos and 72 percent use diazinon (Table 5). and lower cost per application. The greatest number of chlorpyrifos applications (14,874) were for thrips control. This use represented 6 percent of the There were 5,536 chlorpyrifos applications for aphids (3 applications in the thrips category (Table 4). Respondents percent of aphid applications) (Table 4). Acephate was the reported fluvalinate (54,040 applications and 2.9 control rating) insecticide used for the highest number of applications and acephate (51,764 applications and 3.4 control rating) as (43,130) for control of aphids. Other compounds frequently the insecticides used most for thrips control. These chemicals used for aphid control were fluvalinate (36,313), cyfluthrin were followed closely by abamectin (34,857 applications). (23,550), methomyl (13.306), and endosulfan (12,814). Methomyl, bendiocarb, and chlorpyrifos were used in lesser Although the alternatives for aphids of acephate, endosulfan, numbers of applications (Table E2). All six compounds have and fluvalinate have slightly lower efficacies, the decrease in been used in commercial greenhouse production as well as for cost per application resulted in a net positive advantage for research trials for longer than the period covered by the chlorpyrifos alternatives and only a small increase in cost questionnaire. Although all of these chemicals have been ($6,600) for diazinon. effective in reducing thrips populations, none are highly

Table 4. Percent of greenhouse insecticide applications of chlorpyrifos and diazinon (by pest group)

Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Percent of Percent of Total Total Total Pest Group Applications^ Applications Applications Applications Applications

Thrips ... 268,471 14,874 6 1,387 1 Aphids ... 296,451 5,536 2 3,175 1 Whiteflies ... 300,899 6,258 2 863 (b) Mites ... 285,135 60 (b) 281 (b) Scales 8,460 378 4 990 12 Lepidopterous Larvae ... 100,048 2,190 2 297 (b)

Leafminers 69,224 5,398 8 675 1 Other 53,075 716 1 4,885 9

Total ... 1,381,763 35,410 3 12,553 1

a. An application is equal to one unit of 100 gallons of diluted insecticide that is ready for application.

Table 5. Percent of gross sales represented by producers using chlorpyrifos and diazinon

Chlorpyrifos Diazinon

Percent

Greenhouse 39 72 Nursery 65 67 Sod 31 9

17 Chlorpyrifos applications for whitefly (6,258 applications) $58,892 is projected for the "other" category if diazinon were made up 2 percent of the total applications for control of this not available. The overall effect of losing chlorpyrifos would insect. Benzofluroline (90,320 applications) and abamectin be a reduction in quality loss large enough ($175,281) to (49,143 applications) were the most frequently used chemicals overshadow the $91,320 projected increase in cost of for whitefly. More chemical applications were made for alternative insecticides for a very modest net reduction in whitefly control in U.S. greenhouses (356,673) than for any insecticide control costs of $83,961. The estimated net other pest. Seven insecticides, with over 25,000 applications change from the removal of diazinon was a very small made each year, were used for control of whiteflies in reduction in net costs of $14,344. greenhouses. The use of these seven compounds is a good indication of the variability in the usage patterns of insecticides for control of this pest within and among regions of the country. NURSERY This usage is also consistent with the rotation of different insecticides to control insect pests. Alternatives for whitefly Chlorpyrifos is a major-use insecticide for nurseries. control have a higher average efficacy; however, these Applications of chlorpyrifos represented 8 percent of nursery alternatives have a higher application cost, for a modest applications and diazinon represented 2 percent (Table 6). projected net increase in cost of $45,188 if chlorpyrifos were Sixty-seven and sixty-five percent of nursery sales were not available, and $11,688 if diazinon were not available. represented by growers who use diazinon and chlorpyrifos respectively (Table 5). However, chlorpyrifos represented the Scales constituted the other sucking pest category in greatest number of applications, with 84,765 compared to greenhouse production. A total of 378 applications of 19,179 for diazinon. The most frequent usages of chlorpyrifos were made for scale control, which represented chlorpyrifos, in percent of total applications, were for wood- only 5 percent of the total applications for scales. Acephate boring larvae (46 percent), scales (26 percent), and sucking was the most commonly used insecticide (2,516 applications). insects (13 percent). This does not include the estimated 80 The costs of chlorpyrifos and diazinon were lower, and the percent of active ingredient chlorpyrifos used for fire-ant-free quality losses were greater, than for the projected alternatives quarantine requirements. The largest percentage of total for treatment of scales. The projected net cost for chlorpyrifos applications represented by diazinon was for sucking insects, was an increase of $16,200; for diazinon, $40,300 was with 5 percent (Table 6). projected. Wood-boring larvae management was the area where Abamectin had the greatest number of applications for chlorpyrifos made up the greatest percentage of the total leafminer control (47,000), with the highest control rating of applications. The next most-used alternative chemical for 4.3. There were 5,398 applications of chlorpyrifos for wood-boring larvae, lindane, has a slightly higher reported leafminer control, with a control rating of 3.7. The leafminer efficacy (3.8 versus 3.6) and a lower price ($9.37 versus control alternatives also had higher efficacies and higher costs $13.59 per 100 gallon of spray for chlorpyrifos. Table E3). of application. The projected net if chlorpyrifos were Thus, a net gain of $212,133 is projected for control of wood- unavailable is a slight increase of $2,973; loss of diazinon boring insects in the nursery industry (Table E3) if chlorpyrifos would cause a net decrease of $29,037. were not available. Diazinon represented less than 0.5 percent of total applications. Lepidopterous larvae are significant pests in some sections of the United States, especially in the warmer Southern climates. The greatest amounts of chlorpyrifos and diazinon were Cyfluthrin (28,970 applications) and methomyl (27,712 applied for control of sucking insects (except for imported fire applications) were the insecticides used most frequently for ant quarantine requirements). However, this category control of these caterpillars. Chlorpyrifos and diazinon represented only 13 percent (chlorpyrifos) and 5 percent applications were only 2 percent, and less than 1 percent, (diazinon) of the total applications. The compound used most respectively, of the total applications for lepidopterous larvae against sucking insects was acephate (49,402). There is an control. Althoi ^h the efficacy of the lepidopterous larvae advantage in efficacy with diazinon (4.6 control rating) (Table alternatives wi less than that of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, CI2), but a cost disadvantage (Table E3). There would be a the cost of the alternative is sufficiently lower, resulting in a net gain of $139,413 (chlorpyrifos) and $21,798 (diazinon) if small decrease in net cost for chlorpyrifos replacement these insecticides were not available. One of the largest ($9,061) and a very slight increase for diazinon ($119). losses if chlorpyrifos and diazinon sprays were not available would be for another sucking insect group, scales. A net loss The greatest number of diazinon applications (4,885) were for of $526,972 for chlorpyrifos and $27,700 for diazinon is pests in the "other" category, representing 10 percent of the projected if these chemicals were not available for scale total applications. The primary use of insecticides in the management. The replacements with the highest efficacies "other" category was to control fungus gnats in potting media. and usage for scales were horticulture oil and methidathion. The "other" is a category with a tremendous amount of Horticulture oil would be more environmentally benign, but the variability because it is a catchall for unique minor pest cost of application would be higher ($21.87). Methidathion is usages, thereby making comparisons very difficult to a more toxic compound to mammals (Table E3), but the ascertain. A pesticide cost increase of $52,667 and net loss of control rating is higher (4.6).

18 Table 6. Percent of nursery insecticide applications of chlorpyrifos and diazinon (by pest group)

Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Percent of Percent of Total Total Total Pest Group Applications Applications^ Applications Applications Applications

Wood-boring Larvae 42.627 19.776 46 109 (b) Lepidopterous Larvae (foliage-feeding)...... 143,687 7,498 5 2.764 2 Beetles (foliage-feeding)...... 145.611 3.528 2 1,795 1 Scales 58.184 15.240 26 2,401 4 Mites ... 428,711 12.934 3 392 (b) Sucking Insects ... 174.799 21.932 13 9,324 5 Soil-borne Insects 53.216 3.590^ 7 2,290 4 Other 6.359 268 4 104 2

Total ... 1.053.254 84.766 8 19,179 2 a. An application is equal to one unit of 100 gallons of diluted insecticide ready for application. b. Less than 0.5 percent. c. This represents 20 percent of the a.i. chlorpyrifos used for soil-borne insects; the other 80 percent (14,358 lb a.i.) was assumed to be used for fire-ant-free certification.

The largest projected loss to the nursery industry if chlorpyrifos alternatives. A quality loss of $21,774 was projected for were not available would be for control of the soil-borne pests. control of foliage-feeding worms if chlorpyrifos were not The major use of chlorpyrifos in this category was in the available; however, a cost advantage exists with alternative Southern regions, and represents treatment of containerized compounds. The result was a net gain of $48,521 for nursery stock for imported fire ants. It was estimated that 80 lepidopterous foliage-feeding larvae (Table E6). There was percent (14,358 lb a.i.) of the usage for soil-borne pests was no significant loss or gain for the other categories if for meeting requirements for shipping nursery stock from the chlorpyrifos or diazinon were not available. The nursery imported fire ant zone (based on the formulation of industry net loss (increase in cost) from the removal of chlorpyrifos used). During this survey, chlorpyrifos was the chlorpyrifos is estimated at $1,542,916, with the net cost only insecticide approved for quarantine requirements for increase from controlling soil-borne insects overshadowing shipment of plants out of the fire ant zone. Changes have the positive sum of the net cost changes over all other pest occurred in the approved treatments to meet quarantine groups of chlorpyrifos alternatives. The removal of diazinon regulations, i.e., the number of chemicals has increased and has a very small projected cost increase of $47,238. the effective duration of certification following treatment with chlorpyrifos has been reduced. Recent USDA certification regulations declared chlorpyrifos an inadequate treatment for SOD incorporation into potting medium for fire-ant-free certification, while approving bifenthrin for these treatments. Without the Chlorpyrifos currently plays a major role in chemical control relatively large chlorpyrifos usage for specific pest-free of pests in sod production. Chlorpyrifos applications certifications, the projected direct short-term economic loss constituted 26 percent of total insecticide applications in the from the removal of chlorpyrifos would be reduced by commercial production of sod (Table 7). Diazinon was used $5,322,700 (assuming that chlorpyrifos usage was reduced by in the period covered by the questionnaire, but this usage is 80 percent) (Table E6). This 80 percent loss was arbitrary, no longer labeled and therefore was not considered in this since no data exist for chlorpyrifos usage on soil-borne pests assessment. The sod production industry is different from for a treatment period of 24 months or longer. the greenhouse and nursery industries because a sizable proportion of the growers do not use chemicals for insect Mites, the only other pest group with a significant loss or gain if control (Table D4). Thus, more than 31 percent of gross chlorpyrifos were not available, would cause a net loss of sales of sod producers using chemical insect control would $53,205. This loss was a result of increased cost of be represented by sod growers using chlorpyrifos (Table 5).

19 The sample of growers showed that chlorpyrifos was used for projected, for a net loss of $1,860,755. The next greatest loss 94 "percent", of the applications for sucking insects, 90 ($1,178,602) was predicted for chinch bugs if chlorpyrifos percent for "other", 59 percent for chinch bugs, 41 percent for were not available to combat these pests. The alternatives to ants, and 58 percent for lepidopterous larvae (Table 7). The chlorpyrifos for chinch bug control, isazophos and isofenphos, category of pests receiving the greatest number of were efficient, but more costly. A predicted net loss of applications was white grubs. Chlorpyrifos represented only 4 $283,865 was also predicted for billbugs, $254,905 for fire percent of the total applications on white grubs. However, this ants, $196,212 for sucking insects, and $49,691 for mole represented the fourth highest usage of chlorpyrifos on sod crickets. The total projected gain for sod was $231,540 in insect pests, and was 8 percent of chlorpyrifos usage on sod. quality gain and a $3,686,984 increase in cost, for a net gain Isofenphos and isazophos were the alternatives selected for in cost or loss of $3,455,444. white grub control. There was a higher efficacy rating and cost advantage for these chemicals over chlorpyrifos. A net gain of $166,346 was predicted if chlorpyrifos were not available for ECONOMIC SUMMARY FOR ORNAMENTALS this pest. A net gain of $482,567 would be realized for the AND SOD INDUSTRIES "other" category if chlorpyrifos were not available for this group of pests. Carbaryl, the alternative for this use, was projected Estimated Losses to provide a lower level of control, resulting in a $492,594 quality loss. However, because of the lower cost of carbaryl, The largest projected cost for the industry if chlorpyrifos were there was a cost gain of $975,161, which resulted in a net loss. not available would be for control of soil-borne insects in The "other" category was a major usage category, and nurseries at $7,015,098. This large cost was projected therefore was difficult to assess because of the diversity of because of increased cost of insecticides for fIre-ant-free pests in this group. An average efficacy rating for "other" was certification. Because changes in the USDA certification in not as meaningful as with the other groupings. 1993 reduced the role of chlorpyrifos, $1,542,916 may be a more realistic estimate for the loss. There was a net loss if chlorpyrifos were not available for all of the other groupings. The greatest projected net loss for the With the exception of chlorpyrifos previously used for fire-ant- industry was for lepidopterous larvae control, where free certification in nurseries, chlorpyrifos and diazinon alternatives are less efficient and more costly. A $365,559 currently have cost-effective alternatives in the greenhouse loss in quality and a $1,495,196 increase in cost were and nursery segments of the ornamentals industry. At current

Table 7. Percent of sod insecticide applications of chlorpyrifos and diazinon (by pest group)

Chlorpyrifos Percent of Total Total Pest Group Applications^^ Applications Applications

Billbugs 26,033 6,776 26 Chinch Bugs 38,561 22,736 59 FireAnts 17,797 7,318 41 Mole Crickets 26,905 3.681 14 White Grubs 399,089 14,467 4 Lepidopterous Larvae 109,344 63,419 58 Sucking Insects 3,030 2.732 94 Other 60.685 57,430 90

Total 681.444 178.559 26 a. Application is of 100 gallons of diluted insecticide or the treatment of one acre, one time (acre treatment). b. Eight percent were diazinon applications, with 78 percent of the diazinon applications for white grub control. Diazinon is no longer labeled for use on sod.

20 insecticide prices, mite and scale control costs are projected to The projected sales loss for the ornamentals and sod increase in nurseries; control costs for whitefly, scales, industries is a decrease in quality loss of $462,611 and an leafminers, and other insects are projected to increase in the increase in cost of insecticide of $5,377,009. Thus, the net greenhouse segment. The value of chlorpyrifos and diazinon increase in insect control cost is $4,914,399, with almost ail is their use as a component in pest management programs cost increases (70 percent) accruing to the sod industry. This that utilize a rotation of insecticides. No particular chemical is consistent with the use patterns, where 73 percent of the can be relied upon completely in and of itself for the total use of chlorpyrifos was in sod production. management of thrips, aphids, or whiteflies, without periodically rotating to a different chemical. Chlorpyrifos was used in 3 percent and diazinon in 1 percent of the total Non-Estimated Losses applications as reported by the respondents to our questionnaire. Although the greenhouse segment shows a net The ornamentals industry is faced with a difficult task of gain from the loss of chlorpyrifos ($84,000) and diazinon maintaining adequate control against many pests with the ($14,000), the amount is small. The projected decrease in available insecticides. In some situations, pests are resistant total cost is only .03 percent for chlorpyrifos and .0006 percent to most insecticides. Consequently, resistance management for diazinon of the current quality loss for all pesticides. A requires rotation of different insecticides and different classes modest relative price change of chlorpyrifos or chlorpyrifos of chemicals to maintain the effectiveness of the chemicals alternatives could not only change the amount, but could also that are still available (Denholm and Rowland, 1992). change the small benefit to cost. Chlorpyrifos has been a Respondents to the sun/ey confirmed that most growers of major chemical in pest management programs of nursery ornamentals are practicing rotation of insecticides for growers, averaging 17 percent of total applications, with 65 resistance management, and that many growers are using percent of growers using it. Diazinon was not used for as combinations (Table D5). Therefore, more than economics many applications (greater than .05 percent); however, it was and the availability of a few alternative chemicals must be used by 67 percent of the growers. In the nursery industry, the considered when assessing the need for any particular projected increase in total cost if chlorpyrifos were unavailable chemical. There are situations where chlorpyrifos is an would be 1.0 percent of the current total quality loss for all important chemical and the loss would have an economic insecticides, and the projected cost increase if diazinon were impact, as discussed above. In other situations, however, discontinued would be .03 percent. chlorpyrifos is not the best economic choice, but is still a very important component of a chemical program for pest In the sod industry, few alternatives are as cost-effective as management. The management of thrips, under greenhouse chlorpyrifos. As a result, five insect groups are projected to conditions, is a good example. Several compounds with have increased control costs if chlorpyrifos were not available. control ratings of 3.4 to 3.7 play important roles in thrips Although a sizeable portion of the sod industry does not use management (Table CI ). No single insecticide is adequate to insecticides, chlorpyrifos was a major-use chemical for those manage thrips when used alone, and each would lose producers who use chemical pest control (26 percent of the efficiency very rapidly if used exclusively. These compounds applications). Seventy-three percent of the chlorpyrifos use currently are used in rotations to manage thrips. In addition, reported in this study was for pest control on sod production. the most frequently used chemical, abamectin, does not list Control costs for chinch bugs ($1,180,000) and lepidopterous thrips on the national label, and the third most frequently used larvae ($1,860,000) are projected to increase substantially in compound has been removed by the manufacturer from the control costs ($3,040,000) if chlorpyrifos is not available. The ornamentals market (Table E2). Although chlorpyrifos and major portion of the cost increase is the higher cost of diazinon are not listed as primary chemicals for thrips alternative insecticides. The net projected loss for the sod management, and have control ratings less than those of industry without chlorpyrifos was $3,455,400. alternative products, both of these insecticides play important roles in insecticide rotation management programs for thrips.

21 Literature Cited

Amin, P.W., D.V.R. Reddy and A.M. Ghanekar 1981. Johnson, D.O. 1989. Ornamental horticulture crops, an Transmission of tomato spotted wilt virus, the causal agent economic and statistical handbook for the greenhouse, of bud necrosis of peanut, by Scirtothrips dorsalis and nursery, and related industries. Commodity Economics Frankliniella schultzei. Plant Dis. 65:663-665. Division, Economic Research Division, USDA. 64 pp. Binns, M.R. and J.R Nyrop. 1992. Sampling insect Johnson, D. 0. and T. M. Johnson. 1993. Financial populations for the purpose of IPM decision making. Ann. performance of U.S. floriculture and environmental Rev. Entomol. 37:427-454. horticulture farm businesses, 1987-91, Commodity Economics Division, Economic Research Division, USDA Byrne, D.N. and TS. Bellows, Jr. 1991. Whitefly biology Ann. 135 pp. Rev. Entomol. 36:431-459. Johnson, W.T. and H.H. Lyon. 1988. Insects that feed on Coombe, P.E. 1982. Visual behavior of the greenhouse trees and shrubs. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum. Physio!. Entomol. 556 pp. 7:243-251. Kennedy, J.S. 1975. Insect dispersal, p. 103-119. InD. Croft, B.A. 1992. IPM systems that conserve pesticides, pest- Pimental (ed.) Insects, science and society. Conf. Proc. resistant plants and biological controls, including Academic Press, NY. genetically altered forms. J. Entomol. Soc. So. Afr. 55:107- 121. Knight, A.L. and G.W. Norton. 1989. Economics of agricultural pesticide resistance in arthropods. Ann. Rev. Denholm, I. and M.W. Rowland. 1992. Tactics for managing Entomol. 34:293-313. pesticide resistance in arthropods: theory and practice. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 37:91-112. Krantz, G.W. 1978. A manual of acarology. Oregon State Univ. Book Stores, Inc. Corvallis, OR. 509 pp. Devonshire, A.L. and LM. Field. 1991. Gene amplification and insecticide resistance. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 36:1-24. Lenteren, J. van and J. Woets. 1988. Biological and integrated pest control in greenhouses. Ann. Rev. Entomol. Dixon, A.F.G. 1985. Aphid ecology. Chapman and Hall, New 33:239-270. York, NY. 157 pp. Lewis, T. 1973. Thrips, their biology, ecology and economic Hamon, A.B. and M.L. Williams. 1984. Arthropods of Florida. importance. Acad. Press, Ltd. London. 349 pp. Vol. 11, The soft scale insects of Florida (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae). FL Dept. of Agrie. & Consumer Miller, D.R. and M. Kosztarab. 1979. Recent advances in the Serv., Gainesville, FL. 194 pp. study of scale insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 24:1-28.

Hassan, S.A. (Convener). 1985. Standard methods to test Muniyappa, V. 1980. Whiteflies. p. 39-85. In K. F. Harris and the side-effects of pesticides on natural enemies of insects K. Maramorosch (ed.) Vectors of plant pathogens. and mites developed by the lOBC/WPRS working group Academic Press, New York. "Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms." Bull. OEPP/EPPO 15:214-255. Getting, R.D. and J.G. Latimer. 1991. An entomogenous nematode, Steinernema carpocapsae, compatible with Hsu, H. T. and R.H. Lawson, ed. 1991. Virus-thrips-plant potting media environments created by horticultural interactions of tomato spotted wilt virus. Proc. of USDA practices. J. Entomol. Sei. 26:390-394. Workshop. USDA, Agrie. Res. Serv., ARS-87:15-20. Oldfield, G.N. 1970. Mite transmission of plant viruses. Ann. Hunter, W.B. and D.E. Ullman. 1989. Analysis of mouthpart Rev. Entomol. 15:343-380. movements during feeding of Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) and F Schultzei Trybom (Thysanoptera: Osborne, L.S. and F.L. Petitt. 1985. Insecticidal soap and the Thripidae). Int. J. Insect Morphol. &Embryol. 18:161-171. predatory mite, Phytoseiulus persimilis, used in management of the twospotted spider mite on greenhouse Hussey, N.W. and N. Scopes (ed.) 1985. Integration of grown foliage plants. J. Econ. Entomol. 78:687-691. biological and chemical control of diseases and minor pests, p. 145-165. In Biological pest control: the Potter, D.A. and S.K. Braman. 1991. Ecology and glasshouse experience. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. management of turfgrass insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 36:383-406. Immaraju, J.A., I.D. Paine, J.A. Bethke, K.L. Robb, and J.P. Newman. 1992. Western flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) resistance to insecticides in coastal California greenhouses. J. Econ. Entomol. 85:9-14.

22 Powell, ce. and R.K. LIndquist. 1992. Ball pest and U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS Quarantine. disease manual. Ball Publishing, Geneva, IL 331 pp. Revised 1985. Imported fire ants, quarantine treatments for nursery stock and other regulated articles. Jan. 1994 Prabhaker, N., N.C. Toscano, T.M. Perring, G. Nuessley, K. Supplement to Imported Fire Ant Programs Manual M Kido, and R.R. Youngman. 1992. Resistance monitoring 301.81. of the sweetpotato whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in the Imperial Valley of California. J. Econ. Entomol. 85:1063- U.S. Department of Agriculture, NASS. Floriculture Crops 1068. 1990 Summary. April 1991.

Raupp, M.J., C.S. Koehler, and J.A. Davidson. 1992. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Advances in implementing integrated pest management for 1989. 1987 Census of Agriculture. woody landscape plants. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 37:561-585. Vehrs, S.L.C., G.R Waler, and M.R Parrella. 1992. Rock, G.C. 1979. Relative toxicity of two synthetic pyrethroids Comparison of population growth rate and within-plant to a predator, Amblyseius fallacis, and its prey, Tetranychus distribution between Aphis gossypii and Myzus persicae urticae. J. Econ. Entomol. 72:293-294. (Homoptera: Aphididae) reared on potted chrysanthemums. J. Econ. Entomol. 85:799-807. Stobbs, L.W., A.B. Broadbent, W.R. Allen, and A.L. Stirling. 1992. Transmission of tomato spotted wilt virus by the Wearing, C.H. 1988. Evaluating the IPM implementation western flower thrips to weeds and native plants found in process. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 33:17-39. Southern Ontario. Plant Dis. 76:23-29. Tashiro, H. 1987. Turfgrass insects of the United States and Canada. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 391 pp.

23 Appendix A: Labeling of Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon (Insects and Mites)

CHLORPYRIFOS Chlorpyrifos is labeled under the trade names of Dursban and Pageant for the ornamentals and sod industries. However, it Chlorpyrifos, (0,0-diethyl 0-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl) is also available under the trade name Lorsban and may be phosphorothioate, is a moderately toxic broad-spectrum formulated by other companies under other names for the insecticide and acaricide. Chlorpyrifos is not systemically industry. Dursban is available in several different formulations active. It is used for the control of many pests of ornamentals including: 50DF, 2E, 4E, 2.5G, 50WP, 50WSP, Lorsban 4E, and sod. 15G. The standard application rates are 0.25 to 0.5 Ib/a.i. per 100 gallons for foliar applications under greenhouse Chlorpyrifos is labeled for use against the following pests of conditions. The treatment of foliage and trunk treatments of ornamentals (outdoor, greenhouse, shadehouse, nurseries, woodies outside requires rates of 0.5 to 3.0 Ib/a.i. per 100 etc.): adelgids; ants; aphids; armyworms [beet, Spodoptera gallons. The highest labeled rate is 16.67 Ib/a.i. per 100 exigua (Hübner), fall, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith); gallons for treatment of pine seedlings against weevils yellowstriped, Spodoptera ornithogalli (Guenée)]; bagworm, immediately after transplanting. This treatment is limited to 6 Thyridopteryx ephemeraeformis (Haworth); beetles; Fuller gallons of spray per acre. For treatment of sod, the rate of rose beetle, Asynonychus godmani Crotch; native elm bark chlorpyrifos application against pests ranges from 1.0 to 8.0 beetle, Hylurgopinus rufipes (Eichhoff); borers; boxelder bug, Ib/a.i. per acre depending upon the target pest. In the fire ant Boisea trivittata (Say); cankerworms; carpenter ants; catalpa region, nursery stock is treated with chlorpyrifos drench, sphinx, Ceratomia catalpae (Boisduval); chiggers; citrus granules, or spray at rates of up to 6 lb a.i. per acre to comply mealybug, Planococcus c/fr/(Risso); cockroaches [such as: with quarantine regulation for transport beyond the fire ant American, Periplaneta americana (L.); brownbanded, Supella quarantine region. longipalpa (F.); German, Blattella germánica (L.); oriental. Blatte Orientalis L.; smokeybrown, Periplaneta fuliginosa (Serville)]; cranberry girdler larvae, Chrysoteuchia topiaria DIAZINON (Zeller); cutworms; elm spanworm, Ennomos subsignaria (Hübner); fire ant, Solenopsis geminate (F.); fall webworm, Diazinon, (0,0-Diethyl 0-[2-isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl] Hyphantria cunea (Drury); grasshoppers; green fruitworm, phosphorothioate) is a broad-spectrum insecticide and Lithophane antennata( Walker); greenstriped mapleworm, acaricide. It is not systemically active and is used for the Dryocampa rubicunda (F.); hornworms; jack pine budworm, control of many pests of ornamentals. Diazinon is labeled for Choristoneura pinus Freeman; juniper webworm, Dichomeris use against the following pests of ornamentals (greenhouses, marginella (F.); katydids; lacebugs; leafhoppers; leafminers; roses, flowers, trees, shrubs, etc., excluding sod farms): leafrollers; mahogany webworm, Macalla thyrsisalis\Na\ker\ aphids; apple-and-thorn skeletonizer, Choreutis pariana maple leafcutter, Paraclemensia acerifoliella (Fitch); (Clerck); bagworms; carnation bud mites; carnation shoot mealybugs; mimosa webworm, Homadaula anisocentra mites; clover mites; cotoneaster webworms; cyclamen mite, Meyrick; mites; moths; needleminers; oakworms; oak Phytonemus pallidus (Banks): dipterous leafminers; European skeletonizer, Bucculatrix ainsliella Murtfeldt; oleander pine shoot moth, Rhyacionia buoliana (Denis and Caterpillar, Syntomeida epilais; orange tortrix, Argyrotaenia Schiffermüller); European red mite, Panonychus ulmi (Koch); citrana (Fernald); periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim fall webworm; fire ant, Solenopsis geminate (F.); flea beetles; (L.); plant bugs; poplar tentmaker, /c/7í/7yüra/nc/i/sa (Hübner); fungus gnat larvae; hemlock chermes; holly bud moths; psyllids; puss caterpillar, Megalopyge opercularis (J. E. Smith); juniper webworm, Dichomeris marginella (F.); leafhoppers; redhumped caterpillar, Schizura concinna (J. E. Smith); rose mimosa webworm, Homadaula anisocentra Meyrick; oak chafer, Macrodactylus subspinosus (F.); sawflies; scale loopers; obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana crawlers; sowbugs; spittlebugs; spring elm caterpillar; (Harris); obscure root weevil, Sciopithes obscurus Horn; springtails; spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana omnivorous leaftier, Cnephasia longana (Haworth); pear (Clemens); tent caterpillars; termites; thornbug; thrips; walnut slugs; privet mite, Brevipalpus obovatus Donnadleu; scale Caterpillar, Datana integerrima Grote and Robinson; weevils; crawlers [cottony cushion, Icerya purchasi Maskell; lecanium; western spruce budworm, Choristoneura occidentalis pine needle, Chionaspis pinifoliae (Fitch); San Jose, Freeman; whiteflies; and yellownecked caterpillar, Datana Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock); soft scales]; tent ministra (Drury). caterpillars; thrips; twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus Chlorpyrifos Is registered for control of the following pests of urticae Koch; webworms; and whiteflies. sod (including lawns, golf courses, parks, perennial turf Diazinon is labeled under the trade names of Diazinon, D.z.n, grasses grown for seed or sod production, etc.): ants; and Knox Out for the ornamentals industry. It is available in armyworms; bluegrass billbug, Sphenophorus parvulus various formulations including: AG 500 (4 lb/gallon), 4E, 25E, Gyllenhal; centipedes; chiggers; chinchbugs; clover mite, 2FM, and 50W. The standard application rates for foliar and Bryobia praetiosa Koch; cutworms; crickets; earwigs; soil sprays are 0.75 to 1.5 Ib/a.i. per 100 gallons. Greenhouse European crane fly, Tipula paludosa Meigen; fiery skipper, applications are labeled at 0.75 to 1.5 Ib/a.i. per 100 gallons Hylephila phyleus (Drury); fleas; gnats; grasshoppers; and applications to woodies are labeled at 0.5 to 1.5 Ib/a.i. per greenbugs; imported fire ants; june beetles; leafhoppers; 100 gallons. There are several labels for diazinon formula- lucerne moths; millipedes; mites; mosquitoes; pillbugs; sod tions for homeowner use which include ornamentals and webworm; sowbugs; springtails; ticks; turfgrass weevil, home lawns. Hyperodes sp.; and white grubs.

24 APPENDIX B: PESTICIDE IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRES

GREENHOUSE INSECTICIDE/MITICIDE USE QUESTIONNAIRE

GROWER PROFILE

State Total Greenhouse space (sq. ft.) Total outdoor production area (acres)

Annual gross sales of production (check range of both greenhouse and outdoor) Ranges of gross sales (dollars) Greenhouse Outdoor Less than 10,000 10,001 to 50,00000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 200,000 200,001 to 300,000 300,001 to 400,000 400,001 to 500,000 500,001 to 1,000,000 1,000,001 to 2,000,000 2,000,001 to 4,000,000 4,000,001 to 10,000,000 Greater than 10,000,000

Production Crops % of annual gross sales Spring (January-April) Greenhouse Outdoor Bedding plants Cut flowers Flowering pot plants Foliage plants Perennials Other Subtotal (Spring) Summer (May-August) Bedding plants Cut flowers Flowering pot plants Foliage plants Perennials Other Subtotal (Summer) Fall (September-December) Bedding plants Cut flowers Flowering pot plants Foliage plants Perennials Other Subtotal (Fall)

TOTAL 100% 100%

25 APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

Pest Problems. Please rate your pest problems by crops *Rate 1 = very small, 2 = small, 3 = average, 4 = severe, 5 = very severe. Crops and Pests Rating (1-5)

Pest (List) Spring Summer Fall

Bedding plants

Pest Spring Summer Fall Cut flowers

Pest Spring Summer Fall Flowering pot plants

Pest Spring Summer Fall Foliage plants

Pest Spring Summer Fall Perennials

Pest Spring Summer Fall Others

26 APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

1. List any phytotoxicity problems you have had by pesticide.

Tip Marginal Leaf Leaf Distortion Leaf Pesticide burn burn burn chlorosis Stunting of new growth drop

2. Do you use any pest management strategies in addition to or in place of conventional insecticides? Yes No .

STRATEGY AGAINST WHICH PEST

3. What percent of your pest management is nonchemical?

4. When treating with chemicals for a pest on ornamentals do you in most instances :

a. use a single chemical. b. rotate with a different chemical each application. c. use a combination of chemicals in a single tank mix.

5. What percent of your chemical insect/mites control is performed with the following equipment:

% hydraulic sprayer % backpack sprayer % hand held compressed air sprayer % space release units (smokes, bombs, space release cans, etc.) % low volume sprayers (pulse fog, electrostatic, forced air, etc.) % end of hose sprayer % application of granules to pots

6. How much loss in income (costs of control plus costs due to lost plants) do you attribute to insect or mite problems? %

27 APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

Pest management practices Give the average amount of each pesticide used over the last 3 years in the volume used (pints (pt), quarts (qt), gallons (gal), pounds (lb), etc. Give the percent of each insecticide used against each pest listed (each line should add up to 100). From your experience over the last 3 years, rate each material for control against the pests listed - do not rate a particular pest control if you have no experience. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=vefy good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss).

Thrips 1 Aphids 1 Whitefly 1 Mites 1 Scale^ 1 Worms'^ I Leafnnjner 1 Other 1 Total annual amount of Insecticide formulation'* %of Control %of Control %of Control %of Control product used* %of Control %of Control %of Control total use rating total use rating total use ratings total use rating % of Control Total total use rating total use rating total use rating total use rating

Unit

Diazinon 100 Dursban SOW 100 Knox Out 2FM 100 Avid 0.15EC 100 Citation 75VVP 100 Dimilin 25WP 100 Dycarb 76WP 100 Enstar 5EC 100 Horticultural Oil 100 LannatelSL 100 Malathion 100 Mavrik 2E 100 Morestan 4F 100 Orna mite 100 Orthene 75S 100 Oxamyl 100 Pentac 100 Rantfunne103-SM 100 Pounce 2EC 100 Resnriethrin 100 Safer soap 100 Sevin 100 TalstanOWP 100 Tame 2.4 EC 100 Tempo 2EC 100 Thiodan 100 Vendex 4L 100 Other 100 100 Biological control Bacillus thuringiensis 100 (Dipcl, Thuriclde. etc.) 100 Units In thousands Parasitic wasps 100 Predatory mites 100 Other 100 a. Average of last 3 years. b. Includes scale and mealybug. c. Lepidopterous larvae (caterpillars, cutworms, etc.). d. If formulation is not given or if your fomiulation is different from that on the form, please list your fonnulation. APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

Nursery Insectlclde/Mltlclde Use Questionnaire Grower Profile State

Total outdoor production area (acres) in containers field grown Annual gross sales of production (check range of both greenhouse and outdoor)

Ranges of gross sales (dollars ) Containers Field grown L( 5ss than 10,000

10,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 200,000 200,001 to 300,000 300,001 to 400,000 400,001 to 500,000 500,001 to 1. ,000,000 1. ,000,001 to 2. ,000,000 2. ,000,001 to 4. ,000,000 4, ,000,001 to 10. ,000,000 a1:er than 10.,000,000

Production Crops Percent of annual gross sales Spring (January-April) Containers Field grown Shrubs, evergreen Shrubs, deciduous Trees, evergreen Trees, deciduous Ground covers Other Subtotal (Spring) Suiraner (May-August) Shrubs, evergreen Shrubs, deciduous Trees, evergreen Trees, deciduous Ground covers Other Subtotal (Summer) Fall (September-December) Shrubs, evergreen Shrubs, deciduous Trees, evergreen Trees, deciduous Ground covers Other Subtotal (Fall)

TOTAL 100% 100%

29 APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

Pest Problems. Please rate your pest problems by crops. Rate both the severity of the pest infestation level and your current level of control. Pest infestation level (1-5): rate 1 = very small, 2 = small, 3 = average, 4 = severe, 5 = very severe. Current control level (5-0): 5 = excellent (0-5% quality loss), 4 = very good (6-15% quality loss), 3 = good (16-25% quality loss), 2 = fair (26-35% quality loss), 1 = poor (36-45% quality loss), 0 = none (greater than 45% quality loss).

RATING: 1-5 Pest Current Pest Current Pest Current Crops and Pests infestation control infestation control infestation control Shrubs, evergreen (list pests) Spring Summer Fall

Shrubs, deciduous (list pests) Spring Summer Fall

Trees, evergreen (list pests) Spring Summer Fall

Trees, deciduous (list pests) Spring Summer Fall

Ground covers (list pests) Spring Summer Fall

Others (list pests) Spring Summer Fall

30 APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

List any phytotoxicity problems you have had by pesticide.

Tip Marginal Leaf Leaf Distortion Leaf Pesticide burn burn burn chlorosis Stunting of new growth drop

2. Do you use any pest management strategies in addition to or in place of conventional insecticides? Yes No .

STRATEGY AGAINST WHICH PEST

3. What percent of your pest management is nonchemical?

4. When treating with chemicals for a pest on ornamentals do you in most instances:

a. use a single chemical. b. rotate with a different chemical each application. c. use a combination of chemicals in a single tank mix.

5. What percent of your chemical insect/mites control is performed with the following equipment : % hydraulic sprayer % backpack sprayer % hand held compressed air sprayer % space release units (smokes, bombs, space release cans, etc.) % low volume sprayers (pulse fog, electrostatic, forced air, etc.) % end of hose sprayer % application of granules to pots

6. How much loss in income (costs of control plus costs due to lost plants) do you attribute to insect or mite problems? %

31 APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

Pest management practices

Give the average amount of each pesticide used over the last 3 years in the volume used (pints (pt), quarts (qt), gallons (gal), pounds (lb), etc. Give the percent of each insecticide used against each pest listed (each line should add up to 100). From your experience over the last 3 years, rate each material for control against the pests listed - do not rate a particular pest control if you have no experience. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26 % to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss).

Wood-boring Foliage-feeding Foliage-feeding Total annual larvae^ worms beetles Scales Mites Sucking pests'* Soil-borne pests® Other Insecticide formulation* amount of product used" %of Control %of Control %of Control %of Control %of %of Control %of Control Control % of Control Total total use rating total use- rating total use rating total use rating total use rating total use ratings total use rating total use rating

Unit

Affirm 100 Ambush 25W, 2E 100 Amdro 100 Asana1.9E 100 Avid 0115E 100 Cygon 2E 100 Diazinon 4G, SOW. AG500 100 Dinnilin 25W 100 DiSystonlSG 100 Dursban 2E 100 Guthion 20, SOW. 2S. 2L 100 Horticultural Oils 100 Insecticidal Soaps 100 Lannate1.9L. 90S 100 Lindane 40EZ 100 Logic 100 Malathion (Cythion) 4E. SOW 100 Mavrik 2F 100 Morestan 2SW 100 Ornamrte 30W 100 Orthene 7SS 100 Pentac AF. SOW 100 Sevin SL. XLR. 4F 100 Sulpracide 2E 100 TalstarlOW 100 Turcam 76WP. 2.5G 100 Vendex 4L. SOW 100 Vydate L 100 Other 100

Biological control Bacillus thuringiensis (Dipel. Thuricide. etc.) 100 Units In thousands Parasitic wasps 100 Predatory mites 100 Other 100

a. If formulation is not given or if your formulation is different from that on form, please list your formulation. b. Average of last 3 years. c. Caterpillars, lepidopterous larvae, sawflies, leaf mites. d. Aphids, whiteflies, iacebugs. leafhoppers, thrips. e. Grubs, fire ants. APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

Sod Insactlclâe/Mltlclda Use Questlonnalra Grower Profile State Total production area (acres)

Azinual gross sales of production (check range of both wholesale and retall) Ranges of gross sales (dollars ) Wholesale Retail Less than 10, 000 10,001 to 50, 000 50,001 to 100, 000 100,001 to 200, 000 200,001 to 300, 000 300,001 to 400, 000 400,001 to 500, 000 500,001 to 1 000, 000 1,000,001 to 2 000, 000 2,000,001 to 4 000, 000 4,000,001 to 10 .000, 000 Greater than 10 ,000 000

Production Sod Percent of annual gross sales Wholesale Retail Bentgrass Bluegrass Tall fescue Fine fescue Ryegrass Bermudagrass Buffalograss Centipedegrass St. Augustinegrass Zoysiagrass

Other

TOTAL 100% 100%

33 APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

Pest Problems. Please rate your pest problems by sod. Rate both the severity of the pest infestation level and your current level of control.

Pest infestation level (1-5): rate 1 = very small, 2 = small, 3 = average, 4 = severe, 5 = very severe. Current control level (5-0): 5 = excellent (0-5% quality loss), 4 = very good (6-15% quality loss), 3 = good (16-25% quality loss), 2 = fair (26-35% quality loss), 1 = poor (36-45% quality loss), 0 = none (greater than 45% quality loss).

RATING; 1-5 Pest Current Pest Current Pest Current Sod and pests (list pests) infestation control infestation control infestation control Spring Summer Fall Bentqrass

Blueqrass

Tall fescue

Fine fescue

Ryeqrass

Bermudaqrass

Buffaloqrass

Cent ipedeqrass

St. Augustineqrass

Zoysiaqrass

Other

34 APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

1. List any phytotoxicity problems you have had by pesticide.

Leaf Leaf Root set-back/ Distortion Pesticide burn chlorosis retardation of new growth

2. Do you use any pest management strategies in addition to or in place of conventional insecticides? Yes No .

STRATEGY AGAINST WHICH PEST

3. What percent of your pest management is nonchemical? %.

4. When treating with chemicals for a pest on sod do you in most instances;

a. use a single chemical. b. rotate with a different chemical each application. c. use a combination of chemicals in a single tank mix.

What percent of your chemical insect/mites control is performed with the following equipment :

% Tractor-pulled sprayer % Tractor-pulled spreader % Truck-mounted sprayer % Truck-mounted spreader % Backpack cyclone spreader % Hand-pushed spreader % Hand-held or backpack sprayer % Applied trough irrigation system

How much loss in income (costs of control plus losses due to damaged sod) do you attribute to insect or mite problems? %.

35 APPENDIX B: CONTINUED

Pest management practices Give the average amount of each pesticide used over the last 3 years in the volume used (pints (pt), quarts (qt), gallons (gaO. pounds (lb), etc. Give the percent of each insecticide used against each pest listed (each line should add up to 100). From your experience over the last 3 years, rate each material for control against the pests listed - do not rate a particular pest control if you have no experience. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss).

1 Mole crickets Total annual 1 White grubs 1 Worms'^ Chinch bugs Billbugs Sucking pests** Fire ants Other Insecticide formulation' Anrwunt of %of Control %of Control %of Control %of Control %of Control %of Control %of Control %of Control product used'* total use rating total use rating total use rating total use rating total use rating total use rating total use rating total use rating Total

Unit Affirnn (bait) 100 Amdro(bait) 100 Diazinon 100 DursbanlOG 100 Dursban 2E 100 Dursban SOW 100 Dylox 6.2G 100 Lannate1.8L 100 Logic, Award (bait) 100 Mavrik Aquaflow 100 MocapSG 100 Nemacur 3 100 Oftanol2 100 Orthene 75S 100 ^ Proxol, Dylox 80SP 100 Pyrethrins 100 SevinSL 100 SevinSOW 100 Triumph 4E 100 Turcam 76WP 100 Turcam 2.5G 100 Other 100 100 100 Biological Control 100 Bacillus thuringiensis 100 (Dipel, Thuricide. etc.) 100 Milky Spore Disease 100

Units In thousands Parasitk; wasps 100 Predatory Mites 100 Other 100

a. If formulation is not given or if your formulation is different from that on form, please list your formulation. b. Average of last 3 years. c. Caterpillars, Lepidopterous larvae, sod webworm. d. Aphids, spittlebug, leafhopper. scales, mites. Appendix B. Figure 1

Regions of the United States as used in the biological and economic assessment of chlorpyrifos and diazinon in greenhouse, nursery and sod production.

Où

Region 1. Western Part of the Northern U.S. Region 2. Eastern Part of the Northern U.S. [üü Region 3. Far Western Part of the Southern U.S Region 4. Central Part of the Southern U.S. Region 5. Eastern Part of the Southern U.S. Appendix B. Figure 2 Imported Fire Ant Quarantines

Conditions of IVIovement Regulated area Consult your State or Federal plant protection inspector or your county agent Counties entirely colored are completely Restrictions are imposed on the for assistance regarding exact areas regulated; counties partially colored are movement of regulated articles as follows: under regulation and requirements for partially regulated. From red areas into or through white areas. moving regulated articles. For detailed information see 7 CFR 301.81 for quarantine and regulations.

I Q nonartrnpnt nf Annnulture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Revised November 1993 APPENDIX C: PESTICIDE USAGE AND EFFICACY DATA

Table C1. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories (National)'-

National Thrips Aphids Whitefly Mites Scales Worms Leafminer Other Total Name Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lba.i. Rating Lb a.i.

abamectin 244 3.5 72 3.4 344 3.3 663 4.3 1 1 329 4.3 7 3.5 1.660 acepfiate 25,882 3.4 21,565 3.6 12.757 3.5 880 3.3 1.258 3 7,046 3.9 727 3 1,198 3.4 71.313 azadirachtin 2 2.7 - 5 3 ------7 bendiocarb 11,356 3.2 1,976 3.6 2,764 2.9 43 4 391 3.2 296 3 124 3 784 3.9 17,734 benzofluroline 2,384 3.5 2,548 3.5 22,580 3.5 45 3 ------5,856 3.7 33.413 bifenthrin 189 3.1 662 3.5 2,563 3.5 412 3.3 18 2.1 55 3.8 4 4 25 3.3 3.928 B.t. (strain Kurst.) ------585 4.1 - - - 585 carbaryl 4,793 2.2 750 3.3 7 3.5 58 4.5 98 3 3,327 3.8 7 4 3,409 3.8 12,449 chlorpyrifos 7,437 3.4 2.768 3.4 3,129 3.1 30 4 189 4.2 1,095 4.8 2,699 3.7 358 4 17,704 cyfluthrin 1,446 3 2,355 3.5 2,675 3.5 10 3.5 - - 2,897 3.2 692 2.7 160 3.5 10,235 cyromazine ------29 3 - - 29 diazinon 1,387 3.2 3,175 3.5 863 3.2 281 2.9 990 3.1 297 4 675 2.9 4,885 4 12.555 dichlorvos - - 18 5 ------18 dicofol - - - - - 984 3.1 ------984 dienochlor 238 4.3 2 3 2,187 3.1 59,193 4 ------196 3.7 61,815 dimethoate 191 4 ------191 endosulfan 4,411 . 3.7 6,407 3.5 5.926 3.4 374 3.9 1 3.5 205 3.8 2 3.5 35 3 17,361 fenbutatin-oxide 1 4 1 4 1 1 3,402 3.5 - - - - 1 1 - - 3,406 fenpropathrin 534 3.1 204 3.5 3,838 3.7 202 3.3 10 2 1 3 16 (d) 19 1.6 4,823 fluvaiinate 2,702 2.9 2,905 3 2,355 2.8 1,746 3.2 16 5 1,294 3.4 - - 25 2.9 11,044 formetanate hydrochloride 8 3 ------8 3 - - 16 ^^ horticulture oil 730 3.1 2,681 3 16,323 3.3 2,165 3.4 6.202 3.8 - - - - 832 3.3 28,933 ^ kinoprene 42 3.3 507 3.7 2.804 3.7 17 3.6 927 4.9 - - 3 4 145 3.8 4,444 lindane ------66 5 ------66 malathion 2,571 2.5 4,974 3.1 402 2.6 80 2.6 457 3.2 24 1.7 19 3.5 223 3.6 8.748 methiocarb 32 3 8 2 1 3.5 ------41 methomyl 8,001 3.7 4,524 4 2,019 3.3 124 3.9 2 0 9,422 4.4 55 4.7 795 3.7 24,942 methoprene ------55 3 - - - - 55 naled 165 4 407 4.5 192 4 61 3 ------824 nicotine alkaloid 531 3 6,456 4.5 531 2.5 ------7.518 oxamyl 703 3 3,500 3.4 5,142 3.3 801 3.2 51 2 97 3.6 283 3.4 5,516 4.1 16,094 oxythioqulnox - - 886 4 170 3.3 2,807 3.9 ------3.863 permethrin 1,023 3 389 3.6 621 3.2 114 3.7 - 879 3.4 954 3 179 3.3 4,158 potassium salts of 53,088 2.7 33,649 3.2 31,078 3 11,745 2.9 757 2.6 963 3 16,437 2 204 2.4 147.923 fatty adds (soap) propargite 3 4 6 4 3 5 23 4 ------35 pyrethrins 19 3.7 26 3.8 30 3.2 2 4 - - - - - 111 3 189 resmethrin - - 1 3 2 3 ------3 sulfotep 87 2.6 393 3.7 7,531 4 161 2.8 61 2.9 12 0 - - 53 3.7 8,297 sumithrin - - 1 4 ------1 a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent nregional and national usage b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45%' quality loss); 1=poor (36% ) to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Scales - scales and mealybug Worms - lepidopterous larvae (caterpillars, cutworms, etc.). d. Rating not estimable. Table C2. Estimates of quantities of active Ingredients used for greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region I (AK, ID, MT, ND, NE, OR, SD, WA, WY)'**'

Region I

Thrips Aphids Whitefly Mites Scales Worms Leafminer Other Total Name Lb a.l. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.l. Rating Lb a.l. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.l. abamectin 8 2.9 3 3.3 2 3.6 6 3.6 1 20 acephate 254 3.6 274 3.9 80 4 52 3.5 58 133 3.4 852 bendiocarb 1 2 14 4 15 benzofluroline 11 4 999 3.8 78 3.3 1.088 bifenthrin 2.9 6 3 13 3.5 2.3 29 carbaryl 2 4 3 chlorpyrifos 12 2.5 10 2.5 26 1 5 50 cyfluthrin 1 3 2 4 1 3 4 diazinon 194 4 388 3.4 20 3.7 96 73 3.4 771 dicofol 101 3 101 dienochlor 988 4 988 endosulfan 29 8 3.3 19 3 72 4.3 134 fenpropathrin 1 3.5 37 3.6 39 fluvalinate 43 2.4 63 2.9 18 2.7 72 3.2 7 3.7 202 horticulture oil 18 3 18 kinoprene 17 3.3 98 4 67 4.2 10 4 200 malathion 10 (d) 515 3.7 2 3 527 methomyl 37 2.7 16 4.5 21 2.5 76 naied 121 3 363 4 61 3 61 3 605 oxamyl 8 3.5 26 3 43 3.7 4 1.3 392 3 476 oxythloquinox 50 4 50 potassium salts of 68 (d) 546 121 2.8 182 3.5 23 2 940 fatty acids (soap) sulfotep 3.5 131 3.8 143 a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for specific pesticides over the last 3 years. b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=falr (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Scales - scales and mealybug Worms - lepidopterous larvae (caterpillars, cutworms, etc.). d. Rating not estimable. Table C3. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region 11 (CT, DE, lA, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD ME, Ml MN MO NH NJ NY. OH. PA. Rl. VA. VT. Wl. WV^»«**'^

Regionill Thrips Aphids Whitefly Mites Scales Worms Leaf miner Other Total Name Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lba.l. Rating Lba.i.

abamectin 97 3.6 40 3.5 79 3.4 175 4.3 1 4.2 6 3.4 402 acephate 5,433 3.3 3,167 3.7 3,026 3.5 157 3.3 347 3.3 1363 3.9 26 3.4 823 3.1 14,341 azadirachtin 2 3.3 - 5 3.4 - - - - . - - . - . 6 bendiocarb 460 3.3 581 3.6 21 3 216 4 . . . 665 3.7 1,943 benzofiuroline 979 3.4 889 3.4 8,099 3.5 45 2.7 - - - - . . 1,685 3.5 11,696 bifenthrin 153 3.2 347 3.5 588 3.5 146 3.2 10 3 8 3.7 . 25 3.3 1,277 carbaryl 443 2.7 273 3.4 7 3 58 4.9 69 3 2113 4.1 7 4 2,493 3.7 5,462 chlorpyrifos 562 3.6 122 3.6 33 3.2 24 4.5 40 4.4 1 5 3 4 71 4 855 cyfluthrin 1 3.3 4 3.7 13 3.7 1 4 . - - - - . 14 2 32 diazinon 1,120 3.3 1,727 3.7 661 3.2 111 3.3 516 3.1 44 4 4 2.8 4,261 4 8,444 dichlorvos - - 18 5 ------. - . . 18 dicofol - - - - - 27 4 - . - . . . . 27 dienochlor 16 4 2 3 1,286 3.3 27,239 4.1 - - - 186 3.5 28,730 endosulfan 297 3.6 349 3.7 1,107 3.6 53 3.4 - 26 3.3 1 2 36 3 1,869 fenbutatin-oxide 1 4 1 4 1 1 723 3.5 - - - 1 1 - 726 fenpropathrin 512 3.3 48 3.4 662 3.9 36 3.3 10 2 1 3 - . 17 1.1 1,286 fluvalinate 446 3.1 387 3 367 3 217 3.1 16 5 22 3.5 . 17 3 1,473 formetanate hydrochloride 8 3 ------8 3 - . 16 horticulture oil 574 3.5 2,136 3.4 2,043 3.4 2,013 3.4 5,904 3.8 - - - - 832 3.3 13,502 kinoprene 26 3.2 214 3.8 1,214 3.7 17 3.6 9 4.5 - 3 4 132 3.7 1,614 lindane ------66 5 - - - . - - - . 66 malathion 481 2.8 153 3.3 9 2.3 7 1.5 138 3.4 16 1.5 7 4 119 3.8 930 methiocarb - - - 1 3.5 - - . - . - . . 1 methomyl 1,473 3.9 584 4.2 899 3.7 66 4.8 - - 101 5 25 4.5 795 3.7 3,942 naled 44 5 44 5 132 5 - - - - . - - . . 219 nicotine alkaloid - - 82 4.5 . . - - - . . . . 82 oxamyl 443 3.3 1,442 3.7 1,087 3.4 583 3.7 10 4 9 4 30 3.5 1.007 4.2 4,610 oxythioquinox - - - - 14 4 680 3.7 - . . - . 694 permethrin 60 3 4 3 265 3.3 1 3 - - - . - 140 3.5 471 potassium salts of 2,547 2.9 2,661 3.4 4,957 3.1 652 2.9 652 3.4 30 3 . . 61 2.6 11,560 fatty acids (soap) propargite 3 4 6 4 3 5 - - - . . . . . 12 pyrethrins 5 4 7 5 2 3 2 4 - - . . . . . 16 resmethrin - - - 2 3 - - - - - . - 2 sulfotep 20 2.4 126 3.6 1,561 4.1 13 3 49 3 12 0 . 17 4 1.800 sumithrin - - 1 4 ------1 a. Quantities expanded from sun/ey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for spedfíc pestíddes over the last 3 years. b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Scales - scales and mealybug Worms - lepidopterous larvae (caterpillars, cutwomis, etc.). Table C4. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region III (AZ, CA, HI, NV, UT)*

Regionilll

Thrips Aphids Whitefly Mites Scales Worms Leafminer Other Total Name Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i.

abamectin 13 4 8 4 4 2.5 301 4 . 255 4 1 4 582 acephate 19,380 3.3 13,673 3.6 2,572 3 563 2.7 695 3 2,640 3.9 674 2 187 4 40.384 bendiocarb 9,610 3 249 4 1,261 2.5 43 4 176 3 124 3 - - 11,463 benzofluroline 1,328 3 1,328 3 6,638 3 ------3.983 4 13,276 bifenthrin - - - - 6 4 8 (d) - 8 (d) 4 (d) - - 42 carbaryl 4,249 2 - - - - - 1.073 2.5 - - 885 4 6,207 chlorpyrifos 3,788 3.6 1,829 3.6 248 5.0 - - 138 4.7 239 5 1,918 3.7 109 3.5 8,269 cyfluthrin 1,443 3.3 358 3.8 625 3.2 9 4 - 2.897 3.2 690 2.5 144 4 6,167 diazinon 51 2.7 761 3.5 8 2 131 1.5 467 3 147 4 61 2.8 266 4 1,892 dicofol - - - - - 232 3 - - - - 232 dienochlor 221 5 859 1.5 21,468 3.6 ------22,548 endosulfan 3.098 4 797 2.5 33 0 - - - - . - - 3,928 fenbutatin-oxide - - - - - 61 3.3 - - - - 61 fenpropathrin 16 2 16 (d) 36 2 - - - - - 16 (d) 100 fluvalinate 1,408 2.8 1,357 2.6 302 3 912 3.2 - 106 3.5 - 4,085 horticulture oil - - 79 0 - - - - - 79 kinoprene - - 80 2.5 722 4 - - - - 802 malathion 2,045 1.5 4.229 2.8 372 3 53 4 319 3 - 9 (d) 89 4 7.114 j^ methiocarb 32 3 8 2 ------40 ^ methomyl 3,698 4 639 3.3 358 0 54 4 - 1,135 3.9 30 5 5.915 methoprene ------55 3 - - 55 nicotine alkaloid 531 3 6.373 4.5 531 3 ------7,435 oxamyl 222 2.5 206 3 103 4 173 3 - 86 4 239 3 11 2 1.040 oxythioquinox - - 886 4 1.249 4 - - - - - 2,135 permethrin 963 3 385 3.8 355 3 113 4 - 528 3.4 954 3 3.297 potassium salts of 49,475 1.7 25.871 2.6 19,708 2.3 5,715 3 - - - 16,441 2 38 3 117,248 fatty acids (soap) pyrethrins 14 3 19 2.5 28 3 ------111 3 171 sulfotep - - 2.483 2.3 ------2,483

a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for specific pesticides over the last 3 years. b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Scales - scales and mealybug Worms - lepidopterous larvae (caterpillars, cutworms, etc.). d. Rating not estimable. Table C5. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region IV (CO, KS, NM, OK, TX)***'^

Regier ilV

Thrips Aphids Whitefly Mites Scales Wornis Leafminer Otfier Total Name Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i.

abamectin 18 3.5 1 2.8 13 3.2 14 4.5 2 0 7 4.6 55 acephate 530 3.2 1,189 3.2 784 3.2 104 3 - 75 5 32 4 2,715 bendiocarb 603 4 6 3 ------609 benzofluroline - 165 3 5,237 3.3 - - - - - 5,402 bifenthrin 14 2.7 84 3.7 189 4.1 83 4 2 1 35 5 - - 407 chlorpyrifos 2,958 2.8 9 3 1 2 7 3.5 10 4 - 95 4 1 4 3,081 cyfluthrin 1 2 1 2.5 36 3 - - - - - 38 diazinon 4 2 160 3.5 15 4 6 3 - - 610 4 92 4.9 887 dienochlor - - - 42 4 725 3.3 - - . - 767 dimethoate 191 4 ------191 endosulfan 675 3.7 679 3 48 3.5 44 4 - - - - 1,446 fenbutatin-oxide - - - - - 986 3.8 - - 986 fenpropathrin - - 2 3 478 3.6 137 2 . - - - 618 fluvalinate 387 2.7 304 3.1 26 2.3 11 3 - 46 2 773 horticulture oil 122 2 294 3 206 3 117 3.5 236 2.8 - . - 975 kinoprene - 31 3.3 229 3.8 - 129 4 - 390 malathion 19 3 38 2.5 19 2.5 19 3 - 4 3 - - 99 methomyl 165 5 1,813 4.3 14 3 - - 1868 4.8 - - - 3,859 oxamyl 5 1.3 8 2.3 3,894 2.3 12 2.7 8 3.6 - - 1 5 3,930 oxythioquinox ------827 4 ------827 CO potassium salts of 152 2.8 1,478 3.2 1,425 3 1,266 2.5 99 .3 - - - - - 4,420 fatty acids (soap) propargite - - - - 23 4 ------23 resmethrin - - 1 3 ------1 sulfotep 17 2 4 4.5 692 4.2 3 3 ------716

a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for specific pesticides over the last 3 years. b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality toss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Scales - scales and mealybug Worms - lepidopterous larvae (caterpillars, cutworms, etc.). Table C6. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for greenhouse operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region V (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN)*-"''

Region V

Thrips Aphids Whitefly Mites Scales Worms Leafminer Other Total Name Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lba.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lba.i. abamectin 108 3.3 21 3 246 2.9 167 4.4 . 61 4.7 603 acephate 285 3.8 3,262 3.5 6.294 3.2 3 5 216 2 2.911 3.8 27 2.5 23 3.3 13,022 azadirachtin - - - - 1 4.0 ------1 bendiocarb 682 2.5 1,126 3.7 1,482 3 - - - - 296 3 . 119 5 3.704 benzofiuroline 78 4 156 5 1.606 4 ------109 5 1,949 bifenthrin 4 3 220 3.1 1.768 3.2 171 3.8 6 2 4 3.5 - - - 2,173 B.t. (strain Kurst.) ------585 3.9 - - - 585 carbaryl 101 1.5 476 2.5 - - - - 29 3 140 4 - - - 747 chlorpyrifos 117 3.5 798 2.7 2,846 2.5 - - - - 829 4.5 682 3 175 5 5.447 cyfluthrin 1 3 1,990 3.5 2,000 4 ------2 3 2 4 3,995 cyromazine ------29 3 - 29 diazinon 19 3.2 140 3.4 158 2.8 33 2 7 3 10 3.5 - - 194 2.9 560 dicofol - - - . . - 624 3 - - - - . - - 624 dienochlor - - - - - 8.772 3.8 - - - - 10 4 8,782 endosulfan 312 3.7 4.574 3.9 4,720 3.7 205 4.1 - 176 4 . - - 9,986 fenbutatin-oxide - - - - - 1.633 3.1 - - - - - 1,633 fenpropathrin 6 3 137 3.8 2,625 3.7 12 3.7 - - - - 2 2 2,781 fluvaiinate 418 2.9 795 3.3 1.642 2.6 534 3.5 1,120 3.7 - 4.510 horticulture oil 35 3 173 2.5 14.055 3 35 3 62 3 - - - 14.360 kinoprene - 83 3.5 573 3.4 - - 780 5 - - - - 2 4 1,438 malathion 16 2 39 2 ------8 2 16 2 78 methomyl 2,628 3 1.472 3.9 727 3.1 4 2 - - 6.319 4.3 - - - - 11.150 oxamyl 25 3.3 1,818 2.9 14 2.4 30 3 31 2 2 2 14 3.5 4.105 4 6.038 oxythioquinox - - - - 156 3 ------156 permethrin ------351 4 - - 39 3 390 potassium salts of 841 2.7 3.093 2.8 4.866 3 3.934 3.3 8 2 932 3 - - 83 2 13.757 fatty acids (soap) pyrethrins - - - - 1 4 ------1 sulfotep 48 3.7 257 3.8 2663 3.9 144 2.5 7 2 - - - - 35 3 3,155 a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for specific pesticides over the last 3 years. b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Scales - scales and mealybug Worms - lepidopterous larvae (caterpillars, cutwonns, etc.). Table C7. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories (National)*"'^

National Foliage- Foliage- Wood -boring Feeding1 Worms Feeding Beetles Scales Mites Sucking Insects Soil-borne Other Total Name Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lba.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lba.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lba.L abamectin - . 3 4.3 - - 299 3.9 19 4.6 - . 12 4 334 acephate 256 3.6 9,927 3.8 22.663 4 2.008 3.8 13.316 3.6 24.701 4.1 1.588 3.7 685 3.9 75,144 azinphos-methyl 141 3 691 4.1 5.395 4.3 155 3.6 230 2.8 609 4.2 101 3.5 114 4.5 7,436 bendiocari) 59 2 1.620 3 10.777 4.4 2 5 - - 33 3 543 3.5 - - 13.033 benzofluroline - - - - - . - - . - - 2 3 2 bifenthrin - - 300 3.8 143 4.3 23 4 866 4.1 643 4.1 - - 1 3.7 1.976 B.t. (strain Kurst.) - - 2 4.3 2 4.0 ------4 carbaryl 1.204 4 42.514 4.2 54.640 4.4 3.240 4.1 981 3.8 13.946 3.9 1,251 3.6 429 4.3 118.204 carbofuran - - 623 5 - - - - - 1.852 3 - - 2.476 chlorpyrifos 9.888 3.6 3.749 4.3 1.764 4 7,620 3.7 6.467 3.9 10,966 4 17.948 3.9 134 3.7 58.537 cyfluthrin - - 13 4 - - - - 842 4.4 - - - - 854 diazinon 109 4.1 2.764 4.2 1.795 4.2 2,401 4.1 392 3.4 9,324 4.6 2,290 3.6 104 4.5 19.180 dicofol ------343 3 21.691 4.1 - - 47 3 22.081 dienochlor - - - - 81 5 462 5 29.723 3.9 419 3.7 - - - 30,684 difiubenzuron - 322 4.7 ------322 dimethoate 519 3.5 1,532 4 1.217 4.2 1.210 4 1.030 3.7 1,329 4.2 125 4 47 3.3 7.009 disulfoton 2,283 3.8 1.695 5 - - 587 4 529 4 815 3.9 1,690 2 1,914 2.5 9.513 endosulfan 38 4.5 9 4 8 4 - 56 4.4 - - - - 110 esfenvalerate 103 4 6 5 6 5 - 6 5 479 4.4 6 5 . 607 fenbutatin-oxide - - 65 3 45 3 - 21.330 3.8 100 2 - - - - 21.540 ^ fenoxycarb ------244 3.9 - 244 ^ fenpropathrin ------479 4 193 3 - - - - 672 fluvalinate - - 70 4.1 198 3.7 23 4.5 1.947 3.7 3,076 3.8 6 4 86 4 5.407 horticulture oil 1,310 4 5,931 3.1 11.492 2.3 278,481 3.9 176.348 3.7 34,505 3.4 - - 11,072 4.3 519,138 hydramethylnon ------214 2.4 - 214 kinoprene ------97 5 - - 97 lindane 9,575 3.8 - - - - 966 4.1 499 4 958 4.7 11,998 malathion 46 3 478 4 303 3.9 1.374 3.1 367 3.1 2,821 3.8 18 3.6 30 3.5 5.436 methidathion - 100 5 - 3.019 4.6 349 4 1,081 4.3 - - - - 4.550 methomyl 167 4 1.473 5 5 - - 794 4.4 - - - - 2.435 methoxychlor - 47 3.5 - - - 6 3 - - 53 oxamyl - 121 3.7 81 4 2.387 3.6 205 3.6 638 4.2 122 4.2 3.554 oxydemeton-methyl 81 3.5 151 4 151 4 151 2 553 4 553 4.3 75 1 1.714 oxythioquinox - 2 4 4 155 4.5 3.526 4.1 129 4 - - - - 3.814 permethrin 90 2.7 57 5 251 4.3 19 5 28 5 1 5 - - 446 propargite - - - - - 58.947 3.6 - - - - - 58.947 pyrethrins - - - - 11 5 - - 3 5 10 5 - - - 24 potassium salts of - - 895 4.6 23 4 2,858 4 3,926 3.5 9,187 3.3 - - 1,223 4.3 18.112 fatty acids (soap) thiophos - - 4 5 ------4 a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for specific pesticides over the last three years. b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Wood-boring larvae - caterpillars, lepidopterous lan^ae. sawflies. leaf mites Sucking insects - aphids. whiteflies. lacebugs, leafhoppers. thrips. Soil-borne pests - grubs, fire ants. Table C8. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region I (AK, ID, MT, ND, NE, OR, SD, WA, WY)'*

Region 1

Foliage- Foliage- Wood-boring Feeding Worms Feeding Beetles Scales Mites Sucking Insects Soil-borne Other Total Name Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lba.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. abamectin ...... 26 3.4 . , 26 acephate 73 3 771 3.3 12,502 3.9 3 3.0 - - 1,980 3.8 256 4.5 80 4.0 15,662 azinphos-methyl 73 4 30 4 5,160 4 - - - 24 4.3 71 4 39 4 5,396 bendiocarb - - 6 2 10,213 4.6 - - 162 3.7 - 10,381 bifenthrin - - - - 10 4.5 - 22 4 18 4.5 - 50 carbaryl 78 4 1,598 3.3 287 3 - 62 3 - 2,025 chlorpyrifos 419 4 601 4.5 200 4 - - - 85 4 174 4 - 1,480 diazinon - - 1,589 3.8 1 4 161 4.8 4 4 3,039 4 31 4 3 5 4.881 dicofol - - - - 931 5 - - - - - 931 dienochlor - - - - - 3,080 3.7 39 5 - - 3,119 dimethoate 45 3.5 8 4 10 4 4 4 9 4.3 26 4.3 8 4 8 4 116 endosulfan 5 5 5 5 - 41 4.5 - 50 fenbutatin-oxide - - 20 3 - - - 17 3 - - - - 37 fluvalinate - - - 52 3.5 - - 60 3.3 19 3.6 6 4 10 4 146 horticulture oil - . 138 3 - 1,308 4.7 4,214 4 2,754 5 - - - 8,415 kinoprene ------97 5 - - - 97 lindane 25 3.5 - - - - 74 4.5 - 869 5 968 malathion - - 20 4.3 14 4 - 5 4 414 4.4 - - 452 oxamyl ------23 4 - - - - - 23 oxythioquinox - - - - - 396 4.1 - - - - 396 permethrin 28 4 ------28 propargite ------48 3.7 - - - - - 48 potassium salts of ------45 1 - - 45 fatty acids (soap) thiophos - 4 5 - - - - - 4 a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for specific pesticides over the last 3 years. b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Wood-boring larvae - caterpillars, lepidopterous ian^ae, sawflies, leaf mites Sucking insects - aphids, whiteflies, lacebugs, leafhoppers, thrips Soil-borne pests - grubs, fire ants Table C9. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region II (CT, DE, lA, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, Ml, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, Rl, VA. VT, Wl, WV)*'*'^

Region II

Foliage- Foliage- Wood -boring Feeding Worms Feeding Beetles Scales Mites Sucking Insects Soil-borne Other Total Name Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lba.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. abamectin . - 1 5 - - - - 9 3.9 8 5 - - - 18 acephate 174 4.1 2,261 4 7,878 4.2 196 4 121 4.3 4,102 4.3 302 3 142 4 15,176 azinphos-methyl 38 3 200 3.7 175 4.7 72 3.3 47 2.3 180 4 - - - - 715 bendiocarb 59 2 1,614 4 549 4 - - - 33 3 - - - - 2,255 benzofluroline . . ■ - - • ------2 3 2 bifenthrin . 169 3.5 31 4.3 11 4 229 4.1 88 4.1 - - 1 4 528 B.t. (strain Kurst.) - - 2 4.3 2 4.0 ------4 carbaryl 161 4.3 18,122 4.3 8,407 4.4 3,039 4 519 4.2 4,180 3.9 16 5 471 4.3 34,915 carbofuran - - 623 5 ------623 chlorpyrifos 4,589 3.6 1,903. 4.2 526 3.6 583 4.3 179 3.9 3,343 4 1,123 4.3 - - 12,246 cyfluthrin - - 2 5 - - - - - 802 4.7 - - - 805 diazinon 1 5 309 4.2 261 4.1 184 3.9 130 3.4 1,474 3.9 113 3 17 4.5 2,488 dicofol - - - - 343 3 18,673 4 - - - 47 3.0 19,063 dienochlor . . 1 5 - - 7,953 4 4 3 - - - - 7,958 diflubenzuron - - 322 4.7 ------322 dimethoate 284 3.2 1,015 4.2 550 4.4 895 4.1 357 3.9 397 4.3 109 3 39 3 3,646 disulfoton 20 4.5 1,695 5 - - - - 58 4 234 3.3 6 4 409 2 2,423 endosulfan 5 4 ------5 4 - - - - 10 esfenvalerate ------19 5 - - - - 19 fenbutatin-oxide ------759 3.8 ------759 fluvalinate . - 28 4.2 99 3.8 - - 264 3.8 1,465 3.6 - - - 1,855 horticulture oil - 4,081 3.7 9,683 (d) 83,178 3.8 50,689 3.8 17,253 3.5 - - - - 164,884 lindane 2,115 3.7 - - - - - 686 3.8 499 4 85 4.5 3,389 malathion 16 3 171 3.8 195 4 1,274 3.8 13 2 784 3.7 8 4 17 4 2,478 methidathion - - - - 2 4 18 4 ------19 methomyl - - 2 3 1 5 - - - 3 5 - - 5 methoxychlor - - 47 3.5 - - - - - 6 3 - - - - 53 oxamyl - - - 84 3.5 - - 717 3.5 158 3.8 635 4.5 122 4 1,716 oxydemeton-methyl 6 5 - - - - 1 5 1 5 - - - 8 oxythioquinox - - 2 4 2 4 117 4 628 4.2 4 4 - - - 752 permethrin 62 2 57 5 251 4.3 19 5 28 5 1 5 - - 418 propargite ------275 3.5 ------275 potassium salts of - - 229 4.5 23 4 1,160 3.5 159 4 2,342 3.6 - - 3,904 fatty acids (soap) a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for specific pesticides over the last 3 years. b. Rate control on a scale of 0=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Wood-boring larvae - caterpillars, lepidopterous larvae, sawfjies, leaf mites Sucking insects - aphids, whitefiies, lacebugs, leafhoppers, thrips Soil-borne pests - grubs, fire ants. d. Rating not given. Table CIO. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region III (AZ, CA, HI, NV, UT)*

Region Ml Foliage- Foliage- Wood -boring Feedinc 1 Worms Feeding Beetles Scales Mites Sucking Insects Soil-borne Other Total Name Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i. Rating Lb a.i.

abamectin . . 184 4.1 1 3.5 185 acephate - 2,234 3.5 868 3 12 4 12,190 3.3 7.369 3.9 538 3.7 69 4 23,281 azinphos-methyl - - 116 4 ------116 bendiocarb . - - - 14 4 ------14 carbaryl 926 3.5 46 (d) - - - - 65 5 185 3 - 1.222 carbofuran ------1,852 3 - 1.852 chlorpyrifos 743 3.3 156 4.7 102 4 1,250 4 - - 3,758 4.4 - - 6.010 cyfluthrin - - 10 3 ------40 4 - - 50 diazinon 7 4 7 4 7 4 1,752 4.4 8 2.5 320 4.4 37 4 - 2,137 dienochlor . ------7,482 3 - - - - 7,482 dimethoate - . ------370 4 - - 370 esfenvalerate 83 4 ------424 4 507 fenbutatin-oxide . ------12,953 4.2 - - 12,953 fluvalinate - - 21 4 - - 492 3.2 205 4 - 718 horticulture oil 953 3 953 3 953 3 41,306 3.8 2,761 2 1,003 1.5 - 47,930 lindane 1,585 3.3 ------1,585 malathion - . 19 3 7 3 349 4.1 2 3 - 377 methidathion 2,074 5 - - 148 5 - 2,222 methomyl 167 4 1,471 5 - - - - 792 3.5 - - 2,429 oxamyl - - 37 4 11 3 11 3 11 3 4 3 - 74 oxythioquinox - - - - - 1,042 4 - - - - 1,042 propargite ------55,561 4.0 - - - - 55,561 pyrethrins - - - 1 5 ------1 potassium salts of ------326 3 4,010 2.4 - 4.336

4!^ fatty acids (soap) 00

a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for specific pesticides over the last 3 years. b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Wood-boring larvae - caterpillars, lepidopterous larvae, sawflies, leaf mites Sucking insects - aphids, whiteflies, lacebugs, leafhoppers, thrips Soil-borne pests - grubs, fire ants. d. Rating not given. Table C11. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region IV (CO, KS, MN, OK, TX)*''''

Region IV

abamectin 22 4 8 5 30 acephate - - 1.611 3 14 5 98 4 197 3.5 1.809 4.1 281 4 4.010 azinphos-metfiyl - - 255 5 - - 22 5 - - 180 5 - - 457 bifenthrin - . ------245 4 221 4.5 - - 466 carbaryl - - 715 4.8 7,443 4.8 - - - 447 4 - - 8.605 chlorpyrifos 1,958 4.4 174 4.5 234 5 5.263 4 5.270 4 1.912 4 5.313 3 20.124 diazinon - - 216 4 137 4.5 102 4 90 5 3.034 4.9 - - 3.578 dienochlor ------4.087 3.7 - - - - 4.087 dimethoate 135 5 52 1 - - - 150 3 269 5 - - 606 disulfoton ------11 5 1.684 0 1696 fenbutatin-oxide - - - - - 2.424 3.8 - - - 2.424 fenoxycarb ------176 3.4 176 fenpropathrin - - - - - 431 5 - 431 fluvalinate ------537 4 146 4.8 683 horticulture oil - - - - 26.109 4 425 1.5 478 1 - - 27.012 lindane 1.150 4.4 ------1.150 malathion - - 1 5 - - - - . 374 4 - - 375 4^ CO oxamyl ------1.587 4.5 4 4 - - 1,591 oxythioquinox ------655 3 - - - - 655 propargite - - - - 1.920 3.7 - - - - - 1.920 potassium salts of ------1.668 2 296 4 - - - 1.964 fatty acids (soap)

a. Quantities expanded from survey data to represent regional and national usage. Respondents were asked to average annual usage for specific pesticides over the last 3 years. b. Rate control on a scale of O=none (greater than 45% quality loss); 1=poor (36% to 45% quality loss); 2=fair (26% to 35% quality loss); 3=good (16% to 25% quality loss); 4=very good (6% to 15% quality loss); 5=excellent (5% or less quality loss). c. Wood-boring larvae - caterpillars, lepidopterous lan/ae, sawflies. leaf mites Sucking insects - aphids. whiteflies, lacebugs, leafhoppers, thrips. Soil-borne pests - grubs, fire ants. Table C12. Estimates of quantities of active ingredients used for nursery operations and efficacy ratings by pest categories, Region V (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN)'Lajb,c

Region V

Foliage- Foliage- Wood -boring Feedinq 1 Worms Feeding Beetles Scales Mites Suckin