United States Department of National Program 304: Agriculture Agricultural Crop Protection and Research Service Quarantine National Program Staff August 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background and General Information 2 Component I: Identification and Classification of Insects and Mites 5 Component II: Biology of Pests and Natural Enemies (Including Microbes) 8 Component III: Plant, Pest, and Natural Enemy Interactions and Ecology 17 Component IV: Postharvest, Pest Exclusion, and Quarantine Treatment 24 Component V: Pest Control Technologies 30 Component VI: Integrated Pest Management Systems and Areawide Suppression 41 Component VII: Weed Biology and Ecology 48 Component VIII: Chemical Control of Weeds 53 Component IX: Biological Control of Weeds 56 Component X: Weed Management Systems 64 APPENDIXES – Appendix 1: ARS National Program Assessment 70 Appendix 2: Documentation of NP 304 Accomplishments 73 NP 304 Accomplishment Report, 2001-2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the intramural research agency for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and is one of four agencies that make up the Research, Education, and Economics mission area of the Department. ARS research comprises 21 National Programs and is conducted at 108 laboratories spread throughout the United States and overseas by over 2,200 full-time scientists within a total workforce of 8,000 ARS employees. The research in National Program 304, Crop Protection and Quarantine, is organized into 140 projects, conducted by 236 full-time scientists at 41 geographic locations. At $102.8 million, the fiscal year (FY) 2007 net research budget for National Program 304 represents almost 10 percent of ARS’s total FY 2007 net research budget of $1.12 billion. NATIONAL PROGRAM 304 (NP 304), CROP PROTECTION AND QUARANTINE Vision Pest management for a sustainable agriculture. Mission To provide technology to manage pest populations below economic damage thresholds by the integration of environmentally compatible technologies that are based on increased understanding of the biology, ecology and impacts of insect, mite and weed pests. Challenge The central challenge of NP 304 is the economical and sustainable management of insect, mite, and weed pests in U.S. agriculture, while minimizing negative consequences to the environment. Crop losses in the United States due to insects, diseases, and weeds have been estimated at 33-37 percent in recent decades, comparable to the 31-34 percent range of the 1940s and 1950s, despite massive use of chemical pesticides. At the same time, the negative consequences of chemical pesticide use, including potential negative impacts on the environment and on the public as well as pest control failures, have become apparent. A need for alternatives to sole reliance on pesticides led to increased attention to Integrated Pest Management (IPM). IPM was defined by R. van den Bosch in 1971 as a pest management strategy that utilizes all suitable techniques to reduce or maintain pest populations at levels below those that cause economic injury. IPM development and implementation is complex and require a complete understanding of the pests and the ecosystems in which they operate. Further, IPM does not exclude pesticides, but calls for a comprehensive pest management program that minimizes reliance on chemicals. A 1997 analysis published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, by W.J. Lewis and colleagues, made a case for “a total system approach to sustainable pest management.” Lewis et al. argued that a search for “silver bullets” inevitably leads to disappointment, as complex ecosystems react with countermoves and adjustments to management tactics. For sustainable pest management to be achieved, farming practices and pest control measures must be compatible with both natural and agroecosystems. Crop protection in this context is defined broadly to include row crops, vegetables, fruits and nuts, greenhouse production systems, horticulture, ornamentals, organic farming and postharvest concerns. Concern about the potential impact of pesticides on human health led to enactment of The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, which built on the 1993 National Research Council report “Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.” FQPA takes into account the cumulative exposure to multiple chemicals that act though a common mechanism and sets a 10-fold margin of safety for exposure to pesticides. In spite of these considerations, U.S. agriculture remains dependent upon chemical pesticides, a situation that was reviewed in 2000 by the National Research Council in “The Future Role of Pesticides in U.S. Agriculture.” This report recognizes the importance of “maintaining a diversity of tools for maximizing flexibility, precision, and stability of pest management,” and recommends that the public sector focus its research on a number of problem areas, including “pest biology and ecology, integration of several pest management tools in managed and natural ecosystems, and targeted applications of pesticides.” NP 304 Accomplishment Report, 2001-2006 Page 3 The response of the private sector to these challenges has included the discovery and development of pesticides that are more specifically designed for control of pests, with reduced impact on non-target organisms (including humans) and the environment, and introduction of genetically-modified crops that are protected against some insect pests, or resistant to herbicides. However, with both biologically rational pesticides and the new products of biotechnology, the development of resistance by these pests remains of paramount concern: No matter how advanced IPM techniques become, genetic variation and selection pressure will inevitably lead to the development of resistance in some target species. Therefore, it is necessary to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the biology and ecology of these pests, the crop systems that they attack, and the ecosystems that provide their environmental context. Only then can new technologies for the IPM tool box be developed and employed in integrated, sustainable systems. These considerations apply to both arthropod (insect and mite) and weed pests. Weeds, insects, and mites are present in virtually every ecosystem, and require a variety of management techniques. A number of specific biological characteristics distinguish weeds from other plants, and it is important to understand the biology and ecology of weeds so that new methods of control may be developed. A thorough knowledge of the biology and ecology of weed, insect and mite pests, and particularly invasive plant and arthropod species, is necessary for their interdiction and management in agricultural and natural ecosystems. These issues reflect the concerns expressed by our customers, stakeholders, and partners at planning workshops designed to solicit their input. The research needed to address these issues was incorporated into 10 NP 304 Research Components, which are briefly summarized below. These are further subdivided into 49 Problem Areas, by which this Accomplishment Report is organized. PROGRAM PLANNING PROCESS AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT National Program Assessment is the final step of the ARS National Program cycle (Appendix 1), which begins with ARS scientists and administrators meeting with customers, stakeholders, and partners at a series of workshops designed to discuss major issues and priorities. For NP 304, these workshops were: Stored Product Insects, Manhattan, Kansas, October 1999; Exotic Pests, Honolulu, Hawaii, January 2000; Weed Science, Dulles, Virginia, July 2000; and Crop Protection and Quarantine, San Diego, California, October 2000. Based on these in-depth exchanges, these 10 Research Components were identified for NP 304. Writing teams comprising ARS scientists and members of the National Program Staff were formed to develop planning documents to provide a framework for ARS research. Using input from workshops, their own knowledge of the subject matter area, and input from ARS scientists and their cooperators, the writing teams identified researchable problems to be addressed. This information was developed into the NP 304 Action Plan, which explains why a particular research area is important, how it would be addressed, and the benefits of conducting the research. The Action Plan also identified specific research areas, locations, and resources that could be used to address the various problem areas. This approach resulted in the development of coordinated, multi-location research projects, conducted by ARS scientists and their cooperators, to address high-priority regional and national research needs. All projects associated with NP 304 were evaluated for scientific quality by an external peer panel in 2004. Many ARS projects are associated with more than one National Program because their objectives are broad enough to encompass more than one area, and because National Programs overlap to address broad problems of U.S. agriculture. These projects may also address more than one component and more than one problem area within a National Program. NP 304 Accomplishment Report, 2001-2006 Page 4 HOW THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORT WAS CONSTRUCTED AND WHAT IT REFLECTS In this Report, selected NP 304 accomplishments and their impact are organized according to the 10 Research Components and their 49 constituent Problem Areas of the Action Plan. The content of this report is derived from responses by scientists