Jean Williams-Woodward

Stakeholder Vision of Future Direction and Strategies for Southeastern U.S. Nursery Pest Research and Extension Programming

Extension and research professionals worked with a focus group of 10 nursery owners and managers across a five-state region (Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee) in the southeastern United States to prioritize diverse nursery pests and production issues that are related to container and field production. A second focus group meeting, focused on technology, was followed by a survey that asked nursery growers to prioritize potential inputs and uses of information technology and the features they most valued, for example, that might be included within a nursery-specific mobile device application. The resulting prioritization highlights common challenges faced by growers across the southeastern United States in managing major plant diseases, arthropod pests, and weeds; as well as documenting emerging critical issues of nonpest related production issues, regulatory constraints, and technological needs. The focus group and survey format effectively identified grower needs that will help inform nursery producers and guide university Extension and research professionals, university administrators, industry associations, and state and federal government officials toward efficient resource allocation. These prioritizations explain the current state-of-need across a diverse agricultural industry segment and will help further refine future strategic action plans for nursery integrated pest management (IPM) and emerging critical nursery crop pest issues.

Comparing an IPM Pilot Program to a Traditional Cover Spray Program in Commercial Landscapes

Abstract An integrated pest management (IPM) pilot program for landscape plants was implemented during 1997 and 1998 on two commercial, two residential, and one institutional property managed by landscape professionals. When compared with preprogram, calendar-based cover spray program costs at these sites in 1996, the IPM program was cost-effective at one of the five sites in both 1997 and 1998, and cost effective at a second additional site in 1998 when the cooperator, initially skeptical of IPM, discontinued calendar-based cover sprays performed in 1996 and 1997. The mean cost per site was

Assessing the integrated pest management practices of southeastern US ornamental nursery operations

703.40 (preprogram),

A guide for commercial production of vinca

788.26, and

Optimizing Plant Health and Pest Management of Lagerstroemia spp. in Commercial Production and Landscape Situations in the Southeastern United States: A Review

582.22 in 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively. Volume of pesticide applied decreased a mean of 86.3% on the four sites not receiving cover sprays and increased 2.3% at site 2 (still using cover sprays) in 1997. In 1998, pesticide volume was reduced an average of 85.3% at all five sites compared with preprogram levels. The majority of insect pest problems were corrected using spot sprays of insecticidal soap or horticultural oil or by physical means such as pruning. One-third of the woody plant material on the commercial and institutional sites consisted of holly, juniper, and azalea. The most prevalent pests encountered were mites (Tetranychidae), aphids, lace bugs, scales, whiteflies, and Japanese beetle. Spiders were the most abundant group of predatory arthropod and ants, green lacewings, and lady beetles were also well represented in the managed landscapes.

Developing a Mobile Application as an Extension Education Tool: A Case Study Using IPMPro

BACKGROUND The Southern Nursery Integrated Pest Management (SNIPM) working group surveyed ornamental nursery crop growers in the southeastern United States to determine their pest management practices. Respondents answered questions about monitoring practices for insects, diseases and weeds, prevention techniques, intervention decisions, concerns about IPM and educational opportunities. Survey respondents were categorized into three groups based on IPM knowledge and pest management practices adopted. RESULTS The three groups differed in the use of standardized sampling plans for scouting pests, in monitoring techniques, e.g. sticky cards, phenology and growing degree days, in record-keeping, in the use of spot-spraying and in the number of samples sent to a diagnostic clinic for identification and management recommendation. CONCLUSIONS Stronger emphasis is needed on deliberate scouting techniques and tools to monitor pest populations to provide earlier pest detection and greater flexibility of management options. Most respondents thought that IPM was effective and beneficial for both the environment and employees, but had concerns about the ability of natural enemies to control insect pests, and about the availability and effectiveness of alternatives to chemical controls. Research and field demonstration is needed for selecting appropriate natural enemies for augmentative biological control. Two groups utilized cooperative extension almost exclusively, which would be an avenue for educating those respondents.