native plants and integrated roadside vegetation … plants and integrated roadside vegetation...

By William Quarles

There are 4 million miles (6.4million km) of roads in theU.S., with about 12 million

acres (29.4 million ha) of highwaycorridors and landscaping.Vegetation maintenance on thisamount of land requires a signifi-cant expenditure of labor andresources. Vegetation managersmust meet roadside safety require-ments of good visibility and clearzones to minimize injuries fromaccidents. With a few exceptions,clearing of vegetation is often a sin-gle-minded task. Native plants havebeen some of the first casualties ofthis approach. Due to aggressivedevelopment and disturbance,many robust and widespread nativespecies along U.S. highways havenow been reduced to isolatedstands emerging from nearly deplet-ed seedbanks. For instance, thesmooth coneflower, Echinacea laevi-gata, once occurred in 65 popula-tions in eight states. It has nowbeen reduced to 24 populations infour states (Olwell 2000).

There is now a movement torevegetate U.S. highways withnative plants, thus recovering atleast some of what has been lost.Roadside managers are seeing theadvantages of native plants as partof integrated vegetation manage-ment (IRVM) programs. These pro-grams combine mowing, mulching,controlled burns, competitive plant-ings, and selective use of herbicidesto manage invasive weeds. At manysites, native plants can provide apractical solution to weed manage-ment, leading to a reduction in pes-ticide applications and to less

expense in labor (Daar 1994;Henderson 2000a; Pauly 2000).Additional benefits includeincreased shelter for wildlife, ero-sion control, more biodiversity,improvement of water quality, andprotection of endangered species(Harper-Lore 2000c). (See Box A.Integrated Vegetation Management.)

Roadside ZonesVegetation strips parallel to road-

ways can be divided into a numberof management zones, each with adifferent ecology and managementstrategy. Usually a gravel mulch isat the edge of the pavement. Thisallows vehicles to leave the road and

park in case of trouble. Next to that,low growing vegetation and grassesare planted in a narrow strip out tothe ditch. Altogether, this is calledthe clear zone. This zone has to bekept free of trees and other obsta-cles to give drivers a chance to safe-ly regain control of cars that run offthe road. Native grasses and low-growing wildflowers can be planted

Native Plants and Integrated RoadsideVegetation Management

In This IssueNative Plants 1

IPM News 10

Conference Notes 12

Calendar 15

Volume XXV, Number 3/4, March/April 2003

Ph

oto

courtesy

Idah

o D

ept. o

f Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Native wildflowers overlook an Idaho roadside. Restoration of native vegetation can lead to fewer herbicide applications, and lower roadsidemaintenance costs.

25th Year of

Publication

2 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXV(3/4) March/April 2003

UpdateThe IPM Practitioner is published ten times per year by the Bio-Integral ResourceCenter (BIRC) , a non-profit corporationundertaking research and education in inte-grated pest management.

Managing Editor William Quarles

Contributing Editors Sheila DaarTanya DrlikLaurie Swiadon

Editor-at-Large Joel Grossman

Business Manager Jennifer Bates

Artist Diane Kuhn

For media kits or other advertising informa-tion, contact Bill Quarles at 510/524-2567.

Advisory Board George Bird, Michigan State Univ.; SterlingBunnell, M.D., Berkeley, CA ; Momei Chen,Jepson Herbarium, Univ. Calif., Berkeley;Sharon Collman, Coop Extn., Wash. StateUniv.; Sheila Daar, Daar & Associates,Berkeley, CA; Walter Ebeling, UCLA, Emer.;Steve Frantz, NY State Dept. Health; LindaGilkeson, Canadian Ministry of Envir.,Victoria, BC; Joseph Hancock, Univ. Calif,Berkeley; Helga Olkowski, Dietrick Inst.,Ventura, CA; William Olkowski, Dietrick Inst.,Ventura, CA; George Poinar, Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, OR; Ron Prokopy, Univ.Massachusetts; Ramesh Chandra Saxena,ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya; Ruth Troetschler, PTFPress, Los Altos, CA; J.C. van Lenteren,Agricultural University Wageningen, TheNetherlands.

ManuscriptsThe IPMP welcomes accounts of IPM for anypest situation. Write for details on format formanuscripts.

CitationsThe material here is protected by copyright,and may not be reproduced in any form,either written, electronic or otherwise withoutwritten permission from BIRC. ContactWilliam Quarles at 510/524-2567 for properpublication credits and acknowledgement.

Subscriptions/MembershipsA subscription to the IPMP is one of the ben-efits of membership in BIRC. We also answerpest management questions for our membersand help them search for information.Memberships are $60/yr (institutions/libraries/businesses); $35/yr (individuals).Canadian subscribers add $15 postage. Allother foreign subscribers add $25 airmailpostage. A Dual membership, which includesa combined subscription to both the IPMPand the Common Sense Pest ControlQuarterly, costs $85/yr (institutions); $55/yr(individuals). Government purchase ordersaccepted. Donations to BIRC are tax-deductible.FEI# 94-2554036.

Change of AddressWhen writing to request a change of address,please send a copy of a recent address label.

© 2003 BIRC, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA94707; (510) 524-2567; FAX (510) 524-1758.All rights reserved. ISSN #0738-968X

in the clear zone instead ofbromegrass, Bromus inermis, andother non-native horticultural vari-eties now used (Harper-Lore 2000a).

Next to the clear zone is theditch, which must be maintained toallow drainage from the road andbackslope. Past the ditch, the rightof way often slopes up to privateproperty. This area is called thebackslope. Backslopes can often beplanted in native trees, shrubs andother species without impacting vis-ibility or road safety (Daar and King1997; Harper-Lore 2000b).

Need to Reduce CostsConversion to natives is being

driven by a number of diverse fac-tors. One of these is the need toreduce costs. Roadside vegetation inmany areas requires intensive man-agement, and millions of dollars arespent on herbicides and mowing.Much of this problem can be tracedto an influential book written byJessie M. Bennett in 1936—Roadsides, the Front Yard of theNation. Roadside managers influ-enced by this book planted turf-grass along the highways, thenwere stuck with the all the intensivelabor that comes with a well-keptlawn. In the 1930s roadside main-tenance was done at a reasonableexpense due to depression-erachain gangs and federal work pro-grams. Costs of labor-intensivemowing and weeding increasedafter World War II. In the 1950s,herbicides were chosen as a lessexpensive solution to maintainingthe “front yard” along U.S. high-ways.

Because of the energy crunch ofthe 1970s, costs of herbicides andmowing increased. Managersturned more toward a more carefulchoice of plants, and tried to findecological solutions to management(Harper Lore 1997; Kartesz 2000).

Roots of the RoadsideNative Movement

In the 1980s and 1990s the eco-logical solutions were combinedwith an increasing interest in nativeplants. Public interest in nativeplants showed a resurgence, and

membership in native plant soci-eties swelled with amateur and pro-fessional biologists. Politically,plantings of wildflowers along road-sides had received a boost fromLady Bird Johnson in 1965.Operation Wildflower, a volunteerprogram where garden clubs sup-plied seeds for roadside plantings,was started in 1973. Native revege-tation received recognition from theU.S. government in 1987 with thefederal Surface Transportation andUniform Relocation Assistance Act(STURAA). This Act required that aportion of the landscaping budgetfor any new federal highway had tobe spent on establishing roadsidenative plants (Harper-Lore andWilson 2000).

Federal involvement increasedwith a presidential order on April26, 1994 that required all “Federalagencies, federal projects, or feder-ally funded projects shall incorpo-rate regionally native plants in sitedesign and implementation wherecost effective and to the maximumextent practicable” (Clinton 1994).

What is a Native Plant?Because the federal law mandat-

ed the use of native plants, itbecame necessary to find anacceptable definition. Generally,most people believe that a nativeplant is one that was growing in theU.S. before Columbus landed. Someintroduced plants such as QueenAnne’s lace, Daucus carota, havebeen successfully growing here forhundreds of years, but are notnatives. Botanists also like to thinkof natives as very specific to a geo-graphical site. Thus, a coastalnative to California may not benative to the mountains. Nativerevegetation programs cannot be aone-size fits all variety. Ecologicalzones, including available moistureand other variables, determine whatwill grow in a particular area.

A federal interagency committeein 1994 came up with the followingdefinition: “A native plant species isone that occurs naturally in a par-ticular region, state, ecosystem, andhabitat without direct or indirecthuman actions.” Presumably, once

3IPM Practitioner, XXV(3/4) March/April 2003 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Updatea native plant is found, humanactions such as actively assistingwith propagation at the site areallowed without the plant losing itsnative status (Morse et al. 2000).

Why Natives?Native plants are well adapted to

the climate and the natural enemiesof a given region. They have evolvedin a delicate ecological balance, and

do not pose a threat as invasiveweeds. Invasive exotics are roadsideproblems because they thrive indisturbed situations and their pop-ulations cannot be checked by nat-

According to Daar and King (1997), “IntegratedVegetation Management (IVM) is a coordinated decision-making and action process that uses the most appropri-ate vegetation management methods and strategy, alongwith a monitoring and evaluation system, to achieveroadside maintenance program goals and objectives in anenvironmentally and economically sound manner.

“In practice, IVM involves the establishment of low-maintenance beneficial vegetation and the suppression ofunwanted pest or problem vegetation when monitoringindicates action thresholds have been reached. The objec-tive is to keep undesirable vegetation levels low enough toprevent unacceptable damage or annoyance. An integra-tion of biological, cultural, manual, mechanical, chemi-cal, and educational tactics are used with an emphasison prevention of problems rather than reaction to them.Gradual reduction of both costs and chemical use arecentral goals in this process.

If treatments are needed, they are selected and timedto be:• Most effective against the vegetation problem• Most cost effective in the long term• Least hazardous to humans and the environment• Least disruptive to natural pest controls or desirable

vegetationThe IVM concept has been adopted by county and

state transportation agencies in a number of statesincluding California, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota,and Texas.”

Most proponents of IRVM believe in establishing ahealthy, sustainable plant community as the best way toreduce roadside maintenance. Planting native species orat least some well-adapted, low-maintenance vegetationis a proactive approach to weed control. Though severalstates have adopted IRVM programs, in practice, vegeta-tion is maintained most often by mowing and herbicideapplications. Henderson (2002b) surveyed managers ofroadside vegetation programs in 14 states. Half of thestates said they were practicing IRVM. All 14 states spentat least as much money on mowing as they spend onherbicide application. Annual mowing expenditures forthese states ranged from $500,000 to $40 million peryear. To save money, most mow only the clear zone. Topreserve natives, Arkansas mows only a strip 10-ft (3 m)wide and leaves a strip 25- to 30-ft (7.6-9.1 m) wide"transition" zone that gets mowed just once a year. Thesingle mowing is necessary to keep woody plants fromtaking over the wildflowers.

Mowing in the high-maintenance zone is timed to pro-mote wildflowers. "Some people do not care for the reducedmowing. But now over half of public comments favor thereduced mowing." A few people are unhappy that the tran-sition zone gets mowed at all (Henderson 2000b).

Florida DOT emphasizes mowing over spraying.Florida’s water table is often only a foot (0.3m) below thesurface, so a few years ago DOT was required to reducechemical use. Now the weeds are controlled with lots ofmowing: 16 times a year (Henderson 2000b).

Jefferson County, Washington maintains roadsidevegetation entirely by mowing. Due to public pressure, noherbicides are used at all (Daar 2001).

New TechnologyRoadside vegetation management has received a boost

from some new technologies. Global posititioning satellitesmake it possible to map both noxious weeds that should bedestroyed and native vegetation that should be preserved.Instead of broadcast herbicide applications, spot treatmentscan be accurately made. Long sections of native vegetationto be left unmowed can be readily identified.

For instance, Clay County Iowa received a grant fromthe Living Roadway Trust Fund to buy a Digital GlobalPositioning System (DGPS) to be mounted in the countyspray truck. The DGPS unit will allow for on-the-go map-ping of a variety of information associated with the IRVMprogram. It will mark where spot spraying has beenapplied in great detail and also allow for personnel torecord areas such as native prairies, soil erosion areas,noxious weed areas, and other items while performingspraying activities (Clay County 2002).

Infrared Though mowing is still the most widely used non-chemi-

cal roadside treatment, other approaches are being tested.One alternative, using infrared radiant heat, was studied bythe Oregon Department of Transportation over a three-yearperiod. “A prototype roadside infrared vegetation controlunit, manufactured in Eugene, Oregon, applies intenseheat (approximately 1500ºF or 800ºC) to unwanted growth.It uses liquid propane fuel to heat a radiating unit made ofsteel. The bottom of the deck travels 2 to 4 inches (5.1-10.2cm) above the ground, allowing the heat to radiate withoutthe equipment touching the vegetation. Infrared treatmentsrepeated 4 to 6 times annually provided acceptable road-side vegetation control. The timing of treatments and theequipment speed were important variables.

“Infrared treatment could be a useful tool in the IVMprogram, especially where other forms of treatment arerestricted or controversial. Some potential areas for useinclude sites near waterways, on Federal or other landsthat prohibit herbicides, and around culverts and ditch-es. Special training in the safe use of the equipment andin proper fire suppression techniques is recommended. Afire permit may be required near forest protection dis-tricts (ODOT 2002).

Box A. Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management


Update

ural enemies and diseases. As anexample of exotic invasiveness, “afull 17% of our North American flora,and up to 33% of some of our indi-vidual state floras (Massachusetts)are composed of plants that are exot-ic or introduced from foreign lands”(Kartesz 2000).

Though native plants are moredifficult to establish in competitionwith exotics, once established theyare generally sustainable (Bugg etal. 1997). They will not cause prob-lems by a weedy invasion of nearbycornfields. In areas where nativeshave been successfully established,very little maintenance is needed.Herbicide applications are reducedbecause the balanced plant com-munities resist invasion by exoticweeds (Green and Welker 2003;Daar 1994; CalTrans 2003).

Natives reduce roadside fire haz-ards because low-growing cool seasonnative grasses produce less biomassand fire fuel. Native drought-tolerantplants provide erosion control, grow-ing deep, sturdy roots that do notrequire irrigation (CalTrans 2003).

Integrated RoadsideVegetation in Iowa

As well as the general public andthe federal government, a numberof states have become involved inthe push for native plants andIntegrated Roadside VegetationManagement (IRVM). In 1988, theIowa legislature adopted IRVM withidea of reducing herbicide ground-water contamination. The legisla-tion called for the use of nativespecies in roadside plantings, and

“IRVM gave policymakers an envi-ronmentally sound way to providesafe, responsible roadside vegeta-tion management” (Henderson2000b). (See Box A for a definitionof Integrated Roadside VegetationManagement).

IRVM in Iowa has led to 70-90%reductions in herbicide use fromthe $70,000 to $80,000 spent percounty for broadcast herbicidespray contracts in the 1980s. IRVMprograms have also substantiallycut costs for ditch clean-outs,which used to total $20,000 to$160,000 annually. Mowing costsand the $25,000 to $30,000 former-ly budgeted for brush control ineach county have also beenreduced. Some of these funds havebeen reprogrammed to support veg-etation monitoring and replantingactivities (Daar 1994; Smith 1994).

Native revegetation programs inIowa are supported by the LivingRoadway Trust Fund (LRTF) and the Resource Enhancement andProtection (REAP) program. Since1989, LRTF has contributed$708,000 to 43 counties to buynative seed. State funding relievespressure on county budgets andmakes revegetation more attractive tocounty managers (Henderson 2003).

Prairie RestorationThe State of Iowa was quick to

see the advantages of native road-side vegetation, not just as a way toreduce herbicides but as a last besthope for prairie restoration. Due todevelopment, more than 99% of theoriginal prairie vegetation in Iowahas been destroyed. The 580,000acres of roadways are the last areawhere public interest can be focusedto reclaim some of what was lost.Currently, about 31 of Iowa’s 98counties have a fully implementedIRVM program, and 35 have a par-tially implemented program (Jensen1999; Smith 1998).

For instance, in Clay County,Iowa, “whenever and wherever pos-sible, native grasses and flowers areplanted to meet IRVM objectives.Native prairie plants help preventsoil erosion, control noxious weedinvasion, provide wildlife habitatand beautify the county landscape.”

Mowing, spot applications ofherbicides, and controlled burnsare combined with native plantings.Fire is used to maintain areas ofquality prairie or to reduce woodyvegetation. According to ClayCounty, “the best and easiest wayto maintain these prairie areas is toperiodically set fire to them. Fireallows for nutrients to be recycledand used for new plant growth.Some seeds need fire to germinate.Fire reduces the build up of deadplant material, and fire controls theinvasion of woody vegetation into aprairie area” (Clay County 2002).

Clay County plants “nativeprairie grasses and flowers whichwill eventually defray the costs ofmaintenance to the county right-of-ways. Native prairie species developan extensive root system which pro-vides an array of roadside benefits.This extensive root system reducessoil erosion, minimizes the estab-lishment of noxious weeds into thearea, and maintains a vegetativestand of growth that provides excel-lent wildlife habitat for manyspecies of birds and mammals”(Clay County 2002).

Ecological Advantages Other than reduced herbicide

applications and reduced cost, oneof the big advantages of nativeplants is the encouragement of ben-eficial insects and wildlife. Roadsidemanagement profoundly affectsbutterfly populations. A study con-ducted in Iowa compared sites withnative plants with those dominatedby weeds or non-native grasses.Habitat-sensitive butterflies showeda 2-fold increase in species richnessand a 5-fold increase in abundanceat the native sites. Disturbance-tol-erant butterflies were more abun-dant in native plantings than instands of non-native grass. Therewere also fewer butterflies exitingprairie roadsides, and fewer butter-fly roadkills (Ries et al. 2001).

There are even economic cropadvantages to native plantings.Roadside native plantings next tocornfields in Iowa attract fewerEuropean cornborers, Ostrinianubilialis, than roadside sites plant-ed with the non-native, bromegrass,

California poppy, Eschscholziacalifornica

Ph

oto

courtesy

Br. A

lfred B

roussea

u


UpdateBromus inermis. Bromegrass standshad nearly 7 times as many 1stgeneration cornborers. Replacingbromegrass with natives couldreduce the number of cornborersbreeding near cornfields (Pleasantsand Bitzer 1999).

Fitting Plants to the SiteNative plants, of course, are not

a panacea that can be blindlyimplemented at every location.Plants should be chosen to fit siteconditions. While some nativeplants are adaptable to a widerange of environmental conditions,many have specific requirements.Soil texture, pH, fertility, and mois-ture conditions are important.

Part of the problem is that road-side habitats are disturbed and donot reflect the original situation.Roadside environments are hotter,more compacted, more pollutedfrom automobiles and salt. In reac-tion, roadside plants sort them-selves out into microhabitats. Thoseseeking moisture end up growing inthe ditch. Those tolerant of mowingshow up closest to the pavement(Daar 1994). Bugg et al. (1997) iden-tified eight topographic zones orniches for roadside plants inCalifornia: road, roadedge, roadsideberm, inner ditchbank, ditchbed,outer ditchbank, fieldside berm, and

field edge. Each zone ideally requiresthe proper plant (see Daar 1994).

Plants should be chosen consis-tent with their microhabitats. Localecotype seed should be used whenev-er and wherever possible. Sometimes,however, the specific ecotype for a siteis unavailable. Local natives adaptedto wide changes in environmentalconditions might be a good choice forthose cases.

Fertilization and watering needsfor natives are often different fromthose of ornamentals. According toUniversity of Ohio CooperativeExtension (2002), “the needs ofnative plants may differ from con-ventional landscape plants.Fertilization may not be necessarywith some meadow and prairiespecies. Over-fertilizing these plantsmay promote weak, spindly growthand invasion by weeds.”

Plant CommunitiesNative plants tend to grow in

communities. These areas are dis-tinguished by a predominant vegeta-tion, such as redwoods or oak,along with associated shrubs, grass-es, and forbs. For roadside revegeta-tion projects, plants should be cho-sen that fit local ecological condi-tions and are compatible with thelocal plant communities (Howell2000). Much of this is explained in

Roadside Use of Native Plants, apractical resource produced by theFederal Highway Administration(see Resources).

For the 48 continuous continen-tal States, 106 potential nativerevegetation plant communities aredefined by lists of dominant andsubdominant native vegetation.These communities thrive in favor-able ecological zones, and RoadsideUse of Native Plants has state mapsshowing the location of these zoneswithin each State. By consulting theplant lists, the proper native speciesfor each ecozone can be determined.For instance, the “bluestem prairie”native plant community includes bigbluestem, Andropogon geradii; littlebluestem, A. scoparius; switchgrass,Panicum virgatum; and Indiangrass,Sorghastrum nutans as dominants.Other components include nativewildflowers such as blazing star,Liatris sp. (See Table 1. Prairie com-munity in Iowa). These communi-ties of native vegetation tend to bediverse. California alone has 22 ofthese zones, ranging from wet red-wood forest to dry sagebrush com-munities.

Success Varies with the Site

Success in planting varies withthe site. A good example of this isan ongoing CalTrans study by theJack Broadbent Office of StateLandscape Architecture. At a YubaCounty site in the northern part ofthe Central Valley, there was goodsoil fertility and structure. Bothgrass plugs and sod had high sur-vival rates. Hydro-seeding showedlow to moderate germination, anddrill seeding was moderately suc-cessful. There was low germinationfrom imprint seeding. After 9months most species are doing well.

At a Fresno County site, condi-tions were gravelly and dry withpoor soil fertility and structure.About half of grass plugs and mostof sod planting survived. Hydro-seeding showed slow germination,and drill seeding was moderatelysuccessful. There was no germina-tion from imprint seeding. Weedshave been generally a minor prob-California native Bigelow’s tickseed, Coreopsis bigelovii

Ph

oto

courtesy

of J

oh

n G

am

e

lem, but a portion of the site wasoverrun with wild sunflowers. Aboutnine months after planting, noddingstipa, Nassella cernua; slenderwheatgrass, Elymus trachycaulus;pine bluegrass, Poa secunda, andsquirrel’s tail, Elymus elymoideswere doing poorly.

At an inland site of MontereyCounty, there was compactedsoil/poor structure, moderate fertil-ity, and moderate climate. However,most grass plugs and sod sectionssurvived. Drill seeding providedquick germination, and hydro-seed-ing gave moderate to slow germina-tion. There has been minimal weedcompetition on this site. After 9months, all species have doneextremely well.

Along the coast at San LuisObispo there were excellent siteconditions with good soil fertilityand moderate structure. Most of thegrass plugs and sod survived. Drillseeding gave fast germination, andhydro-seeding showed slow germi-nation. A moderate amount ofweeds were encountered duringestablishment. After 9 months,most plantings have done well.

At an inland desert site inRiverside County, there were poorsite conditions characterized bygranite soil structure, low fertility,and very dry and hot soil. Drillseeding and hydro-seeding wereunsuccessful. There were no inva-sive weeds due to severe droughtand vehicle damage to soil andplants. Two months after planting,most of the grasses did not survivethe harsh conditions. (Broadbentand Robinson 2002)

Specifications and Plant Lists

According to Roadside Use ofNative Plants, planting rates fornative wildflower seed should below, perhaps 2-5 lbs/acre (2.2-5.6kg/ha). These tend to be expensiveseeds and the flowers are intendedas highlights. Native grass seedsshould be sown at 7-10 lbs/acre(7.8-11.2 kg/ha) because it is lessexpensive and because “nativegrasses are the main components ofa grassland” (Harper-Lore 2000d).Some consultants have a different

opinion about this, recommendingvery large seeding rates (Dremann2001). Successful planting maydepend more on site preparation,and whether seeds are drilled orbroadcast than on planting rates.

ProblemsOne of the major problems with

native revegetation projects is thedifficulty getting seed. The NatureConservancy did a survey in Iowa ofcounties, water conservation dis-tricts and other stakeholders.Because of the difficulty in gettingseed, Iowa counties that respondedto the survey in 2001 planted about40.4% non-native cultivars andabout 54.9% plants of Iowa origin.Only 22.1% were localized Iowanatives and only 23.9% were sourceidentified seeds. Counties spent anaverage $4,580 each on seeds, anda typical mix was 6 grasses and 21forbs. Stakeholders in other stateshave similar difficulties obtainingseeds (SMS 2002).

This problem will become lessimportant as more new native plantnurseries get started. In Iowa, thenumber of acres planted in nativeseeds has doubled to 3,300 acressince last year (Houseal 2003).

OrganizationsAs integrated vegetation manage-

ment programs have matured,

organizations have grown with it.There is now a national organiza-tion for roadside vegetation man-agement, the National RoadsideVegetation Management Association(NRVMA). Although NRVMA meet-ings tend to be dominated by herbi-cide manufacturers, native plantsare increasingly being spotlighted.NRVMA members are turning toIRVM as an alternative to theexpense and environmental impactof programs dominated by herbi-cides. (See Box B. Problems withHerbicides.) Currently, 38 stateshave programs to preserve andrestore native vegetation (Bryantand Harper-Lore 2002). A numberof State Vegetation ManagementSocieties are listed on the NRVMAwebpage. Native plant societies arealso helpful with native roadsiderevegetation (see Resources).

State-by-State ProgramsIn California, the University of

California, Davis has received a 5-year grant from CalTrans for nativeplant revegetation along highwaysin Yolo County near Sacramento(Dremann 2003). CalTrans alsooperates CaliforniaWILD, a nativeroadside revegetation project thatstarted in 1994. A database show-casing more than 300 native grass-es and their growth profiles is avail-able on the CalTrans website. Since1987, CalTrans has planted native


Update

Table 1. Components of Seed Mixes Used in Iowa*

GrassesCommon Name Scientific NameBig bluestem Andropogon gerardiiBlue grama Bouteloua gracilisBuffalograss Buchloe dactyloidesCanada wildrye Elymus canadensisIndiangrass Sorghastrum nutansLittle bluestem Schizachyrium scopariumSideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendulaSwitchgrass Panicum virgatumTall dropseed Sporobolus neglectusWestern wheatgrass Agropyron smithii

WildflowersCommon Name Scientific NameBlackeyed susan Rudbeckia hirtaButterfly weed Asclepias tuberosa Coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoriaGolden Alexanders Zizia aureaNew England aster Aster novae-angliaeOx-eye daisy Chrysantheum leucanthemumPale purple coneflower Echinacea purpureaPartridgepea Chamaecrista fasciculataPrairie blazingstar Liatris sp.Prairie ragwort Senecio sp.Purple prairie clover Trifolium petalostemonRattlesnake master Eryngium yuccifoliumRough blazingstar Liatris sp.Round-headed bushclover Trifolium lespedezaStiff goldenrod Solidago rigidaWhite wild indigo Baptisia albaWild bergamot Monarda fistulosaYellow coneflower Ratibida sp.

*From Daar 1994, Harper-Lore and Wilson 2000


Updatewildflowers at more than 100 sitesstatewide (CalTrans 2003).

Minnesota makes native revege-tation a priority along rural road-ways. Because of a state law torotect wildlife, rural roadsides canonly be mowed once a year (Benik2003). Idaho emphasizes nativewildflower plantings (Idaho 2003).

Henderson (2000b) did an infor-mal survey of roadside vegetationmanagers in 14 states to assessprogress with IRVM and nativeplants. Iowa is still the bright starof native roadside plantings. A stan-dard native mix includes five grass-es and at least a half-dozen forbs.However, not all states can proceedwith the Prairie RestorationProgram that was so successful inIowa. New York DOT emphasizesnative trees, shrubs, and wildflow-ers, but not grasses. Maine, whichis 90% wooded, plants non-nativebluegrass and fescue and a lot oflegume non-natives. Native wild-flower annuals are planted andthere is some experimentation withlittle bluestem, Andropogon scopar-ius, plantings.

Sources for native seed are aproblem in Michigan. Low-mainte-nance mixes tailored to site and soilconditions are mostly non-nativeKentucky bluegrass, Poa pratensis;perennial rye, Lolium perenne; andcreeping red fescue, Festuca rubra;with dune grass, Leymus mollis,

used in some areas. Wildflowerplantings are not successfulbecause of woody invasions(Henderson 2000b).

Invasion of roadside clear zonesby trees and woody vegetation is abig factor in other states. Wheretrees are not a problem, Montanaplants a mix of four short nativegrasses along the paved surface in astrip 15 feet (4.6 m) wide. Beyondthat strip, seven or eight grasses andone or two forbs, mostly natives, areplanted (Henderson 2000b).

Florida uses a lot of nativeshrubs and forbs but not grasses.

Maryland has two regional wild-flower mixes that are diverse andinclude natives. There is often aproblem with obtaining seeds.Maryland DOT is working with theUniversity of Maryland and the USDepartment of Agriculture PlantMaterials Center to produce nativegrasses, including little bluestem,Andropogon scoparius; big bluestem,Andropogon gerardii; Indiangrass,Sorghastrum nutans; switchgrass,Panicum virgatum; broomsedge,Andropogon virginicus; coastal pan-icum, Panicum sp.; and partridgepea, Chamaecrista fasciculata.

According to a report from the non-profit CaliforniansAgainst Toxics (CATS 1999), CalTrans and county roadagencies apply more than 132,000 gallons (500,000 liters)of herbicide in liquid formulation and 91,000 pounds(41,000 kg) of dry weed killers to the 80,000 miles(129,000 km) of California roadsides in a typical year.

The state management agency, CalTrans, applies anaverage of about five gallons (18.9 liter) of liquid andmore than two pounds (0.9 kg) of dry herbicide formula-tion per road-mile of the 15,000 miles (24,000 km) ofhighways under its jurisdiction. In addition, 51 of thestate's 58 county governments also rely on chemicals,averaging more than one pound (0.45 kg) and one gallon(3.785 liters) of herbicide per mile along the 64,000 miles(103,000 km) of roads under county management.Caltrans' annual expenditures can only be estimated at$4 to $6 million for weed killing chemicals (CATS 1999).

According to CATS (1999), eight herbicides accountfor 86.5% of roadside spraying in California. The U.S.

EPA recognizes six of these as possible human carcino-gens, and four may cause birth defects. Seven, includingglyphosate, are linked to toxicity in the liver and blood.Another, oxadiazon, is recognized by state and federalagencies as a liver and kidney toxicant which also causesbirth defects and cancer. Seven exhibit varying degrees oftoxicity to fish while four are harmful to birds. Four ofthe toxic chemicals on this list have been detected ingroundwater by California's Department of PesticideRegulation, and the University of Florida has determinedthat six possess a high potential for runoff (CATS 1999).

The California situation is typical of many otherstates. Nationwide, the most commonly used roadsideherbicides include picloram, 2,4-D, dicamba, diuron, fos-amine ammonium, glyphosate, hexazinone, and triclopyr.To mitigate herbicide problems, a number of states havelaws that require posting and notification before herbi-cides are applied (Owens 1999).

B. Problems and Expenses of Herbicides

California coastal tidytips, Layia platyglossa

Ph

oto

courtesy

of G

ary

Monro

e

Oregon has seven major nativeplant communities from the coast tothe high desert and everything inbetween, including rain forest and3,000 ft (914 m) elevations. Plantingsare tailored to the site. Where theroad goes through an area withendangered species, contractors har-vest local seeds. Where erosion is aproblem, a vigorous rye is the solu-tion. In Oregon as elsewhere, publicperception is a very important part ofnative plant establishment. The pub-lic generally prefers floweringspecies. For this reason, Oregonuses ornamental species for high vis-ibility city gateways.

Wyoming plants 99 percentnatives. On more isolated roads,sideoats grama, Bouteloua curtipen-dula; and little bluestem are favored.On more traveled sections, three ormore native forbs and native shrubsare added to the mix. Soil containingnative seeds taken from road proj-ects is salvaged and returned to thesite (Henderson 2000b).

Colorado seeds extensively withnatives and chooses plants thatneed little irrigation. Diversity isalso a goal. They use six or sevengrasses and a few forbs and shrubs.Mowable mixes, mostly buffalograss; Buchloe dactyloides; and bluegrama, Bouteloua gracilis; are usedin urban areas (Henderson 2000b).

ConclusionNative plants are an important

component of an integrated road-side vegetation management pro-gram. Site-adapted native plantsneed little mowing or irrigation.Drought-adapted deep root systemscan provide erosion control. Onceestablished, they are sustainableand are generally able to competewith exotic vegetation. Native road-side revegetation can help Americare-establish a living history, reduceroadside maintenance costs, andcan lead to fewer applications ofherbicides.

William Quarles, Ph.D. is an IPMSpecialist, Executive Director ofBIRC, and Managing Editor of theIPM Practitioner.


Update

ResourcesCheck your State Department of Transportation and your County Roadside

Maintenance Dept. for further information.Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, 4801 LaCrosse Avenue, Austin, TX

78739; 512/292-4100, Fax 512/292-4627; www.wildflower.orgLiving Roadway Program, Iowa Dept. of Transportation, 800 Lincoln Way,

Ames, IA 50010; 515/239-1766National Roadside Vegetation Management Association, 6402 Betty Cook

Drive, Austin, TX 78723; 512/933-9930; Fax 512/933-9971;www.nrvma.org

Native Roadside Vegetation Center, University of Northern Iowa, 113 CEEE,Cedar Falls, IA 50614; 319/273-2813

Photos of California Native Plants, http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu.photos/floraSociety for Ecological Restoration, 1955 W. Grant Rd. #150, Tucson, AZ

85717; 520/622-5485, Fax 520/622-5491; www.ser.orgU.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Hwy Administration, 400 Seventh St.

SW, Washington, DC 20590; www.fhwa.dot.gov

Native Plant SocietiesArizona Native Plant Society, PO Box 41206, Sun Station, Tucson, AZ

85717; http://aznps.orgCalifornia Native Grass Society, PO Box 566, Dixon, CA 95620California Native Plant Society, 1722 J Street, Suite 17, Sacramento, CA

95814; 916/447-2677; www.cnps.orgColorado Native Plant Society, PO Box 200, Fort Collins, CO 80522;

http://carbon.cudenver.eduFlorida Native Plant Society, PO Box 690278, Vero Beach, FL 32969;

772/462-0000Georgia Native Plant Society, PO Box 422085, Atlanta, GA 30342;

www.gnps.orgIowa Native Plant Society, 720 Sandusky Drive, Iowa City, IA 52240Maryland Native Plant Society, PO Box 4877, Silver Spring, MD 20914,

www.mdflora.orgMinnesota Native Plant Society, 220 Biological Science Center, 1445

Gartner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108Missouri Native Plant Society, PO Box 20073, St. Louis, MO 63144;

www.missouri.eduNative Plant Society of Oregon, PO Box 902, Eugene, OR 97440,

[email protected] Plant Society of Texas, PO Box 891, Georgetown, TX 78627,

www.npsot.orgVirginia Native Plant Society, 400 Blandy Farm Lane Unit 2, Baya, VA

22620, www.vnps.orgWashington Native Plant Society, 7400 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA

98115, 206/527-3210Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake City, UT 84152;

www.unps.org

BooksHow to Develop and Implement an Integrated Roadside Vegetation

Management Program, National Roadside Vegetation ManagementAssociation, 6402 Betty Cook Drive, Austin, TX 78723; 512/933-9930;Fax 512/933-9971; www.nrvma.org

Integrated Vegetation Management for Roadsides, Bio-Integral ResourceCenter, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 and Washington Dept. ofTransportation

Roadside Use of Native Plants, B.L. Harper-Lore and M. Wilson, Office ofNatural Environment, Federal Highway Administration, Island Press,Washington, DC.


Updatetion. In: Harper-Lore and Wilson, pp. 43-44.

Harper-Lore, B.L. 2000d. Specifying a nativeplanting plan. In: Harper-Lore and Wilson,pp. 25-27.

Harper-Lore, B.L. and M. Wilson. 2000.Roadside Use of Native Plants. Island Press,Washington, DC. 665 pp.

Henderson, K. 2000a. Integrating all the man-agement tools. In: Harper-Lore and Wilson,pp. 30-31.

Henderson, K. 2000b. Integrated roadside vege-tation management: a quick glance aroundthe country. Erosion Control April 2000.

Henderson, K. 2003. Big value from smallestslice of REAP pie. Roader’s Digest 14(1):1.

Houseal, G. 2003. Fully operational! Roader’sDigest 14(1):4.

Howell, E.A. 2000. Explaining plant communi-ties. In: Harper-Lore and Wilson, pp. 17-18.

Idaho. 2003. Welcome to native vegetation. IdahoTransportation Department; www.itd.gov.Contact: Cathy Ford 208/334-8416

Jensen, K. 1999. Integrating ecology with practi-cal roadside maintenance. Kansas UniversityTransportation Center Newsletter Spring 1999.

Kartesz, J.T. 2000. Foreword. In: Harper-Loreand Wilson, pp. 5-6.

Morse, L.E., J.M. Swearingen and J.M.Randall.2000. Defining what is native. In: Harper-Loreand Wilson, pp. 12-14.

ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation).2002. Infra-red weeder tested.www.odot.or.gov

Olwell, P. 2000. Preserving roadside habitats: anopportunity for managers. In: Harper-Loreand Wilson, pp. 15-16.

Owens, K. 1999. The right way to vegetationmanagement. Pesticides and You 19(1):9-17.

Pauly, W.R. 2000. Implementing prescribedburns. In: Harper-Lore and Wilson, pp. 32.

Pleasants, J.M. and R.J. Bitzer. 1999.Aggregation sites for adult European cornborers (Lepidoptera: Crambidae): a compari-son of prairie and non-prairie vegetation.Environ. Entomol. 28(4):608-617.

Ries, L., D.M. Debinski and M.L. Wieland. 2001.Conservation value of roadside prairie restora-tion to butterfly communities. ConservationBiol. 15(2):401-411.

Smith, D.D. 1994. Integrated roadside vegetationmanagement: the Iowa model. Roader’s Digest6(1):3-4.

Smith, D.D. 1998. Iowa prairie: original extentand loss, preservation and recovery attempts.J. Iowa Acad. Sci. 105(3):94-108.

SMS (Strategic Marketing Survey). 2002.Summary Report: Iowa Prairie Seed MarketStudy. Nature Conservancy/StrategicMarketing Services, Univ. North Iowa, CedarFalls, IA 50614.

University of Ohio Cooperative Extension. 2002. Native Plants of Ohio. Bull. No. 865,University of Ohio Cooperative Extension.

ReferencesBenik, S. 2003. The Minnesota Department of

Transportation’s Integrated RoadsideVegetation Management program to establishnative vegetation along Minnesota’s highways.www.dot.state.mn.us

Broadbent, J. and K. Robinson. 2002. Californiaroadside restoration. Noxious weeds to nativegrasses - a practical approach to roadsideconversion. Proceedings 2002 ConferenceNational Roadside Vegetation ManagementAssociation, www.nrvma.org

Bryant, B. and B.L. Harper-Lore. 2002. Whereflowers bloom, so does hope. Federal HighwayAdministration, 400 Seventh St. SW,Washington, DC 20500. www.fhwa.gov

Bugg, R.L., C.S. Brown and J.H. Anderson.1997. Restoring native perennial grasses torural roadsides in the Sacramento Valley ofCalifornia: establishment and evaluation.Restoration Ecol. 5(3):214-228.

CalTrans. 2003. CaliforniaWILD, the CalTranswildflower program.www.dot.ca.gov.hq/LandArch/CaliforniaWILD/

CATS (Californians for Alternatives to Toxics).1999. The Poisoning of Public Thoroughfares:How Herbicides Blight California's Roads.Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, 315 PStreet, Eureka, CA 95501; 707/ 445-5100,Fax 707/445-5151; http://www.alterna-tives2toxics.org

Clay County Iowa. 2002. Integrated RoadsideVegetation Management.www.co.clay.ia.us/consboard

Clinton, W. 1994. Environmentally and economi-cally beneficial practices on federal land-scaped grounds. In: Harper-Lore and Wilson,2000, pp. 596-597.

Daar, S. 1994. Integrated approaches to road-side vegetation management. IPM Practitioner16(9):1-8.

Daar, S. and S. King. 1997. IntegratedVegetation Management for Roadsides. Bio-Integral Resource Center, Berkeley, CA andWashington State Dept. of Transportation.approx. 250 pp.

Daar, S. 2001. Managing roadside vegetation with-out herbicides. IPM Practitioner 23(7/8):1-10.

Dremann, C. 2000. National roadside vegetationwebsite.www.ecoseeds.com/roadside.web.html

Dremann, C. 2001. Wildflower plantings by thenumbers. www.ecoseeds.com

Dremann, C. 2003. Caltrans five-year grant toUC Davis to convert roadside annual exoticplants back to local native perennial ecosys-tems. www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html

Green, D. and D. Welker. 2003. Sustainablelandscaping: the hidden impact of gardens.www.epa.gov/greenacres

Harper-Lore, B.L. 1997. The roadside view of anational weed strategy. Symposium ProceedingsCalif. Exotic Pest Plant Council, 1997.

Harper-Lore, B.L. 2000a. Incorporating grassesinto clear zones. In: Harper-Lore and Wilson,pp. 21-22.

Harper-Lore, B.L. 2000b. Preventing wildflowersfrom becoming weedy. In: Harper-Lore andWilson, pp. 23-24.

Harper-Lore, B.L. 2000c. Reassessing beautifica-


IPM News

On March 5, Québec's EnvironmentMinister announced a new PesticideManagement Code, which strictly regu-lates the storage, sales and use of pes-ticides in Québec. The Code statesthat, effective immediately, syntheticpesticides are prohibited in all daycarefacilities and schools, and the use ofcosmetic pesticides is banned on allpublic land. By 2005, the ban willextend to all private green spaces, withfines ranging from CAN$500-$30,000.The ban covers 23 pesticide activeingredients that—according to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and/or World Health Organization(WHO)—are known or possible carcino-gens or endocrine disruptors, includinglindane, malathion, MCPA, permethrin,benomyl, captan and 2,4-D.

In addition to the ban, the Codealso increases buffer zones aroundopen water, outlaws application of mix-tures of pesticides and fertilizers,requires sale and use permits for pes-ticide applicators, requires golf coursesto present pesticide use reductionplans, and provides a list of less-toxicand organic pest control products.English or French copies of Québec'sPesticide Management Code can beordered at (800)463-2100.

—From Pesticide Action NetworkUpdates Service

Pesticide Body BurdensAccording to two reports released in

late January 2003, many people in theU.S. are carrying dozens of pesticidesand other chemicals in their bodies.For one of these reports, the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), tested thousands of people forthe presence of 116 chemicals, 34 ofthem pesticides. Results were pub-lished in the Second National Report onHuman Exposure to EnvironmentalChemicals. The report lists the chemi-cal body burden of three major typesof pesticides: organochlorines,organophosphates, and carbamates.CDC scientists also tested for a fewwidely used weed killers and other pes-ticides. Nineteen of the 34 pesticidestested for were detected in the blood orurine of test subjects.

Two specific pesticide-related find-ings are highlighted. First, concentra-tions of chlorpyrifos metabolites arenearly twice as high in children (age 6-

11) as in adults. Most home uses ofchlorpyrifos were recently banned bythe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), but an estimated 10 mil-lion pounds (4.5 million kg) of the pes-ticide continue to be used each year inagricultural production.

The second CDC highlight relatesto the organochlorine pesticide DDT,which was banned in the U.S. in 1972.DDT breakdown products (DDE) werefound in Mexican Americans at levelsmore than three times that of non-Hispanic whites. DDT use for malariacontrol continued in Mexico until itsphaseout in 2000. In addition, DDEwas present in the bodies of youthaged 12-19 born after the U.S. ban,indicating continued exposure fromresidues in the environment.

The second study, Body Burden:The Pollution in People, was led byMount Sinai School of Medicine in NewYork and conducted in collaborationwith Environmental Working Groupand Commonweal. Researchers found167 industrial chemicals, pesticidesand pollutants in the blood and urineof nine adult subjects. Each subjectcarried an average of 91 chemicals.Seventeen of the chemicals found werebreakdown products from organochlo-rine and organophosphate pesticides.Other chemicals found in the two stud-ies include polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), dioxins and furans (industrialby-products) and phthalates (softeningagents widely used in cosmetics, toysand other consumer products).

Individuals vary widely in their sen-sitivity to individual chemicals, and itis difficult to predict the specific healtheffects of long term, low-level expo-sures. The pesticides found in the U.S.population have a wide range of knownhealth effects, including cancer, birthdefects, neurological damage, infertilityand weakened immune systems. Thereare insufficient studies on the possiblehealth effects of exposure to multiplechemicals.

The pesticide body burdens foundin the new studies result from a vari-ety of exposures. Pesticide residues infood are a major source of exposure.Farmworkers and people in communi-ties and schools located near farmswhere pesticides are sprayed mayinhale fumes from the applications orcome in contact with residues of spray

drift that have settled in their yards orhomes. And pesticides used in the homecan be absorbed through skin contact,inhalation or accidental ingestion.

Reducing or eliminating pesticideuse in the home and supporting organ-ic agriculture are two concrete waysconsumers can respond to the bodyburden news.

Sources: (1) CDC's Second NationalReport on Human Exposure toEnvironmental Chemicals: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/(2) BodyBurden: The Pollution in People:http://www.ewg.org

—From Pesticide Action NetworkUpdates February 14, 2003

California Restricts the Herbicide Clopyralid

The California Department ofPesticide Regulation (DPR) has restrict-ed clopyralid distribution to protectcommercial compost from potentialcontamination (see IPMP October2001). DPR will restrict sales of theherbicide clopyralid to lawn and turfprofessionals, instruct those licenseesto assure that green waste stays onsitewhen the herbicide is used, andrequire dealers to provide writtennotice of the restrictions when they sellsome clopyralid products. DPR willimmediately begin drafting regulationsto enforce those restrictions, based onconcern that clopyralid residue ingrass clippings could make composttoxic to non-target vegetation.

—From CA DPR Press Release April2, 2003

National Centers to Study Children’s Health

EPA and the National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences(NIEHS) are calling for applicationsfrom nonprofit institutions to establishup to six research centers on the rela-tionship between children’s health andtheir environmental exposures. Healthimpacts from environmental contami-nants can be particularly detrimentalfor children.

Specific areas identified for researchinclude respiratory diseases, neurode-velopment and neurobehavior, child-hood cancers, birth defects and otherconditions. These research centers willdevelop innovative strategies to meas-

Pesticide Restrictions in Canada


IPM Newsure environmental exposures in chil-dren and will conduct research toreduce hazardous exposures and theiradverse health effects. An importantgoal of this project is to translateresearch findings into input for publicpolicy, community needs and informa-tion for the health care communityand general public. This Request forApplications (RFA) builds upon thework completed by 12 EPA/NIEHSCenters for Children's EnvironmentalHealth and Disease PreventionResearch established in 1998 and2002. The RFA is also a part of EPA'sScience to Achieve Results (STAR) pro-gram. Applications are due by May 16,2003. For more information, see:http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/cur-rent/2003_child_health.html.

—From EPA Press Release

Baits Motel Registered with EPA

The EPA has conditionally approvedthe registration of the Baits Motel, StayAwhile—Rest Forever™. This productcontains the microbial active ingredi-ent Beauveria bassiana. B. bassiana isa fungus that has been studied foryears as a possible active ingredientfor microbial insecticide formulations.The bait station is for use as anindoor, non-food use microbiologicalbait for control of fire ants and cock-roaches. Other microbial baits regis-tered in the past were based on thefungus Metarhizium anisopliae (seeIPMP October 1999).

Citation: Federal Register Volume68, Number 14, Pages 3025-3026[http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/January/Day-22/p970.htm], January 22, 2003.Contact: Shanaz Bacchus,Biopesticides and Pollution PreventionDivision (7511C), (703) 308-8097, [email protected].


Genetically Engineered Corn for Rootworm ControlEPA has approved the use of a new

genetically engineered corn designed tocontrol corn rootworm, Diabrotica spp.,a widespread and destructive insect inthe United States. The new corn pestcontrol, referred to as "MON 863" anddeveloped by Monsanto, produces itsown insecticide within the plantderived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt),a naturally occurring soil bacterium.

The Bt protein, called Cry3Bb1, con-trols corn rootworm, a highly destruc-tive pest responsible for the singlelargest use of conventional insecticidesin the United States (see IPMPAugust/September 2002).

At roughly 80 million (32.4 millionha) planted acres, corn is the largestcrop grown in the United States. Use ofthe new pest-control tool is expected toresult in major reductions in the use ofnumerous conventional insecticides.

In order to reduce the possibility ofcorn rootworm developing resistance toBt, EPA is requiring Monsanto toensure that 20 percent of the plantedacreage of this product be set asidewhere non-Bt corn will be grown toserve as a "refuge." These refuge areaswill support populations of corn root-worm not exposed to the Bt bacterium.The insect populations in the refugeswill help prevent resistance develop-ment when they cross-breed withinsects in the Bt fields. This resistancemanagement strategy was developed asa condition of the registration, and EPAwill require routine monitoring anddocumentation that these measures arefollowed. EPA is also requiringMonsanto to conduct additionalresearch on corn rootworm to ensurethat optimal long-term resistance man-agement practices are maintained.

As with all similar products, EPAhas approved MON 863 for time-limit-ed use which will be subject to reeval-uation in several years. For more infor-mation on EPA's regulation of theseproducts, see: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/


Phaseout of Arsenic-Treated Wood

On March 17, EPA granted the vol-untary cancellation and use termina-tion requests affecting virtually all resi-dential uses of chromated copper arse-nate (CCA) treated wood. Under thisaction, affected CCA products cannotbe used after Dec. 30, 2003 to treatlumber intended for use in most resi-dential settings. This transition affectsvirtually all residential uses of woodtreated with CCA, including play struc-tures, decks, picnic tables, landscapingtimbers, residential fencing, patios andwalkways/boardwalks. Phase-out ofthe residential uses of CCA will reducethe potential exposure risks to arsenic,a known human carcinogen. (seeCommon Sense Pest Control Quarterly

Winter 2002; IPMP October 2001).Consumers may continue to buy and

use the treated CCA wood for as long asit is available. The transition to usingthe new generation treatment productsis well underway. The Agency is defer-ring any action on two uses: wood inpermanent wood foundations and fenceposts for agriculture may continue to betreated with CCA at this time.

More information on CCA treatedwood is available at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/1file.htm


For Control of Headaches and Snakes

EPA has granted a registration tothe U.S. Department of Agriculture'sAnimal and Plant Health InspectionService (APHIS) for the new active ingre-dient acetaminophen, to be used tocontrol the invasive brown tree snake inGuam and the Commonwealth of theNorthern Marianas Islands. The browntree snake, a species that originated inNew Guinea, is a significant and inva-sive exotic pest that was introduced onGuam during World War II, presumablyby military transport. Native wildlife onGuam and the Marianas Islands havebeen under severe predation pressureby this pest for years. If the brown treesnake were to reach Hawaii or enter thecontinental United States, the potentialfor damage by this invasive species ishigh. Since the early 1990s, theDepartment of Defense (DOD) has spentover $1 million yearly to combat thebrown tree snake and prevent its move-ment to other locations. The brown treesnake is also responsible for numerouspower outages in Guam, deaths of pets,and bites (venomous) of humans, espe-cially infants. Research and use of acet-aminophen under quarantine exemp-tions has shown excellent results inreducing brown tree snake populations,with consumption of only one baitedmouse needed to kill a brown treesnake.

Citation: Federal Register, Volume68, Number 48, Pages 11839-11841[http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/March/Day-12/p5913.htm] March 12, 2003.



Conference Notes

By Joel GrossmanThese highlights from the

Entomological Society of America's(ESA) annual meeting Nov. 17-20,2002, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,were selected from among over 1,800presentations. ESA's next annualmeeting is October 26-30, 2003, inCincinnati, Ohio. For more informationcontact program chair Bob Wright(University of Nebraska, South CentralRes. & Ext. Center, P.O. Box 66, ClayCenter, NE 68933; phone 402/762-4439; [email protected]) or the ESA(9301 Annapolis Rd., Lanham, MD20702; 301/ 731-4535;http://www.entsoc.org).

Oriental Fruit MothPheromone

The Oriental fruit moth (OFM),Grapholita molesta, has traditionallybeen a major pest of stone fruit pro-duction, but infestation in apple hasbeen on the increase since 1996.According to Maya Evenden (WestChester Univ., West Chester, PA), thepest status of OFM has increaseddue to the development of resistanceto organophosphate insecticides.

Fortunately, OFM mating disrup-tion pheromones are commerciallyavailable. An "attract and kill"(pheromone + pesticide) strategy alsoholds promise, as it works againstother tortricids such as the codlingmoth, Cydia pomonella, and the lightbrown apple moth, Austrotortrixpostvittana, in New Zealand.

In 2002, Last Call™ attract-and-kill formulations were tested in sevenPennsylvania apple orchards. Trapswere placed in trees 15 m (49 ft)apart and 1.5 m (5 ft) above ground.The number of field trap captures of OFM male moths were significantlyinfluenced by pheromone dose anddate. The presence of 6% permethrininsecticide had no effect on phero-mone attraction, and there was nopheromone-insecticide interaction.

Last Call OFM formulationsshould be competitive with calling

females under field conditions, asformulations containing 0.016 and0.16% OFM pheromone with 6%permethrin were as effective as vir-gin females in attracting males inwind tunnel experiments.

Oriental Fruit MothMating Disruption in

North CarolinaOver the past two years, OFM

mating disruption has been success-fully implemented in North Carolinaapple IPM programs. However, OrkanKovanci (North Carolina State Univ,Gardner Hall, Raleigh, NC) said that“low levels of late season fruit damagehave occurred in some orchards treat-ed in late May with Isomate M100pheromone dispensers due to inade-quate dispenser longevity." IsomateM100 pheromone dispensers appliedin late May emit pheromone onlythrough mid-August, leaving fruitunprotected after mid-September.

Late May application of IsomateM100 dispensers for OFM matingdisruption was compared to: 1) lateMay Isomate M100 plus late August3M sprayable pheromone; 2 ) lateJune Isomate M100; 3) early AprilIsomate Rosso dispensers; 4) anaverage of five organophosphatesprays for season-long OFM control.Orchards were also treated withorganophosphate insecticides in lateJune and early July for apple mag-got, Rhagoletis pomonella. Onewing-style Pherocon™ 1C trap per

acre (2.47/ha) in the upper third ofthe canopy monitored OFM flights.

Overall, Isomate Rosso dis-pensers, and Isomate M100 plus 3Msprayable pheromone at late seasonprovided season-long managementof OFM. As an alternative toIsomate dispensers, 3M sprayablepheromone applied at a rate of 5and 10 g/acre (12.4-24.7g/ha) alsoprovided season-long control.

Pheromones for Multiple Species

Philipp Kirsch (IPM Tech Inc,4134 N. Vancouver Ave, suite 105,Portland, OR) talked about leafrol-lers and pheromones. Multipleleafroller species require separateapplications of pheromones if noone species is predominant.Blending pheromones of oblique-banded leafroller (OBLR), Choristo-neura rosaceana; and pandemisleafroller (PLR), Pandemis pyrusana;suppresses OBLR attraction, soleafroller mating disruption has hadlimited success. Observations of the attraction of the two leafrollerspecies to pheromone sourcesshows a linear response. This linearresponse to pheromones suggeststhat an attracticide tactic might beuseful.

In wind tunnel tests, OBLR andPLR moth response increased withincreasing pheromone concentra-tion. In the field, moth catch washighest at a 16% dispenserpheromone concentration. Addingpermethrin to the pheromone didnot lessen moth attraction. Blendingtwo leafroller pheromones into theattracticide formulation suppressedthe attraction of OBLR but not PLR.According to Kirsch, “these dataindicate a good possibility for devel-oping an effective attracticide for-mulation for the management ofOBLR and PLR in the western U.S.”

Wet springs in Michigan fruitorchards preclude sprayablepheromone formulations. Pheromone

ESA 2002 Annual MeetingHighlights—Part One

Oriental fruit moth, Grapholita molesta

orchard and postharvest. In figs, nofeasible insecticide is available foruse during the growing season, andgrowers are entirely dependentupon postharvest fumigation.

NOW mating disruption is diffi-cult, because Z,Z-(11,13)-hexadeca-dienal, the only identified NOW sexpheromone component, is bothchemically unstable and inferior tovirgin females in attracting males.However, an aerosol formulationholding the pheromone in a solventuntil it is emitted overcomes theseproblems. Timed-release aerosolpheromone emitters are typicallyplaced around the perimeter, ratherthan in a grid arrangement, to savelabor costs. In both almonds andwalnuts, this practice has effectivelyshutdown female-baited flight traps,thus making mating disruption asuccess. In a 40 acre (16 ha) blockof figs, peripherally placed timed-release pheromone emitters alsosuccessfully disrupted NOW mating.

Gypsy Moth MatingDisruption

Gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar,pheromone mating disruption wascarried out with flakes (with andwithout sticker), flake slurry, lure-tape and 3M microcapsules.Portable electroantennogramdevices were used to measure dis-parlure (pheromone) levels in treat-ed plots to correlate pheromone lev-els with air speed, canopy height


Conference Notestiming issues are complicated by thevarying life cycles of obliquebandedleafroller, oriental fruit moth andcodling moth. The combinedOBLR/CM dispenser is considereda standard. Other dispensers com-bine CM and OFM pheromone.Shinetsu's new triple dispenser for-mulation of OBLR, OFM and CMpheromones, which has been testedin 10 acre (4 ha) blocks in threeregions, is an alternative, said PeterMcGhee (Michigan State Univ,Center for Integrated PlantSystems, East Lansing, MI).

The big question with multiplespecies pheromone dispensers iswhen to apply them, as the pestspecies have overlapping genera-tions during a 110 day season.Bloom applications last until lateAugust. Pre-bloom application isbetter for codling moth, but missesthe beginning and ending flights ofthe other species. These kinds ofcomplications make it hard toreduce fruit damage at harvest,particularly when the key pest can-not be determined in advance.

Sprayable pheromone formula-tions for all three species have bothrain-fastness and longevity issues.With high OFM pressure, NuFilm17 spreader-sticker increased effec-tiveness and longevity. Thoughheavy rain washes sprayablepheromones off vegetation, onefarm had success with both highand low dose formulations. Lowrates of sprayable pheromone mustbe applied every 10-14 days, where-as three sprays (i.e. at the begin-ning of each pest generation) aresufficient with high applicationrates. There was virtually no fruitinjury with pheromone treatments,and the pheromone results wereequal to the pesticide block results.

NOW Mating Disruption in California

"The navel orangeworm (NOW),Amyelois transitella, is one of thetwo main insect pests in Californiafigs, and is also a major pest ofalmonds, pistachios and walnuts,"said Charles Burks (USDA-ARS,9611 S. Riverbend Ave, Parlier, CA).In the nut crops NOW is the targetof insecticide treatments both in the

and amount of mating disruption."Compared to the control plot,reduction in trap catch exceeded97.9 in all treated plots," said Kevin Thorpe (USDA-ARS InsectBiocontrol Lab, Bldg 306, BARC-East, Beltsville, MD). "No egg mass-es with more than 5% fertile eggswere found in any of the treatedplots. More than 14% of the eggmasses from the control plot con-tained over 5% fertile eggs. Basedon these results, all treatmentswere highly successful."

Neem Injections Stop Tree Pests

Neem seed and kernel extractswith azadirachtin are highly toxic toat least 13 species of foliage-feedingLepidoptera and sawflies attackingCanadian forest trees, and have theadded benefit of low bird and mam-malian toxicity, said Blair Helson(Canadian Forest Service, GreatLakes Forestry Cent, 1219 QueenSt East, Sault St Marie, ON,Canada). Helson, who started work-ing with neem and forest pests adecade ago, calculated that 200 ml(6.8 oz) of neem extract (3-4%azadirachtin) inside a large treeprovided effective systemic activity.The challenge was quickly gettingcommercially available neem prod-ucts into large forest trees. Thisrequired developing an efficientinjection device.

Over 500 pest management pro-fessionals attended the 4th NationalIPM Symposium, which was heldApril 8-10 in Indianapolis, IN. Theemphasis of the conference was“building alliances for the future ofIPM.” A number of the speakersinvited have been successful withorganizing alliances to promote IPMin schools, urban situations and inagriculture. Special sessions coveredIPM education and outreach, mar-keting, urban IPM, IPM in organicsystems, biological control, biora-tionals, invasive species and othertopics. Part of the program was thepresentation of the National IPMRoadmap. The Road Map includes

the goals of the National IPMProgram, which are to improve theeconomic benefit of IPM, and toreduce human health risks andenvironmental impacts of pests andpest management. Focus areas ofthe National program include IPMimplementation in agriculture, pro-tection of natural resources andrecreational environments throughIPM, and implementation of IPM inurban areas. For information onspecific sessions, includingabstracts, summaries, and presenta-tions, visit cipm.ncsu.edu/sympo-sium. For photos visitwww.ps.uiuc.edu.—Bill Quarles

Fourth National IPM Conference


Conference NotesA simple starting system

involved drilling a hole in a red pinetree, attaching a funnel and intro-ducing Neemix 4.5 to combat pinefalse webworm, Acantholyda ery-throcephala; which is a sawfly.Coverage was consistently better inthe upper crown (97%) than in thelower crown (83%).

A more advanced systemic treeinjection system uses cheap low-tech plastic tubing with a hoseclamp. A spike is hammered intothe tree to make a hole, and a bicy-cle pump pumps neem extractthrough the tubing into the tree.Control of three conifer pests wasgood to excellent with FortuneAza™, Azatin™, Ornazin andNeemix 4.5. But these formulationscould not be completely injectedinto one tree in one day. However,Treazin, a special tree injection for-mulation developed in partnershipwith BioForest Technology, Inc.,could be completely injected into atree most of the time. Using thesystemic tree injection tube, 40-50ml of neem extract was injected intothe tree in under four hours, andwas effective.

In a test injection of small whitepines infested with gypsy moth,Treazin and Ornazin were persist-ent for 98 days. Red oak was theslowest tree to inject, though neemwas still effective. Treazin reducedgypsy moth defoliation by 49%.Most other tree species were rapidlyinjected with neem and protected tosome extent against 10 differenttree pests. Treazin provided 99%(season 1) and 74% (season 2) pro-tection against pine false webworm,Acantholyda erythrocephala;Ornazin provided 100% (season 1)and 86% (season 2) protection.Against pine sawfly on white pine,there was still 60% Treazin activityone year posttreatment. With birchleafminer, Fenusa pusilla, on whitebirch, neem injections reduced thenumber of mines per upper leaffrom 15-16 to about 1.

Cambial Zone InjectionsMark Harrell (Univ of Nebraska,

103 Plant Industry, Lincoln, NE)talked about injections with theWedgel. The Wedgel (wedge + nee-

dle) injector is a handheld heavyduty syringe with a hole on the sideto prevent plugging up with treebark. The device punches a hole1/8 inch (3.2 mm) in diameter and1/4 inch (6.4 mm) deep 1 mm intothe phloem. When dyes are inject-ed, the cambial zone injections arefound to be absorbed into the xylemand carried up into the tree.

Cambial zone injections work bybeing absorbed into the xylem. Theyare effective against defoliating,sucking and stem-boring pests andcause less disruption of internalxylem layers compared to drill-holemethods.

In two trials (June 1998; August1998), imidacloprid (Pointer) wasinjected into white birch (relativelythin bark) to protect against bronzebirch borer, Agrilus anxius. By Sept.1999, injected trees had no birchborer larvae versus 45 per m2 (10.7ft2), in untreated trees. Imidaclopridinjections also significantly reducedsycamore lace bug nymphs,Corythucha ciliata, on sycamore, butinjections are difficult on smallsycamore trees with very thin bark.

Over time (2+ months) red gumlerp psyllid, Glycaspis brimble-combei, control on eucalyptusincreased to 70-80% with imidaclo-prid injections. Both imidaclopridand abamectin injections signifi-cantly reduced elm leaf beetle,Xanthogaleruca luteola, damage toEnglish elm: 1.8 (on a 0-10 scale)after 11 months, versus 4.7 for thecontrol; but by 13 months thetreatment effects were wearing off.

Tree wounding and chemicalinjury are among the objections toinjections, though the newWedgeChek reduces chemical leak-age. Though injections "sometimescause injury, (it's) no more thanother injection methods," said

Harrell, who emphasized takingsteps to minimize tree woundinjuries and stress. "Low placementon the stem and newer formula-tions reduce or minimize the injury,and bark separation is not a prob-lem." When injections are made lowon the tree, trees compartmentalizethe injury, the xylem is okay andcallous tissue seals the wound.Injections do not work as well infall or winter when the bark stiff-ens.

Microinjections in Boston

Feeding by the hemlock woollyadelgid, Adelges tsugae, reducesstem growth and eventually killshemlock stems. In Boston, MA,where there are limits on sprayingand soil injection, the ArborjetVIPER (Volume Injection PressureEnhanced Reservoir) microinjectionsystem was introduced to inject10% imidacloprid into trees, saidJoseph Doccola (Arborjet Inc, 2Draper St, Woburn, MA). The com-pressed air tank is about 1.5 liter(88in3), the same size as a paintball tank. A device on the pest con-trol operator's belt regulates thepressure of injection into the xylemafter a hole is drilled in the tree; asthe piston injects the solution, agauge provides feedback on PSI andamount of material injected.

The adelgid aestivates in sum-mer in the northeastern U.S., soadelgid mortality on 24 infestedBoston trees was assessed in Oct.-Dec. Hemlock is a slow-growingconifer with dense wood, andtranslocation is greatest with activeevapo-transpiration. But hemlockwoolly adelgid likes cool shady lowbranches where evapo-transpirationis less of an issue. Water-basedactive ingredients that get good dis-tribution in the tree minimize phy-totoxicity. Adelgid mortality usingthe VIPER system was as high as80%, said Harrell, and tree vitalityimproved. Reducing adelgid popula-tions to 1 per linear cm (0.4 in) ofstem prevented stem dieback. TheVIPER system works for hardwoodswith good vascular systems, and is

Codling moth, Cydia pomonella


Conference Notesbeing tested on maples by theUSDA.

Baited Trees in British Columbia

One billion dollars a year worth oftimber (8 million hectares (19.8 mil-lion acres) in 2001) is being lost tomountain pine beetle, Dendroctonusponderosae, in British Columbia,Canada. The best remedies are har-vesting infested logs for lumber millsand protecting small plots of treeswith trap logs baited with nonhostbark volatiles and an anti-aggrega-tion pheromone, verbenone. Factorssuch as geographic area and partic-ular pine tree species complicate theuse of trap logs baited with ver-benone, "which works one time butnot the next," said John Borden(Simon Fraser Univ, 8888 UniversityDr, Burnaby, BC, Canada).

Potential answers includeincreasing verbenone concentra-tions and finding nonhost volatilesupplements to use in Phero Techbubble caps. Fifty 40x40 m(131x131ft) plots, some with baitedtrees in the center, were establishedin British Columbia cattle country.Mountain pine beetle numbers onattacked trees did not vary withtreatment. However, fewer treeswere attacked when protected bynonhost volatiles and verbenone.With high verbenone concentrationson trees in the center of plots, thebaited trees were attacked, but notthe surrounding trees. In contrast,expanding bands of attacked treeswere noted around center trees inunbaited plots. Though effective,high doses of verbenone (alone, orpreferably with nonhost volatiles)require costly labor, and thus aremost likely to be useful on highvalue stands of timber.

Pine Beetles in the USAJose Negron (USDA- FS, Rocky

Mtn Res Stn, 240 W. Prospect, FortCollins, CO) reported that treesshowing reduced growth rates haveincreased susceptibility to bark bee-tle attack," said Negron is compilinghistorical data on mountain pinebeetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae, inPinus ponderosa in an effort to

tease out attack factors. The modelindicates that when ponderosa pinebasal area is greater than 17.1m/ha (23.1 ft/acre), the probabilityof infestation by mountain pinebeetle is 0.71. When ponderosapine basal area is equal to or lessthan that, then the probability ofinfestation is 0.21.

"The southern pine beetle,Dendroctonus frontalis, is one of themost destructive pests in the south-eastern pine forest ecosystem," saidD.H. Slone (USDA-FS, SRS, 2500Shreveport Hwy, Pineville, LA). "Itsdestructive behavior is characterizedby periodic outbreaks in localizedinfestations of one to many hectareswhere virtually every loblolly orother susceptible pine tree is massattacked and killed." In summer2002 in Mississippi's HomochittaNational Forest, black canvas wasdraped over pipe and wire frames toform cylindrical traps of varieddiameters placed 20 ft (6 m) high "topresent a strong vertical shape tothe beetles to closely simulate thebolls of pine trees." The center partof the cylinder was wrapped by 2 ft(0.6 m) high black plastic coatedwith Tanglefoot (and permethrin)and baited with frontalin and alpha-pinene.

D. frontalis landed most fre-quently on medium-diameter (12-24inch 0.3-0.6 m) traps, and consid-erably less frequently on smallertraps. Clerid beetles, Thanasimusdubius, were more frequently col-lected on smaller traps. This experi-ment shows that southern pinebeetles simultaneously attack mul-tiple trees during epidemics, andthe attractiveness of a tree is due

Western pine beetle,Dendroctonus brevicomis

April 8-10, 2003. Fourth Natl. IPM Symposium.Indianapolis, IN. Contact: L. Braband, NYSAES,630 W. North St., Geneva, NY 14456; 315/787-2408.

April 16, 2003. Hedgerows with InsectaryPlants. Contact: Yolo County RC District, 221W. Court St., Suite 1, Woodland, CA 95695;530/662-2037, ext 119.

April 25-27, 2003. 21st National PesticideForum. Toxics in the Age of Globalization.University of Texas, Austin. Contact: K. Owens,Beyond Pesticides, 701 E St. SE, Suite 200,Washington, DC 20003; 202/543-5450, Fax202/543-4791.www.beyondpesticides.org/forum

May 10, 2003. Soil Foodweb Talk. CreativeGardens, Coupeville, WA. Contact: 800/325-5706

May 14-17, 2003. Organic Trade AssociationConference. Austin, TX. Contact: Lisa Murray,207/842-5468; [email protected]; www.ota.com

May 27-30, 2003. 5th Conf. on OrganicAgriculture. Havana, Cuba. Contact: V.Rodiguez, email [email protected]

June 3-5, 2003. 6th Fumigants andPheromones Conf. Copenhagen, Denmark.Contact: D. Mueller, [email protected].

June 17-20, 2003. 25th Annual ExhibitEnvironmental Technology. Seoul, Korea.Contact: email, [email protected], website,www.epa.or.kr/

July 8-9, 2003. 5th Agro Conference. Behaviorof Pesticides in Air, Soils and Water. Frankfurt,Germany. Contact: [email protected]

July 26-30, 2003. Soil and Water Society Ann.Conf. Spokane, WA. Contact: www.swcs.org

September 9-12, 2003. 4th European VertebratePest Management Conference. Contact: L.Nieder, Parma, Italy. [email protected]

September 12-17, 2003. 14th Intl. MeetingVirus Diseases of Grapevine. Contact: D.Boscia, Bari, Italy. [email protected]; www.agr.uniba.it

October 17-18, 2003. Xeriscape Conference.Albuquerque, NM. www.xeriscape.com2004

Calendar


Conference Noteslargely to its visual profile. Whetherthe choice of a particular tree diam-eter is genetic or just randomchance cannot be determined.Though larger trees with the mostarea for beetle brood rearing attractthe most beetles, "there are enoughbeetles that are attracted to theopportunity of a smaller, but moreeasily overcome tree, that thesetrees do not escape attack."

D. frontalis "has populationdynamics that are influenced bytree resin defenses," said SharonMartinson (Dartmouth College,Gilman Hall, Hanover, NH). The treedefense system forces the beetles toaggregate to overwhelm the tree.Data is needed from other bark bee-tle species to see if the same ecolog-ical characteristics prevail withthose species.

According to Richard Hofstetter(Dartmouth College, Gilman Hall,Hanover, NH), D. frontalis larvae feedupon mutualistic fungi that aretransported by adult females.Tarsonemus mites have the potentialto disrupt the interactions betweenbark beetles and their mutualisticfungi by transporting and introduc-ing antagonistic fungi, Ophiostomasp., into beetle galleries and sur-rounding phloem. Tarsonemus mitescause no direct harm to adult bee-tles and are dependent upon themfor dispersal between trees. IPM pro-grams might manipulate phoreticmite fecundity and density as a wayto control outbreaks of D. frontalisand other bark beetle species.

Scale Pheromones Attract Lacewings

"Studies on attractions of natu-ral enemies to sex pheromones ofscale insects are rare," said JohnNelson (US Army, CMR 470, Box4832, APO AE 09165, Military), whotested sex pheromones of threescale insects, Matsucoccus sp., foruse in the spruce/fir forests of east-ern Tennessee's Great SmokyMountains National Park. Of partic-ular concern is the balsam woolyadelgid, Adelges piceae, a pestcausing problems as far north aseastern Canada.

The pheromone traps were mosteffective attracting brown lacewings(Hemerobiidae), mostly Hemerobiusstigma. Pheromone dispensersremained active 2-4 weeks in pineforests, depending on ambient con-ditions. The response of nativepredators to these scale phero-mones "may encourage the use ofthese pheromones in biological con-trol programs," said Nelson.

Forestry BeetleAttractants

Aggregation pheromone compo-nents of Northern spruce engraver,Ips perturbatus, identified by gaschromatography include ipsenol,ipsdienol and cis-verbenol. In twofield behavioral assays of these andother semiochemicals, over 59,000I. perturbatus were trapped at onesite in south-central Alaska (KenaiPeninsula ) and nearly 62,000 I.perturbatus were trapped at a sec-ond site in interior Alaska, saidAndrew Graves (Univ. of Minnesota,219 Hodson Hall, St. Paul, MN).The three component blend wasmost attractive.

Combining commercially avail-able verbenone (84% (-)enantiomer)with conophthorin reduced flightresponse of I. perturbatus 27-37x.Conophthorin-baited traps attractedlarge numbers of twig beetles,Pityophthorus nitidulus and P.recens, which have also been col-lected under the bark of Lutzspruce, Picea xlutzii, infested with I.perturbatus. The cylindrical barkbeetle, Lasconotus borealis, alsoresponded to conophthorin.

"Identification of the chemicalconstituents of volatiles emitted byhosts and non-hosts of forest insectpests is essential to understandingthe role that these compounds playin host seeking and selection," saidLinda MacDonald (Canadian ForestServ, Great Lakes Forestry Cent.,1219 Queen St E, Sault St Marie,ON, Canada). "Solid-phase microex-traction (a solventless collectionmethod using reusable polymer-coated fused silica fibers) coupledwith gas chromatography/massspectrometry (GC/MS) is an ideal


Conference Notestechnique for obtaining profiles ofvolatile compounds potentially per-ceived by an insect." Red sprucevolatiles identified by GC/MSincluded over 40 compounds (33%monoterpenes; the rest sesquiter-penes, oxygenated terpenes,aliphatics).

In 2000 and 2001 field trials, a synthetic "Spruce Blend" lure created using the monoterpene components of red spruce corticaltissue "was significantly attractive"to brown spruce longhorned beetle(BSLB), Tetropium fuscum, whichbecame established in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1999. "The additionof an ethanol lure significantlyincreased attraction of the blend,"said MacDonald. In general, thesesquiterpene portion of Norwayspruce profiles is more complexthan red spruce. Norway spruce, a preferred BSLB host in Europe,has a volatile blend that is 59%sesquiterpenes (vs 6% in red spruce)and 7% alpha-pinene (vs 32% in redspruce) in Ontario, Canada.However, in New Brunswick, bothred and Norway spruce volatiles are 35% sesquiterpenes.

According to William Shepherd(Louisiana State Univ, Life Sci Bldg,Baton Rogue, LA), "Ips engraverbeetles are second only to thesouthern pine beetle, D. frontalis, in their destructive impact onpines" in the southeastern U.S.Hister beetles (Histeridae) make up a significant portion (6%) of thediverse Ips natural enemy complex.These small predaceous beetlesoften are found in ephemeral habi-tats, such as dung, carrion andunder the bark of dead trees. Larvaland adult hister beetles both feedon early pine bark beetle life stages,thus likely having a large impact onbark beetle populations.

Though some histerids are visu-ally attracted to Ips-infested pinelogs, Y-tube olfactometer assaysindicate that some hister beetles,such as Cylistus parallelus andPlegaderus transversus, are attract-ed to Ips pheromones.

Poplar Mating DisruptionThe brightly-colored, diurnal

western poplar clearwing moth

(WPCWM), Paranthrene robiniae,has heartwood-burrowing larvaeand flies all season long. There are3-4 flight peaks in southeasternWashington and northeasternOregon poplar tree farms. Potlachsprays its 6,475 ha (16,000 acres)of poplars near Boardman, OR, 14times a year to protect the trunksfrom being weakened and rendereduseless for saw timber. BoiseCascade sprays its acreage only fivetimes per season, as trunk damageis of less concern when trees arebeing pulped. "After every sprayWPCWM counts drop for one week,"said Neal Kittelson (WashingtonState Univ, 166 FSHN, Pullman,WA), who reviewed trap counts forboth companies.

Kittelson said that a trap densityof 1 per 200 acres or about 1/81 haled to capture of 107,776 malemoths during the 2002 season. Theconventional insecticides Lorsbanand endosulfan were not effective in2002, so a sex pheromone strategyis planned against this moth in2003. In a preliminary experiment,bucket traps on poles or in trees at2-6 m (6.6-19.7 ft) in height moni-tored moth flight.

The sex pheromone used was a4:1 ratio of (Z,E)-3,13-octadeca-dienol and (Z,Z)-3,13-octadeca-dienol. Male moths can move 2.82km (1.8 mi) away from host plantsto locate the pheromone source.Bucket traps baited with 10 mg ofpheromone (10x) were shut-downby stapling one septum loaded with1 mg of pheromone on every 10trees. This fact suggests that releas-es of 50 mg of pheromone per acrethroughout the season-long flightshould control this pest. Kittlesonwill use membrane-release systemsin one-year old trees, followed by apuffer-release system in trees lessthan 10 m (32 ft) in height, andfinally a flowable formulation intrees between 10 and 30 m (32 &98 ft) tall.

INSECT MANAGEMENT THE

“INTEGRATED” WAY

• Trapping systems for Codling Moth,Leafrollers and more.

• Sticky Card Traps and Rolls.

• CM SuperLure for monitoring Codling Moth mating disruption

R

PESTMANAGEMENT

WE GET THE

BUGS OUT!

PLASTICDELTA TRAP

WING TRAP 11

native plants and integrated roadside vegetation … plants and integrated roadside vegetation...

Documents