Randall P Cass, E. Hodgson, M. O'Neal, A. Toth, A. Dolezal
The north central state of Iowa is heavily dominated by agriculture, with limited nesting and foraging habitat for wild and managed pollinators. This region has been identified as critical for pollinator conservation for bees and non-bee species (e.g., monarch butterfly [Danaus plexippus]). Pollinator sustainability (i.e., wild bee conservation and sustainable beekeeping) relies upon management decisions by beekeepers, farmers, and landowners, but it is unclear if these stakeholders are aware of and use best practices. We present results of surveys administered to Iowan beekeepers, farmers, and landowners after extension programming on best management practices for sustaining honey bees (Apis mellifera) and other pollinators. Results show beekeepers, farmers, and landowners believe implementing pollinator-friendly practices is important. However, knowledge of tools to implement these practices, such as registering apiaries to avoid pesticide drift or cost-share programs for establishing habitat on their land, was very low. These results suggest opportunities exist for connecting beekeepers seeking higher quality apiaries with landowners that have established habitat with added floral resources. Further, we reviewed practices that reconstruct tallgrass prairie with support of federal cost-share funds, specifically CP42 and CP43 of the USDA’s conservation reserve program. Overall, we document strong support and enthusiasm for pollinator-friendly practices in Iowa but note gaps in knowledge of practices that are most effective and what tools are available to implement them. These results suggest a way for pollinator extension programs to address these knowledge gaps in a receptive group of beekeepers, farmers, and landowners.
{"title":"Attitudes About Honey Bees and Pollinator-Friendly Practices: A Survey of Iowan Beekeepers, Farmers, and Landowners","authors":"Randall P Cass, E. Hodgson, M. O'Neal, A. Toth, A. Dolezal","doi":"10.1093/jipm/pmac027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmac027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The north central state of Iowa is heavily dominated by agriculture, with limited nesting and foraging habitat for wild and managed pollinators. This region has been identified as critical for pollinator conservation for bees and non-bee species (e.g., monarch butterfly [Danaus plexippus]). Pollinator sustainability (i.e., wild bee conservation and sustainable beekeeping) relies upon management decisions by beekeepers, farmers, and landowners, but it is unclear if these stakeholders are aware of and use best practices. We present results of surveys administered to Iowan beekeepers, farmers, and landowners after extension programming on best management practices for sustaining honey bees (Apis mellifera) and other pollinators. Results show beekeepers, farmers, and landowners believe implementing pollinator-friendly practices is important. However, knowledge of tools to implement these practices, such as registering apiaries to avoid pesticide drift or cost-share programs for establishing habitat on their land, was very low. These results suggest opportunities exist for connecting beekeepers seeking higher quality apiaries with landowners that have established habitat with added floral resources. Further, we reviewed practices that reconstruct tallgrass prairie with support of federal cost-share funds, specifically CP42 and CP43 of the USDA’s conservation reserve program. Overall, we document strong support and enthusiasm for pollinator-friendly practices in Iowa but note gaps in knowledge of practices that are most effective and what tools are available to implement them. These results suggest a way for pollinator extension programs to address these knowledge gaps in a receptive group of beekeepers, farmers, and landowners.","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48111347","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jipm/pmac008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmac008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61062570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jipm/pmac012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmac012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61062659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jipm/pmac014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmac014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61062685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. Klepzig, Jessica A. Hartshorn, Alexandra Tsalickis, Thomas N. Sheehan
Eye gnats (mainly Liohippelates pusio and Liohippelates collusor) are pest species that have been the subject of considerable research and extension activity in the United States since the 1930s. They cause considerable discomfort and stress—and may transmit pathogens—to humans and animals. We reviewed the abundant literature on biological, ecological, and management aspects of Liohippelates eye gnats. Eye gnat biology and life cycles have been well studied in agricultural systems. However, their ecology, roles in trophic cascades, and functions in natural ecosystems, particularly forests, are not well documented. Additionally, there remain opportunities to improve traps, repellents, deterrents, and controls for eye gnats. The substantial and substantive early work on these insects provides a strong foundation for future investigations and extension.
{"title":"Eye Gnat (Liohippelates, Diptera: Chloropidae) Biology, Ecology, and Management: Past, Present, and future","authors":"K. Klepzig, Jessica A. Hartshorn, Alexandra Tsalickis, Thomas N. Sheehan","doi":"10.1093/jipm/pmac015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmac015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Eye gnats (mainly Liohippelates pusio and Liohippelates collusor) are pest species that have been the subject of considerable research and extension activity in the United States since the 1930s. They cause considerable discomfort and stress—and may transmit pathogens—to humans and animals. We reviewed the abundant literature on biological, ecological, and management aspects of Liohippelates eye gnats. Eye gnat biology and life cycles have been well studied in agricultural systems. However, their ecology, roles in trophic cascades, and functions in natural ecosystems, particularly forests, are not well documented. Additionally, there remain opportunities to improve traps, repellents, deterrents, and controls for eye gnats. The substantial and substantive early work on these insects provides a strong foundation for future investigations and extension.","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42021965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jipm/pmac006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmac006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61062482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jipm/pmac013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmac013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61062678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"OUP accepted manuscript","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jipm/pmac010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmac010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61063077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hannah J. Penn, J. Penn, Michael Cunningham-Minnick, Wuyang Hu
Beneficial insect conservation in agriculture is often studied in the context of integrated pest management (IPM). For instance, vegetative field edges provide habitat and changing the timing of insecticidal sprays decreases risk for pollinators and natural enemies of insect pests. However, the attitudes and confidence of U.S. growers towards IPM implementation in traditional row crops remain understudied. We developed an online survey using a convenience sample and surveyed Kentucky soybean growers to understand their current pest and general management practices, beliefs about sources of insect pests/weeds, and attitudes towards pollinators. We also asked about their willingness to implement two management tactics—maintaining tree-lined field edges and changing the timing of their combination insecticide/fungicide sprays to avoid flowering. Our data indicate that many Kentucky soybean growers already use crop rotation, no-till soil management, and limit insecticide application based on high pest abundance. When asked about their management of field edges, the most common responses included removal of trees/shrubs, mowing, or herbicide application. Growers also believed that nationally, farmers can influence pollinator populations and that a portion of the soybean yield is due to pollinator activity within crop fields. However, they were less willing to maintain tree lines as a habitat for natural enemies and pollinators out of concern for the increased spread of weeds and insect pests. Given these findings, we need to evaluate the perceived and actual trade-offs of weed and insect pest management in future on-farm conservation efforts for beneficial insects such as pollinators using integrated pest and pollinator management.
{"title":"Kentucky Soybean Farmers’ Supportiveness of Two Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management Tactics","authors":"Hannah J. Penn, J. Penn, Michael Cunningham-Minnick, Wuyang Hu","doi":"10.1093/JIPM/PMAB005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPM/PMAB005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Beneficial insect conservation in agriculture is often studied in the context of integrated pest management (IPM). For instance, vegetative field edges provide habitat and changing the timing of insecticidal sprays decreases risk for pollinators and natural enemies of insect pests. However, the attitudes and confidence of U.S. growers towards IPM implementation in traditional row crops remain understudied. We developed an online survey using a convenience sample and surveyed Kentucky soybean growers to understand their current pest and general management practices, beliefs about sources of insect pests/weeds, and attitudes towards pollinators. We also asked about their willingness to implement two management tactics—maintaining tree-lined field edges and changing the timing of their combination insecticide/fungicide sprays to avoid flowering. Our data indicate that many Kentucky soybean growers already use crop rotation, no-till soil management, and limit insecticide application based on high pest abundance. When asked about their management of field edges, the most common responses included removal of trees/shrubs, mowing, or herbicide application. Growers also believed that nationally, farmers can influence pollinator populations and that a portion of the soybean yield is due to pollinator activity within crop fields. However, they were less willing to maintain tree lines as a habitat for natural enemies and pollinators out of concern for the increased spread of weeds and insect pests. Given these findings, we need to evaluate the perceived and actual trade-offs of weed and insect pest management in future on-farm conservation efforts for beneficial insects such as pollinators using integrated pest and pollinator management.","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/JIPM/PMAB005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47689547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Erfan K Vafaie, H. B. Pemberton, M. Gu, D. Kerns, M. Eubanks, K. Heinz
In this case study, we investigate the efficacy and economics of using two natural enemies in an integrated pest management (IPM) program to manage sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), in commercial poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. ex Klotzsch) production. Two similar greenhouses at each of three different grower locations were designated as either the IPM or the conventional insecticide greenhouses in southeastern United States. In the IPM greenhouses, we released Eretmocerus eremicus (Rose & Zolnerowich) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) weekly and Amblyseius swirskii (Athias-Henriot) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) every 4 wk, and selective insecticides were used to treat high whitefly densities as needed. In the conventional greenhouses, growers were autonomous in their insecticide application decisions. All whitefly stages were counted weekly on a maximum of 20 leaves per 50 randomly sampled poinsettias and 50 flagged (i.e., revisited) poinsettias in every greenhouse. Whitefly densities were consistently similar or higher in the IPM greenhouses compared to their conventionally managed counterparts for the duration of the trial. The cost of inputs and labor for whitefly management in the IPM greenhouses was between 0.57- and 3.0-fold the cost of conventional management. Our study supports that releasing E. eremicus and A. swirskii can reduce insecticide applications by 25–78% and may be considered a feasible strategy to manage B. tabaci in commercial poinsettia production in place of conventional insecticidal control in southeastern United States.
{"title":"Using Multiple Natural Enemies to Manage Sweetpotato Whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Commercial Poinsettia (Malpighiales: Euphorbiaceae) Production","authors":"Erfan K Vafaie, H. B. Pemberton, M. Gu, D. Kerns, M. Eubanks, K. Heinz","doi":"10.1093/JIPM/PMAB010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPM/PMAB010","url":null,"abstract":"In this case study, we investigate the efficacy and economics of using two natural enemies in an integrated pest management (IPM) program to manage sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), in commercial poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. ex Klotzsch) production. Two similar greenhouses at each of three different grower locations were designated as either the IPM or the conventional insecticide greenhouses in southeastern United States. In the IPM greenhouses, we released Eretmocerus eremicus (Rose & Zolnerowich) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) weekly and Amblyseius swirskii (Athias-Henriot) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) every 4 wk, and selective insecticides were used to treat high whitefly densities as needed. In the conventional greenhouses, growers were autonomous in their insecticide application decisions. All whitefly stages were counted weekly on a maximum of 20 leaves per 50 randomly sampled poinsettias and 50 flagged (i.e., revisited) poinsettias in every greenhouse. Whitefly densities were consistently similar or higher in the IPM greenhouses compared to their conventionally managed counterparts for the duration of the trial. The cost of inputs and labor for whitefly management in the IPM greenhouses was between 0.57- and 3.0-fold the cost of conventional management. Our study supports that releasing E. eremicus and A. swirskii can reduce insecticide applications by 25–78% and may be considered a feasible strategy to manage B. tabaci in commercial poinsettia production in place of conventional insecticidal control in southeastern United States.","PeriodicalId":16119,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Pest Management","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/JIPM/PMAB010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61061177","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：