Dr. Roger Baldwin, Cooperative Extension Specialist in Human-Wildlife Conflict Resolution in the Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology at UC Davis, discussed the management of voles, rats, and mice in agricultural fields with a particular emphasis on an IPM approach. He covered a variety of management tools including biocontrol, habitat modification, trapping, rodenticides, and fumigants. The webinar was recorded on October 26, 2022 and targeted to growers and pest management professionals. For Master Gardeners and others serving home environments, please note that management methods, especially any pesticides mentioned, are not to be used without a clear understanding of their legal use. Continuing Education credits are not available for recorded webinars. Closed captions are being reviewed for accuracy and will be corrected as necessary. Speaker: Dr. Roger Baldwin, University of California Cooperative Extension Specialist, UC Davis.
Hear Him speak Here
Watch other recorded webinars https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Visit https://ucanr.edu/sites/ucexpertstalk/ for information about webinars. Visit http://ipm.ucanr.edu/training/ for information about UC IPM online courses.
Image: Vole damage to tree trunk
/span>
Posted on
Friday, December 2, 2022 at
7:27 AM
Focus Area Tags: Agriculture
April 20 (9 - 11 AM)
Seminar/Webinar Topic
Vertebrate Pests
CE Units Available
Speaker & Topic:
Rebecca Barboza, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Speaking on Mounain Lion ecology, general facts, status in California, CDFW policies, and conflict prevention.
Jim Hartman, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer, Integrated Pest Management Division, Los Angles County Agricultural Comissioner/Weights and Measures. Speaking about IPM techniques to prevent and manage damage from pocket gophers & ground squirrels to include the use exclusion, habitat modification, trapping and rodenticide.
Click Here for the April Webinar Registeration
/h2>
ground squirrel hole
Posted on
Friday, April 15, 2022 at
6:44 AM
Focus Area Tags: Agriculture
View as a webpage
|
ARS News Service
|
A New Technology for Environmentally Safe Pest Control Discovered Inside Insect Cells
For media inquiries contact: Janice López-Muñoz, (301) 793-7007
August 27, 2021
If you feel you are in a continuous search to have a fire ant free home lawn, you are not alone. These invasive and common insect pests are difficult to control and come back as uninvited guests over and over.
The good news is that USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists, recently discovered a new technology that is safer than pesticides to control fire ants and keep them away. The technology, known as "receptor interference" (RECEPTOR-i), disrupts the vital processes (e.g. feeding, digestion, and development) needed for fire ants to survive, resulting in a natural biological control strategy.
"The concept and procedure for RECEPTOR-i has been developed over years," said Man-Yeon Choi, Research Entomologist at the ARS Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory in Corvallis, OR. "Now it is a proven technology that will serve as a model for other pest management strategies such as for spotted wing drosophila, thrips and pest slugs."
The research published by Biomolecules, establishes how RECEPTOR-i technology uses the fire ants own cell components to target and screen for the small proteins needed to disrupt the insect's vital processes resulting in negative effects on their survival. Using the insects own cells is key to the success of RECEPTOR-i, since those small proteins can be obtained within 2-3 weeks versus other pest control strategy approaches that take longer and are more expensive.
"The RECEPTOR-i active ingredients are biodegradable, having no environmental impact and since it is species specific, it is not expected to affect other insects," said Robert Vander Meer, Research Leader at the ARS Imported Fire Ant and Household Insects Research Laboratory in Gainesville, FL. "This technology is broadly applicable to animal pests and the speed of discovery makes it ideal for developing a rapid control response to new invasive insects."
The use of this natural pest control technology will depend on the target insect. In the case of fire ants, it will be put together in a sucrose solution and presented for feeding in a bait station. For other pest insects the application of this technology will depend on the target insect's feeding type, e.g., chewing, caterpillars, piercing or sucking, mosquitoes and crop pest insects.
Fire ant control costs American households billions of dollars every year, hence developing effective and safer pest control strategies will be a great benefit to families and other economic sectors affected by fire ants. More research will take place for field experiments that will provide the data needed to stimulate commercial interest and get this technology to homeowners and others needing fire ant control.
The Agricultural Research Service is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific in-house research agency. Daily, ARS focuses on solutions to agricultural problems affecting America. Each dollar invested in agricultural research results in $17 of economic impact.
|
|
|
/table>/table>/h2>/h2>
ACP mounted
Posted on
Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at
8:31 AM
Focus Area Tags: Agriculture
California has abundant wildlands — forests, rangeland, open areas, wildlife refuges and national, state, and local parks — that need protection from invasive plants. Invasive plants affect all Californians by increasing wildfire potential; reducing water resources; accelerating erosion and flooding; threatening wildlife; degrading range, crop and timberland; and diminishing outdoor recreation opportunities. According to the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), more than 200 identified plant species harm California's wildlands.
Cal-IPC and the University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program (UC IPM), with funding from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Alliance Grants Program, developed two resources that provide land managers access to the latest information on non-herbicide practices for managing weeds in wildlands. Best Management Practices for Non-Chemical Weed Control is a free downloadable manual. The same information has been incorporated into an interactive online tool called WeedCUT (Weed Control User Tool: weedcut.ipm.ucanr.edu).
"We anticipate WeedCUT will increase the use of more mechanical, physical, or biological practices, and potentially result in the reduction of herbicides used to manage wildland invasive weeds," said area IPM advisor emeritus Cheryl Wilen. "Best Management Practices for Non-Chemical Weed Control and WeedCUT were developed so land managers can become more knowledgeable and skilled in the use of non-herbicide methods as part of an IPM program.”
Knapweed control with a brush cutter. (Photo: Dawn Cunningham)
Best Management Practices for Non-Chemical Weed Control provides comprehensive descriptions of 21 commonly used non-herbicide weed control techniques and biological control agents for 18 invasive plants. Each chapter is the synthesis of research and on-the-ground knowledge from practitioners about non-herbicide methods. The chapters describe how a technique is best applied, the types of invasive plants and environmental conditions where it is most effective, and what its shortfalls might be. Environmental, cultural, and human safety risks are highlighted to help support the safe and effective use of these methods.
WeedCUT is the online version and can be used to learn about the different non-herbicide management methods, including the section on biological control. To filter through the database and learn which management practice to consider for a particular site and invasive plant type, a simple interface allows users to pick characteristics that describe their site and invasive plant problem. The tool then filters through the database to display the practices ranked by efficacy (excellent, good, fair, poor or ineffective). As in the manual, use of the technique and potential hazards are covered.
Best Management Practices for Non-Chemical Weed Control and WeedCUT are designed to be the go-to resources for practitioners that complement their conventional weed management work with non-herbicide techniques or are restricted in their use of herbicides. Both resources will help practitioners manage weeds more effectively.
Person releasing weevils for the biological control of Dalmatian toadflax. (Photo: Lincoln Smith USDA-ARS)
“Many experts in the field have contributed to create the manual and WeedCUT. It has been exciting to see these techniques described and reviewed so carefully. We're looking forward to seeing land managers, as well as all folks fighting weeds, incorporating the information from the manual and WeedCUT into their work,” said Jutta Burger, science program director and project lead with Cal-IPC.
While the manual and tool focus on non-herbicide methods, the hope is future funding can be found to continue the work and integrate herbicide options online.
"Land managers typically use both herbicide and non-herbicide methods, alone and in combination, to manage invasive plants in wildlands," said UC Cooperative Extension advisor and UC IPM-affiliated advisor Tom Getts. "A tool that combined both herbicide and non-herbicide methods would guide land managers to determine the most effective overall management program for their particular site."
Yellow starthistle is an invasive rangeland weed. (Photo: J. M. DiTomaso)
horseweed mature
Posted on
Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at
8:12 AM
- Author:
Tunyalee A. Martin, Jutta Burger, Cheryl A. Wilen, Thomas Getts
Focus Area Tags: Agriculture
Article also published in California Weed Science Society Journal (March 2021 issue)
-Brad
Glyphosate is one of the most commonly used herbicides in orchard crops in California both in terms of treated acres and amount of active ingredient applied. Weed managers are generally familiar with the attributes of glyphosate as a postemergence herbicide. Duke and Powles (2008) published an article in Pest Management Science entitled “Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century-herbicide”. Suffice to say, it's a pretty useful herbicide, if that's your thing. It has also been the subject of several controversies in the past couple of decades.
One of those controversies was a source of frequent extension questions from California farmers and Pest Control Advisors about 10 years ago. In the late 2000's there were several researcher articles from work done in glyphosate-tolerant soybeans that suggested there might be some nontarget impacts of glyphosate on crop nutrient status, plant disease interaction, and microbial community effects. In California tree crops concern generally focused around whether glyphosate in the soil could chelate micronutrients and lead to nutrient deficiencies and/or if repeated use could cause enough glyphosate to accumulate in soil and have direct impacts on the trees.
In a 2012 review article on the impacts of glyphosate in the soil environment, Duke et al. suggested that “significant effects of glyphosate on soil mineral content is unlikely” and there is no clear negative trend in orchard productivity data in California even after decades of glyphosate use. However, because this was a concern for the California orchard crop industries, we conducted a long-term research project from 2013 to 2020 to help address the issue in representative orchard crops.
If you're REALLY interested, the full report was published in summer 2020 as an open-access article in the journal Weed Technology which can be accessed HERE.
If you're only a LITTLE interested, here is the essence of the project conduct at the UC Davis Plant Sciences Field Facility in Davis, CA:
- Crops (three crops were considered separate experiments):
- Almond (Nonpareil on Lovell)
- Prune (Improved French on Lovell)
- Cherry (Coral on Emla-Colt)
- Planting site:
- At planting, all tree sites were excavated with a 36-inch diameter augur to a 2-ft depth
- Half were refilled with the native silty clay loam soil
- Half were refilled with Delhi sandy loam
- Glyphosate treatments:
- From 2014 to 2019, treatments were applied 3 times per season (~between Apr-Nov)
- Rates were 0, 1, 2, or 4 lb ae/A equivalents (Roundup PowerMAX plus ammonium sulfate). Applied to an area of about 6x6 ft around each tree
- In 2014, trunks were protected with cartons, but no trunk protection in 2015-19
- Drench
- In the first two years of treatment (2014 and 2015) there was a split-plot factor in which half of the trees had a small berm built up around the base of the tree and were “drenched” with water to simulate a 1-inch irrigation immediately after each application (intended to increase leaching into the relatively small tree root zone and crown area).
- Evaluations
- In the first year of treatment (2014) leaf samples were collected 14 days after each glyphosate application and assayed for shikimate accumulation (which would indicate direct herbicidal effects of glyphosate).
- In the first two years of treatment, relative chlorophyll content was measured in leaves from each tree 30 days after each glyphosate application (which could indicate either direct glyphosate effects or indirect effects of micronutrient limitations).
- Trunk diameter measurements were made before the first application in 2014 and during the winter after each subsequent season to evaluate relative tree growth.
- After the 6th year of treatment, leaf samples were collected in the fall from each tree but combined over soil type and drench subplots. The nutrient status of these leaf samples was determined by the UC Davis Analytical Lab using appropriate techniques.
- So, to recap, the worst case scenario had:
- Very coarse soil in the planting site of bare root almond, cherry, and prune nursery trees.
- In the first two years, some plots had a simulated acre-inch of irrigation immediately following each glyphosate application.
- The highest rate treatment of 4 lb ae/A glyphosate applied 18 times over a six year period. That's 114 fl oz/A of Roundup PowerMAX at each application. Over the course of the experiment that's 72 lb ae/A glyphosate or 16 gallons of Roundup PowerMAX. It's a lot!
- Results:
- Shikimate levels were similar among treated and non-treated trees with no clear dose-response or soil-related parameters. This suggests little or no direct effect of glyphosate on these tree crops via root uptake even at fairly extreme rates over multiple years.
- Chlorophyll content mostly indicated no differences among treatments. Where there were statistically significant main effects or interactions, there was no consistent pattern with regard to glyphosate rate, coarse soils, and post-treatment drench, which suggests they may be due to random variation or experimental artifacts.
- Leaf nutrient analysis after 6 years of treatment did not provide evidence of negative impacts on crop nutrient status.
- Trunk diameter increase over six growing seasons was not negatively impacted by glyphosate treatments (Figure).
- Observationally, over the six year period, there was no evidence of treatment-related trunk cankers, trunk or limb malformations or unusual die-back.
Scientists will always remind you that you “can't prove a negative”, and that remains true. However, we think these data suggest that it is probably not easy or common for almond, cherry, or prunes to be negatively impacted by glyphosate residues in the soil either due to direct herbicide effects or to micronutrient deficiencies.
Acknowledgments:
This work was initially supported by the Almond Board of California, the California Dried Plum Board and with nursery stock provided by Sierra Gold Nurseries. Over time, the experiments were maintained with general program support from the crop protection industry, orchard commodity groups, and agricultural input suppliers. We gratefully thank our colleagues who contributed to this long-term project along the way.
References:
Duke SO, Powles SB (2008) Mini-review. Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci 64:319–325
Duke SO, Lydon J, Koskinen WC, Moorman TB, Chaney RL, Hammerschmidt R (2012) Glyphosate effects on plant mineral nutrition, crop rhizosphere microbiota, and plant disease in glyphosate-resistant crops. J Agric Food Chem 60:10375–10397
Osipitan OA, Yildiz-Kutman B, Watkins S, Brown PH, Hanson BD (2020). Impacts of repeated glyphosate use on growth of orchard crops. Weed Technol. doi: 10.1017/wet.2020.85 (available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/weed-technology/article/impacts-of-repeated-glyphosate-use-on-growth-of-orchard-crops/26697F334626A587765C75C2B0F76A3D)
This blog originally appeard in the UC Weed Science Blog
https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=46316
weeds bordering avocado orchard
Posted on
Friday, April 30, 2021 at
7:45 AM
- Author:
Brad Hanson and O. Adewale Osipitan
Focus Area Tags: Agriculture