New York State IPM Program

January 10, 2019
by Debra E. Marvin
Comments Off on Viticulture Innovator of Suffolk County Earns Excellence in IPM Award

Viticulture Innovator of Suffolk County Earns Excellence in IPM Award

Today we share a press release from Mariah Mottley Plumlee <mmp35@cornell.edu>

GENEVA NY, January 10, 2019: Alice Wise, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County Viticulture and Research specialist, received an Excellence in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Award from the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program (NYSIPM). The program develops sustainable ways to manage pests and helps people to use methods that minimize environmental, health and economic risks. The award honors individuals who encourage the adoption of IPM on their farms, businesses, schools, and communities, and who develop new tools and tactics for sharing these practices.

Alice cutting the last cluster (2015).

Wise received her award on January10 at the Long Island Agriculture Forum.

After a tenure of more than 25 years, Wise’s contribution to the wine and grape industry of Long Island is substantial and varied. The main focus of her IPM work has been to provide growers with information and best practices to reduce and optimize the use of pesticides. Wise has conducted research on under-trellis weed management, focusing on cover crop care, all with the eye toward decreasing the need for chemical use. She has promoted the deployment of netting to protect the grapes from migrating flocks of birds, and studied the effectiveness of leaf-pulling as a way to prevent cluster rots. She has also monitored the emergence and development of grapevine viruses.

Wise manages a 2.5 acre research vineyard, where she conducts variety trials in pursuit of desirable traits like disease resistance. She shares her evaluation of vine performance and fruit quality with wine growers, and contributes to multi-year studies on the topic. Her work has allowed growers to reduce their applications of pesticide while still producing high quality grapes for use in their winemaking.

Wise also conducts research in commercial vineyards on the role of mealybugs and fruit scale in the distribution of the leafroll virus—a virus potentially devastating to the wine industry. Wise has provided vintners with tools to identify and limit the in-vineyard movement of this worrisome disease. Through a project funded by NY Farm Viability Institute, Wise scouts vineyards every other week for hot spots and provides growers with row-by-row information on the unwanted pests, allowing them to target their pesticide applications more specifically.

Richard Olsen, Bedell Cellars, in Cutchogue New York, shared that “Alice is a committed and passionate researcher who has spent her career looking at ways to reduce our chemical inputs. Our industry on Long Island would not be as successful today if not for her dedicated work.”

Alice Wise with long time friends, Wayne Wilcox, emeritus grape pathologist, and Rick Dunst of Double A Vineyards.

Wise helped to develop guidelines and regulations for Long Island Sustainable Winegrowing (LISW), the only third-party certified program for vineyards on the East Coast. LISW focuses on the use of safe low-impact pest management while guaranteeing that pesticides that can leach into the groundwater are never used. This is critical in Suffolk County, where everyone’s drinking water comes from a sole source aquifer. Wise has used her email listserv to continuously educate and update grape growers on disease pressure, occurrence, insect control problems, and recommendations.

“It is hard to overestimate Alice’s impact on the development of sustainable viticulture on Long Island and the Eastern United States… Her regular advice, both public and private, has helped each of us to make the most conservative and appropriate use of all plant protection materials,” said Laurence Perrine, CEO, Long Island Sustainable Winegrowing.

Learn more about Integrated Pest Management at nysipm.cornell.edu.

 

 

December 26, 2018
by Joellen Lampman
Comments Off on 2018’s Best of NYS IPM

2018’s Best of NYS IPM

“None of us is as smart as all of us.” –Ken Blanchard

2018 has been quite the year and we have been busy blogging, tweeting, videoing, and Facebooking about it. Here’s a recap of some of our more popular 2018 offerings:

ThinkIPM – our catchall blog and a great way to keep a pulse on what’s happening in New York State IPM.

Our most popular blog post was actually a guest blog by Paul Hetzler, CCE St. Lawrence County, Move Over, Medusa: Pretty? Poisonous! in the Caterpillar Clan. We’re big fans of his writing and this post on a venomous caterpillar caught a lot of your attention as well. (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

 

Are you safe now?

Ticks in February?

Ticks in the cold was also a popular topic. And relevant to now! Check out these two blog posts, Ticks don’t care what month it is and Ticks and the freezing weather. Hopefully they both convince you to keep up your daily tick checks.

While visiting our blog, you have also been checking out older posts. Our second most popular post viewed in 2018 was a 2014 post, Identifying Your Pest – with Poop?. There are a lot of budding scatologists out there.

Other IPM Blogs – Besides ThinkIPM, we have more dedicated blogs, and you don’t need to be a specialist to subscribe to them. Here are some of the more popular posts:

The Spotted Wing Drosophila blog has an obvious focus, but the post Spotted lanternfly found in two counties in NY captured the most views.

 

Biocontrol Bytes was begun at the end of 2018 and many of you have been enjoying the updates on the Creating habitat for beneficial insects project.

 

We saw a number of news reports about bed bugs in schools, so we wrote Bed bugs in schools aren’t going away in The ABCs of School and Childcare Pest Management blog. And you read it. We just wish the news reporters and commenters did too.

 

The 2017 NEWA Survey: IPM impact includes such gems as “93% agreed or strongly agreed that NEWA pest forecast information enhances IPM decision-making for their crops”.

 

Gypsy moths on Christmas trees? Check out the Tree Integrated Pest Management blog and see how it’s now a thing in the Gypsy Moth Caterpillars -Scout for them now post.

 

Facebook

When it comes to Facebook, video rules. Our most popular Facebook post was our claymation video, Life Cycle of the Blacklegged Tick (and Lyme Disease Prevention!). And, by the way, this claymation was part of a large Don’t Get Ticked NY campaign launched in 2018!

Our new Spotted Lanternfly video, Have YOU Spotted Lanternfly Egg Masses was just posted, but it has already reached the number two spot. This invasive insect is getting a lot of attention and we need your help to keep track of it in New York.

 

Twitter

We’re not surprised that our most popular Tweet of 2018 was about spotted lanternfly. Follow us on Twitter to keep up with the latest information.

 

 

 

Annual Report

This might be cheating, because it was just released and we have no data to show its popularity, but our 2017-2018 annual report is a 2019 calendar and everyone we have shown it to has been pretty excited.

Here’s a picture of the spotted lanternfly you have been hearing about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, as we raise our glasses to 2018 and look forward to 2019, include keeping up with NYS IPM Program amongst your resolutions.

Happy New Year!

October 29, 2018
by Matt Frye
Comments Off on Sorry, I Can’t Help You [grow that horribly invasive plant].

Sorry, I Can’t Help You [grow that horribly invasive plant].

Today’s post is from Matt Frye. FYI: (He didn’t just show up on our door talking ticks or rats! And we’re glad he escaped the vines to join our program.)

Kudzu is an invasive vine that was introduced from Japan to the United States in 1876. In its heyday, kudzu was planted extensively throughout the southeastern US, where it was touted for its ability to prevent soil erosion on embankments, restore soil nitrogen (it’s a legume), and provide high quality forage for livestock. Unfortunately, like many invasive organisms introduced outside of their native range, kudzu became a pest species due to its rapid growth rate and the ability to shade out existing vegetation.

Kudzu was planted extensively on slopes for erosion control.

Based on the detrimental effects of this plant and the cost of management, kudzu is listed as a noxious weed in several states. It has also been the subject of extensive research by the US Forest Service, including my graduate research at the University of Delaware, which examined the potential for biological control of kudzu using insect natural enemies.

Kudzu vines grow up trees, over bushes, and create a dense cover of foliage that kills other plants.

In 2014 I published a slide set describing my work and experience with kudzu: why it’s a pest, some of its ecological impacts, common misconceptions, how it was grown, and how it can be killed. Since publishing this document, I have received dozens of requests for more information about the plant. What do most people want to know? How to grow it! This has been for art installations, research on allelopathy, a test to determine if kudzu can grow in zero gravity (yes, kudzu literally will be sent to space), genetic studies and for use as wildlife forage.

The last request for information to grow kudzu in New York was most alarming, and led to communication with colleagues at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. As it turns out – there is a regulation (6 NYCRR Part 575) that prohibits the possession, transport, importation, sale, purchase, and introduction of kudzu and other prohibited and regulated invasive species in New York (thank goodness!). And while there is a loophole for permits to be issued, these are strictly for “research, education or other approved activities.”

Can I help you to manage the plant, and offer suggestions for what to do in spaces where kudzu has been cleared? You bet! Can I help you to grow the plant for research purposes? Sure. But if your interest in growing kudzu is for non-academic purposes –I can’t help you. Sorry (not sorry).

For more details about kudzu and its management:
New York Invasive Species Information: Kudzu
NYS DEC Stop the Invasion: Kudzu
Lessons Learned from Six Years of Kudzu Research

Matt Frye is our Community IPM Extension Area Educator, housed at 3 West Main Street, Suite 112, Elmsford, NY 10523

Matt provides education and conducts research on pests that occur in and around buildings where people live, work, learn and play. The focus of Matt’s program is to help people prevent issues with pests such as rodents, bed bugs, ticks, cockroaches, and indoor flies; or to provide management recommendations for existing problems.

October 17, 2018
by Debra E. Marvin
Comments Off on Seed Selection for Resistance to Insects and Diseases

Seed Selection for Resistance to Insects and Diseases

Today’s post is authored by  Jaime Cummings, NYS IPM Field Crops and Livestock

Whether planting a home garden or a one hundred acre soybean field, it’s important to consider all the pest, weed and disease issues that may occur during the growing season.  We have many tools in the IPM toolkit to help us manage these issues, including crop rotation, hand weeding, reliance on natural predators, and use of exclusion barriers, insect traps and pesticides.  But one of the most important cultural practices everyone should consider as a first line of defense against pests and diseases is genetic resistance in the varieties you select to grow.

Selective breeding, or genetic modification, for improved harvests has been occurring since the beginning of agriculture, and all modern crops have been modified in some way from their wild ancestor plants.  Think about corn, also known as maize, as one familiar example.  All modern corn was derived from the ancestral grass called teosinte through selective breeding by our ancestors (Figure 1).  Many advancements in breeding methods and technologies have developed in recent decades, but the goal is the same:  To develop elite varieties that are well-adapted to specific regions with resistance to common diseases and pests to achieve high yields.  We now have a wide range of corn varieties and hybrids with different maturities, different colored and sized kernels, and different levels of resistance to a wide variety of pests and diseases (Figure 2).  Some modern corn hybrids even have specific traits or genes that enable them to tolerate certain herbicides or to ward off some insect pests.  All these breeding advancements have resulted in improved yields and decreased pesticide use.  And there are many other disease resistance genes that have been discovered and integrated into many corn varieties.  These too have significantly reduced farmers’ reliance on pesticides for managing diseases and the harmful mycotoxins produced by some pathogenic fungi.

Figure 1. 

Teosinte is the wild plant that all modern corn originated from 8,700 years ago.  (Image from National Geographic)

Figure 2. 

Diversity in corn varieties developed through selective breeding efforts.  (Image from USDA)

Corn is just one example among all the crops we grow with options for genetic resistance to numerous pests and diseases.  We have similar opportunities when selecting varieties for our fruits, vegetables and grains (Figures 3 and 4).  Choose wisely and consider the advantages of selecting varieties with resistance.  Many insects and diseases plague our crops that are challenging to manage, with or without the natural or synthetic pesticides used in organic or non-organic agricultural systems.  To improve your chances of success in minimizing losses, consider all the strategies of integrated pest management, starting with the seeds you select to plant.

Figure 3. 

Tomato varieties that are susceptible (left) and resistant (right) to late blight.  (Image from Cornell University, Martha Mutschler)

Figure 4.

Soybean varieties that are susceptible (left) and resistant (right) to aphids.  (Image from University of Minnesota)

Whether developed through traditional selective breeding methods or high-tech genetic engineering, all of our crops have been modified from their original form to provide us with improved feed, fiber and fuel yields.  When selecting varieties to plant in your garden or on your farm, take advantage of these breeding advancements, and consider choosing varieties with resistance to the pests and diseases that are commonly problematic in your area.  You’ll be glad you did when you have fewer bugs chomping on your crops and fewer losses to those unsightly molds and mildews.

 

Jaime Cummings

Jaime Cummings

Field Crops and Livestock IPM Coordinator

524 Bradfield Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 14853
Jaime works with growers, dairy and livestock producers, extension educators, research faculty and staff and industry counterparts to promote the adoption of IPM practices for insect, disease and weed management for all field crops and livestock. Her work includes research and educational outreach throughout New York State.

 

October 11, 2018
by Debra E. Marvin
Comments Off on Hummingbirds as Pest Management Partners?

Hummingbirds as Pest Management Partners?

A recent NYS Berry Growers Association newsletter highlighted Dr. Julie Carroll’s work on hummingbird interactions with spotted wing drosophila (SWD). Robin Catalano, author of the article, referenced two posts from Julie’s SWD blog. Today, we’re offering a taste (a one part water, four parts sugar taste), but encourage you to visit each post for more detail.

(CC BY-SA 2.0) Flickr “Mike’s Birds”

It all began when, in her 2014 blog post entitled Hummingbirds, Julie shared an article from Good Produce, Berry Growers Sharing Great Ideas by Charlie O’Dell: “Unusual Way to Control SWD”, one grower’s use of hummingbird feeders to attract these beautiful, pugnacious, and voracious birds. O’Dell wrote, “Robert Hays of Hays Berry Farms at Dumas, MS, installs 25 hummingbird feeders per acre in his six acres of blackberries and fills each with a plain, clear, sugar-water solution. He estimates there are more than 500 hummingbirds flying around his fields on picking days, some even landing briefly on pickers’ arms or hats. Between his beneficial insects and his hummingbirds, he has not had to spray.”

Do you know that hummingbirds will eat up to 2,000 small insects per day when feeding their young?

A hummingbird’s diet consists mostly of flower nectar and insects. Nectar provides sugar for their high metabolic rate, while insects provide protein, amino acids, and necessary vitamins and minerals. Besides fruit flies, hummingbirds consume (in one effective swallow) tiny beetles, flies, gnats and mosquitoes. To bring these beauties near, many people supplement natural nectar sources with a solution they purchase or mix on their own. It’s important to sterilize the feeders often or boil the solution to reduce yeast or bacterial growth. The warmer the temperatures, the more frequently the nectar should be changed. Oh, and skip the red dye.

Before commencing her field trial, Julie consulted The Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s FAQ’s . We suggest you do the same!

In short:

Use fairly small feeders at first, and change sugar water at least every couple of days. During hot, dry weather, when hummingbirds risk dehydration, it’s best to dissolve no more than a quarter cup of sugar per cup of water. (Up that to one third cup during cold, rainy weather.)

To reduce ant interference, use hummingbird feeders that have a center “moat”. Another option is coating the hanger rod with petroleum jelly.

Hummingbirds can consume 100 percent of their body’s weight in sugar water or nectar every day, in addition to as many as 2,000 tiny insects! Before migration, it’s not unusual for a hummingbird to double its weight, adding a huge amount of fat to power the long journey.

Because of competition for food, it’s best to set out a few small feeders rather than one large one. Adult males defend their territories during nesting season, so you’ll see fewer in midsummer when nesting females are busy incubating.

Hummingbirds as Pest Management Partners?

Over the last four years, Julie’s research in raspberry plots at Cornell AgriTech has shown promise as an alternative tactic to reduce SWD impact. Her recent post Hummingbirds May Reduce SWD addresses her findings.

Julie saw fewer SWD caught in traps where hummingbird feeders are located, compared to more being caught where there are no hummingbird feeders, in a transect along a raspberry planting.

Intrigued, a blueberry grower and a raspberry grower each gave it a try this past season to see if such an effort was feasible. Both growers cleaned the feeders and changed the sugar solution twice per week to keep the hummingbirds well fed and active within their plantings. Were they successful? We can tell you that, during a workshop held on one site, multiple growers considered adding this ‘tool’ to their pest management toolbox.

At the August, 2018 workshop held in Salem, NY, several of the tiny birds were seen dashing about.

Preliminary data analysis for 2018 shows that when SWD numbers are very low or very high, there is little to no difference in the number of SWD caught in Scentry traps placed in area of the field with hummingbird feeders compared to those in the area of the field without feeders. However, when numbers are moderate, there was a difference. Along a transect down the length of the field, the trend was fewer SWD in the hummingbird feeder area compared to the no-feeder area, as shown in the chart.

While placing and maintaining 25 hummingbird feeders per acre (the number of feeders used in her research) may be a bit arduous for some growers, there are other ways to attract hummingbirds to your berry planting. Allocate space for their preferred flowering plants, such as alternating rows of Monarda (bee balm).

Unfortunately, SWD “season” is much longer than that of our hummingbird helpers. When SWD populations explode in late summer, they remain difficult to control. By now, these lovely flying predators have likely flown South on their journey to the Yucatan peninsula in Central America.

What does this all mean to you? Growers like Robert Hays watched what was going on in his fields and tried something new. This is a key tenet of Integrated Pest Management. Scouting and using innovative methods and multiple approaches can work together to reduce pests and pesticide use.

Dr. Juliet Carroll,  Fruit IPM Coordinator
NYS IPM Program, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, 630 W. North Street, Geneva, NY 14456

August 22, 2018
by Matt Frye
Comments Off on Pest Exclusion: An Old Concept With New Life

Pest Exclusion: An Old Concept With New Life

The Scientific Coalition on Pest Exclusion, or SCOPE, started as an idea from industry expert and world-renowned rodentologist, Dr. Bobby Corrigan. Well-versed in pest management literature, Bobby’s reading of a particular sentence in Hugo Hartnak’s 1939 text, “202 Common Household Pests,” resonated with a concept he was thinking and teaching about all along, “We should have little trouble with vermin if builders would hear and understand the ‘language’ of vermin and do a better job in eliminating their entrances and hiding place.

Indeed, Hartnak was promoting pest exclusion. But the concept never really took off, in part due to the expansion of available synthetic pesticides around the same time, which revolutionized the industry and ‘protected’ homes by directly killing pests.

Fast forward more than 60 years to the early 2000’s, when federal regulation changes and new restrictions were imposed on rodenticides, pyrethroids, and indoor use of organophosphates. These changes to chemical pest control provoke careful consideration of the long-term solutions that make sites less attractive to pests and keep them out – two essential IPM techniques of sanitation and exclusion. Sanitation removes sources of food and water that sustain pests, but requires cooperation from clients to do their part in maintaining a clean environment. On the other hand, exclusion represents an opportunity for the pest management industry to perform work on a semi-regular basis that seals openings and prevents pests from moving into and within structures.

Dr. Bobby Corrigan identifies an unprotected grate with gaps large enough for Norway rats to enter.

As a rodentologist, Dr. Corrigan understands that human-pest interactions are more than a nuisance – they can represent a real risk to human health. Consider the recent publications that identify house mice in apartment buildings as reservoirs of pathogenic bacteria and hosts to a diversity of viruses.

Traditional pest management techniques that rely on trapping or killing pests will not necessarily prevent these interactions – but exclusion can. Dr. Corrigan’s vision is to advance the pest management industry by increasing adoption of exclusion practices to limit human-pest interactions.

Starting in 2013, Dr. Corrigan and Dr. Steve Kells (University of Minnesota) formed a coalition of experts to not only promote pest exclusion, but to advance the science of this field through research. Subsequently, two Scientific Coalition on Pest Exclusion working groups were funded by Regional IPM Centers. The first, funded by the North Central IPM Center was led by Kells, and focused on pest exclusion in commercial and industrial structures. A group funded by the Northeastern IPM Center was headed by Dr. Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann (NYS IPM Program, Cornell University) and explored exclusion in residential structures.

What building materials, structures, or design features lead to pest entry or harborage? This concrete hollow block was home to mice, as evidenced by the sebum or rub marks, and could be sealed with cement.

Together, the working groups collected data on building design, materials and other factors that might help to predict common pest exclusion issues. With an understanding of what materials fail in which situations, this can help the pest management industry in identifying common entry points, or provide insight to construction professionals for opportunities to reduce indoor pest problems. Core members also contributed to a literature review of pest exclusion (both items are still in progress). In March 2018, SCOPE members participated in a session at the 9th International IPM Symposium in Baltimore, MD to discuss different ways of promoting  exclusion to enhance adoption. “Partnerships to Strengthen the Role of Exclusion in IPM” explored opportunities to include exclusion in efforts such as building renovation, weatherization, fire proofing, asthma reduction, and compliance with regulations such as the Food Safety Modernization Act and SOX compliance.

SCOPE members continue to provide training on pest exclusion techniques as a way to promote this critical and effective IPM strategy. The website includes articles from trade magazines and resources such as inspection forms to help individuals11 or companies develop their exclusion program.

What can SCOPE do for you? If you have feedback or thoughts on ways that SCOPE can help you build your pest exclusion program – contact Matt at mjf267@cornell.edu.

March 16, 2018
by Mary M. Woodsen
Comments Off on Pests, Pesticides and Proposals: Funding IPM Community Projects

Pests, Pesticides and Proposals: Funding IPM Community Projects

Pests and pesticides—both can pose problems to our health, our environment, and our economy. At the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program (NYS IPM), we help New Yorkers address those problems safely and thoughtfully. How? Through innovative biological, cultural, technological, and educational practices. IPM, in a word.

Community IPM takes place in settings as varied as school buildings and grounds; residential and office buildings; gardens, parks and landscapes; and golf courses and right-of-ways. Now we invite grant proposals from qualified New Yorkers who want to develop, evaluate, or demonstrate feasible IPM methods. Budgets must not exceed $8,500. Our deadline: April 6, 2018. Funds must be spent by February 28, 2019.

The German cockroach needs no introduction. If it can get on your fork, it can get in your food. Credit Clemson University, USDA.

All projects must accomplish one or more of the following:

  • develop, advance, test or refine new IPM strategies;
  • demonstrate a link between IPM practices and reduced risk to human health or pesticide residues;
  • measure the positive change or potential impact of IPM practices or adoption, or survey current IPM knowledge;
  • develop Community IPM resources, such as brochures, websites, fact sheets, manuals, and apps for smartphones and tablets;
  • develop IPM educational programs, such as workshops or curriculum;
  • educate others about IPM through outreach and demonstrations.

Audiences could include school administrators, teachers and students; landscape and structural pest management professionals; vector control specialists; municipal employees; nuisance wildlife control operators; golf course personnel; arborists; right-of-way managers; day care operators—just about anyone, in fact. We encourage projects that reach new audiences or develop new partnerships.

Two years. Yup. Ticks know how to make good use of their time.

Our Community IPM priorities include: develop or demonstrate solid strategies for dealing with rodents or cockroaches; develop, confirm or promote methods to lessen the impact of ticks; research, demonstrate or create outreach projects that promote pollinator health and conservation; and research and demonstrate alternatives to imidacloprid on lawns and athletic fields.

Yes, there are plenty more. But for 2018, these four are our greatest needs.

Got Questions? We encourage you to discuss your ideas with NYS IPM community staff, including:

  • coordinator: Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann, Long Island, 631-539-8680, jlg23@cornell.edu (Do you work outside Cornell University and Cornell Cooperative Extension? Get in touch with Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann.)
  • educator: Lynn Braband, Rochester, 585-753-2562, lab45@cornell.edu
  • educator: Amara Dunn, Geneva, 315-787-2206, arc55@cornell.edu
  • educator: Matthew Frye, Westchester, 914-285-4633, mjf267@cornell.edu
  • educator: Joellen Lampman, Albany, 518-441-1303, jkz6@cornell.edu

NYS IPM Ornamentals IPM Staff

  • coordinator: Elizabeth Lamb, Ithaca, 607-254-8800, eml38@cornell.edu
  • educator: Brian Eshenaur, Rochester, 585-753-2561, bce1@cornell.edu

And consider: the most common critiques of past proposals have been that the budget lacked in clarity, explanation or justification—and those seeking grants didn’t discuss projects ahead of time with IPM staff.

March 1, 2018
by Mary M. Woodsen
Comments Off on Climate, Weather, Data: Change Is the Name of the Game

Climate, Weather, Data: Change Is the Name of the Game

Nearly two years ago, NYS IPM convened “Climate, Weather, Data,” a statewide conference focused on pests and our changing climate. Because it’s here. It’s real. So … what will a shifting climate mean for our farms and forests, our parks and gardens?

The Climate Change Garden plans and plants for the future. Photo credit E. Lamb.

We brought together researchers, crop consultants, farmers, and more from New York and the Northeast for an eye-opening glimpse into the future. One example must speak for the rest: the Climate Change Garden, housed at the Cornell Botanic Gardens, demonstrates how a range of food and nectar crops are like messengers from the future. They speak to the effects of warming oceans, drought, heavy rain, and rising temperatures on food crops, pollinator resources, and superweeds.

As if on cue, the winter of 2015-16 followed by the drought of 2016 (not to mention the rains and temperature swings of 2017) was a messenger from the future in its own right. Drought threw a monkey wrench into IPM-funded research intended to create weed forecasting models in both conventional and organic systems. Conclusions? As the researcher charitably put it, the unusual 2016 weather provided a good opportunity to look at the limiting impact of low soil moisture; with additional years of data collection, this should be a valuable year.

And take IPM research on the brown-marmorated stink bug, aka BMSB. Because of the staggering number of crops on its chow-list, and, come winter, its role as a most unwelcome houseguest in offices and homes, BMSB has plenty of people riled. But dramatic temperature swings in winter and spring (especially spring) tricked BMSB into ditching its cold hardiness too soon and falling prey to that last sudden cold snap.

We could go on, but do we need to? You get the picture. It’s a brave new world out there, and change is the name of the game.

 

January 16, 2018
by Mary M. Woodsen
Comments Off on We give awards: IPM, excellence, and Julie Suarez

We give awards: IPM, excellence, and Julie Suarez

True — this media release dates back to January 4. But that’s not so long ago, and for someone like Julie Suarez it bears repeating. In short: we presented Julie (whom you’ll meet in a minute) with an Excellence in IPM award for—well, we could name a host of reasons. But we’ll let this speak to some of the best.

Advocacy and accolades earn Excellence in IPM award for Cornell champion Julie Suarez

Four hundred-plus wild
pollinators: this hover fly is
one of many that contribute to New York’s multi-billion-dollar
ag industry — not to
mention flowers in our landscapes. Courtesy Dawn Dailey O’Brien.

GENEVA, NY, January 4, 2018: Julie Suarez’s passion is people. People at work, people at home, people in need. Whether it’s about the farm or urban communities, she’s keenly aware of the pests and the problems. She knows the issues, the legislators, the associations and nonprofits. She’s a natural.

Now Suarez, assistant dean of Governmental and Community Relations at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), has received an Excellence in IPM award from the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program (NYSIPM) for her unstinting advocacy for the people and programs at Cornell on issues that matter to all New Yorkers.

An accomplished facilitator, Suarez helps people

  • deal with invasive pests that threaten the livelihood of many farmers
  • preserve the pollinators—the honey bees and their kin—that are key to growing fruits and vegetables worth $1.15 billion to New York’s economy
  • cope with the relentless pressure of ticks and tick-borne diseases, which affected an estimated 8,000 New Yorkers in 2017 alone

Accolades for Suarez include:

  • Julie was instrumental in addressing the crisis when a new pest, a tiny fruit fly the size of a pinhead, threatened to put berry farmers out of business. She would answer questions, provide guidance and inform—usually responding to emails within minutes. I don’t know how she did it.
  • Julie reached out to me about research on pollinator health as soon as I arrived at Cornell. I’m impressed with the breadth and depth of her knowledge and her ability to work with scientists, officials and stakeholder groups statewide.
  • Julie is keenly aware of the key issues for state legislators, noting the committees they serve on and the needs of their constituents. That’s how the NYSIPM Program became involved with the Senate Task Force on Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease.

“Julie is proactive, strengthening the bonds between  the  IPM  Program  and the community at large,” says New York Senator Sue Serino, herself a leader in the fight against Lyme disease. “She consistently exceeds the expectations of those around her.”

“Julie brings legislators in Albany to Cornell and Cornell researchers to the legislators. She gets it that programs like ours take science to the people,” says Jennifer Grant, director of NYSIPM. “It’s a privilege working with Julie to serve all New York’s citizens.”

Suarez received her Excellence in IPM award on January 4 at the NYS Agricultural Society’s Annual Forum in Syracuse, NY. Learn more about IPM at nysipm.cornell.edu.

Left to Right: L-R: Dean Kathryn Boor, CALS; Commissioner Richard Ball, NYS Ag & Markets; Assistant Dean Julie Suarez, Governmental and Community Relations, CALS; Director Jennifer Grant, NYS IPM ; President Beth Claypoole, NYS Ag Society. Photo provided.

December 15, 2017
by Matt Frye
Comments Off on Rats! the latest research comes with surprises

Rats! the latest research comes with surprises

Hidden in plain sight: rats own the night.

Consider the rat — the urban sort. Then consider our health, our food, and the damage rats do to our buildings. Yet despite the considerable impact they have, there’s not much science out there. Until recently, most of the research dates back to the mid-1900’s.

Now, though, rodent researchers worldwide are taking a closer look at rats — at their biology, ecology and evolution. Here are some takeaways:

Genomics shift as cities change.
Consider the evolution of life in large cities — and how understanding these changes can help us cope with rats. For instance, an eight-lane highway or even a really busy street are as dangerous for rats to cross as they are for us. Unlike us, however, rats have few opportunities to date (and hence to mate with) other rats from across, say, Broadway. (A side street poses less of a problem). As we learn what gene flow teaches us, we can see that the areas rats occupy — whether a single building or several city blocks — matters. A lot.

After all, ridding rats from a bagel shop or coffee bar doesn’t really help if rats can quickly re-infest the premises from establishments down the street.

Metro New York’s rats arrived in the 1700’s — then closed the doors.
The Big Apple’s rats are evolutionary kin of — believe it — rats from Great Britain and France. Sure, the colonies traded mainly with Britain and France during the 1700’s. But what’s surprising is the lack of evidence for rat introductions from any other part of the globe. This suggests that the rats that took up shop in what was then a small but fast-growing burg killed or repelled every rat that arrived at the Port of New York since then. Ecologists call this biotic resistance.

Plenty of food and soil for nests can lead to high rat populations.

Rat populations are patchy in urban areas.
Several studies showed that rats mainly occupy urban hot spots where food, water and shelter abound. Might rat genomics lead to habitat preferences? Do some prefer to live in high rises, others in parks and still others in warehouses or office buildings — all in the same cluster of blocks? Indeed, rat colonies nearby could differ genetically while those further away but in similar habitats show similarities.

Regardless — just short of a mile is what it takes to separate one colony from another. The occasional rat that crosses that boundary isn’t enough to keep them genetically related. Your Uptown Rat and your Downtown Rat — forget any romance there.

Reflecting above a water source: a pool of sewage in a building crawlspace.

Rodent-borne disease is patchy in urban areas.
Just as rat populations are patchy in urban environments, rodent-borne disease is also found in hot spots. Consider Bartonella. This group of bacterial pathogens has a number of health consequences for people, but the recent research shows that

  • some populations had high percentages of infected rats
  • rats from those sites were host to a greater diversity of pathogens and ectoparasites
  • human health risks are unknown and can be known only with more complete sampling

Rats are sneaky and diabolically clever, making them hard to study. Rats on the day shift are often weaker members of the colony.

In urban areas, rats are really hard to study.
As people who have conducted rodent research, we can tell you that rats are hard to study. They’re secretive, they nest underground, they’re nocturnal, accessing them is difficult — and they’re likely to croak before we can study them. Radio telemetry and Global Positioning System (GPS) rarely work because of interference from buildings and hard surfaces.

Urban rodents have plagued cities around the world throughout recorded history. But with the tools of modern science we can glimpse their complex and secretive lives, exposing some of their mysteries. With more questions than answers, the field of urban rodentology is an open book.

Recent Rodent Research Articles (November 2017)
Angley, LP, MC Combs, C Firth, MJ Frye, I Lipkin, JL Richardson, & J Munshi-South. Spatial variation in the parasite communities and genomic structure of urban rat vectors in New York City. Zoonoses and Public Health DOI10.1111/zph.12418

Byers, KA, MJ Lee, CM Donovan, DM Patrick, & CG Himsworth. 2017. A Novel Method for Affixing Global Positioning System (GPS) Tags to Urban Norway Rats(Rattus norvegicus): Feasibility, Health Impacts and Potential for Tracking Movement. Journal of Urban Econology 3(1): jux010

Combs, M, EE Puckett, J Richardson, D Mims, & J Munshi-South. 2017. Spatial Population Genomics of the Brown Rat (Rattus norvegicus) in New York City. Molecular Ecology

MTJ Johnson & J Munshi-South. 2017. Evolution of Life in Urban Environments. Science 358(6363): eaam8327

Peterson, AC, BM Ghersi, F Alda, C Firth, MJ Frye, Y Bai, LM Osikowicz, C Riegel, WI Lipkin, MY Kosoy, & MJ Blum. Rodent-borne Bartonella infection varies according to host species within and among cities. EcoHealth. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-017-1291-4

Skip to toolbar