A view of an integrated research and extension program John F. Tooker

1. A view of an integrated research and extension program John F. Tooker Department of Entomology/Center for Chemical Ecology Pennsylvania State University Extension Seminar 25 Sept 2007

2. Outline My view of how extension can work Experience from Christmas trees Developing a integrated program for PA field/forage crops

3. Research Extension • Driven by: • My interests • Funding • Collaborations • Students • Time • Driven by: • Local needs • Funding • Collaborations • Students • Time 50% research : 50% extension • My interests & local needs • Funding • Collaborations • Students • Time

4. Research Extension • Driven by: • My interests • Funding • Collaborations • Students • Time • Driven by: • Local needs • Funding • Collaborations • Students • Time 50% research : 50% extension • My interests & local needs • Funding • Collaborations • Students • Time Balance: My interests and PA agriculture, Two bosses How? Integrate research and extension

5. Research & Extension • Driven by: • Local needs Research program (Basic and applied) Extension specialist County agent Farmer has pest problem Local needs spur research

6. Research & Extension • Driven by: • Local needs • Results Research program (Basic and applied) Extension specialist County agent Farmer has pest problem Local needs spur research or Research spurs local practices

7. Pine needle scale - Chionaspis pinifoliae (Fitch)

8. Pine needle scale - Chionaspis pinifoliae (Fitch) Native insect Exotic trees (Scots, Mugo, Austrian pines) Pests of pines in: Christmas tree farms Ornamental landscape planting • Not easy to find in woods • Generalist predators

9. Pine needle scale - Chionaspis pinifoliae (Fitch) Community ecology study Sampled insects and assessed influence of natural enemies Findings: Complex: high diversity low PNS Simple: low diversity high PNS • Parasitoids: little control • Simple: inhospitable to NEs? Diversify pine plantings? (Tooker and Hanks 2000)

10. Hoot Owl & 4Es Tree Farms • High PNS pops • Mowed alleys (mice) • Noinsecticides vs Heavy use • Weeds • Floral resources • Alternative prey • Microhabitats

11. Hoot Owl & 4Es Tree Farms • High PNS pops • Mowed alleys (mice) • Noinsecticides vs Heavy use Scale pop. decimated Conservation Biological Control program! Hoot: Anecdotal 4Es: Quantified

12. Established a Conservation Biological Control Floral resources Alternative prey Microhabitats Natural enemies live longer & kill more herbivores • Simple habitat manipulation • Saved time, money • AND pest was killed • Farmers • Had a problem • Research offered simple solution • Solution worked

13. Research & Extension • Driven by: • Local needs Research program (Basic and applied) Pest problem Local needs complemented research

14. Research & Extension • Driven by: • Local needs • Results Research program (Basic and applied) Pest problem Research spurs local practices

15. Aphytis: biocontrol agents of scales and mealybugs View of Extension ‘Results-driven’ • Hoot Owl Tree Farm • Large PNS pop. • Large parasitoid pop. (Aphytis mytilaspidis) • Few floral resources • White clover Hypothesis: Aphytis could benefit from white clover Were Aphytis attracted to the smell of white clover?

16. Olfactometry with clover flowers and pure compounds

17. Were Aphytis attracted to the smell of white clover? • Collected volatiles from white clover • SuperQ • GC-MS • Phenethyl acetate • Phenethyl alcohol • Benzyl alcohol • Among the most common floral volatiles(Knudsen et al. 1993, Teranishi et al. 1993)

18. Olfactometry with clover flowers and pure compounds

19. View of Extension ‘Results-driven’ Hypothesis: Aphytis could benefit from white clover Were Aphytis attracted to the smell of white clover? YES Suggests flowers can mitigate pest problems Data were basis of a USDA-NRI grant (Hanks & Sadof) “Conservation biological control in ornamental landscapes” • Inspired two “armchair” ecology projects • Floral associations of: • Hymenopteran parasitoids (Tooker and Hanks 2000) • Syrphidae and Tachinidae (Tooker et al. 2006)

20. Research & Extension • Driven by: • Local needs • Results Research program (Basic and applied) Extension specialist PA Field and Forage Crops County agent Pest problem Local needs spur research & Research spurs local practices

21. “Top-down” “Bottom-up” Research & Extension Parallel systems A Whole-Farm Approach to Managing Pests, USDA-SAN Bulletin, April 2003

22. Research & Extension • “Bottom-up” • Understanding plant resistance Lab-based  strive for field • Plant defenses • “Top-down” • Why are NE (un)successful? Field-based Community ecology • What features enhance NEs • Role of habitat complexity? • Plant species diversity • Role of habitat manipulation • Cover crops • Weedy borders & floral resources • Native vs. exotic plants • Conservation Reserve Program • Do conservation projects work?

23. Research & Extension wheat corn alfalfa Solidago

24. “Top-down” • Why are NE (un)successful? Field-based • Community ecology Research & Extension • Will need: • Experiments at field stations • Farm-based research • Different types of farms, crops, and regions • Organic farms • Sustainable ag farms • Amish/Mennonite • Conventional farms

25. “Top-down” • Why are NE (un)successful? Field-based • Community ecology Lancaster Co. “Garden Spot of America” Top 15 ag. production counties in US (#1 in Alfalfa, corn, barley) vs. Cambria or Mercer Co. (#1 & 2 in Oats) Research & Extension • Will need: • Experiments at field stations • Farm-based research • Different types of farms, crops, and regions • Organic farms • Sustainable ag farms • Amish/Mennonite • Conventional farms

26. “Top-down” • Why are NE (un)successful? Field-based • Community ecology Lancaster Co. “Garden Spot of America” Top 15 ag. production counties in US (#1 in Alfalfa, corn, barley) vs. Cambria or Mercer Co. (#1 & 2 in Oats) Research & Extension • Will need: • Experiments at field stations • Farm-based research • Different types of farms, crops, and regions • Organic farms • Sustainable ag farms • Amish/Mennonite • Conventional farms • Engage farmers (extension agents) • Demonstrate value

27. Research & Extension • Engage farmers (extension agents) • Demonstrate value Document: ‘Before and after’ effects Value: Economic & environmental   Progress and value • Facilitates delivery of information • Farmers becomes advocates (word of mouth) • Local efforts Reinforced by: Talks Web-based info Publications

28. Sharing information Research papers Extension-like publications Talks

29. Sharing information Research papers Extension-like publications Talks • S. terebinthinaceum Jacquin (prairie dock) Silphium laciniatum L. (compass plant)

32. Benefits: • Eliminates exotic weeds • Preserves endemicity of plant communities • Plays an important role in nutrient cycling

33. Prospect Cemetery Prairie

34. Research papers Extension-like publications Talks • Native plant and prairie enthusiasts • Shared information • Under-appreciated, restricted insect community • Conservation should not consider just plants • Negative influence of fire

35. Delivering Information • PSU • Crop Management Extension Group • Penn State Sustainable Ag Working Group • Year-round calendars of events • Newsletters • Also potential collaborators • Knowledge of systems • Federal / state regulations • Know groups of farmers interested in on-farm research • Common interests

36. Research & Extension Funding • Research funding will driven extension program • USDA, NSF (USDA-NRI grant “Phytohormones and Insects”) • Funding for Research & Extension • USDA • USDA-Sustainable Ag Research & Education • USDA-Regional Integrated Pest Management Programs • USDA-Pest Management Alternatives Program • NSF • Funding for IPM • EPA • Strategic Agriculture Initiative Grants • EPA – Regional IPM Grant Program

37. 50% research : 50% extension • My interests & local needs • Funding • Collaborations • Students • Time Integrate research and extension • Driven by: • Local needs & Results • Engage farmers (extension agents) • Demonstrate   Progress and value