Open Forum: In an attempt to promote free and open discussion of issues, Agrichemical and Environmental News encourages letters and articles with differing views. To discuss submission of an article, please contact Dr. Allan Felsot at (509) 372-7365 or afelsot@tricity.wsu.edu; Dr. Catherine Daniels at (253) 445-4611 or cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu; Dr. Doug Walsh at (509) 786-2226 or dwalsh@tricity.wsu.edu; Dr. Vincent Hebert at (509) 372-7393 or vhebert@tricity.wsu.edu; or AENews editor Sally O'Neal Coates at (509) 372-7378 or scoates@tricity.wsu.edu. EDITORIAL POLICY, GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION.

Go to Agrichemical and Environmental News Index

Go to WSPRS (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) Home Page

Welcome to AENews' IPM Feature Issue

IPM: Big and Small, We Need It All

Dr. Catherine Daniels, Director, Washington State Pest Management Resource Service, WSU

Integrated pest management (IPM) is like an explorer's dream: there is always something new to discover. Whether one is involved in production agriculture, urban pest management, regulation, research, or education, there is a veritable cornucopia of systems from which to choose. Each and every combination of crop, pest, and geographic location presents a unique set of parameters. Integrated solutions, by definition, involve multiple perspectives or processes. A single individual may discover a solution, determine and request suitable regulatory assistance, and proceed to educate end-users directly. More often, an integrated solution involves multiple parties, even team approaches. Funding cycles and parameters affect how much can be done by a given party within a given timeframe. Working with IPM means drawing upon projects great and small, building upon previous and related research and education in a continuous effort to construct and improve the safety, economy, efficacy, and accountability of pest management systems.

The March issue of Agrichemical and Environmental News (AENews) is solely devoted to articles on alternative pest management methods or strategies. Both the April and May issues will contain several IPM-related articles. Eight of these articles arose from a recent EPA Region 10-funded grant, which was further subdivided into “mini-grants” managed by the Washington State University Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources ( WSU CSANR). None of the eight projects received more than $10,000; some received considerably less. Our point in featuring these projects is to remind everyone (i.e., granting agencies, administrators, researchers) of what can be achieved even with small amounts of money. A project can get off the ground with minimal start-up funds or an ongoing project can jump to the next critical phase with a modest investment. The projects described in the articles that follow are sometimes experimental, often innovative, and always educational. In total, the eight EPA/CSANR funded projects described in this trio of issues are just a small part of the IPM efforts underway in Washington State.

As a recipient of one of the mini-grants, AENews was able to allocate staff time to making these IPM-related articles available in portable document format (PDF) as well as the usual HTML format. As with all information in AENews, feel free to reprint, share, and/or excerpt these articles for non-profit educational purposes. (If you are in doubt as to the appropriateness of your intended use, contact AENews Editor Sally O’Neal Coates or me.) As an educational vehicle, the AENews is actively involved in informing our readers about all aspects of pest management in Washington State. And there is nothing small about that!

Catherine Daniels is the Managing Editor of AENews and Director of WSPRS. She can be reached at (253) 445-4611 or cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu. AENews Editor Sally O’Neal Coates can be reached at (509) 372-7378 or scoates@tricity.wsu.edu.

Go to this issue's Table of Contents

Go to Agrichemical and Environmental News Index

Go to WSPRS (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) Home Page

Dr. Vincent Jones, Tree Fruit Research Entomologist, and Dr. Gary Grove, Plant Pathologist, WSU

Wouldn’t it be nice to have all the information you needed to make complex integrated pest management (IPM) decisions available to you while you were in the field? Wouldn’t it be great if plant-specific, pest-specific data were accessible, along with each control option’s application rate, effective crop stage, toxicity, post-harvest interval, and re-entry interval? And what if all that data fit in the palm of your hand? That was the vision that prompted our project.

The Need for Data

The goal of our 2002 IPM database program was to take advantage of the unique opportunity afforded by the current state of hand-held computing (a.k.a. palm computers, pocket computers, personal digital assistants/PDAs) by developing software that would assist growers, field personnel, and consultants in making complex pest management decisions in the field.

IPM programs are typically more complex than simple, pesticide-based management systems. The very nature of “integrating” multiple methods of pest management means that each situation calls for several pieces of information. Unfortunately, this complexity makes it almost inevitable that decisions are made with inadequate or out-of-date information.

Educational materials such as manuals, bulletins, Websites, and audio-visual presentations are key factors in helping growers assimilate the increasingly complex range of data involved in newer IPM systems. But we can’t always carry all these materials on our backs when we head into the field, where so many decisions are made. In response to this dilemma, we felt that the current state of hand-held computing offered a unique opportunity. The computers are inexpensive ($150-$500), have relatively powerful software packages (including relational databases), connect and backup easily to desktop computers, and are small and light enough to fit in a shirt pocket for field use.

Pilot Project: Deciduous Fruits

Deciduous fruits offer a good proving ground for an IPM project. The impact of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) on organophosphate (OP) insecticide use and the shift toward mating disruption of key pests has exacerbated the complexity of integrated pest management in these crops. For example, mating disruption increases the role of natural enemies, but it also increases the diversity of pests encountered because broad-spectrum OPs are no longer providing suppression of secondary and rare pests. Adding further to the complexity of the situation, many consultants are unfamiliar with some of the aspects of the newer pesticides, such as their effects on natural enemies, timing for optimal efficiency, and relative efficacy.

We used the Palm OS platform to develop a relational database based on the current crop recommendations in the Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Eastern Washington (Washington State University publication EB0419, available at http://pubs.wsu.edu/). The database ties together pesticide recommendations and rates for the different pests, relative efficacy of the materials (when known), and the effects of the pesticides on natural enemies. In addition, it lists any precautions, restrictions on re-entry, pre-harvest intervals, and pesticide use patterns. These data are searchable and can be updated by linking to the WSU Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center Website (http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/), where complete documentation is also available.

Future Applications

In our 2002 pilot project, we provided the insecticide and fungicide recommendations for apple, pear, cherry, peaches and nectarines, and apricot. The databases were available for Palm OS computers, and for Windows (using Microsoft Access and FileMaker Pro) and Macintosh (using FileMaker Pro) operating systems. The data files can be shared between systems and the interfaces are set up to be as similar as possible.

The database format is very adaptable; it could be used readily on almost any crop where pesticide recommendations and data on effects of the pesticides on natural enemies are available. To adapt it to another crop, one would replace the crop stage names (e.g., delayed dormant, petal fall) with those appropriate for the new crop and change the pest and natural enemy names to those pertaining to the new crop. Such changes could be input by a knowledgeable programmer in a matter of minutes. Beyond that, one would enter the pesticide information specific to the new crop, each pest, and each of the natural enemies. In our pilot project, we used the framework we developed for insects to enter the disease recommendations, with very few changes.

Following are a number of screen shots showing our system in action. We hope this project leads others to utilize this convenient technology to make IPM data available in the field.

Vince Jones is with the Washington State University (WSU) Department of Entomology. His office is at the Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center (TFREC) in Wenatchee. He can be reached at (509) 663-8181 or vpjones@wsu.edu. Gary Grove is with the WSU Department of Plant Pathology. His office is at the Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center (IAREC) in Prosser. He can be reached at (509) 786-9283 or grove@wsu.edu.

Palm OS is a registered trademark of PalmSource, Inc. Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries. FileMaker is a trademark of FileMaker, Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Macintosh is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc., registered in the United States and other countries.

Example of Hand-Held Computer Screens Using Tree Fruit Database
SCREEN 1: Start screen with arrows showing pop-ups for crop stage, pest, and display.	SCREEN 2: Pop-up window for crop stage is shown.
SCREEN 3: Having selected “late spring-summer” for crop stage, this pop-up window allows selection of pest.	SCREEN 4: Having chosen “CM (codling moth)” for pest, four control options are shown as being available.
SCREEN 5: Having selected control option “azinphosmethyl,” a variety of information including trade name, rates, use period, pests controlled, toxicity, REI, and PHI are shown.	SCREEN 6: Having selected the “efficacy” tab on the previous screen, this screen shows which pests are controlled and how effective this control is on each, plus the effect on natural enemies.
SCREENS 7 & 8: Restriction notes.

Go to this issue's Table of Contents

Go to Agrichemical and Environmental News Index

Go to WSPRS (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) Home Page

Dr. David Muehleisen, Andrew Bary, Dr. Craig Cogger, Dr. Carol Miles, Amanda Johnson and Dr. Marcia Ostrom, WSU, and Terry Carkner, Terry’s Berries Organic Farm

The State of Washington is the number one producer of processing carrots in the United States and the fourth largest producer of fresh market carrots (Washington Agricultural Statistics Service 2001). This accounts for 33% of the processed carrots and almost 4% of the fresh carrots produced in the nation. Carrot production generated $29.8 million dollars for Washington State in 2000 (Sorensen 2000). The leading carrot-producing counties are Benton and Franklin in the eastern part of the state and Cowlitz and Skagit west of the Cascade Mountains. As of 2000 Washington had 5000 acres of processing carrots and 3000 acres of fresh market carrots (Sorensen 2000). Approximately 2% of the carrots grown in Washington were grown organically (Sorensen 2000).

About the Pest

Arguably the most important pest of carrots, particularly on the western side of the state, is the carrot rust fly (Psila rosae Fabricius) (Figure 1, a and b). The rust fly adult is about 6-8 mm long with a shiny black thorax and abdomen, a reddish-brown head, and yellow legs. The adult female lays its eggs in the soil at the base of the carrot. Six to ten days later the larva hatches and feeds on the carrot root, rendering the carrots impossible to market. Carrot rust flies obtain their common name from the rust colored frass (excrement) they deposit in the superficial feeding tunnels on the carrot.

FIGURE 1
Pupa and larva of the carrot rust fly.	Adult carrot rust fly at rest.

In Washington State there are generally three generations of the fly per year, with the third generation causing the greatest economic damage (Antonelli and Getzin 1997).

Managing CRF

The host range of the carrot rust fly (CRF) extends to 107 different plant species, all in the same family as the carrot. Many of the host species are also grown for food, including celery, parsnips, celeriac, parsley, and dill (Degen, Stadler and Ellis, 1999). Many fresh market carrot producers grow the other host plants as well, which confounds management of the fly. Inability to manage rust fly populations in a cost-effective manner has driven some farmers out of carrot production.

Insecticides have limited effectiveness against CRF, due to the behavioral patterns of the pest (Dufault and Coaker 1987). The rust fly adult spends most of its time in the periphery of the fields, flying into the field to lay eggs at the base of the carrot, and then leaving the field. After hatching, the larva moves down into the soil to feed on the carrot and eventually pupates in the soil. When the adult emerges from the pupal case, it flies to the periphery of the field. This behavioral pattern leaves only limited opportunities for control with insecticides.

Numerous pyrethroids and organophosphates have been tested to control CRF populations. In general, pyrethroids do not appear to be effective against eggs and larvae, but do reduce adult populations with continual broadcast spraying. This strategy has a large impact on non-target invertebrates and promotes overspraying. Some organophosphates (OPs) have been shown to be quite effective against the larval stage. In the Pacific Northwest, the recommended pesticide for control of CRF is Diazinon 50W applied at 2 lbs ai/A at planting as a seed furrow drench (DeAngelis et al. 2000). This will protect the crop for the first generation of rust flies, but additional side dress applications will be needed when the second generation emerges in early July.

Despite the current insecticide recommendations for CRF control, diazinon has drawbacks including limited effectiveness and uncertainty about human health and environmental effects. In British Columbia, one particularly small field that was sprayed seven times during a single growing season still reported substantial CRF damage (Judd et al. 1985). The grower had been routinely spraying fourteen times, but the seven times represented an adult monitoring-based spray program. In addition to a possible lack of efficacy, diazinon poses a hazard to applicators and has been linked to numerous bird kills. Some studies have shown salmon’s normal olfactory responses to be altered by low concentrations of diazinon in water (Turner 2002). Urban uses of diazinon will be completely phased out before 2004 and the uncertain availability of diazinon for agricultural uses suggests that alternative control strategies must be developed.

Non-Chemical Controls

For organic farmers the recommended cultural control is to use row covers or to rotate the carrot crop every other year. Both of these tactics work well when done properly, but they have drawbacks. Row covers can be highly effective but are labor intensive, particularly if fields require continuous cultivation. They work as a physical barrier, excluding the pest insect from feeding or laying eggs on the crop. Their effectiveness is dependent on the covers being undamaged and anchored in the ground properly, creating an impervious barrier. All this takes time and labor, plus there is an additional expense of replacing the covers every 2 to 3 years. Covers are made of polyester or polypropylene and are subject to UV radiation damage, which makes the material brittle and easily ripped. Examples of floating row covers are Reemay, Agronet, and Argyl P17.

Because the CRF is a weak flier and will not infest fields from a long distance, crop rotation can be a highly effective strategy against this pest. It is recommended that carrots be rotated into a different field every other year. To be effective, the new carrot field must be situated at a sufficient distance (ca. 1000 meters) from the old field to discourage relocation of the CRF. This makes rotation impractical for small acreage farmers.

CRF Theories and Behaviors

Carrots produce the phenolic compound chlorogenic acid when stressed by environmental conditions, such as low temperatures, or by insect damage. Cole (1985) was able to show that CRF is attracted to chlorogenic acid, which helps explain why fields used for multiple years to grow carrots become very attractive to the CRF. Cole et al. (1988) were able to develop a model to predict susceptibility to CRF attack based on levels of chlorogenic acid present. Gurein et al. (1984) showed that olfactory and contact chemostimuli are involved in selection of the carrot host for an oviposition site.

Numerous studies have shown that intercropping carrots with a cover crop reduces CRF damage (Miles, et al. 1996; Ramert 1993; Ramert and Ekbom 1996; Theunissen and Schelling 2000). How cover crops help reduce pest pressure is not well understood. There are two competing theories, (a) increase in natural enemies due to increase in suitable habitat and (b) the resource concentration hypothesis, which states that in a monoculture the available resources are easier to locate and exploit than in a polyculture. Sheehan (1986) argued that intercropping with a cover crop works via the latter hypothesis because increasing the number of generalist predators would not necessarily make them more effective in reducing a specific targeted pest population. Because the CRF female uses both visual and olfactory cues to locate an appropriate host for egg laying, a fragrant cover crop may confound the olfactory cue.

Based on the available data, Ramert (1993) concluded that the following criteria should be met to get the most effective reduction in pest populations using intercropping systems.

• Target pest(s) should be oligophagous (i.e., tending to feed on a limited range of plants).
• The intersown crop should not be a host plant for the target pest(s).
• The intercrop should disturb the behavior of the pest causing a reduction in the pest population in that field
• The intercrop should not reduce the cash crop yield to the point of negating the positive impact of the reduced pest pressure.

A New Study

In 2002, we began a two-year study to monitor carrot rust fly activity and to determine the effectiveness of between-row cover crops in reducing CRF damage without impacting yield. We concentrated on cover crops that (a) were well suited to our test plots, (b) would add nutritive value to the soil, and (c) had exhibited some successes in CRF reduction (e.g., various clovers, especially crimson clover, showed promise in other research). We did not experiment with odiferous crops such as garlic and onions for the purpose of blocking CRF olfactory cues.

Our monitoring program used yellow sticky traps (Figure 2) to track, and eventually aid in predicting, adult rust fly activity in the field. We set the traps at a 45-degree angle, which is supposed to increase their attractiveness to the rust fly while reducing the number of beneficial insects attracted to them (Collier and Finch 1990). Adult CRF populations were monitored on a weekly basis at two Washington State University sites (the Puyallup Research and Extension Center, the Vancouver Research and Extension Unit) and on three farms in western Washington. Figure 3, the trap data from one of the farms, illustrates results typical of those we obtained.

FIGURE 2
Yellow sticky trap as displayed in the field to catch carrot rust fly.	Close-up of carrot rust fly stuck to the trap.

FIGURE 3

Carrot Rust Fly Trap Data

The number of carrot rust flies trapped on yellow sticky traps at Terry’s Berries, an organic Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm in Tacoma, WA. Traps were checked weekly.

The other objective of this experiment was to determine whether a cover crop interplanted between carrot rows could reduce the damage caused by the rust fly without reducing carrot yields. Cover crops have been used effectively to reduce CRF damage, with mixed results on its impact on carrot yield (Miles et al. 1996, Ramert 1993, Ramert and Ekbom 1996, Theunissen and Schelling 2000). Cover crops offer the additional benefits of adding nutrients to the field, helping to conserve water, and increasing habitat for beneficial insects.

Cover crop field experiments were carried out at the WSU Puyallup and Vancouver sites. Five different cover crops treatments were compared for their ability to reduce CRF damage and their impact on carrot development and yield. We compared harbinger medic (Medicago littoralis), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum), subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum), white clover (Trifolium repens), and common vetch (Vicia sativa) to a control plot with no cover crop. The results from the Puyallup site are shown in Table 1.

We also conducted an on-farm experiment at Terry’s Berries organic farm in Tacoma, measuring the effectiveness of row covers and their impact on yields (Table 2).

Yield data was collected and the carrots were inspected and graded for CRF damage at the two WSU sites and at Terry’s Berries.

Results

At all sites during the experiments, few CRF were captured by the yellow sticky traps (Figure 3). This corresponded with minimal damage to harvested carrots (Table 2). While CRF populations were low this year, we were able to demonstrate that yellow sticky traps can be used to monitor adult fly activity.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cover crops can reduce CRF damage, however it has been unclear whether interplanting cover crops would negatively impact carrot yields. Our data suggests that neither interplanting of cover crops (Table 1) nor using row covers (data not shown) had a negative impact on carrot yields. However, due to the very low population pressure of the CRF this year, we were unable to verify whether cover crops reduced CRF damage. Thus cover crops may be a potentially effective tool for integration into an overall pest management strategy but further studies are required to verify this.

Our work in 2002 laid the foundation for next year’s studies, which will include row cover application, intensive monitoring of CRF, and further testing of cover crops. Emphasis in 2003 will be on integration of cover crops and biopesticides.

Conclusions and Next Steps

Pest managers must move away from reliance on the “silver bullet” approaches to controlling pests. Single, overwhelming control tactics generally disrupt both pest and beneficial populations, destabilizing the entire ecosystem within the field, increasing the chance of secondary pest problems and increasing the cost of control. We are trying to develop a biologically based pest management strategy against carrot rust fly populations that utilizes multiple tactics in order to maintain acceptable control of the field population.

This next season, we hope to introduce a biopesticide component to our study. We plan to test application of the fungal pathogens Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, entomopathogenic nematodes Steinernema feltiae and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora and the biochemical pesticide Spinosad. We will apply biopesticide agents at planting and as a side dress when our CRF monitoring data suggest it is necessary.

By combining intensive monitoring, advantageously timed biopesticides, and a cover crop, we hope to achieve an integrated pest management system as effective as diazinon applications, but more sustainable environmentally and economically. As a bonus, the proposed procedures should also enhance soil fertility and increase habitat for natural enemies, the sum total of which may maintain the pest population below an economically damaging level.

David Muehleisen and Marcia Ostrom are with the Washington State University (WSU) Small Farms Program in Puyallup. Andy Bary and Craig Cogger are with the Department of Crop and Soil Science at WSU Puyallup. Carol Miles and Amanda Johnson are with the Department of Horticulture at WSU’s Vancouver Research and Extension Center. Terry Carkner owns Terry’s Berries, a community supported agriculture (CSA) organic farm in Tacoma. Dave Muehleisen can be reached at (253) 445-4597 or muehleisen@wsu.edu. This work was supported by a grant from EPA and American Farmland Trust.

REFERENCES

Antonelli, A. L. and L. Getzin. 1997. The carrot rust fly. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin EB-0921. http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb0921/eb0921.html

Cole, R. A. 1985. Relationship between the concentration of chlorogenic acid in carrot roots and the incidence of carrot fly larval damage. Ann. of Appl. Biol. 106:211-217.

Cole, R. A., K. Phelps, and P. R. Ellis. 1988. Further studies relating chlorogenic acid concentration in carrots to carrot fly damage. Ann. of Appl. Biol. 112:13-18.

Collier R. and S. Finch. 1990. Some factors affecting the efficiency of sticky board traps for capturing the carrot fly, Psila rosae (Diptera: Psilidae). Bull. of Entomol. Res. 80:153-158.

DeAngelis, J. A., J. Dreves, T. Miller, F. Niederholzer, J. Olsen, M. Shenk, P. VanBuskirk, C. Baird, J. Barbour, L. Sandvol and A. Antonelli. 2000. Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook. Oregon State University.

Degen, T., E. Stadler and P. R. Ellis. 1999. Host-plant susceptibility to the carrot fly, Psila rosae. 3. The role of oviposition preferences and larval performance. Ann. Appl. Biol. 134: 27-34.

Dufault, C. P. and T. H. Coaker. 1987. Biology and control of the carrot fly Psila rosae F. Agri. Zool. Rev. 2:97-134.

Esbjerg, P., J. Jorgensen, J. K. Nielsen, H. Philipsen, O. Zethner and L. Olgaard. 1983. Integrated control of insects in carrots, the carrot rust fly (Psila rosae F., Dipt., Psilidae) and the turnip moth (Agriotis segatum Schiff., Lep., Noctuidae), as crop pest model. Tidsskr. Planteavl. 87:303-356.

Guerin, P. M. and E. Stadler. 1984. Carrot fly cultivar preferences: some influencing factors. Ecol. Entomol. 9:412-420.

Judd, G. H. R., R. S. Vernon and J. H. Borden. 1985. Commercial implementation of a monitoring program for Psila rosae (F.) (Diptera:Psilidae) in southwest British Columbia. J. Econ. Entomol. 79:477-481.

Miles, C., L. Zenz, B. DeWreede and J. Puhich. 1996. On-farm research: intercropping in carrots for rust fly control. http://agsyst.wsu.edu/carrot.htm#experimental_procedure

Ramert, B. 1993. Mulching with grass and bark and intercropping with Medicago littoralis against carrot rust fly (Psila rosae F). Biol. Agric. Hortic. 9:125-135.

Ramert, B. and B. Ekbom. 1996. Intercropping as a management strategy against carrot rust fly (Diptera: Psilidae): A test of enemies and resource concentration hypotheses. Pop. Ecol. 25(5):1092-1100.

Root, R. B. 1973. Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: The fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol. Monographs 43:95-124.

Sheehan, W. 1986. Response by specialist and generalist natural enemies to agrosystem diversification: A selection review. Environ. Entomol. 15:456-461.

Sorensen, E. J. 2000. Crop profile for carrots in Washington State. http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~cdaniels/profiles/Carrot2.pdf or http://cipm.ncsu/cropprofiles/docs/wacarrot.html

Stevenson, A. B. 1977. A disposable adhesive trap for monitoring the carrot rust fly. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Ont. 107:65-69.

Theunissen, J. and G. Schelling. 2000. Undersowing carrots with clover: suppression of carrot rust fly (Psila rosae) and cavity spot (Pythium spp.) infestation. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 18: 67-76.

Turner, L. 2002. Diazinon: analysis of risks to endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/effects/diazinon-analysis-final.pdf

Washington Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. National Agriculture Statistics Service.

Go to this issue's Table of Contents

Go to Agrichemical and Environmental News Index

Go to WSPRS (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) Home Page

Dr. Carol A. Miles, Agricultural Systems Specialist, and Martin Nicholson, Agriculture Research and Operations Manager, WSU Vancouver Research and Extension Unit

Mechanical cultivation is the most common non-chemical method of weed management in vegetable crops. However, cultivation is labor, time, and resource (fossil fuel) intensive. Growers need efficient and effective non-chemical alternatives for weed control.

A Role for Cover Crops?

Winter cover crops (e.g., hardy grasses, cereals, legumes sown during the late summer or early fall) offer certain benefits to the vegetable crop planted the subsequent spring. The introduction of winter cover crops into the production rotation has been shown to enhance nutrient capture, help control soil erosion, and improve water quality. They can also reduce weed growth.

Toward the eventual goal of finding an effective non-chemical weed control alternative, we conducted a study at Washington State University’s Vancouver Research and Extension Unit on 1.3 acres of organically managed vegetables. The basic idea of the study was to overseed winter cover crops in demonstration plots of vegetables then to measure the efficacy of the cover crops in controlling weeds. We would plant vegetables in the spring, overseed cover crops in the late summer or early fall, then assess weed development later in the same fall and again the following spring. Efficacy of weed control would be measured by weed stand (diversity of weed species and number of individual weeds) and weed weight. We have conducted the study over two years so far, using the same field area in 2001 and 2002, but varying the vegetable crop, cover crops, and field design each year.

Vancouver Study, Year One

In May 2001, we planted edamame (vegetable soybeans) and dry beans in blocks measuring 50 and 90 feet wide, respectively, and 150 feet long. During the growing season, we mechanically cultivated weeds between the rows and controlled weeds by hand within the crop rows. Prior to the last mechanical cultivation, we overseeded five different cover crops onto observation plots measuring 25 feet long and 140 feet wide (Figure 1). The seed was incorporated with the last cultivation.

FIGURE 1

Vegetable and cover crop plot design at WSU Vancouver Research and Extension Unit in 2001. Cover crop plots were 140 feet wide by 25 feet long over a total crop area of 140 feet by 150 feet.

On October 17, 2001 and again on March 1, 2002 we collected and analyzed ten random samples of weeds and cover crops from each cover crop plot. Randomness was achieved by tossing a small (1.6 ft² area) hoop into the plots then sampling the area inside the hoop. Stands and weights of weeds (Table 1) and cover crops (Table 3) are shown in the tables at the end of the article.

We found that all cover crops resulted in lower weed weight than the control plots, but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 1). In the fall, weed weight was lowest in the crimson clover treatment, but by late winter it was lowest in the annual rye treatment. Weed weight was highest in the Sudan grass in the fall, but by late winter was highest in the cereal rye plus winter pea mix. All cover crop treatments resulted in a decrease in the number of weeds compared to the control treatment (Table 2). The control and Sudan grass treatments had the greatest diversity of weed species while annual rye had the lowest weed species diversity. Annual rye also achieved the greatest biomass of the cover crops (data not shown).

From our work in the first year, we concluded that weed suppression due to cover crops is likely a function of both numbers of cover crop plants and cover crop biomass. In general, we found that Sudan grass and annual rye grew too vigorously for this overseeding system while medic was not vigorous enough. Annual rye was difficult to control in the following year, coming back as a weed. From our observations, the cereal rye and crimson clover performed well in the overseeding system.

Vancouver Study, Year Two

In the spring of 2002, the cover crops from the first year of the study were mowed and the field was disced and prepared for planting. Again, we planted dry beans and edamame (in May and June, respectively). Our dry bean plot measured 90 feet wide and 100 feet long, and edamame area was 90 feet wide and 50 feet long. Again, we managed weeds during the production season via mechanical cultivation between rows and manual weeding within the crop row. In the second year, we changed our cover crop treatments and plot design in response to vegetable crop disease and weed pressure. In 2001 (and, as it turned out, again in 2002) our dry bean crop suffered extensively from halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola), a seed- and soilborne disease. We adjusted our cover crop treatments so that we could investigate potential control options of this disease as we studied the weed control benefits.

We harvested the bean crops in the fall of 2002, then on October 17 we disced the field, broadcast-seeded the cover crop treatments, and incorporated the seed by harrowing. This second year, we employed a randomized complete block design with four replications as shown in Figure 2; each block was 18 feet by 25 feet, for a total area of 90 feet by 100 feet (only a portion of the full 100-foot length of the dry bean plot was used). Compared to the first year, we added brown mustard and Caliente mustard, and removed the winter pea addition to cereal rye. We also increased the seeding density of cereal rye threefold. The resulting cover crops and seeding rates for fall of 2002 were: brown mustard (20 lbs/A), Caliente mustard (20 lbs/A), crimson clover (20 lbs/A), and cereal rye (150 lbs/A).

FIGURE 2

Cover crop plot design at WSU Vancouver Research and Extension Unit in October 2002. Cover crop plots were 18 feet wide 25 feet long and total area was 90 feet by 100 feet.

Conclusions and Continued Research

Winter cover crops have the potential to reduce weed growth in a subsequent vegetable crop. Some cover crops will work better than others; seeding rates and crop selection will influence the efficacy, as will the introduction of complicating factors such as disease pressure. There are indications that weed control can be optimized if the cover crops are sown in the summer into a standing vegetable crop. Timing of cover crop overseeding is critical; it should be late enough that there is no or little competition between the cover crop and the vegetable crop, yet early enough that the cover crop becomes established before winter.

We are continuing our research in 2003, expanding from our original focus of weed suppression to a dual focus of weed and disease suppression. This spring (2003), the plots are being planted with a single variety of halo blight-susceptible dry beans.We plan to evaluate weed and disease pressure in each plot.

Carol Miles and Martin Nicholson are with the Washington State University Vancouver Research & Extension Unit. Carol can be reached at milesc@wsu.edu or (360) 576-6030.

Go to this issue's Table of Contents

Go to Agrichemical and Environmental News Index

Go to WSPRS (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) Home Page

Carrie R. Foss, Community IPM Coordinator, WSU

Knowledge is the foundation of a successful integrated pest management (IPM) program. Pest management professionals wishing to employ IPM must understand the cultural requirements of the plants under their care and the biology of the pests that invade those plants. Beyond that, they should know how to develop a site survey, how to monitor pest populations, how to improve plant health through cultural strategies, how to maintain the records crucial for decision-making, and how to determine when pesticide use is appropriate in an integrated approach.

Landscape and Turf in Washington

Urban areas present special pest management problems, both actual and perceptual. High population density means more people sharing less space. Parks, lawns, golf courses, right-of-ways, public buildings, and other aspects of city infrastructure have specific pest control needs. Yet urban populations tend to be both well educated and vocal. They are concerned about the use of pesticides and tend to express a preference for less chemical means of pest suppression. Integrated approaches can help address the complex scientific and social issues of the urban environment.

Western Washington, particularly the north-south corridor along Interstate 5, is urban in nature. Consequently, much of the pest management in western Washington is urban pest management. The management of landscape and turf is a large component of the pest management spectrum in western Washington, as in any predominately urban area.

Like all pest management professionals, landscape and turf managers need a broad base of knowledge if they wish to be successful in implementing IPM. These factors led to the development of the Washington State University (WSU) IPM Certification Program for landscape and turf professionals.

Spreading the Word

The dissemination of practical knowledge is the fundamental concept behind Cooperative Extension. Our Pesticide Education Program is part of the Cooperative Extension program at WSU. This program provides education for individuals to prepare them for the various Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) pesticide applicator exams as well as continuing education (“recertification training”) to licensed pesticide applicators, helping them stay current, expand their knowledge, and, through a clock-hour accounting system, renew their license without retesting.

This pesticide applicator training program provided a logical vehicle for implementing an IPM certification program. In fact, much of the coursework we had been offering through the Pesticide Education Program reflected IPM principles.

In February 2000, we were approached by the FQPA Specialist from EPA Region 10, Sandra Halstead. She pointed out that many of our courses were specifically targeted at landscape and turf professionals (appropriately enough, as our western Washington Pesticide Education audiences are about 80% non-crop public applicators, most of whom manage landscape and turf applications) and suggested that developing a certification program might provide additional incentive for this audience as well as an enhanced organizational structure for this training.

Something Old, Something New

Sandra was right. The idea of an IPM certification program for landscape and turf professionals quickly began to take shape. But we wanted to do more than rehash and re-label existing coursework.

Beginning in the spring of 2000, and continuing throughout that summer, we organized meetings of experts within the three main pest disciplines. These plant pathologists, entomologists, and weed specialists helped develop the curriculum for what they felt would be a rigorous but attainable IPM certification program for landscape and turf professionals. They came to agreement on what principles to teach and on which pests to focus. Early in the process, it was decided that the curriculum content should be specific and prescriptive as possible, rather than a broad-brush, theoretical overview. We integrated the best of our existing coursework with brand-new materials including PowerPoint presentations, fact sheets on each pest group, and videos. A description of our program and some of the educational materials we have created can be viewed on our Website at http://pep.wsu.edu/IPMcert.html.

The “nuts-and-bolts” structure of the certification process was determined during these meetings in 2000 as well. Certification would require thirty hours of training, at least twelve of which would have to be obtained in hands-on IPM workshops. The program was launched in November 2000. Participants attended an initial “Integrated Pest Management for Landscapes and Turf” session for which they received six IPM credit hours. They also received WSDA recertification credits for their pesticide license. Sessions were held throughout that winter in a number of locations in western Washington. Those enrolling in the certification program received a program notebook at their first course, which they brought to subsequent sessions as they accrued their remaining twenty-four credit hours. Landscape and turf professionals have embraced the IPM Certification Program for a variety of reasons. Independent contractors find that a university certification can be a marketing advantage. Applicators working within municipal, state, and other agencies have been able to use the certification as a promotional strategy.

A Little Help from Our Friends

In the winter of 2001, we applied for a small grant through EPA Region 10 (ED. NOTE: This was one of the mini-grants to which we referred in the introductory article, "IPM: Big and Small, We Need It All.") As part of a program called Alternative Pest Management Strategies for Integrated Pest Management, we were awarded $7612.50. This enabled us to fund some clerical support crucial in preparing the program handouts and developing a system to keep track of participant credits.

Results and Impacts

During the 2001 and 2002 seasons, six-hour sessions were offered at twelve locations to approximately 3000 individuals. Of the attendees at the WSU Education Programs, 743 licensed applicators (about 25% of the total attendees) registered for the WSU IPM Certification Program. One applicator completed the 30 hours of IPM coursework during the first season of the WSU IPM Certification program. An additional seventeen attendees received their IPM certificate after two years in the program. We expect a typical participant to complete the coursework during a three to five-year period.

IPM Certification workshop participants shown here studying weeds.

A sample of program participants was surveyed to determine their attitudes and intent regarding the IPM practices taught in the workshops and recertification courses. Survey responses showed that 81% planned to adopt an integrated approach to managing pest problems in turf and landscape areas and 12% reported that they already practiced IPM. Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed reported that the training increased their diagnostic skills for identifying pest problems in turf and landscape areas. Improved diagnostic skills and the intent to adopt IPM strategies for managing landscape and turf problems should lead to improved problem management and decreased pesticide use.

Looking Ahead

The WSU IPM Certification Program is now in its third season. Courses are scheduled from November through March or April. This year, the basic “Integrated Pest Management for Landscapes and Turf” course was offered in nine different locations. Our workshop offerings have expanded to include more hands-on opportunities, including a new pruning workshop. Our initial hands-on workshop, “Integrated Plant Health Management (IPHM),” is still popular as well. This three-day workshop covers all three major pest groups and provides participants the opportunity to earn 18 IPM Certification credits while they earn 15 WSDA recertification credits. A new “Advanced IPHM” course is now being offered for those who have previously attended the basic IPHM course.

Other program enhancements have included the incorporation of additional, relevant pest management videos from around the country. In 2002, we produced our own video as well, entitled, Exploring Biocontrol in Agriculture and Landscapes. Using other grant funds, we were able to purchase eleven microscopes that are being used in the hands-on training sessions beginning with a Christmas tree workshop last fall.

The certification program for landscape and turf professionals has been successful so far. Having a respected, high-visibility pesticide education training program in place before initiating this certification program was key to its success. The current program addresses the lion’s share of western Washington public pesticide applicators. Agricultural and other non-turf/landscape applicators’ needs are not being addressed yet, and some interest has been expressed on the part of these constituencies to have the ability to participate in a similar program geared toward their needs. We plan to expand the WSU IPM Certification Program to other applicator groups and in our capacity as extension educators, we will stay alert for funding opportunities as the demand increases.

Carrie R. Foss is Community IPM Coordinator for Washington State University. Her office is located in the Puyallup Research and Extension Center and she can be reached at (253) 445-4577 or cfoss@wsu.edu. She maintains an IPM Website at Internet URL http://ipm.wsu.edu and her IPM Certification Program is also described at http://pep.wsu.edu/IPMcert.html.

Go to this issue's Table of Contents

Go to Agrichemical and Environmental News Index

Go to WSPRS (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) Home Page

Announcements & Upcoming Conferences

Items in this section often appear in the words of the sponsoring organization or original news release. AENews editorial staff is not responsible for the accuracy of the content.

---

Fourth National Integrated Pest Management Symposium/Workshop

April 8-10, 2003

The Fourth National IPM Symposium/Workshop is an exciting opportunity to learn about the latest developments in agricultural and urban IPM and to share your IPM experiences with others. The symposium includes over 60 breakout sessions (workshop, debate and presentation formats) encompassing almost all aspects of IPM, as well as plenary speakers talking about their experiences in building alliances. In addition, several IPM-related organizations are convening their meetings before or after the Symposium making this a full week of IPM in Indianapolis.

Examples of sessions at the Symposium include:

• Building Alliances Between IPM Practitioners and Consumers
• Connecting with the Media/Press
• Biorational Insecticides - Selectivity and Importance in IPM Programs
• Federal Agencies and IPM: Improving Communication and Coordination
• School IPM
• New Tools for Agricultural Professionals - WeedSOFT: A New Approach in Integrated Weed Management
• IPM for Teachers & School Students: K-12 Curricula
• Barriers to the Adoption of Biocontrol Agents and Biological Pesticides
• Integrated Crop Management of Greenhouse and Floricultural Crops
• IPM and Urban Wildlife Pest Situations
• Application and Prioritization of IPM Projects in Natural Areas
• Images of Sustainable Agriculture: Landscapes, Pest Management and Biotechnology
• The Future of Global IPM
• Landscapes and Weeds
• IPM in Organic Systems
  For more information, visit http://www.conted.uiuc.edu/ipm

---

West Nile Virus: Educational Opportunities

Several opportunities are available to increase knowledge and awareness of the issues surrounding West Nile Virus.

---

WSU Adds Public Health/Aquatic Pest Courses

Washington State University's Pesticide Education Program (http://pep.wsu.edu) has added two training dates in April for people wanting a review session prior to taking the state pesticide examination in Public Health Pest Control or the Aquatic Pest Control certification examination.

For people doing mosquito control, whether a private landowner, a public employee, or a commercial contract applicator, the Public Health Pest Control Category is better than the Aquatic Pest Control Category in most situations. Only when the application would need to control fish or weeds, in addition to insects, would an applicator need the aquatic endorsement.

The following courses have been added onto our existing training schedule at locations found in the current registration brochure. Interested parties register by filling out the existing registration form (available on-line at http://pep.wsu.edu/pdf/westpest2002.pdf) and adding the course number in the margin of the form. If an applicator needs to study laws and safety because he or she is not currently licensed, that individual should sign up for DAY 1 of the pre-existing courses to get the laws and safety information.

April 2 in Seattle
Sign up on our regular registration form and write "Course 951" in the margin.
Training in the morning, testing in the afternoon.

April 16 in Puyallup
Sign up on our regular registration form and write "Course 952" in the margin.
Training in the morning, testing in the afternoon.

If these courses fill, the WSU program will add additional one-day or two-day training. More courses are planned for June, July, and August. Please watch the Pesticide Education Program site for further information.

---

National Conference Presentations Available On-Line

Presentations given at the Fourth National Conference on West Nile Virus in the United States (New Orleans, Louisiana, February 9-11, 2003) are now available on the CDC website in Powerpoint and PDF versions: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/conf/index.htm.

---

DOH Zoonotic Disease Workshops

The Washington State Department of Health will hold Zoonotic and Vectorborne Disease workshops in three locations in spring 2003:

Richland - March 26

Mount Vernon - April 2

Olympia - April 11

Topics will include a review of rabies epidemiology, prevention and the recent cat rabies case in Walla Walla; zoonotic enteric agents including E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella; tick surveillance and tickborne disease; human psittacosis and avian chlamydiosis; zoonotic agents of potential bioterrorism concern (anthrax, tularemia, plague), an update on West Nile Virus and other emerging zoonotic or vectorborne issues. For more details about the workshops and to register online please visit the Website at
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Zoo/Workshop03.htm.

---

Proceedings from Direct Seed Conference Available

The 2003 Northwest Direct Seed Cropping Systems Conference and Trade Show in Pasco, Washington was held on January 8-10, 2003. The program was attended by 600 growers and ag support personnel.

A detailed, 120-page conference proceedings is available. The proceedings provides an in-depth summary of the speaker presentations and is an excellent reference on new technologies for direct seed cropping systems. The proceedings and other conference materials can be accessed on the conference Website at http://pnwsteep.wsu.edu/directseed.

The Northwest Direct Seed Conference was organized as a service to growers by the Pacific Northwest Solutions to Environmental and Economic Problems (STEEP) conservation farming research and educational program and the new Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association. It was co-sponsored by seventeen agricultural support companies and developed in cooperation with twelve Pacific Northwest grower organizations and other ag support groups and agencies.

The program featured twenty-eight speakers, including six growers, from Idaho, Oregon, Washington, South Dakota, and New Zealand. Highlights included: the great debate on high versus low disturbance direct seed openers, stacked rotation and other pest management strategies, transition economics, crop marketing strategies for direct seeders, residue management options, new weed control strategies, building partnerships with landlords, managing for increased soil carbon and productivity, and grower experiences across the region.

Printed copies of the proceedings are available for $8 (including mailing). Make checks payable to Northwest Direct Seed Conference. You can use the order form from the conference Website (above) or just submit your request and payment to: Northwest Direct Seed Conference, P.O. Box 2002, Pasco, WA 99302 (Phone: 509-547-5538; Fax: 509-547-5563).

---

New Electronic Publication from Ag Retailers Association

If, as the common saying has it that "the devil is in the details," a new electronic publication with a bushel of specifics from the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) provides Beelzebub with considerable challenge. The free document, "Security of Chemicals in the Pesticide and Fertilizer Industries: A Primer for Retailers, Distributors, Wholesalers and End-Users," is based on the conceptual trio of "deter, detect, and delay;" that is, "deter an unwanted event from happening; detect potential criminal or terrorist activity as early as possible; and, failing all else, delay violators as long as possible until proper authorities arrive." The first step is to identify critical assets, then work to establish layers of protection. The clearly written text, found at

http://www.aradc.org/secureagribusinessguidelines.pdf

lists numerous important steps and useful, pragmatic actions. Many are "soft," non-aggressive procedures such as keeping close tabs on inventory and establishing contact with local representatives of law enforcement and emergency response units.

---

National Pesticide Guidelines for Medical and Nursing Education and Practice

The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF), in partnership with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and the U. S. Department of Labor, has published the National Pesticide Competency Guidelines for Medical & Nursing Education and the National Pesticide Practice Skills Guidelines for Medical & Nursing Practice, which are priority projects of NEETF's 10-year National
Strategies for Health Care Providers' Pesticides Initiative. The purpose of the initiative is to improve the recognition, management, and prevention of pesticide poisonings and overexposures by health care
providers in the United States. The initiative takes a strategic approach for incorporating environmental health information into the education and practice of health care providers, using pesticides as a model. The National Guidelines are a major step toward improving primary care practitioners' environmental knowledge and skills.

These documents are currently available online at
http://www.neetf.org/health/providers/index.shtm.
Printed copies will be available later this year.

The initiative's Federal Interagency Planning Committee encourages you to review the National Guidelines. To discuss implementing these strategies in medical and nursing schools, contact the project director, Leyla Erk McCurdy, at 202-261-6488, mccurdy@neetf.org.

---

U of W Presents Risk Communication Course

On April, 3, 2003, the University of Washington will present "Risk Communication: Going Beyond 'Right to Know' to 'Right to Understand'." Effective and accurate risk communication is vital to health care, occupational health, public health, and the media. This course will discuss appropriate use of risk information and how to overcome the challenges with communicating various types of risk information to diverse audiences. Cost: $175 on or before March 13, 2003; $205 after.

Topics

• Putting context on communicating: using the risk paradigm
• Interpreting and communicating genetic risk information for susceptible populations: public and occupational health genetics as a case study
• Ethical issues in communicating risk information
• Visualization: employing new technologies for visualizing risk information

Breakout Sessions

• Occupational risk communication: creating easy to use rules and tools
• Creating dialogue: engaging and empowering stakeholders
• Seafood advisories: case study in risk communication to susceptible populations

For more information, call the Northwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety at 206-543-1069, visit http://depts.washington.edu/ehce, or email ce@u.washington.edu. A PDF copy of the conference brochure is available at http://depts.washington.edu/ehce/NWcenter/course/riskcommunication.pdf.

---

Pesticide Education Materials Available

-I-

Free copies of the Spanish version of "Help Yourself to a Healthy Home" (Contribuya a Tener un Hogar Sano) are now available. This booklet, developed by the University of Wisconsin's Home*Asyst program, is geared for the consumer and answers important questions about the home and how you live in it. By answering the questions, the reader can find out if their home is "healthy," or if they need to make some changes. There are nine sections in the booklet including one on pesticide safety. Every chapter provides basic information about a particular environmental issue, e.g. indoor air quality, pesticides, carbon monoxide, lead, mold and moisture, etc.; questions to help readers decide whether any of these are issues of concern in their homes; and simple "action steps" to address these concerns. Interested in copies of this booklet? E-mail Kathy Seikel at seikel.kathy@epa.gov or call 703-308-8272.

-II-

Free CDs containing important information about integrated pest management in schools are available. EPA's Region 2 (New York) office has developed a CD containing several documents relating to IPM in
schools: 1) "Pest Control in the School Environment," the popular 1993 EPA publication designed to acquaint readers with IPM as a potential alternative to scheduled spraying of pesticides; 2) "Who Wants to be an IPM Super Sleuth? Integrated Pest Management Activities and Resources for Kids of All Ages" developed by the IPM Institute of North America; 3) "Neato Mosquito," the CD developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which contains a 4th grade curriculum designed to teach kids about mosquito biology through the use of animation, video images, interactive games, and student projects; and 4) a CDC-developed video about mosquito biology. For copies of this CD, which includes all four items above,
e-mail Henry Rupp at rupp.henry@epa.gov or call 732-906-6178.

-III-

"Tres Amigos al Rescate" is the name of a new education and outreach package developed by EPA's Region 6 (Dallas) office and aimed at Spanish-speaking communities. The core component of this package is an entertaining and informative video that appeals to children and adults alike and provides practical information on safe use of household chemicals, including pesticides. It also provides useful information about radon, second-hand smoke, contaminated water, asbestos, lead, UV light, and ground-level ozone. The video is accompanied by a companion booklet, also in Spanish, designed for parents, teachers, and moderators. A helpful discussion guide and fact sheet complete the package and set the stage for stimulating discussions about steps people can take to make their homes environmentally safe. To order "Tres Amigos al Rescate," e-mail Amadee Madril at madril.amadee@epa.gov or call 214-665-2767.

-IV-

Check out the new "Bugged by Bugs" pesticide awareness patch developed through a partnership between EPA's Region 8 (Denver) office and the Girl Scouts Mile Hi Council, which reaches more than 36,000 girls between the ages 5-17. This exciting new on-line resource can be accessed at http://www.girlscoutsmilehi.org. The Website features on-line games, word searches and crossword puzzles that kids can tackle while learning more about safe pesticide use, risks, and potential health concerns related to pesticides, as well as the IPM approach to pest control.

---

11th Food Safety Farm to Table Conference

The Northwest Food Safety Consortium presents the eleventh annual rendition of this popular conference

May 28 - 29, 2003
University Inn, Moscow, ID

A cooperative venture of Washington State University and the University of Idaho, this conference program will include "Pathogens du jour" (environmental persistence of Listeria, E. coli O157:H7, Noroviruses, and prions), "Pathogens and Fresh Produce," "Food Handling Behaviors" (at home, in the workplace, and abroad), and "Hot Topics in the News."

Registration forms will be available later this month. To receive one, or for more information, contact WSU at ceeps@wsu.edu.

---

Second International Precision Forestry Symposium

The University of Washington's Precision Forestry Cooperative presents the second International Precision Forestry Symposium

June 15 - 18, 2003
University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Major topics include "Precision Operations and Equipment," "Remote Sensing and Measurement of Forest Lands and Vegetation," "Terrestrial Sensing, Measurement and Monitoring," and "Design Tools and Decision Support Systems." Early registration at a substantial savings must occur before April 4, 2003.

For more information, see http://www.cfr.washington.edu/Outreach/PreFor/

---

Go to this issue's Table of Contents

Go to Agrichemical and Environmental News Index

Go to WSPRS (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) Home Page

---