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

HIPPO Research at WSU

Identifying and Harnessing HIPPOs for Hop and Grape Pest Management

Dr. David G. James and Tanya Price, Entomologists, WSU

HIPPOs might seem to be a strange research focus for entomologists, but our HIPPOs put some bite into pest management. These HIPPOs took center stage as the result of some potentially groundbreaking field studies in biological insect pest management at the Washington State University (WSU) Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center (IAREC) in Prosser last summer.

The Meaning of HIPPO

HIPPO stands for “Herbivore-Induced Plant Protection Odor,” a concept we introduced as “Herbivore-Induced Plant Volatiles (HIPV) to AENews readers in the November 2002 issue (James and Price 2002). Briefly, HIPPOs are released by plants when the plants are attacked by insect and mite pests. Each plant species tends to release a characteristic “bouquet” of aromas, which may be further modified by the type of herbivore attacking it. The function of HIPPOs is to inform natural enemies of the presence of their prey, thus attracting them to the plant being attacked and helping reduce injury. In effect, the plant under attack recruits “bodyguards” to fend off its attackers. Released volatiles therefore are “protective odors,” thus our switch to the more precise HIPPO acronym.

Taking HIPPOs into Washington Hops and Grapes

HIPPOs have been studied for 10 to 15 years through a series of often elegant laboratory studies in Europe, Japan, and the United States (Hunter 2002). Remarkably, however, relatively few attempts have been made to study HIPPOs in a field environment and hardly any have investigated the potential of using HIPPOs in pest management. This is despite the fact that many of the HIPPOs identified to date are readily available as synthetic compounds. The purpose of this article is to explain how HIPPOs could be used in crop protection and to provide some results from our pioneering field experiments in Prosser. Our article in November 2002 reported experiments in hops that demonstrated attraction of a green lacewing species to traps baited with methyl salicylate (also known as oil of wintergreen, found in linaments, toothpaste, hair care products, etc.) This work was recently published in the Journal of Chemical Ecology (James, 2003a) and has attracted international attention. Other research we conducted in 2002 showed that methyl salicylate also attracted other predatory insects like hover flies, bigeyed bugs, and mite-eating ladybeetles (James, 2003b). Another HIPPO we tested, hexenyl acetate, proved to be an attractant for minute pirate bugs and a predatory mirid bug.

HIPPOs as an Aid to Biological Control?

If HIPPOs can reliably attract predatory insects to a crop environment, we may have the potential to increase biological control provided by endemic communities of natural enemies. Conservation biological control (recruiting and sustaining endemic predators and parasitoids in a crop to help suppress pest populations) is the platform on which we are developing integrated pest management (IPM) systems for hops and grapes in eastern Washington (James 2000; James and Price 2000). Providing a crop environment with minimal exposure to harmful pesticides (James 2001; James and Coyle 2001) is fundamental for the recruitment of natural enemies, but attraction of winged predators to hop yards and vineyards in spring can be inconsistent. In hops, the early establishment of winged predators each season appears to be critical to the success of conservation biological control of mites and aphids (James 2000). HIPPOs potentially provide the means by which growers could maximize the recruitment of winged predators to their crops in spring, thus establishing a larger community of natural enemies earlier, improving the chances that conservation biological control will be successful. If such a strategy were successful, this clearly has implications for many crop systems, not only hops and grapes.

HIPPO Experiments in Hops and Grapes in 2003

Encouraged by our attraction experiment results in 2002, we approached an insect lure manufacturer and contracted them to prepare a quantity of slow release sachet dispensers containing methyl salicylate. Our aim in 2003 was to see whether methyl salicylate could enhance recruitment and sustainability of natural enemy populations in a 2-acre hop yard compared to a nearby unbaited hop yard. We also set up a replicated experiment in a Concord grape vineyard using 6 blocks, each containing 65 vines, distributed randomly in the vineyard. Three blocks were baited with methyl salicylate, three were unbaited. In the hop yard, 363 dispensers were stapled to support poles in mid April, while 55 dispensers were used in each baited Concord block. Visits were made to the sites weekly and sampling of insect and mite populations conducted through a variety of techniques. In hops, we used leaf samples for pest (mite) monitoring and a combination of sticky traps and canopy shake samples for beneficial insect monitoring. In grapes, we used sticky traps for all monitoring. The results described below are representative of the data we collected; statistical comparisons are being articulated as we complete data analysis at this writing.

Hop Mites HIPPO-ed

We have monitored the methyl salicylate-baited hop yard since 1999. Despite a major commitment by the grower to encourage biological control of mites, it has been necessary to apply at least one miticide each season. In 2003, mite pressure was substantial, with hot, dry conditions prevailing. During June, mite numbers increased rapidly to a mean of 70 per leaf by mid-month. However, during the third week of June the mite numbers fell dramatically to a mean of 6 per leaf. Numbers did not exceed 10 per leaf for the rest of June, July, and August and mites were virtually absent at harvest in early September (Figure 1, top). In contrast, mites in the unbaited hop yard averaged 36 to 64 per leaf during late May and early June with no indication of natural regulation; a miticide was applied in mid-June. Other hop yards in the district also exhibited rapidly increasing mite populations during June that required chemical control before the end of the month (Figure 1, bottom). The dramatic reversal in mite population growth during the third week of June in the methyl salicylate-baited yard was unprecedented. In our experience, such a decline in hop mite populations during hot dry weather in June only occurs when a miticide is applied.

FIGURE 1

Mite populations in hop yards in 2003 baited with HIPPO (methyl salicylate) or unbaited.

HIPPOs Bring in the Good Guys

Populations of predatory insects in the methyl salicylate-baited yard were very large for most of the season, much larger than those in the nearby, unbaited hop yard, especially throughout June and July (Figure 2). Although the unbaited yard received an application of miticide in mid-June, Acramite was used, which is safe to most beneficial insects. It seems very likely that it was the presence of a substantial community of mite predators (recruited and maintained by methyl salicylate) that resulted in the rapid decline of mite populations in the baited yard during the third week of June. Furthermore, the persistence of this community during the rest of the season appears to have effectively prevented any resurgence of the mite population. This persistence, despite the lack of mites upon which to feed, supports our theory that generalist predators (i.e., predators that feed on a wider range of prey than just mites) are very important in biological control of mites on hops.

FIGURE 2 Abundance of beneficial insects in canopy shake samples from hop yards in 2003 baited with HIPPO (methyl salicylate) or unbaited.

Populations of some important predators, for example, the mite-eating ladybeetle (Stethorus spp.) reached levels of abundance we had not previously encountered in hops. Up to 100 Stethorus per sticky trap per week were recorded in August, about 4 to 5 times more than previous maximum levels. The abundance of other groups of natural enemies (e.g., lacewings, ladybeetles, pirate bugs, parasitic wasps, predatory mirids) was also greater in the methyl salicylate-treated hop yard than in the unbaited yard.

HIPPOs Work in Grapes, Too

In the replicated experiment in grapes, we monitored for both pests and beneficial insects using sticky traps. While the numbers of lacewings, mite-eating ladybeetles, bigeyed bugs, pirate bugs, and hover flies were not very high overall, they were more prevalent in the treated blocks (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3 Abundance April through September 2003 of lacewings and hover flies in HIPPO-baited (methyl salicylate) and unbaited blocks in a Concord grape vineyard.

Analysis of the data revealed statistically significant differences in abundance of certain natural enemy groups in both the hop and the grape sites when comparing the methyl salicylate-baited and the unbaited blocks. While not unequivocal, these limited results are very suggestive of the possibilities of using methyl salicylate dispensers to increase recruitment and maintenance of natural enemy populations in hops and grapes. Clearly, more field studies on HIPPOs are needed, and we plan to greatly expand our research in this exciting new area over the next few years.

In 2003 we also began field-testing 16 other HIPPOs; we plan to increase that number in 2004. If we can show unequivocally that HIPPOs can be used to enhance conservation biological control in hops and grapes, it will open up possibilities for other crop systems throughout the United States as well as internationally. It’s a jungle out there, but HIPPOs may help growers take a huge bite out of their pest management problems.

David James and Tanya Price are Entomologists at the Irrigated Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Prosser. They can be reached at david_james@wsu.edu or (509) 786-9280.

Selected References

Hunter, M. D. 2002. A breath of fresh air: Beyond laboratory studies of plant volatile-natural enemy interactions. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 4, 81-86.

James, D. G. 2003a. Field evaluation of herbivore-induced plant volatiles as attractants for beneficial insects: Methyl salicylate and the green lacewing, Chrysopa nigricornis. Journal of Chemical Ecology 29, 1601-1609.

James, D. G. 2003b. Synthetic herbivore-induced plant volatiles as attractants for beneficial insects. Environmental Entomology 32 (5), 977-982.

James, D. G. 2002. Natural enemies: A new weapon in the war against hop pests. Agrichemical and Environmental News 194, June. http://aenews.wsu.edu/June02AENews/June02AENews.htm#HopPests

James, D. G. 2001. Pesticide safety and beneficial arthropods. Agrichemical and Environmental News 188, December. http://aenews.wsu.edu/Dec01AENews/Dec01AENews.htm#anchor432738

James, D. G. 2000. Protecting our insect and mite friends. Agrichemical and Environmental News 168, April. http://www.aenews.wsu.edu/April00AENews/Apr00AENews.htm#anchor5232326

James, D. G. and J. Coyle. 2001. Which pesticides are safe to beneficial insects and mites? Agrichemical and Environmental News 178, February. http://aenews.wsu.edu/Feb01AENews/Feb01AENews.htm#anchor550320

James, D. G. and T. S. Price. 2002. Aromatherapy for lacewings: Using plant-produced odors to attract predators and aid biological control. Agrichemical and Environmental News 199, November. http://www.aenews.wsu.edu/Nov02AENews/Nov02AENews.htm#Lacewings

James, D. G. and T. S. Price. 2000. Abamectin resistance in spider mites on hops. Agrichemical and Environmental News 170, June. http://aenews.wsu.edu/June00AENews/June00AENews.htm#anchor5232326

James, D. G. and T. S. Price. 2000. Abamectin resistance in spider mites on hops. Agrichemical and Environmental News 173, September. http://aenews.wsu.edu/June00AENews/June00AENews.htm

Prischmann, D. and D. G..James. 2002. Surviving neglect: Bugs inhabiting abandoned vineyards. Agrichemical and Environmental News 197, September. http://aenews.wsu.edu/Sept02AENews/Sept02AENews.htm#GrapevineBugs

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

Got Comments?

Pacific Northwest States Consolidate Comments to USDA/EPA Using New Program

Dr. Catherine H. Daniels, WSU Pesticide Coordinator, and Jane M. Thomas, Western Region Regulatory Information Coordinator

One of the most common complaints from Western growers about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is that "those folks use models, they don't use real data." This complaint refers to EPA’s chemical reregistration work mandated in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The reason that models don’t sit well with growers is that models, by their very nature, must take “worst case situations” into account. In other words, instead of calculating the actual use rate of a pesticide on the actual number of acres upon which it is used, a model will plug in the maximum allowable pesticide use per acre for 100% of the registered uses on all the potential acres on which it could be used. That can affect whether all uses fit in a chemical's “risk cup.” If the uses don’t fit, crops get deleted from labels. Real use data provides more, well…realistic estimates of exposure. Growers believe that with real numbers there is at least a better chance that all of a chemical's uses may still fit in the risk cup.

The good news is that when EPA scientists are able to access real data regarding field usage of pesticides, they do use it. The problem is finding that data.

So, where can EPA find data? The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the largest pesticide use tracking agency, compiles data on many, but not all crops. Notably, data on many of the minor crops so important to Washington’s agricultural economy are absent. The California Pesticide Use Reporting System has application records for all pesticides applied in that state. Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs) and Crop Profiles, both of which contain pesticide use information, are heavily used by EPA staff (see Washington State’s PMSPs and Crop Profiles at http://wsprs.wsu.edu/CropProfiles.html). Another way EPA obtains real data is by publishing notices in the Federal Register (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/) to solicit public comment. While this last method is important in allowing public process, it usually happens nearer the end of the decision-making process and, because of that timing, comments submitted may have less impact on the actions taken.

Each of the data sources currently used by EPA is important, but sometimes there’s no substitute for a conversation with a human being. When the level of detail exceeds that provided by databases or documents, or those questions require an answer from the grower community, EPA often calls the USDA Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP, http://www.ars.usda.gov/opmp/). In turn, OPMP staff members often call the regional Pest Management Center directors. For our area, that is the Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center (WRIPMC). One of the many roles of the WRIPMC is to facilitate and coordinate information exchange regarding pest management issues between federal agencies, universities, commodity groups, growers, and industry. The regional directors then pass the request along to appropriate contacts in states where the pesticide use pattern is thought to exist. (Contacts in Montana, for example, would not be sought for questions about pesticide use on oranges.) Each state then handles the requests in a manner that works best for them. The information collected goes back to EPA. This process was developed so that actual pesticide use practices and patterns could be given to EPA at the time they are making review decisions about specific agrichemicals.

Sounds good, doesn't it? Finally, we are able to get EPA the kind of real life data and back-and-forth-discussions needed to help make decisions. This is a point we have wanted to reach for quite awhile. Now, of course, the ball is in our court to deliver the information they are seeking within a timeframe in which they can use it.

A fair number of chemicals are under review at any one time, and many of them are registered on a large number of crops. Sometimes, even with real data, crops will have to be removed from the label in order to fit the chemical into its risk cup. The question then becomes: which ones? An example of a detailed question EPA might ask the OPMP staff in this situation is "which of the following 25 crops are absolutely critical to leave on the label and which ones can use other products?" The timeframe in which EPA needs this information is usually less than a month, sometimes even shorter, so you can see that state contacts can be kept very busy answering these questions in addition to performing their other numerous duties. Did I mention that while a simple “no, it isn't important on this crop in our state” is a sufficient answer; a simple “yes, this tool is critical on this crop” must be bolstered with data? The EPA needs to know things like the number of acres grown, a justification of why other products cannot substitute, and a general description of what will happen to the industry if the chemical can't be used on that crop anymore. Now that the states in the Pacific Northwest had the opportunity to submit real-life data we found we needed additional staff to collect it. Thus was born the idea of a regulatory information coordinator, someone to take the questions, find the people who could answer them and then put together a formal reply packet commenting on those chemical uses. Using a form of verbal shorthand, we call this position the “Comment Coordinator.”

The Making of a Comment Coordinator

State contacts from Alaska, Idaho, Washington, Montana, Oregon, and Utah have worked together for many years on pest management issues because our cropping systems and pest management needs are very similar. In 2002, contacts from several of these states, including Washington, began discussing ways to streamline this feedback process. Rather than have each state individually reply to information requests from EPA, it made more sense to have a single Comment Coordinator who would gather information from all states and send in a single comment packet. We tested our theory during 2002. An individual was selected to act as Comment Coordinator, a project was chosen, a contact list was built, and the first comment packet was generated. The project proved successful and funding was sought to make this position more permanent.

In September 2002, Washington State University (WSU) received specific funding from the Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center for a Comment Coordinator to provide USDA and EPA with information from this six-state region. Initially, the Comment Coordinator, with help from the respective state contacts, identified comment opportunities where input was likely to influence pesticide use pattern decisions relevant to the region. The intent was to be as proactive as possible in looking for opportunities to comment early in EPA's decision-making process.

Jane M. Thomas, previously known only as WSU's Pesticide Notification Network (http://www.pnn.wsu.edu) Coordinator and occasionally as the Queen Bee of Labels, assumed the responsibilities of the Comment Coordinator on September 15, 2002.

Setting Up an Infrastructure

The first task was to devise a database to hold the information that was received while making inquiries. A lot of information would be exchanged among the states, and a mechanism would be needed to store and sort it. The resulting database provides easy access to a list of all the individuals who have provided information pursuant to the requests received so far. It also serves as a storage bin for the individual bits and bobs of information collected in the process of preparing comments on a specific issue. The Comment Coordinator can query the information by crop, contact, and/or state. Not only does the database make starting on a new project a little easier but it also stores the information gathered for a project so that when it is time to prepare the final comment package, all the relevant information can be accessed and sorted in whatever manner is most convenient and appropriate to the question.

Comment Packages

Over the first year, nine comment packages were submitted as a result of the efforts of the six state contacts and the Comment Coordinator. The requests for comment come in a variety of forms but most often are e-mailed from USDA to Rick Melnicoe, the Director of the Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center, and are then forwarded to Jane. We have since refined the process so that the Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center staff identify comment opportunities to pass along to Jane. But while the mechanism for generating the request has been fairly consistent, the types of information sought have varied widely. Basically, any action with the potential to impact agriculture in the Pacific Northwest is fair game.

The information that goes into each comment package is derived from discussions with extension and research personnel, growers, fieldmen, chemical distributors, and anyone else who might have insight on the question at hand. In each comment package prepared so far, a contact list (sorted by crop and state) has been included so that if personnel at EPA or OPMP have additional questions about the information in the response, they can contact individuals directly. If an industry organization has prepared their own comments on the subject, we make sure our information is complementary and try to include a copy of their material in our comment packet.

In the interest of providing a public archive of this work, the requests, any supporting documents, and the final comment packages are all posted on the Washington State Pest Management Resource Service Web page. At http://wsprs.wsu.edu/, in the left navigation bar, click on Pesticides, then select Comment Coordinator: USDA/EPA Information Requests. Note that the requests and comment packages are posted first by active ingredient, then by project.
The comment packages are also posted on The WRIPMC Web page along with all the other comments submitted within the Western Region (http://wripmc.org/). They are found under the “Replies to Information Requests” button.

Below is a list of the projects that have been completed to date. The projects and known outcomes are discussed in more detail below.

1. Methyl Parathion: Niche Uses
2. Dimethoate: Critical Uses
3. Methyl Parathion: Onion and Potato Information
4. Vinclozolin: Tolerance Extension
5. Carbaryl: Revised Risk Assessment and Proposed Mitigation Measures
6. Dimethoate: Succulent Beans and Succulent Peas
7. DCPA (Dacthal): Cancellation
8. "List of 54": 2003 Remaining Uses
9. Dimethoate: Succulent Beans and Succulent Peas II

Methyl Parathion. In October of 2002, EPA requested information through USDA on methyl parathion use on about a dozen crops. The agency stated that they thought methyl parathion was used on these crops but that the amount was not significant and they wondered if the uses were critical niche uses that needed to be retained. In our response we requested that, of the crops cited methyl parathion use be retained on alfalfa, barley, canola, and onion. In March, as requested by EPA, Cheminova asked that we supply additional information about the agricultural practices associated with onion and potato production in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). In May 2003 EPA issued the interim reregistration eligibility document (IRED) for methyl parathion. Here EPA stated, "The following uses are eligible for reregistration: Alfalfa, barley, corn, cotton, grass forage/fodder/hay, oats, onion, pastures, rangeland, rape seed (canola), rice, rye, soybeans, sunflower, sweet corn, sweet potatoes, walnuts, wheat, white potatoes, and yams (emphasis added)."

Dimethoate. In December 2002, EPA asked for input on dimethoate. This second project was several orders of magnitude more complex because of the large number of crops and the general nature of the request. Through a massive organizational effort and scores of telephone calls, e-mails, and faxes, a response was submitted to EPA at the end of February. In July and again in September 2003, EPA asked for additional, specific information concerning dimethoate use on succulent beans and succulent peas. Secondary and tertiary comment packages were prepared and returned to EPA. As of this writing, the only formal action that EPA has taken on dimethoate is the use cancellation announced in the September 10 Federal Register. In this notice, EPA announced the following:

The companies that hold the pesticide registrations of products containing dimethoate have submitted requests to modify their technical labels to remove uses on certain crops. These crops consist of apples, grapes, cabbage, collards, spinach, head lettuce, broccoli raab, fennel, tomatillo, lespedeza, and trefoil. It is necessary to cancel use on apples, grapes, cabbage, collards, spinach, and head lettuce as part the process of revising the dimethoate human health risk assessment.

In their original request for information, EPA had already indicated that apple, grape, and head lettuce uses would be deleted and that succulent beans, succulent peas, and spinach were in jeopardy. Of the other listed crops, the PNW had requested that dimethoate use on spinach seed be retained. (At the time of this writing a note has been sent to EPA's Pat Dobak, dimethoate Chemical Review Manager, asking for clarification on EPA's position regarding the use of dimethoate on nonfood/nonfeed seed crops.) It is important to note that they have not, as yet, taken action to delete the succulent bean and succulent pea uses. This may indicate that our efforts are having some impact on the reregistration process for dimethoate.

Vinclozolin. This project was far different from those on the two previously mentioned chemicals. Dr. Bob McReynolds of Oregon State University, who had been very helpful with pesticide use information for vegetable crops grown in Oregon for the previous two comment packages, contacted the Comment Coordinator in April 2003. He requested that the region prepare a letter of support for a tolerance extension for vinclozolin on succulent beans in response to a notice in the March 26 Federal Register. The use of vinclozolin is important to the Oregon succulent bean industry and this was a pro-active step to write a letter of support. A comment letter was submitted to the docket and in the September 30 Federal Register, EPA announced that the tolerance had been extended for two years and will expire 9/30/05. While several other letters of support were submitted as well, we like to think the PNW comment package favorably impacted the results.

Carbaryl. As with the initial dimethoate project, an April request regarding carbaryl was complex and preparing a response proved difficult. The list of crops involved was extensive and, to further complicate matters, the timeline was short. In preparation for finalizing the carbaryl IRED, EPA was trying to ascertain which uses were critical and whether growers could tolerate newly proposed re-entry intervals (REIs). There was some initial confusion between groups about what the proposed mitigation measures were, which resulted in Jane having to cover some ground twice in gathering information.

By the end of May we were able to provide some information regarding uses in our region that were considered important. In June EPA issued the carbaryl IRED. The results were a mixed bag, with some crops ending up with lower REIs than originally proposed (caneberries, cranberries, sugarbeets), some with slightly higher REIs (beans, peas, root crop brassica, cucurbits, filberts), and some, like sod, that were complete surprises. (In the IRED, EPA established the REI for sod farms as 12 hours for all activities except harvesting, where the REI is now 9 days.)

DCPA. In late July we received a request from USDA to gather information on sites where the herbicide DCPA was being used. EPA had contacted USDA to ask if there would be serious hardships created if the registration for this chemical were cancelled. The agency was contemplating this action because of cancer and groundwater-contamination concerns. A response was submitted late in August. As of this writing, EPA has concluded that for some of the currently registered uses, DCPA is an essential tool. Working with the registrant, EPA is now attempting to iron out carcinogenicity and toxicity issues.

The "List of 54." This project, as the name implies, covered a large number of pesticides. This project had the tightest timeline but luckily we were asked just to respond with information from Washington State. Other contacts were requested to produce California and Oregon-specific information. The request was received on Friday, August 29, 2003 from USDA's Burleson Smith and returned September 5, 2003. In his e-mail he asked that we let him know if there were any crops now in the ground that would need an application or applications of any of 54 chemicals listed before the crop was harvested. (The information request had to do with a lawsuit filed by a consortium of the Washington Toxics Coalition, Northwest Alternatives to Pesticides, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens, and Institute of Fisheries Resources against EPA. The lawsuit charged that EPA had failed to consult with other agencies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and that buffers were required on 54 chemicals until consultation takes place. (See “Salmon-Stimulated Lawsuits: Swimming in Circles or Shouldered on Sound Science?” AENews Issue No. 202, February 2003). The judge hearing the case was attempting to determine the impact to existing crops were he to immediately impose mandatory buffer zones to protect streams carrying endangered fish species. It may have become clear to the reader by this point why the project workload required dedicated staff, this isn't a request for 54 crops, which in itself is not a trivial thing; it is a request for all ag uses for 54 chemicals. Jane accomplished this information collection by sending a notification via the Pesticide Notification Network requesting input. Resulting information was summarized and submitted. To date, the court has not issued a final ruling.

Having an Impact

After a little over a year, it’s safe to say that the Comment Coordinator concept has been a success. Growers, registrants, and, most importantly, the agencies responsible for making pesticide reregistration decisions are finding the comment packages very useful.

“The information…you have supplied to EPA …is extremely helpful for pinpointing the critical needs for this chemical. Not only did your comments inform EPA as to the critical needs of the chemical, but it also was very informative as to where the chemical is not necessary any more and why.” (USDA)

“It is a great idea to have one person within a large region, who can be contacted and trusted to pull together this type of information for the EPA. I only wish other university systems would follow your lead.” (USDA)

“It's plain to me that [this sort of] work is very necessary if we are to get critical info to the EPA.” (University)

“…commendable report…provided us with exactly the kind of information we need for that region… pests, alternatives, timing, application methods, and post-application activities.” (EPA)

“Thank you so much for this very detailed response. This is exactly the kind of information, and the detail, that we need for our discussions with EPA.” (Registrant)

“The Regional Comments Coordinator has greatly enhanced our ability to meet this [information exchange] objective.” (WRIPMC)

“The information you supplied is very useful, and your timing was great. I was blown away by the level of detail.” (EPA)

“Keep up the good work you are achieving with this new program at Washington State University and thank you again.” (USDA)

In September 2003 the Comment Coordinator position officially became a part of the Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center. Jane continues to work at WSU Tri-Cities, still manages the PNN, and will continue to provide information from the six-state area to USDA and EPA in 2004 as the Comment Coordinator. The program’s success is underscored by the fact that similar programs are being considered in other parts of the West and in other regions of the United States.

Jane M. Thomas is Comment Coordinator and Pesticide Notification Network coordinator. Her office is on the Tri-Cities campus of Washington State University. She can be reached at (509) 372-7493 or jmthomas@tricity.wsu.edu. Catherine Daniels is Pesticide Coordinator for Washington State University. Her office is at the Puyallup Research and Extension Center. She can be reached at (253) 445-4611 or cdaniels@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

Mini Watermelons

New Crop for New Markets

Dr. Carol Miles, Madhu Sonde, Martin Nicholson, and Sean-Paul Cunningham, Vancouver Research and Extension Unit, WSU

Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) seeds and leaves have been found in tombs in Egypt dating back thousands of years. In 1850, explorer David Livingston found wild watermelons in the Kalahari Desert. Based on these findings watermelon is believed to originate in Africa. Watermelons made their way to America with traders four hundred years ago, and the first written record of their cultivation in this country was in Massachusetts in 1629. Today, the United States ranks fourth in the world in watermelon production and in 2002 produced 1.86 million tons of watermelon on 15 million acres, and the crop value was $329 million. The primary watermelon producing states are Texas (26%), Florida (16%) and Georgia (14%). Consumption of watermelon in the United States totaled 3.9 billion pounds in 2000, average per capita consumption was 15.1 pounds, and Asian and Hispanic consumers were the strongest consumer groups. Watermelon is consumed as plain fruit, dessert, fruit salad, snack, picnic food, plate garnish, and as a fruit drink.

Watermelons are classified into groups according to fruit shape, rind color or pattern, and weight. These groups are often named after a popular variety with those characteristics (Table 1). Until two decades ago, watermelon was only a seasonal fruit, but today imports combined with local production ensure a year-round supply. With a rise in interest in local production and direct marketing, farmers in Washington are looking to diversify crop varieties to meet these demands. Miniature watermelons, commonly referred to as icebox watermelons, weigh from 6 to 12 pounds and offer farmers in western Washington a means of producing high quality watermelons locally. Mini watermelons were introduced to the U.S. marketplace only a few years ago from Asia, and several varieties have very recently been developed and released in the United States. Mini watermelons are rapidly gaining popularity, as their smaller size is ideal for small families and for storage in home refrigerators.

Mini Watermelon Study

In 2002, we planted three mini watermelon varieties to test their production potential at the Washington State University (WSU) Vancouver Research and Extension Unit. Based on the success of that study we planted an expanded (non-replicated) observation study in 2003 that included nine varieties. The study was conducted on certified organic land and was managed accordingly. The primary objectives of this study were to:

1. Measure yield and size of mini watermelon varieties grown in western Washington.
2. Investigate the potential of growing mini watermelons with drip and overhead sprinkler irrigation systems.
3. Evaluate local consumer response to eating qualities of mini watermelon varieties.

This report focuses on the development of mini watermelons as a new alternative crop for our region, emphasizing the results from objectives 1 and 3, above. While our mini watermelons were grown under drip and overhead sprinkler irrigation systems, a malfunction of the drip irrigation system (explained below) rendered a comparison of the two irrigation systems unfeasible. We were, however, able to measure melon yields and sizes and to conduct a consumer survey.

Mini watermelons are still new to the marketplace. They are grown by only a handful of growers in the Pacific Northwest and seed for the crop is only now becoming readily available in the United States. Studies are needed to determine maturity dates, total yield, and size and weight of melons grown in the region. Some of the varieties grown in this study are new to the United States and growers may need to specially request seed.

Study Methodology

Mini watermelons were planted in our Vancouver greenhouse on March 24 and transplanted into the field on June 2. Transplanting was delayed due to wet field conditions in May. Other studies have shown that ideally melons should be transplanted two to three weeks after seeding. Plots were one row wide and 15 feet long and spacing between plants was 3 feet. Five plants of each variety were evaluated under both drip irrigation and overhead irrigation systems. Soil in the rows was covered with black plastic and drip tape was laid under the plastic. In the overhead irrigation system, plants were irrigated once a week at the rate of 1 inch per week from June through August. In the drip irrigation system, plants were scheduled to be irrigated twice a week at the rate of 1 inch per week from June through August. However, the drip system malfunctioned for the first two weeks; plants were extremely stressed and took weeks to recover. In some cases, the stressed plants did not recover. As a result, harvest was delayed in the drip system rows and, in many cases, yield was depressed. Thus in this report we will only present yield data for the overhead irrigation system as we feel this more closely reflects potential yield of the varieties.

Size and Yield Mini watermelon harvest began on August 5, sixty-four days after transplanting, and continued until October 13. In general, varieties that produced the greatest number of mini watermelons also generally produced the greatest total yield (Table 2). Orchid Sweet and Sugar Baby were the largest mini watermelons in the study while Fun Belle and Yellow Doll were the smallest. Dark Belle and Smile produced the greatest number of mini watermelons and were high yielding, while New Queen produced the fewest number of mini watermelons and was low yielding (Figures 1 and 2). Mini watermelon varieties differed in shape: Red Delicious and Dark Belle were oblong while all others were round. Varieties also varied in skin and flesh color: Fun Belle was yellow-skinned and red-fleshed; Yellow Doll, New Queen, and Orchid Sweet and were green-skinned and yellow-fleshed; all other varieties were green-skinned and red-fleshed. It was difficult to consistently determine when some varieties in this study reached maturity. Growers will need to test fruit periodically throughout the harvest season to make sure fruit are fully mature and have good eating quality.

ORCHID SWEET SUGAR BABY GARDEN BABY YELLOW DOLL

FIGURE 1	FIGURE 2
Number of fruit harvested from 5 plants of 9 mini watermelon varieties tested at WSU Vancouver Research and Extension Unit in 2003.	Yield (kg) of mini watermelon fruit harvested from 5 plants of 9 mini watermelon varieties tested at WSU Vancouver Research and Extension Unit in 2003.

Consumer Response

Mini watermelons were test-marketed through Joe’s Place, a farm store in Vancouver. Customers were asked to fill out and return a market questionnaire. All customers paid full price for each mini watermelon they purchased and those customers who returned a completed questionnaire received a $2 coupon for their next purchase at the farm store. Through this market survey, 280 mini watermelons were purchased and 56 questionnaires were returned.

FIGURE 3

Mini watermelon display at Joe’s Place farm store in Vancouver.

A photo of each mini watermelon was displayed and each watermelon was labeled so that customers could understand the characteristics of the variety they purchased (Figure 3, above). Mini watermelons were priced at the market price in nearby metropolitan Portland (59¢ per pound); each mini watermelon cost on average $1.80 or approximately half the cost of a regular (full-sized) watermelon. Customers were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=Not important and 5=Very important) whether size, color, price, organic production, and novelty played an important part in their decision to purchase mini watermelons. Customers indicated on average that novelty and color were not important in their purchasing decision while price, organic production, and size were more important (Table 3).

Customers were also asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=Very poor and 5=Excellent) the flavor, texture, juiciness, and overall eating quality of the mini watermelons. Customers indicated that on average all eating quality aspects of the mini watermelons were very good, however some varieties were rated higher than others (Table 4). Red Delicious, Dark Belle, Smile, and Fun Belle were rated the highest in this study while Sugar Baby and Orchid Sweet were rated the lowest. All customers indicated that the mini watermelons they purchased were either very easy or easy to store in their refrigerator. Also 60% of surveyed customers indicated they would purchase the same variety again. All customers who purchased Red Delicious and 86% of customers who purchased Fun Belle indicated they would purchase these varieties again, while 75% of customers indicated they would not purchase Orchid Sweet or Sugar Baby again.

RED DELICIOUS DARK BELLE SMILE FUN BELLE

Conclusions Mini watermelons can be successfully grown in the field in western Washington and customer surveys indicated that mini watermelons have good eating quality and are easy to store. Of the 9 varieties we tested, Red Delicious, Dark Belle, Smile, and Fun Belle were rated the best quality by customers. Fun Belle was the smallest mini watermelon in the study while Dark Belle and Smile produced the greatest number of mini watermelons and were high-yielding in terms of weight. A comparison of drip with overhead irrigation systems remains to be studied. We propose to do that in 2004 when we repeat this study as a replicated field trial. Dr. Carol Miles, Madhu Sonde, Martin Nicholson, and Sean-Paul Cunningham conduct research from the WSU Vancouver Research and Extension Unit. They can be reached at (360) 576-6030 or milesc@wsu.edu. Additional information on their work is available at Internet URL http://agsyst.wsu.edu.

REFERENCES

Avery L. 2002. Melon mania. Farmers Market Report, Santa Monica Mirror. California. http://www.smmirror.com/volume2/issue6/farmers_market.html.

Boyhan, G. E., D. M. Granberry and W. T. Kelley. 1999. Commercial watermelon production. Bulletin 996. Cooperative Extension Services, University of Georgia.
http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/B996-w.htm.

ERS-USDA. 2003. U.S. Watermelon Industry. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Tables 2 and 4. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/sdp/view.asp?f=specialty/89029/.

ERS-USDA. 2002. Commodity highlight: watermelon. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Vegetables/vegpdf/Watermel.pdf.

Levine B. 2003. Seeds of health. Monthly Watermelon Tips, National Watermelon Promotion Board. Orlando, Florida. http://www.watermelon.org/index.asp?a=dsp&htype=health&pid=27.

Lucier, G. and Biing-Hwan Lin. 2001. Factors affecting watermelon consumption in the United States. Vegetables and Specialties and Outlook. Economic Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Vegetables/vegpdf/WatermelonFactors.pdf.

National Watermelon Promotion Board. 2003. Health & wellness. Orlando, Florida. http://www.watermelon.org/index.asp?a=dsp&htype=health&pid=5.

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

AENews Goes on Hiatus

The Agrichemical and Environmental News will go on temporary hiatus after publication of this, the November 2003, issue. The AENews Website, with its archived issues, will continue to be hosted by the Washington State Pest Management Resource Service. Requests for permission to use the material should continue to be addressed to Dr. Catherine Daniels at cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu or (253-445-4611) or Sally O'Neal Coates at scoates@tricity.wsu.edu or (509-372-7378). Our subscriber email list will be kept in storage until such time as the newsletter resumes electronic publication. Your requests to be removed from or added to the storage list will be honored at any time.

Although the AENews will be taking a break, Dr. Allan Felsot’s commentaries on regulatory and regional agricultural/environmental issues will regularly appear on the “Virtual Skeptic” page at the Food & Environmental Quality Lab (FEQL) Website (http://feql.wsu.edu/skeptic.htm). The whole editorial staff wishes to express our sincere pleasure in having the opportunity to provide our audience with in-depth information on agricultural and environmental issues facing the Pacific Northwest. We would also like to express our gratitude and appreciation to the many authors who have contributed material over the last 32 years to the AENews and its predecessor, the Pesticide Report.

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.

---

DOT Security Plan Requirement for Farmers

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) implemented a new security plan requirement regarding hazardous materials shipment and transport for certain quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, fuels (gasoline, diesel, and propane), and explosives. The effective date was September 2003. The reauirements and cut-off criteria are outlined in a PDF document, Hazardous Materials Transportation Security Requirements: Applicability to Farmers and Farming Operations. Parties with questions relating to pesticides may contact Carol Ramsay, Pesticide Education Specialist, Washington State University (509) 335-9222 or ramsay@wsu.edu. General questions about the requirement may be addressed to the Hazardous Materials Information Center at 1-800-HMR-4922.

---

NPIC Employment Opportunity

NPIC (National Pesticide Information Center) is recruiting for three fulltime grant-funded positions. Successful candidates will help NPIC fullfill its mission to serve as a source of objective, science-based information about pesticides to the public and professionals.

Duties include:

Participate in the development of pesticide-related fact sheets;

Respond to telephone and email inquiries and help maintain a pesticide incident database;

Develop and maintain knowledge of pesticides and pesticide-related issues.

Positions require a minimum of a B.S. degree, with an M.S. strongly preferred, in toxicology, environmental chemistry, biotechnology, agricultural sciences, public health, or closely related area. Spanish fluency highly desirable. Position requires a demonstrable commitment to promoting and enhancing diversity.

For more information about NPIC and a detailed position announcement, go to Internet URL http://npic.orst.edu.

To apply, send letter of application, CV, and names and addresses of three references to: Dr. Terry Miller, Director; NPIC; EMT Dept.; Oregon State University; 333 Weniger; Corvallis, OR 97331-6502. Review of applications begins as positions become available.. Applications accepted and considered throughout the 2003-2004 academic year. These positions are grant funded. OSU is an AA/EOE.

---

Wine Grape Growers Conference, Feb. 2004

The Washington Association of Wine Grape Growers (WAWGG) will hold its annual conference Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, February 4 through 6, at the Yakima Convention Center. More information about this conference and other wine grape grower events can be found at

http://www.wawgg.org

The conference includes a trade show, and sign-ups for booths have begun. Visit the Website for details.

---

Pesticide Safety, Health, & Medicine Conference

Co-sponsored by Washington State University Pesticide Education Program, the Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety & Health Center, and the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine/Northwest Center for Occupational Health & Safety, this conference will take place

February 19, 2004
Yakima Doubletree

Designed for health care providers, clinic managers, and other safety and health professionals as well as agricultural producers, grower association representatives, forestry workers, agrichemical dealers/consultants, professional applicators, university personnel, and regulators, the conference strives to provide perspectives on pesticide toxicity (acute and chronic), exposure, and use patterns.

Agenda and registration information will be posted after November 17, 2003, at http://pep.wsu.edu/pestissues/issues04.html/ or contact Carol Ramsay at ramsay@wsu.edu or (509) 335-9222.

---

Rodent/Mosquito IPM Webcast

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers a 90-minute Webcast on"Managing Rodents and Mosquitoes through Integrated Pest Management." The broadcast originally aired on September 18, 2003. It requires either Internet Explorer 5.0 (or later), or Netscape 4.7 (or later) with
RealPlayer.To view this Webcast, point your Internet browser to

http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/phtn/webcast/ipm/default.asp

---

Pesticide Education Season Underway

WSU pesticide training season is underway. WSU Pesticide Education Program is offering pesticide pre-license training for people interested in becoming certified in the public health category (or aquatic category). This training will be held concurrently with our regular pre-license courses at the following locations.

Pasco
Jan. 12 - Laws and Safety training (all day)
Jan. 13 - Public Health/Aquatic 12:30-4:30
Jan. 15 - WSDA Examination Session 12:30- 4:30 (no need to enroll in class
for this day; if enrolled, show up for exam)

Tacoma
Jan. 13 - Laws and Safety training (all day)
Jan. 15 - Public Health/Aquatic 8:30-11:30
Jan. 15 - WSDA Examination Session 12:30- 4:30
If someone is currently licensed, they only need to attend the session for
public health/aquatic. If someone does not hold a current license, they
will need to pass the laws and safety exam and should attend day one of the
workshop.

For more information, to sign up on-line, or to download a registration
form, visit http://pep.wsu.edu
Or contact
Carol Ramsay (ramsay@wsu.edu, 509-335-9222)
Carrie Foss (cfoss@wsu.edu, 253-445-4577))
Becky Hines (hinesre@wsu.edu, 253-445-4595)

---

National Monitoring Conference, May 2004

The 2004 National Monitoring Conference, "Building and Sustaining Successful Monitoring Programs," is slated for May 17-20 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Join us as we explore and share the experiences, expertise, lessons learned, innovations, and strategies that strengthen and sustain both the technical and institutional elements of our monitoring programs.

The Chattanooga meeting will be the fourth National Monitoring Conference hosted by the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC). Like its predecessors, the 2004 Conference will provide an outstanding opportunity to participate in technical programs and trainings, share successes, discuss issues, and network with our colleagues in the water monitoring community. The conference agenda will include plenary sessions, workshops, paper presentations, posters, exhibits, facilitated discussions, field trips, and informal networking opportunities.

NWQMC and the Framework for Monitoring the Council, chartered in 1997, promotes partnerships to foster collaboration, advance the science, and improve management within all elements of the water monitoring community, as well as to heighten public awareness, public involvement, and stewardship of our water resources. The Council has developed a monitoring and assessment framework that describes a sequence of steps that produce and convey the information necessary to understand our water resources. This conference will weave together several themes related to the framework including changing expectations of monitoring, new and emerging technologies, collaborative efforts, data and information comparability, and sharing results and successes.

A call for abstracts will be issued within the next few weeks. If you have additional questions about the conference or would liked to be placed on a mailing list for information as it becomes available, contact the 2004 Monitoring Conference Coordinator at NWQMC2004@tetratech-ffx.com or 410-356-8993. For more information about the Council, visit

http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/monitoring/

---

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