I am sharing the results of this survey so you can see what were considered high priority SWD research and education areas and how we used this information to craft our objectives.
How did we get the word out?
We distributed links to the survey via email to county extension agents, grower associations, and regional listserves. I also asked for your input here. All questions were voluntary, and responses were anonymous.
What did we ask?
We collected minimal demographic information (age, sex, state of residence, size of farm, and profession) to help us in interpreting responses. We also asked what small fruit crops were grown on respondents' farms and how they preferred to receive education and outreach information.
Next, we asked respondents to rank 40 possible research and extension activities on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 least important and 10 most important. We then averaged rankings by the number of responses for and compared rankings across farm size and profession.
Who responded to the survey?
Responses were evenly spread over our target study areas with 14 respondents either declining to provide their state of residence or living outside of the eastern US. Fifty five of the online respondents were female, while 216 were male and two declined to provide their gender.
 |
| Number of online survey responses from eastern US regions. |
Only one respondent was less than 25, while the largest number of responses were from those 45 to 65 years old.
 |
| Age distribution of online survey participants. |
We specifically targeted blueberry and caneberry (blackberry and raspberry) growers, the crops which have experienced the most SWD damage in the eastern US, but respondents also grew a wide range of other crops including: apples, cherries, currents, elderberry, figs, grapes, gooseberries, peaches, persimmons, pears, plums, and strawberries.
What SWD research and extension activities did respondents consider most and least important?
We calculated rankings for research and extension activities for all respondents and for subsets of respondents based on farm size and profession.
All responses
When we grouped all the responses together, the top and bottom five activities were:
Top Five Activities
1. Insecticide efficacy against SWD (rating: 8.94)
2. Insecticide residual activity against SWD (8.91)
3. Insecticide residues & time from harvest to meet maximum residue levels (MRLs) (8.75)
4. Online management guides (8.74)
5. Identification of native natural enemies (8.64)
Bottom Five Activities
36. Association with wild hosts (6.90)
37. Sprayer performance comparisons (6.81)
38. Insecticide implications for export markets (5.43)
39. Off line (hard copy) trap capture reports (5.12)
40. Management in tunnel systems (4.77)
Small sized growers
We received 80 responses from fruit farms smaller than 10 acres, and when these were grouped together, the highest and lowest ranked responses were:
Top Five Activities
1. Online management guides (8.90)
2. Identification of native natural enemies (8.87)
3. Insecticide residues & time from harvest to meet maximum residue levels (MRLs) (8.84)
4. Insecticide effects on natural enemies and/or pollinators (8.47)
5. Insecticide efficacy against SWD (8.70)
Bottom Five Activities
36. Association with wild hosts (7.04)
37. Sprayer performance comparisons (6.86)
38. Off line (hard copy) trap capture reports (5.20)
39. Management in tunnel systems (4.04)
40. Insecticide implications for export markets (4.01)
Medium sized growers
We received 55 responses from fruit farms ranging from 10 to 50 acres, and when these were grouped together, the highest and lowest ranked responses were:
Top Five Activities
1. Insecticide residual activity against SWD (9.07)
2. Insecticide efficacy against SWD (9.04)
3. Insecticide residues & time from harvest to meet maximum residue levels (MRLs) (8.87)
4. Management in open fields (8.80)
5. Online management guides (8.53)
Bottom Five Activities
36. Effects of irrigation & water management on SWD (6.37)
37. Association with wild hosts (6.32)
38. Insecticide implications for export markets (5.02)
39. Off line (hard copy) trap capture reports (4.42)
40. Management in tunnel systems (4.14)
Large sized growers
We received 27 responses from fruit farms ranging from 50 to 100 acres, and when these were grouped together, the highest and lowest ranked responses were:
Top Five Activities
1. Insecticide efficacy against SWD (9.43)
2. Insecticide residual activity against SWD (9.31)
3. Insecticide residues & time from harvest to meet maximum residue levels (MRLs) (9.15)
4. Insecticide effects on natural enemies and/pollinators (9.12)
5. Integration with current integrated pest management and/or brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) management (9.08)
Bottom Five Activities
36. Effects of irrigation & water management on SWD (6.77)
37. Insecticide implications for export markets (6.67)
38. Association with wild hosts (6.35)
39. Off line (hard copy) trap capture reports (5.71)
40. Management in tunnel systems (4.00)
Very large sized growers
We received 34 responses from fruit farms larger than 100 acres, and when these were grouped together, the highest and lowest ranked responses were:
Top Five Activities
1. Insecticide residual activity against SWD (9.44)
2. Insecticide efficacy against SWD (9.41)
3. Insecticide residues & time from harvest to meet maximum residue levels (MRLs) (8.94)
4. Identification of native natural enemies (8.77)
5. Insecticide effects on natural enemies and/or pollinators (8.71)
Bottom Five Activities
36. Sprayer performance comparisons (6.76)
37. Insecticide implications for export markets (6.71)
38. Effects of irrigation & water management on SWD (6.59)
39. Off line (hard copy) trap capture reports (5.26)
40. Management in tunnel systems (3.94)
Agricultural professionals
We received 59 responses from cooperative extension agents, crop consultants, regulators, university researchers, and graduate students. When these were grouped together, the highest and lowest ranked responses were:
Top Five Activities
1. Insecticide efficacy against SWD (9.27)
2. Insecticide residual activity against SWD (9.21)
3. Management in open fields (9.07)
4. Online management guides (8.72)
5. Host preference (8.57)
Bottom Five Activities
36. Sprayer performance comparisons (6.96)
37. Effects of irrigation & water management on SWD (6.95)
38. Management in tunnel systems (6.67)
39. Insecticide implications for export markets (6.04)
40. Off line (hard copy) trap capture reports (5.36)
General public
Finally, we received 16 responses from master gardeners, homeowners, and other members of the general public. When these were grouped together, the highest and lowest ranked responses were:
Top Five Activities
1. Insecticide effects on natural enemies and/or pollinators (9.50)
2. Biological control (9.27)
3. Identification of native natural enemies (9.13)
4. Cultural/non chemical management tools (9.00)
5. Integration with current integrated pest management (IPM) and/or brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) management (8.71)
Bottom Five Activities
36. Degree-day models (6.20)
37. Management in tunnel systems (6.15)
38. Sprayer performance comparisons (6.14)
39. Novel pesticide strategies such as chemigation, pesticide combinations, and/or synergists (5.46)
40. Off line (hard copy) trap capture reports (4.67)
How did respondents want to receive research and educational information?
Perhaps not surprisingly, respondents to the online survey preferred online information delivery tools. However, this presumably web savvy audience also exhibited a strong preference for hands on workshops, in person presentations, and extension publications very highly, suggesting that duel delivery modes for extension and education information would be desirable.
 |
| Research and extension delivery methods preferred by online survey respondents. |
How will you use these results?
As suggested by delivery method preferences, hard copy monitoring information ranked low across all groups as did management strategies focused on high tunnel production. The uniformly low ranking for management in high tunnel systems suggests that research and extension efforts focused on these systems are not necessary at this time. Preliminary observations from North Carolina in 2010 and 2011 also suggest that SWD damage may be lower in caneberries grown in tunnels than in caneberries grown outside.
Management strategies with the potential for short-term results and implementation ranked highly when all responses were considered and among commercial fruit growers regardless of size. These included Insecticide efficacy, Insecticide residual activity, and Insecticide residues necessary to meet maximum residue levels. Small growers (0-10 acres) and very large growers (100 acres or more) also ranked identification of natural enemies in their top four activities but had little interest in identification of foreign natural enemies. We did not ask stakeholders to prioritize international exploration and importation for foreign natural enemies, only identification, and it is possible that these other activities would be more appealing.
When members of the general public were considered separately from growers and agricultural professionals, potential non target impacts of pesticides (Insecticide effects on natural enemies/pollinators) and non chemical management strategies (Identification of native natural enemies, Biological control, and Cultural/non chemical control) ranked highly. The priority differences between the public and agricultural stakeholders are among the most interesting results of this survey. While our public sample size is small, it is notable that this group was clearly concerned about the potential impacts of increased pesticide use due to SWD.
We used these results to craft our proposal objectives, specifically:
1. Landscape, alternative host, species, and variety risk assessment
2. Optimize adult and larval monitoring tools
3. Best management practices for chemical control tools, including residual activity, rainfall impacts, and residue measurements
4. Demonstration, economic assessment, and adoption of best management practices
We will also use the results of this survey to develop additional proposals and to develop novel and appropriate delivery methods. It will be at least a few months before we hear whether our project is funded, but our group is committed to addressing the unique management challenges posted by SWD in the eastern US. Please don't hesitate to continue to share your thoughts in the comments, at Twitter, and via email.
2 comments:
it is clear that the majority expect a solution, but the insecticide is a mindset totally wrong because it does not consider at all the side effects on the environment and especially on 'man. I have a criticism also to entomologists because every problem that presents the first thought is to use the chemical molecule that is natural and does not think the dynamic behavior and relative weaknesses of invasive species.
Thank you for your thoughts! You would be hard pressed to find an entomologist who believes that insecticides are the only or best solution. However, when we are dealing with invasive species in agricultural systems, we also need to be aware that growers need to remain economically viable and that 100% crop loss due to an invasive species (which is possible with SWD and brown marmorated stink bug in some crops) is not feasible.
Pesticide use is a short term tool which keep our stakeholders in business and will allow us to develop an understanding of the biology of SWD which we will use to develop management strategies that require fewer or no pesticides. Our focus is on just that--reducing or eliminating the need for pesticides.
Post a Comment