Home

Conference Overview

General Agenda

Background Information

Hotel Information

Participant Interaction

Participants 

Contact Us


 

 

 

 


Introduction

Background

Planning and Organization

References

GENERAL APPROACH

 

INTRODUCTION
      The economic, social, and ecological impact of the southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis)(SPB) is catastrophic across the Southern US. Recent damage caused by this insect exceeds all historical records. The geographic range of the current epidemic continues to expand and new host tree species are being infested. The existing knowledge base for the insect is inadequate to explain the causes for the epidemic or provide insight into how it can be managed. Although SPB-caused tree mortality is always present within the South, it is often isolated and primarily of local concern. The duration and extent of the current outbreak throughout the South has generated unified concern and a call for an organized effort to protect the forests of the region. 
The magnitude of the current outbreak has solidified resolve within the stakeholder communities in State, Federal, and private sectors to take direct action and deal with the SPB problem. An integrated research, development, and applications (RD&A) program targeted to the SPB is part of the solution. This workshop has been organized with the goal of formulating an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program directed to the SPB. The specific objectives of the workshop are (1) to define in detail the agenda for a SPB RD&A program and (2) to develop a plan for implementing the RD&A agenda that includes the stakeholders. 

BACKGROUND
     The bark beetle research and development projects of the 1970¡¯s and 1980¡¯s [Branham and Thatcher (1985) and Thatcher et al. (1980)] and subsequent investigations have provided a solid foundation for a new SPB RD&A program. In the past, integrated pest management (IPM) served as the organizing paradigm. The concepts, practices, technologies, and legal statutes of forest protection, forest management, and environmental management have changed significantly since the architects of IPM crafted the initial principles. IPM in forests can be defined, from a functional perspective, to consist of a number of specific, but related, activities as illustrated in Figure 1 (Saarenmaa 1992). This ¡°activity model¡± is a concise overview of the concept and practice of IPM. It represents a significant advancement over previous constructs in that the RD&A components of IPM are integrated with activities needed for implementation of the concept in a ¡°real world¡± forest environment. Figure 1 represents IPM to consist of nine separate activities that are related (as illustrated below) by connections and directions of arrows. The basic activities include the following: assessment of pest population dynamics, assessment of tree and forest dynamics, impact assessment, evaluation of control alternatives, monitoring, database management, diagnosis, environmental assessment, management planning, and decision and execution. Although 



Figure 1: Activity model illustrating the research and development components of IPM (Saarenmaa 1992).

the model was formulated more than 10 years ago the various activities and their interrelations are applicable today. Each of the activities represents a focal point for RD&A. The workshop discussion will be organized using the activity model illustrated in Figure 1. 

APPROACH
     The technical expertise required to plan and conduct a substantial SPB RD&A program is dispersed among a variety of federal, state, and private agencies and organizations. A representative cross-section of the stakeholder community has been invited to participate in defining the agenda and formulating the action plan for the RD&A program. The workshop will be facilitated using an instrument (NetWeaver¢ç) designed specifically for program planning, monitoring, and evaluation (PM&E). The expected outcome is a detailed RD&A agenda for each of the IPM activities, illustrated in Figure 1, and a general framework that addresses how the various stakeholders can participate in the program. Following the workshop, the proceedings will be published and distributed to interested individuals and organizations. 

PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION
     Planning and organization for the workshop has been provided by a steering committed consisting of the following members:
Dr. Kier D. Klepzig: Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Region 8, Forest Insect Research, Pineville, LA.
Dr. T. Evan Nebeker: Professor, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, and Pest Management Specialist with the Mississippi Forestry Commission, Starkville, MS.
Dr. Forrest L. Oliveria: Field Office Representative, USDA Forest Service, Region 8, Forest Health Protection, Pineville, LA.
Dr. Scott M. Salom: Associate Professor, Department of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
Dr. Frederick M. Stephen: University Professor and Interim Head, Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

The workshop coordinator is Dr. Robert N. Coulson (Professor, Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University. Dr. Rick Meyer (National Program Leader -- Entomology for CSREES) serves as an ex-officio member of the steering committee and provides guidance for the project. 


REFERENCES
Branham, S. J. and R. C. Thatcher (Eds.) 1985. Integrated Pest  Management Symposium. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report SO 56. 

Saarenmaa, H. 1992. Integrated pest management in forests and information technology. Proc. IUFRO S.207-05. In Dimitri, L. (Ed.) Integrated Control of Scolytid Bark Beetles. Hann. Munden, Germany, 19-22 August 1991.

Thatcher, R. C., J. L. Searcy, J. E. Coster, and G. D. Hertel (Eds.). 1980. The Southern Pine Beetle. USDA Forest Service Technical Bulletin 1631. 

Hoffard, W. H., Donald H. Marx, and H. Daniel Brown. The Health of Southern Forests: Stressors of Pine Forests -the southern pine beetle. (http://fhpr8.srs.fs.fed.us/hosf/hosftoc.htm)



SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE WORKSHOP: GENERAL APPROACH

     In planning this workshop, the fundamental assumption was made that integrated pest management (IPM) is the goal of a contemporary Research, Development, and Applications (RD&A) program for the southern pine beetle. The concept and practice of IPM has been examined in great detail over the last two decades and we have a solid foundation from which to launch an inquiry into the agenda for an RD&A program. 
     Participants in the workshop represent a broad cross-section of the stakeholder community. The participants include forestry practitioners, IPM specialists, scientists, administrators, and industry representatives. The format of the meeting is a WORKSHOP. The specific objectives of the workshop are (1) to define in detail the agenda for a Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) RD&A program and (2) to develop a plan for implementing the RD&A agenda that includes the stakeholders. 

Research Agenda
    
In specifying a general approach for the workshop, the goal was to provide sufficient structure to guide open discussion and debate but not stifle exchanges among participants. The IPM activities flow diagram (Figure 1) will serve as the template for analysis of the research agenda associated with 




Figure 1: Activity model illustrating the research and development components of IPM (Saarenmaa 1992).

each component. The problem analysis activity of the workshop will be conducted via a series of break-out sessions. Each of these sessions will consider one of the boxes depicted in the activity model shown in Figure 2 (e.g. pest population dynamics, tree and forest dynamics, diagnosis, etc.). Note that in Figure 2a &b, the individual activities have been arranged to illustrate dependency relationships.



Figure 2a: Dependency network "restatement" of the activities associated with integrated pest management of the southern pine beetle. Each subject will be examined by a working group with the goal of defining and analyzing our current knowledge, or lack thereof, in regard to effectively and efficiently carrying out the IPM activity.




Figure 2b: Each IPM activity will be addressed independently by a working group. In reference to a specific IPM activity, the fundamental question for each working group is: what do we need to know about the activity (e.g., Impact Assessment) that we do not already know. 

Each of the working groups will take on the task of discussing and analyzing our current knowledge, or lack thereof, in regard to effectively and efficiently carrying out the IPM activity. In reference to a specific IPM activity, the fundamental question for each working group is: what do we need to know about the activity (e.g., Impact Assessment) that we do not already know. As the specific IPM activities are not isolated, answering this question will involve consideration of other activities. For example Impact Assessment is dependent on knowledge of pest population dynamics, tree and forest dynamics, environmental assessment, and decision and execution (Figure 2b).
     We recommend that each group discussion be captured in an outline. The top-most entry in the outline will consist of the name of the IPM activity. The next level of the outline will consist of activities the group identifies as associated with the IPM activity. Continue to create levels of the outline until you reach the level of data, or a researchable topic. By using this format, we will be able to summarize the detailed results of the workshop using NetWeaver¢ç software. This summary is very important as it will provide both rationale and justification for basic, as well as applied, research activities. The dependency networks will also illustrate how research in the different compartments of the activities flow model are related. 
     The following example may be helpful. Gypsy moth researchers are also confronted with a complex suite of management and research activities. Treatment tactics typically involve aerial application of insecticides, the timing of which is a key determinant of successful control. A breakout group discussion of gypsy moth treatment tactics would produce an outline that would contain sections like the one below.
     In this example, the breakout group determines that the key researchable topics in the area of treatment tactics are associated with improving our understanding of gypsy moth population dynamics, particularly with predictions of egg hatch, within season phenology, and cohort distribution. 


     Gypsy Moth Control Method
                Tactics
                      Aerial Suppression
                              Aircraft type (Data)
                                       
APHIS guidelines (swaths)(data)
                              Volume/acre (data)
                              Formulation
                                             Bt (data)
                                             Dimilin (data)
                                             NPV (data)
                              Timing
                              Gypsy moth Phenology (Researchable topic)
                              Egg Hatch timing (Researchable topic)
                              Leaf Expansion (data)
                             GM cohort distribution (Researchable topic)
                             Weather (data)
                             Temperature (data)


Implementation Plan
    
Implementation of a new southern pine beetle RD&A program will require input from a variety  of state, federal, and private agencies. In particular, the technical expertise needed to conduct the RD&A program is dispersed among a several organizations. In the past, the RD&A programs on forest insect pests were successful in assembling needed expertise and focusing it on the common goal of IPM. Different management approaches were used in the various programs, e.g., the Expanded Southern Pine Beetle Research and Application Program (ESPBRAP), the Southern Pine Beetle IPM program, the Gypsy Moth Program, The Douglas-fir Tussock Moth Program, the Spruce Budworm Programs, CANUSA, etc. 
     The goal of part of the workshop is to identify and discuss the issues and concerns of the stakeholder community regarding how to implement a SPB RD&A program. In the first part of the workshop we identified the research agenda, in this part of the workshop we want to define how the agenda can be implemented. The approach will be a moderated discussion. Examples of questions that could be considered are: what type of administrative organization would be used (in the ESPBRAP there was a program director with three assistant directors that had responsibility for specific programs), how can the stakeholders participate, what type of performance evaluation process will be used. We ask that each of the participants in the workshop identify their concerns regarding implementation and communicate with the steering committee through the Participant Interaction Forum on this website.

 

 

 

 


 Home | Conference Overview | General Agenda | Background Information  
Hotel Information | Participant Interaction | Participants | Contact Us