NE1332: Biological Control of Arthropod Pests and Weeds

(Multistate Research Project)

Status: Inactive/Terminating

NE1332: Biological Control of Arthropod Pests and Weeds

Duration: 10/01/2013 to 09/30/2018

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

For over a century biological control has provided a safe and effective control method for many arthropod pests and weeds in the USA and throughout the world. Realizing that pests and management efforts cross state boundaries, the four regional associations of State Agricultural Experiment Stations have long maintained multi-state research projects in biological control of arthropods and weeds. (The Western Regional Biocontrol Project, W3185 just held its 48th annual meeting in October, 2012.) We seek permission to renew NE-1032 Biological Control of Arthropod Pests and Weeds- a project that builds upon our national expertise in biological control and specifically addresses pest complexes and research opportunities that are unique to our region. Biological control refers to applied efforts to manage pest problems through importation, conservation or augmentation of natural enemies, and it is generally distinguished from natural control, which is provided by unmanaged indigenous natural enemies in the native or introduced range of a pest species.

Non-native plants and insects introduced into North America generally come without the natural enemies that keep them in check in their native habitats. Freed from these natural controls, these species often increase in numbers and distribution, adversely affecting the environment, the economy, and human health (Pimentel et al. 2000). Classical Biological Control, a deliberate process whereby these pests are reunited with their effective natural enemies, offers a potential for permanent control of these pests over widespread areas (Van Driesche 1994, Van Driesche et al. 2008). On a world-wide basis, we are approaching 200 pest species controlled through biological control, with economic benefits estimated at $30 to $100 for each dollar invested (Hoy 1994). Despite such advances in pest management as more selective pesticides, use of behavior modifying chemicals, resistant varieties and transgenic plants, pest arthropods and weeds continue to damage our agricultural crops and natural ecosystems. Biological control, used singly or in combination with other management options, should be the centerpiece of successful pest management programs (Van Driesche et al. 2008). In recent years, researchers in the northeast have worked with many types of biological control agents including insects, mites, parasitoids, and pathogens in successfully managing key pests including gypsy moths, purple loosestrife, birch leafminers, mites on apples and vegetables, fruit moths, alfalfa weevil, Mexican bean beetle, whiteflies in greenhouses, imported cabbageworm, euonymus scale, etc. and are currently working against such critical forestry pests as hemlock wooly adelgid and emerald ash borer These successes and ongoing efforts have generally involved cooperative work by scientists from several states and agencies.

Interdependencies: Those attributes that make Classical Biological Control so attractive also require careful consideration of target selection, agent discovery, and pre-and post-release evaluation of agents (Mason et al. 2005). These issues generally require regional input and cooperative research over a range of environmental conditions. Individual agricultural experiment stations in the Northeast Region seldom have the resources or expertise to conduct a complete Classical Biological Control program, and thus we have a long history of cooperation among states and with scientists from USDA-ARS, USDA-APHIS, USFS, state departments of agriculture, and specialists in foreign countries. Success in developing and implementing biological control programs is closely linked to the development of effective communication and coordination among participants. The focus of this multi-state research project is to enhance biological control of arthropod pests and weeds in the Northeast Region through increased collaboration among practitioners in the region and beyond. The umbrella of a northeast multi-state project provides the framework for dialog on pest target selection and pooling of expertise and resources to allow coordinated research and outreach programs.

Related, Current and Previous Work

Mission: The mission of this northeast regional project is similar to our counterparts in other states and several NE-1032 members work with other regional groups on key national pests including spotted wing drosophila, brown marmorated stink bug, and emerald ash borer. However, in general, the agricultural and natural ecosystems of the northeast differ from other regions of the country and our scientists address some unique pests. This northeastern regional project includes biological control of both weeds and arthropod pests because these two groups of pests have many similar research issues and many individual participants in this project already work on biological control of both arthropods and weeds.

Regional Cooperation: The participants in this program have a long history of information exchange and collaborative research. Beginning in 1985 we held a biological control symposium at the annual meeting of the Eastern Branch of the Entomological Society of America. Many of the members listed in Appendix E attended and participated in those symposia which featured discussions of methods, issues, and opportunities in biological control of weeds and arthropods. Some successful projects, including birch leafminer and lily leaf beetle, have directly resulted from discussions initiated at those meetings. Since this collaboration was formalized with the creation of NE-1032 in 2008, our participants have organized 3 symposia with international participation and greatly expanded collaborative efforts (reported on the NE-1032 website and also reflected in Appendices B and C). Biological control practitioners in the northeast regularly assist in agent releases and surveys and often provide insect and plant samples for colleagues in other states, taking advantage of local knowledge and greatly reducing time and cost. For instance, colleagues in five northeastern states recently documented successful biological control of birch leafminer throughout the northeast and well into the Midwest (Casagrande et al. 2008). A similar survey of imported cabbageworm parasitoids has shown displacement of an inefficient parasitoid by a more effective and host specific parasitoid in a band of states and provinces stretching from New Brunswick to North Dakota, north of the 38 NL line (Herlihy et al. 2012). Parasitoids of the lily leaf beetle have been sent by researchers in RI to collaborators in 5 states and Canada in recent years. Mile-a-minute insect herbivores have been released in eleven states (Hough-Goldstein et al. 2012) and purple loosestrife herbivores were sent from NY to most northeastern states. In addition to cooperative release and evaluation programs, there are also ongoing research programs where essential research components are conducted at cooperating institutions such as the Phragmites biocontrol program involving RI, NY, and CABI bioscience in Switzerland and a coordinated research program on swallow-worts undertaken by URI, USDA, CABI, and Canadian colleagues. Other examples include hemlock adelgid and winter moth research briefly described under procedures (below). These successful examples demonstrate current successes of this regional project (described in Appendix C - Impact Statements) and highlight the potential for increased success from continuing this multi-state project.

The regional character of the project is particularly obvious for the northeast. There are essentially no arthropods or weeds that are limited to a single state and biological control efforts against these pests are not restricted by state boundaries. It is generally impossible for a single scientist in the northeast to develop and implement a program of classical biological control without input and assistance from colleagues in other institutions. Through this regional project we enhance the regional cooperation that has existed for decades. We strengthen and expand these essential interactions and properly document this regional activity as meeting multi-state requirements for the Agricultural Experiment Stations. The productivity and regional character of this regional project is demonstrated in Appendix B which includes a listing of over 150 publications since inception of this regional project in 2008, many of which were co-authored by NE-1032 members.

Regional Facilities and Expertise: Relative to the rest of the United States, we enjoy a high concentration of insect containment and rearing facilities with Cornell, URI, and VPI all maintaining USDA-approved primary insect quarantine laboratories. Other quarantine and rearing facilities are found at the Otis ANG base in MA, the Ansonia Forest Service lab in CT, the NJ Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Rearing Laboratory, and the ARS Beneficial Insects Introduction Research Unit on the campus of the University of Delaware, Newark, DE. These facilities are essential for Classical Biological Control research and are used extensively in establishment and augmentative biological control efforts. Virtually all university researchers listed in Appendix E have used one or more of these facilities. The Northeast also has a large number of biological control practitioners, comparable to the other USDA regions.

The goals, objectives, and research approaches of this regional project are similar to those of the Southern, North Central, and Western regional projects in biological control. Although we deal with different pest complexes and organize objectives differently, all regions share the general goals of improving biological control.

All existing biological control programs in the northeast fall under these general goals as indicated in Procedures. Goal four is particularly important in the Northeast because many of our target pests are found in natural areas and managers need to be convinced of positive long term consequences and minimal risk associated with our programs.

Overall Objective: Despite the fact that all four regions have generally similar missions, goals, and objectives, it should be very clear that we have very different pest complexes and research opportunities. All of the pests listed in Appendix A are either unique to the Northeast, or the biocontrol project is focused in the Northeast because of facilities or personnel. The overall objective of this regional project is to further cooperative research and implementation of biological control programs against arthropod and weed pests of the Northeastern region. Specific objectives are outlined under individual projects.


  1. Conservation of existing natural enemies
  2. Augmentation programs involving repeated rearing and release
  3. Introduction of new natural enemies against invasive plants
  4. Introduction of new natural enemies against invasive insects


The procedures for the many aspects of this project are outlined under objectives. The key activities for the group include an annual meeting where progress of projects is shared with other members of the project and feedback is sought on selection of biocontrol targets, host range testing, release methodology, and follow-up sampling. Likewise, these meetings feature biocontrol symposia organized around key topics where members consider overarching issues and report on research and outreach efforts and identify new collaborations. Discussions of the various projects associated with this multistate project at the annual meeting and at other forums help to coordinate research, implementation, and evaluation programs. Because biological programs are diverse and encompass many different agricultural, forest and urban settings such interaction and integration of efforts is exceptionally valuable for the broad discipline of biological control of weed and arthropod pests.

Objective 1 (To examine the effects of exotic species on ecosystem function and conserve existing natural enemies)

In managed landscapes, conservation biological control seeks to restore natural predator-prey linkages by conserving natural enemies and their associated food resources. Through habitat manipulation, vegetation complexity and diversity is increased, providing food and other resources to arthropod natural enemies (Landis et al. 2000, Gurr et al. 2000). The addition of flowering insectary strips has successfully increased natural enemy abundance in ornamental systems (Frank and Shrewsbury 2004, Shrewsbury et al. 2004). Moreover, flowering insectary strips have resulted in higher predation or parasitism rates and lower pest populations in some systems (Frank and Shrewsbury 2004, Shrewsbury et al. 2004). Currently, Tallamy (University of Delaware), Shrewsbury and Raupp (University of Maryland) are examining the effects of exotic plants on ecosystem function including conservation biological control. Raupp is also researching the role of systemic insecticides in disrupting the activity of natural enemies in landscapes in New York and Maryland.

Maine and New Jersey are involved in assessing the natural enemy communities in blueberry production and developing pest management tactics that conserve the dominant natural enemies of Onion thrips (Thrips tabaci) and other pests. The research also evaluates the susceptibility of the more abundant natural enemies to currently registered and new insecticides that have potential for registration (Yarborough and Drummond 2007). In addition, strategies such as within-field spatially based management are being developed for the conservation of natural enemies in blueberry.

Natural ecosystems are under evaluation at Cornell where the inter-relationships among garlic mustard, deer, earthworms, salamanders, and slugs are studied in long-term plots with various manipulations Maerz et al. 2009, Nuzzo et al. 2009).

Objective 2. (To release and evaluate augmentative biological control agents)

The New Jersey Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Rearing Laboratory will continue rearing and releasing the tropical parasitoid Pediobius foveolatus against the Mexican bean beetle in a program that has been a major success throughout the mid-Atlantic states. Over the past several years augmentative releases of Trichogramma ostriniae have been made in MA, VA, PA, ME, and in Quebec against the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis). Most efforts are focused in sweet corn, but trials are also conducted in sweet peppers and potatoes. Augmentative biological control is also attempted and evaluated in a variety of nursery and landscape settings. These studies include releases of lady beetles, lacewings, predatory mites, and entomopathogenic nematodes to control aphids, lace bugs, caterpillars, and phytophagous mites. This research involves collaborators from University of Maryland, Rutgers University, the Smithsonian Institution, and several commercial and private enterprises. Results to date are summarized in Shrewsbury and Raupp (2004) and Van Tol and Raupp (2005).

Root aphids infesting Christmas trees in Vermont will be identified and releases of Hypoaspis miles made to determine effectiveness. Research is also underway to determine the efficacy of including entomopathogenic fungi in potting soils in a plant-mediated system for management of western flower thrips in greenhouse production of ornamentals. These trials use marigolds as a trap plant, luring the pest out of the crop, where populations are managed with a combination of granular formulation of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana, in the soil and release of the predatory mite, Neoseiulus cucumeris, on the foliage. The effectiveness of this plant mediated system is being tested in several commercial greenhouses in Vermont and New Hampshire.

Objective 3. (Classical Biological Control of Weeds)

Phragmites australis. The biological control program directed at Phragmites australis provides a good example of regional cooperation spearheaded by scientists at Cornell and URI. In this project Cornell has taken the lead in regional surveys for native and exotic Phragmites australis populations and their herbivores while URI has measured impact of native and exotic herbivores on these plants. Both groups have funded and directed the efforts of CABI in Switzerland to identify and evaluate potential biological control agents. This program is now completing host range testing at URI and CABI while Cornell is addressing decision making about possible releases over the next several years.

Swallow-worts. A program directed against swallow-worts (Vincetoxicum nigrum and V. rossicum) has URI and USDA/ARS scientists surveying Europe for potential natural enemies. CABI is assisting in conducting surveys and field tests that can only be done in Europe. Host range testing is nearly complete at URI for two agents and well-underway on a third by ARS scientists at Cornell and Montpellier, France and pre-and (potential) post-release sites are under study. Scientists at Agriculture and AgriFood Canada-Lethbridge Research Centre are working closely with URI, CABI, and Carleton University in Ontario on this project.

Mile-a-minute weed. Another cooperative venture is directed against mile-a-minute weed (Persicaria perfoliata), an aggressive annual vine native to Asia that was accidentally introduced into PA in the 1930s and has so far spread into at least 11 states and DC. A joint research program initiated in 1996 has resulted in the establishment of a stem-feeding weevil, Rhinoncomimus latipes in all of these states, though not in all areas invaded by the vine. The University of Delaware, US Forest Service, and NJ Beneficial Insect Rearing Laboratory are cooperating on this project, along with many state agencies, universities, and natural area land managers throughout the region. Present efforts focus on continued release of the weevil in mile-a-minute populations that have not yet been colonized, evaluation of impact on the target weed and associated plant community under different environmental conditions, and development of integrated weed management strategies incorporating the weevil.

Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). This cooperative effort involving scientists at Cornell, University of Minnesota and CABI Switzerland, has completed host range testing of potential biological control agents, but monitoring of long-term plots in many states has shown garlic mustard populations to decline dramatically in less than a decade. Research continues on the nature of this decline and whether biocontrol of garlic mustard is actually needed.

Knotweeds. Japanese knotweed ( Fallopia japonica), Giant knotweed (F. sachalinensis), and their interspecific hybrid (F. x bohemica) have become serious widespread weeds throughout the Northeast and are the focus of a cooperative biocontrol project presently involving scientists at Cornell and U. Mass. working with colleagues in Oregon, Lethbridge Canada, and CABI in Great Britain. Anticipating the eventual release of a biological control agent from research underway by cooperators Fritzi Grevstad (Oregon) and Dick Shaw (CABI Great Britain), a monitoring protocol was developed and pre-release monitoring is underway in NY & MA. A release petition is under consideration by USDA/APHIS.

Additional Weed Problems. In addition to the above-mentioned projects that are well underway, scientists across the region are collaborating on other projects with application for northeast. Virginia scientists are working on biological control of tree of heaven (Alianthus altissima) in collaboration with scientists at Penn State and in China. Water chestnut (Trapa natans) is also the target of research involving collaborative efforts with Chinese scientists in cooperation with Cornell. CABI scientists are involved in studies to assess the potential for biocontrol of glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus). St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) is a significant weed pest in the Northeast. It is a recent invader in Maine where it has become established in glacial outwash areas that encompass the present blueberry production region of Downeast, Maine. Observations have shown the two H. perforatum biological control agents (Chrysolina beetles and the fungal pathogen, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides) also occur in Maine. Future studies will focus on the extent, abundance, and role that these biological control agents are currently having on this invasive plant species. In a collaborative project with The Nature Conservancy, Roy Van Driesche (U. Mass.) is assessing the status of native and exotic species of bittersweet, setting the stage for a biological control program against the exotic species which is rapidly displacing the native through competition and hybridization.

Objective 4. (Classical Biological Control of Insects)

Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), native to China and Russia, was found in Michigan in 2002. It currently is found in about 15 states and one Canadian province, and is continuing to spread. It is the subject of intensive research by USDA-ARS, APHIS, and FS scientists, as well as university entomologists in DE, MA, MI, CT and abroad. Three parasitoids were approved by USDA for environmental release and were released in 2007. Since then at least two of these species have become established in one or more locations and releases continue, supported by an APHIS mass rearing laboratory in Brighton, MI. Life table evaluation plots of the impacts of introduced parasitoids and native natural enemies began in 2008 and are continuing in MI. This pest is now found in NY, MD, MA, CT and NH. As this pest spreads throughout the northeast, scientists will participate in establishment and evaluation of biological controls in the northeast.

Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) has been the subject of extensive cooperative biological control efforts over the past decade. While several groups of predators have been studied and several species introduced, most current efforts are focused on release and evaluation of the western US species, Laricobius nigrinus, and starting in 2013, L. osakensis from Japan. Releases of L. nigrinus have been made in six states where populations of the predator and HWA are being monitored. Impacts are now being observed in GA, NC and NJ. This research, funded and coordinated by US Forest Service, involves many state agencies and universities throughout the region, especially in CT, MA, NJ, and VA. Additional research is underway at the University of VT to evaluate the entomopathogen Myriangium spp. against the HWA. This fungus, isolated from an epizootic in NH, is now mass produced and under evaluation for impact on HWA populations and hemlock trees.

Winter moth (Operophtera brumata) is another new pest in the northeastern USA. Based upon past biocontrol successes in Nova Scotia and the Pacific Northwest, scientists at U. Mass. are working with USDA Forest Service and APHIS researchers in MA to rear, release, and evaluate the tachinid parasitoid Cyzenis albicans against this pest. Entomologists in RI are assisting in locating suitable release sites in that state. Cyzenis albicans was released in 6 sites in Massachusetts and one site in Rhode Island in 2011. It is now established in at least 5 sites.

Brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) is an invasive pest of fruits and vegetables in North America. Foreign exploration, combined with host range testing and continuing monitoring of existing natural enemies is underway to determine the need and potential for biological control of the BMSB. Research is also underway to determine if BMSB can be managed with sprays of B. bassiana, an entomopathogenic fungus. Surveys of existing natural enemies of BMSB in ornamental plant and other cropping systems in MD and other northeast states will continue. BMSB eggs are surveyed for causes of mortality, along with active stages of BMSB. Parasitoids and other natural enemies are being identified and their potential for biological control evaluated.

Additional Insect Pests. The New Jersey the Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Rearing Laboratory is working on a cooperative rearing and release project to further distribute Peristenus relictus, a parasitoid of the tarnished plant bug (Lygus lineolaris), with USDA/ARS/BIRL and Delaware State University. This NJ laboratory commonly cooperates with forest service and university researchers throughout the northeast, taking advantage of its extensive facilities and experience in mass-rearing biological control agents.

Scientists at Cornell are testing entomopathogenic nematodes against the Alfalfa Snout Weevil (Otiorhynchus porcatus) and evaluating the persistence and effectiveness of NY strains against endemic populations of plum curculio in both organic and conventionally grown apple orchards.

Measurement of Progress and Results


  • The specific biological control programs that comprise this regional project are at different steps in these sequences and their progress will be reported annually, both individually to their parent organizations and collectively in the annual report of the regional project.
  • In addition to publishing journal articles (see Appendix B), biological control practitioners in the northeast regularly participate in regional publications and symposia proceedings. For instance, many of us contributed chapters to the US Forest Service publication Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States (USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04). We also made major contributions to the Forest Service Publications: FHTET-2004-03, FHET-03-05, FHTET-2005-8, and FHTET-2008-10, and we contributed most of the papers in the proceedings of the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Symposium (Feb. 12-14, 2008). Van Driesche published a new textbook on biological control in 2008 and several NE1032 members are working on a new book (by the Forest Service) on the biological control (or potential for it) of 37 key exotic forest insects to be printed in 2013. Through this regional project we will annually compile a list of publications by project participants to enhance communication within the project and with the general public.
  • In addition to publications, northeastern biological control specialists regularly make presentations at local, statewide, and regional meetings of scientific societies, conservation organizations, land managers and grower groups.
  • Tangible outputs of the work of this regional project are the increased populations of natural enemies throughout the region. This is reflected in parasitism rates such as the 30% parasitism of winter moth in MA by the newly-released tachinid parasitoid and the recovery of the hemlock woolly adelgid predator (Laricobius nigrinis) 17 miles from release sites where a NJ population of this predator is rapidly increasing in density and distribution. Another example of a project output is provided by a collaborative regional effort against mile-a-minute weed where over 160,000 Rhinoncomimus latipes weevils have been reared by the Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Laboratory in NJ and released in CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, and WV. Spread is over 4 Km/yr from release sites. In another example from NJ, a total of 98,000 adult Pediobius foveolatus was released against the Mexican bean beetle during the 2011 soybean growing season.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

  • The many research and outreach components of this regional project share common outcomes which can be documented. These include documentation of natural enemy host range, establishment of biocontrol agents, natural enemy spread, reduced pest problems and associated effects on other components of the ecosystem as a result of natural enemy releases. Another common outcome is increased knowledge about the science biological control. Impacts of this work include improved future programs based upon new knowledge and reduced need for pest control activities and attendant environmental and economic consequences because of successful biological control programs. In most cases, these results are not yet achieved  that is why we are working on them. So this section includes examples of potential benefits of ongoing work as well as documented impacts of some ongoing projects and others just completed through this regional project.
  • For Objective 1: Assessment of natural enemy populations and improved knowledge of the impact of insecticides will lead to reduced risk to natural enemy populations and enhanced biological control in blueberry systems. Thus need for pesticides may be reduced with reduced impact on the environment and reduced cost to producer.
  • For Objective 2: The effectiveness of the ongoing NJ Mexican bean beetle program is demonstrated by the fact that New Jersey soybean growers have not used insecticides against the Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna varivestis) in over 25 years. No soybean farmer in NJ has had to spray for Mexican bean beetle since 1987.
  • For Objective 3: To date, it appears that Rhinoncomimus latipes will be extremely successful in controlling mile-a-minute weed (P. perfoliata) on its own in certain circumstances, and will contribute to an integrated management program under other conditions. This biocontrol agent has become established at nearly all release sites in 10 states and is rapidly spreading throughout the region.
  • For Objective 4: As a result of parasitoid releases and surveys conducted by regional project members, the birch leafminer is now known to be successfully controlled by Lathroles nigricollis throughout the Northeast and well into Canada and the mid-western states and there is no need for additional control efforts against this pest. This information was distributed to all northeast IPM coordinators and at New England Grows and in a Forest Service publication and will soon be included in state IPM fact sheets. There should be no insecticides directed against this pest.
  • In another example of a recently-completed effort from NE1032, collaborative research and surveys have documented that the introduced parasitoid Cotesia rubecula has spread throughout the Northeast and Midwest, resulting in increased control and reduced pesticide use against the imported cabbageworm (Pieris rapae). This newly introduced parasitoid has also had a positive effect on the conservation of a state-listed native butterfly (Pieris oleracea) formerly suppressed by another parasitoid, Cotesia glomerata (L.), that has now been greatly reduced by competition with C. glomerata.


(2014): As recognized by W2185, each of the major objectives of this regional project has a sequence of intermediate steps which must be completed for the project to move to the next stage. These generalized milestones are followed by specific examples from objectives 1-4 above.

Objective 1: Conserve Natural Enemies to Increase Biological Control of Target Pests.

1. Characterize and identify pest and natural enemy communities and their interactions.
2. Identify and assess factors potentially disruptive to biological control.
3. Implement and evaluate habitat modification, horticultural practices, and pest suppression tactics to conserve natural enemy activity.

Assessment of natural enemy populations and improved knowledge of the impact of insecticides will lead to reduced risk to natural enemy populations and enhanced biological control in blueberry systems. This sets the stage for additional biological control efforts such as augmentation and classical biological control if needed.

The research at Cornell will elucidate the interactions among the several native and exotic drivers of the forest ecosystem allowing determination of whether garlic mustard should be subjected to releases of biological control agents.

Objective 2: Augment Natural Enemies to Increase Biological Control Efficacy.

1. Assess biological characteristics of natural enemies.
2. Develop procedures for rearing, storing, quality control and release of natural enemies, and conduct experimental releases to assess feasibility.
3. Implement augmentation programs and evaluate efficacy of natural enemies.

Experimental augmentative releases of Trichogramma ostriniae against the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) will be made in NY to assess the role of volatiles released by host eggs on the efficacy of releases. Root aphids infesting Christmas trees in Vermont will be identified and releases of Hypoaspis miles made to determine effectiveness. Research is also underway to determine the efficacy of including entomopathogenic fungi in potting soils in a plant-mediated system for management of western flower thrips in greenhouse production of ornamentals.

Objectives 3 and 4: Import and Establish Effective Natural Enemies (Classical Biological Control)

1. Survey indigenous natural enemies.
2. Conduct foreign exploration and ecological studies in the native range of pest.
3. Determine systematics and biogeography of pests and natural enemies.
4. Determine environmental safety and potential efficacy of exotic candidates prior to release.
5. Release, establish and redistribute natural enemies.
6. Evaluate natural enemy efficacy and study ecological/physiological basis for interactions.

Objective 3 (Weeds): Completion of host range testing of potential biological control agents for common reed and swallow-worts will allow a determination of the relative safety of environmental releases of these agents in North America. In another study, continuing research on the natural decline of garlic mustard populations will determine the cause of this decline and provide important information in the decision of whether releases of exotic agents against garlic mustard is needed. If USDA/APHIS approves the pending release request for a knotweed biological control agent, initial releases will be made in MA and NY followed by efficacy studies and redistribution to other northeastern states.

Objective 4 (Insects): As the emerald ash borer spreads throughout the northeast, scientists will participate in establishment and evaluation of biological control agents based upon the experience of Midwest States. Laricobius nigrinis, the predator of hemlock woolly adelgid is beginning to show promise for establishment and population build-up and spread. If ongoing studies also show that it is significantly impacting HWA populations, this predator will be widely dist

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Education has always been essential to success in biological control, and this has become more evident in recent years as developing programs involve the general public and other stakeholder groups. Northeastern biological control scientists continue to address the educational needs of our clients through refereed publications, non- refereed peer reviewed publications, workshops, producer field days, etc. as described above under Outputs. We will meet with growers, foresters, land owners/managers, regulatory agencies and other stakeholders to solicit their needs and to inform them of opportunities and results of research projects. These meetings vary from individual one-on-one conversations to presentations at New England Grows (audience over 1,000) and the USDA Interagency Research Forum on Invasive Species at Annapolis (audience about 300). Five members of our regional project have addressed New England Grows over the past two years where we update horticulturalists from throughout the Northeast on latest results of biocontrol research. And 10 of us have addressed the national audience at the Annapolis meeting in the past two years. Our work was also featured at the 2010 Biological Control for Nature Conference in Northampton, MA and the International Weed Biocontrol meeting in HI in 2011. We will continue to present and discuss pertinent research findings at regularly scheduled professional meetings such as the Entomological Society of America and international meetings on weed and insect biological control.

In recent years we have made increasing use of web sites. Cornell has widely used web sites on biological control of weeds ( and insects Additionally, U. Mass maintains a web site for the US Forest Service on current biological control projects ( The University of Maryland has several popular websites (,, that emphasizes conservation of beneficial insects. Most researchers and all institutions represented in Appendix E have web sites describing their current projects.


The regional project officers will consist of a Chair, Secretary, and Representative at Large elected from the regional project membership. These elected officials, plus the administrative advisor, comprise the Executive Committee. The Chair will prepare technical and executive meeting agendas, preside at meetings, and prepare an annual progress report on the research activities of the regional project. The Secretary will record the minutes of technical and executive committee meetings and perform other duties as necessary. The Representative at Large, who will be elected annually, will succeed the Secretary who will in turn succeed the Chair. Subcommittees may be appointed by the Chair to assist with project needs. The regional project will meet annually, unless otherwise planned, at a place and on dates designated by majority vote of the project membership.

Literature Cited

Casagrande, R., R. G. Van Driesche, M. Mayer, R. Fuester, D. Gilrein, L, Tewksbury, and H. Faubert. 2008 Biological control of Fenusa pusilla (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) in the northeastern United States: a thirty four year perspective on efficacy. Florida Entomologist 92: 243-247.

Frank, S. D., and P. M. Shrewsbury. 2004. Effect of conservation strips on the abundance and distribution of natural enemies and predation of Agrotis ipsilon (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on golf course fairways. Environmental Entomology 33: 1662-1672.

Gurr, G. M., S. D. Wratten, and P. Barbosa. 2000. Success in conservation biological control of arthropods. pp. 105-132 In: Biological Control: Measures of Success, (G. Gurr and S. D. Wratten, eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

Herlihy, M. V., R. G. Van Driesche, M. R. Abney, J. Brodeur, A. B. Bryant1, R. A. Casagrande, D. A. Delaney, T. E. Elkner, S. J. Fleischer, R. L. Groves, D. S. Gruner, J. P. Harmon, G. E. Heimpel, K. Hemady, T. P. Kuhar, C. M. Maund, A. M. Shelton, A. J. Seaman, M. Skinner, R. Weinzierl, K. V. Yeargan, and Z. Szendrei. 2012. Distribution of Cotesia rubecula (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and its displacement of Cotesia glomerata in eastern North America. Florida Entomogist in press

Hough-Goldstein, J., E. Lake, and R. Reardon. 2012. Status of an ongoing biological control program for the invasive vine, Persicaria perfoliata in eastern North America. BioControl 57:181-189.

Hoy, M. 1994. Parasitoids and Predators in Management of Arthropod Pests. In: Metcalf, R.L. and W. H. Luckmann. Introduction to Insect Pest Management. 3rd ed. John Wiley, NY.

Landis, D. A., S. D. Wratten, and G. M. Gurr. 2000. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology 45: 175-201.

Maerz, J. C., V. A. Nuzzo, and B. Blossey. 2009. Declines in Woodland Salamander Abundance Associated with Non-Native Earthworm and Plant Invasions. Conservation Biology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 975-981.

Mason, P. G., Flanders, R. G. and Arrendondo-Bernal, H. A. 2005. How can legislation facilitate the use of biological control of arthropods in North America? Proceedings, 2nd International Symposium of Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland. Sept. 2005. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Publication FHTET-2005-08, vol. 1: 701-714.

Nuzzo, V. A. J. C. Maerz, B. Blossey. 2009. Earthworm Invasion as the Driving Force Behind Plant Invasion and Community Change in Northeastern North American Forests. Conservation Biology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 966-974.

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. BioScience. 50:53-65.

Shrewsbury, P.M. and M.J. Raupp. 2004. Biological control in specific crops: Woody Ornamentals. pp. 395-408. In: Biological Control of Arthropod Pests in Protected Culture. (K.M. Heinz, R. Van Driesche, and M.P. Parrella eds.), Ball Publishing.

Shrewsbury, P. M., J. H. Lashomb, G. C. Hamilton, J. Zhang, J. M. Patts, and R. A. Casagrande. 2004. The influence of flowering plants on herbivore and natural enemy abundance in ornamental landscapes. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 30: 23-33.

Van Driesche. 1994. Classical Biological Control of Environmental Pests. Florida Entomologist 77(1):20-33.

Van Driesche, R.G., M. Hoddle, and T. Center. 2008. Control of Pests and Weeds by Natural Enemies: An introduction to biological control. Wiley/Blackwell, London.

Van Tol, R. and Raupp, M. J. 2005. Nursery and tree application. pp. 274-296. In: Nematodes as Biocontrol Agents (P. S. Grewal, R. U. Ehlers and D. Shapiro-Ilan eds.), CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

Yarborough, D.E. and F.A. Drummond. 2012. 2012 Insect Control Guide for Wild Blueberries. UMCE No. 2001, Fact Sheet no. 209

Yarborough, D.E. 2002. Weeds 7. UMCE No. 2200, Fact Sheet no. 247.


Land Grant Participating States/Institutions


Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Laboratory
Log Out ?

Are you sure you want to log out?

Press No if you want to continue work. Press Yes to logout current user.

Report a Bug
Report a Bug

Describe your bug clearly, including the steps you used to create it.