Volunteer Opportunities with County Extension
Arthropods (i.e., insects and mites) weeds, and plant pathogens
(e.g., fungi and bacteria) are serious pests that pose a significant
threat to our natural resources, food crops and urban environments.
The invasion of exotic pests into California is increasing due to
globalization of trade and travel. Recent examples of new serious
exotic arthropod pests are the glassy-winged sharpshooter
(Homalodisca coagulata) (affecting grapes and citrus and attacking
woody native plants), giant whitefly (Aleurodicus dugesii) and red
gum lerp psyllid (Glycaspis brimblecombei) both of which attack urban
ornamental plants. New indigenous pest problems also continue to
emerge as a result of our intensified exploitation of natural
resources and extensive agriculture production. Pest management in
California has relied almost exclusively on the use of synthetic
pesticides, and more recently the use of genetically modified crops,
both of which have led to intense public concern about contamination
of food, water, the environment, and impacts on human health.
Biological control, although pioneered in California by UC
scientists, has been an underutilized pest management strategy even
though many of our current pest problems may be amenable to
substantial control with natural enemies.
Biological control is the use of living organisms for the control of
pests, and provides a sound ecological basis for management of many
key pests in California’s food, fiber, forestry and landscape
systems. It is based upon a fundamental knowledge of the
interactions of living organisms, requiring an integration of
biological disciplines from the molecular to the ecosystem level.
Successful manipulation of these interactions leads to effective
biological control programs, for example, by the introduction of a
natural enemy for an invading pest, or the enhancement of a naturally
occurring interaction for an indigenous pest. Successful biological
control programs enhance farm and ecosystem sustainability, reduce or
redirect fuel inputs, and reduce human risk and non-target organisms
exposure to toxic pesticides in production, urban and wild
ecosystems. Better extension of information on biological control
research in California will greatly improve public understanding of
the importance of this pest management tool and facilitate
cooperation at all levels.
Currently, scientists from the UC, CDFA, USDA, CA-DPR, California
State Universities, non-CA Universities, and County-level pest
managers work on aspects of biological control of insect and mite
pests in California. Consequently, there is a great diversity of
work conducted by many people on and off UC campuses that focuses on
biological control or improved understanding of the ecological
principles (e.g., predator-prey dynamics) that govern biological
control.
Despite the present volume of work being conducted here, and
biological control’s strong history in California, there is no clear
infrastructure to enhance communication and cooperation between
project leaders and interested parties. Lines of communication
between primary biological control researchers and University, state,
federal and private organizations can be strengthened to improve the
practice, regulation and extension of biological control technology
in California. Improved communication amongst biological control
practitioners, working together on issue-related topics, will
strengthen the practice of biological control.
Here, we propose a DANR Biological Control Workgroup, which focuses
on biological control of arthropod pests and will address priority
issues outlined in the DANR Strategic Plan. Proposed activities (see
subcommittee charges for 2001-02) cover a broad area of inter-related
subjects of critical importance to biological control activities in
California, which are grouped under two primary objectives. First,
to resolve statewide issues that impact the regulation and practice
of biological control. Second, to increase interagency communication
between biological control practitioners in order to facilitate
biological control practice and the extension of information on
biological control research in California. We propose to use
subcommittees, within the ratified DANR Workgroup, to address
specific issues encompassed within these two broad objectives (e.g.,
extramural fund development, needs assessment, and communication and
networking).
Workgroup members include AES and CE faculty at UC Berkeley, UC
Davis, UC Riverside and County-based UCCE. The Workgroup will also
encourage statewide cooperation between UC, USDA, CDFA and other
agencies in the development of collaborative programs and, for this
reason, will include members from state and federal agencies. To
pursue statewide issues in the most efficient manner, a large group
meeting(s) may not be the most effective. Consequently, we chose to
divide activities among smaller, voluntary Subcommittees, which will
be responsible for setting schedules and specific agendas to address
each activity. Subcommittees will organize workgroup members’
involvement in the development of the workgroup’s purpose, goals and
activities. Their progress will be posted on the Biological Control
Web site (see below) for comments from the full Workgroup. A full-
session Workgroup meeting will be held at the California Conference
on Biological Control (CBCC), where Subcommittees will present
findings for discussion and actions to be taken will be decided upon.
In a meeting of the non-ratified Biological Control Workgroup (21
persons present, Riverside, CA, June 2000) and subsequent informal
discussions, we developed a list of priority areas for subcommittees
to address: (1) determining pre-release requirements for natural
enemies, and setting goals for host-specificity safety tests; (2)
determining effects of natural enemies on non-target organisms, and
post-release evaluation of natural enemy efficacy; (3) investigating
funding sources for insectary & quarantine infrastructure and foreign
exploration efforts for biological control; (4) improving interagency
communication; (5) continuing the very successful California
Conference on Biological Control; (6) identifying past successful
biological control projects in California that have not been
documented, and (7) developing a biological control Web site focused
on California issues (the Web site will be based at UC Berkeley).
Each year, a full-session Workgroup meeting will be held, for
example, at the California Conference on Biological Control (CBCC),
where Subcommittees will present findings for discussion and
determine actions to be taken.
(e.g., fungi and bacteria) are serious pests that pose a significant
threat to our natural resources, food crops and urban environments.
The invasion of exotic pests into California is increasing due to
globalization of trade and travel. Recent examples of new serious
exotic arthropod pests are the glassy-winged sharpshooter
(Homalodisca coagulata) (affecting grapes and citrus and attacking
woody native plants), giant whitefly (Aleurodicus dugesii) and red
gum lerp psyllid (Glycaspis brimblecombei) both of which attack urban
ornamental plants. New indigenous pest problems also continue to
emerge as a result of our intensified exploitation of natural
resources and extensive agriculture production. Pest management in
California has relied almost exclusively on the use of synthetic
pesticides, and more recently the use of genetically modified crops,
both of which have led to intense public concern about contamination
of food, water, the environment, and impacts on human health.
Biological control, although pioneered in California by UC
scientists, has been an underutilized pest management strategy even
though many of our current pest problems may be amenable to
substantial control with natural enemies.
Biological control is the use of living organisms for the control of
pests, and provides a sound ecological basis for management of many
key pests in California’s food, fiber, forestry and landscape
systems. It is based upon a fundamental knowledge of the
interactions of living organisms, requiring an integration of
biological disciplines from the molecular to the ecosystem level.
Successful manipulation of these interactions leads to effective
biological control programs, for example, by the introduction of a
natural enemy for an invading pest, or the enhancement of a naturally
occurring interaction for an indigenous pest. Successful biological
control programs enhance farm and ecosystem sustainability, reduce or
redirect fuel inputs, and reduce human risk and non-target organisms
exposure to toxic pesticides in production, urban and wild
ecosystems. Better extension of information on biological control
research in California will greatly improve public understanding of
the importance of this pest management tool and facilitate
cooperation at all levels.
Currently, scientists from the UC, CDFA, USDA, CA-DPR, California
State Universities, non-CA Universities, and County-level pest
managers work on aspects of biological control of insect and mite
pests in California. Consequently, there is a great diversity of
work conducted by many people on and off UC campuses that focuses on
biological control or improved understanding of the ecological
principles (e.g., predator-prey dynamics) that govern biological
control.
Despite the present volume of work being conducted here, and
biological control’s strong history in California, there is no clear
infrastructure to enhance communication and cooperation between
project leaders and interested parties. Lines of communication
between primary biological control researchers and University, state,
federal and private organizations can be strengthened to improve the
practice, regulation and extension of biological control technology
in California. Improved communication amongst biological control
practitioners, working together on issue-related topics, will
strengthen the practice of biological control.
Here, we propose a DANR Biological Control Workgroup, which focuses
on biological control of arthropod pests and will address priority
issues outlined in the DANR Strategic Plan. Proposed activities (see
subcommittee charges for 2001-02) cover a broad area of inter-related
subjects of critical importance to biological control activities in
California, which are grouped under two primary objectives. First,
to resolve statewide issues that impact the regulation and practice
of biological control. Second, to increase interagency communication
between biological control practitioners in order to facilitate
biological control practice and the extension of information on
biological control research in California. We propose to use
subcommittees, within the ratified DANR Workgroup, to address
specific issues encompassed within these two broad objectives (e.g.,
extramural fund development, needs assessment, and communication and
networking).
Workgroup members include AES and CE faculty at UC Berkeley, UC
Davis, UC Riverside and County-based UCCE. The Workgroup will also
encourage statewide cooperation between UC, USDA, CDFA and other
agencies in the development of collaborative programs and, for this
reason, will include members from state and federal agencies. To
pursue statewide issues in the most efficient manner, a large group
meeting(s) may not be the most effective. Consequently, we chose to
divide activities among smaller, voluntary Subcommittees, which will
be responsible for setting schedules and specific agendas to address
each activity. Subcommittees will organize workgroup members’
involvement in the development of the workgroup’s purpose, goals and
activities. Their progress will be posted on the Biological Control
Web site (see below) for comments from the full Workgroup. A full-
session Workgroup meeting will be held at the California Conference
on Biological Control (CBCC), where Subcommittees will present
findings for discussion and actions to be taken will be decided upon.
In a meeting of the non-ratified Biological Control Workgroup (21
persons present, Riverside, CA, June 2000) and subsequent informal
discussions, we developed a list of priority areas for subcommittees
to address: (1) determining pre-release requirements for natural
enemies, and setting goals for host-specificity safety tests; (2)
determining effects of natural enemies on non-target organisms, and
post-release evaluation of natural enemy efficacy; (3) investigating
funding sources for insectary & quarantine infrastructure and foreign
exploration efforts for biological control; (4) improving interagency
communication; (5) continuing the very successful California
Conference on Biological Control; (6) identifying past successful
biological control projects in California that have not been
documented, and (7) developing a biological control Web site focused
on California issues (the Web site will be based at UC Berkeley).
Each year, a full-session Workgroup meeting will be held, for
example, at the California Conference on Biological Control (CBCC),
where Subcommittees will present findings for discussion and
determine actions to be taken.