Proposal/Project Management System (PPMS)

For 2020 and newer grants, please go to https://grants.ipmcenters.org/

Home Current RFAs PD User Guide Projects Login

Funded Project

Funding Program: IPM Enhancement Grants

Project Title: Organize and set priorities for a Southern region tawny crazy ant working group

Project Director (PD):

Lawrence C. "Fudd" Graham [1]

Lead State: AL

Lead Organization: Auburn University

Undesignated Funding: $10,000

Start Date: Mar-01-2015

End Date: Feb-29-2016

Pests Involved: Tawny Crazy Ant

Site/Commodity: Multiple - urban, pecans, hay ornamentals, turf and others TBD

Area of Emphasis: Invasive species

Summary: The purpose of this grant is to organize a working group on the tawny crazy ant, an invasive ant of the Southeastern United States. The pest is causing significant economic and environmental problems from Texas to Georgia. This pest is known to impact populations of native and non-native arthropods. From what is known about management of this ant, the best (and in some cases only) solution is pesticide sprays, usually containing fipronil or pyrethroids. These compounds have been shown to be surface water contaminants in California from attempts to control another invasive ant, the Argentine ant. Alternatives are needed.

The group will evaluate the current pest status of the tawny crazy ant and establish extension, research and regulatory priorities for integrated management of this pest. We plan to utilize the IT support from the SIPMC to track the spread of the pest. We hope to leverage funding for research and extension projects aimed at reducing the spread of tawny crazy ants and to improve IPM tactics to reduce environmental impacts resulting from the amounts and types of pesticides currently used for suppression of this pest species

Objectives: 1: Organize tawny crazy ant working group
a.Long-term outcome(s):
i.Reduce the spread of tawny crazy ants and improve IPM tactics to reduce environmental impacts due to the amounts and types of pesticides used currently for suppression of this pest species
b.Medium-term outcome(s):
i.Utilize technological support from the SIMPC to track spread of pest, to keep informed of current research, extension and regulatory activities and to lay the foundation for the group to leverage this grant to apply for funding to work on tawny crazy ant IPM projects in the Southern region
c.Short-term outcome(s):
i.Evaluate current pest status of the tawny crazy ant and establish IPM priorities for extension, research and regulatory issues

Final Report:

Outputs
The purpose of forming this work group was to facilitate a partnership between researchers and extension personnel working on the tawny crazy ant (TCA). A good functioning partnership will result in educational materials and research that will be beneficial to all stakeholders in the southeast affected by infestation by tawny crazy ants. To facilitate this process, all members of the work group were assigned homework before the meeting to establish baseline data on the status of TCA in their state (See Baseline Data for each state in Appendix). At the start of the meeting, it was determined that Texas A&M was starting a project that would require cooperation from all states infested with TCA. This project was strengthened by interaction at the meeting. A second project, consisting of a demonstration in Alabama and two replicated studies in Texas looking at the effect of Arilon on TCA, was a direct result of the meeting.
We also wanted to leverage the IT capabilities of the SIPMC to establish a real-time data base for TCA movement in EDDMaps. Since the meeting, researchers have been scouring old data to determine establishment dates in each county in their state where this data was lacking. A spreadsheet for the EDDMaps system has been developed and recent data from researchers needs to be added before the site can go live and there can be a real-time map to use to record new sitings of TCA.
We also agreed that thee needs to be a coordinated outreach to stakeholders that are affected and that may be affected by this pest. To that end, the group has made over 38 presentations to stakeholders since the initial work group meeting and seven presentations at scientific meetings.

Outcomes
The short-term outcome of this work group was to evaluate the current pest status of TCA and to establish IPM priorities for research, extension and regulatory issues. The homework assignment (See Baseline Data for each state in Appendix) for each state was discussed and any other information on TCA was presented to the group by members. This discussion set the stage for establishing priorities. We began by creating a list of every possible action that we could take to manage this pest in each of the three categories. Once we had exhausted ideas, the group was given five votes to rank the ideas in order of importance. This became our priority list. The original list can be found in the appendix (Participants, Priorities, Presentations and Collaborations). The group asked that I provide a summary for the report since many of the ideas covered different aspects of the same idea, e.g. bait use for TCA.

For extension/outreach priorities, the main goal was to provide educational materials to as many stakeholders as possible that might be affected by TCA infestations e.g. homeowners, turfgrass producers, beekeepers, hay/livestock producers, municipality and county governments, shipping industry, PMP’s, right-of-way professionals, ornamental and turf professionals, fruit and vegetable growers, airports and seaports. These materials could be handouts, folders, presentations, videos or internet sites. The summary of extension/outreach priorities was to provide:

1. Educational Materials to stakeholders (handouts, videos, internet, etc.)

a. Biology

b. IPM tactics

c. Spread

2. Utilize Southern IPM Center for technical and IT support for maps

3. Determine homeowner pesticide use through surveys

There were many more priorities for research (24) than for extension (7). So, with only five votes each, some of the suggested ideas did not receive votes (see Participants, Priorities, Presentations and Collaborations in the Appendix). The summary of research priorities was as follows:

1. Bait Development

a. Develop a bait formulation that works with bait switching habits of TCA

b. Find a way to use current baits effectively

c. Develop equipment to deliver baits effectively, especially granular

2. Determine Economic Impacts

a. Document impacts to agriculture

b. Document impacts to homeowners

c. Document impacts to poultry

d. Determine effects on pollinators

3. Determine if IFA quarantine procedures will work for TCA in nurseries

4. Determine cold tolerance to determine potential spread

5. Determine geographic distribution

6. Determine interaction with native species and wildlife

7. Look at alternatives to insecticides, such as biocontrol and RNAi in baiting systems

8. Investigate colony structure

9. Determine factors of natural population decline

Due to lack of funding, support, and lack of medical problems associated with TCA, we were unable to come up with any viable regulatory ideas to assist with stopping the spread of TCA without putting undue financial burdens on industries affected, so we punted here.

As a medium term goal, we wanted to leverage the IT capabilities of the SIPMC to establish a real-time data base for TCA movement in EDDMaps. Since the meeting, researchers have been scouring old data to determine establishment dates in each county in their state where this data was lacking. A spreadsheet for the EDDMaps system has been developed and recent data from researchers needs to be added before the site can go live and there can be a real-time map to use to record new sitings of TCA. We plan to have this site up and running in a few months.

The long range goal of the group is to stop the spread of this pest. But, as of this report, we are still trying to document the spread of TCA to date. In the meantime, we are looking at the biology of this pest and testing several products that might be useful in management of current populations. In an attempt to curb the spread, the group makes numerous presentations to stakeholders to make them aware of this pest.

Over 1500 stakeholders were made aware of this new pest through presentations at 38 meetings across the southeast.

Report Appendices

Close Window


Southern IPM Center North Carolina State University 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27606 p. 919.513.1432 f. 919.513.1114		Developed by the Center for IPM © Copyright CIPM 2004-2025