Robert N. Trigiano, Alan S. Windham, Mark T. Windham, and Phillip A. Wadl
Katherine M. Solo, Sara B. Collins, Madalyn K. Shires, Ron Ochoa, Gary R. Bauchan, Liesel G. Schneider, Alan Henn, James C. Jacobi, Jean L. Williams-Woodward, M.R. Hajimorad, Frank A. Hale, John B. Wilkerson, Alan S. Windham, Kevin L. Ong, Mathews L. Paret, Xavier Martini, David H. Byrne, and Mark T. Windham
The eriophyid mite, Phyllocoptes fructiphilus, vectors the causal agent, Rose rosette virus (RRV), that results in rose rosette disease. Parts of the southeastern United States have remained free of the disease, except for infected plant material introductions that were eradicated. A survey of sampling points through Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi (n = 204) revealed the southeastern border of RRV. The presence of RRV in symptomatic plant tissue samples (n = 39) was confirmed by TaqMan-quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Samples were also collected at every plot for detection of eriophyid mites, specifically for P. fructiphilus. Three different species of eriophyid mites were found to be generally distributed throughout Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Most of these sites (n = 60) contained P. fructiphilus, found further south than previously thought, but in low populations (<10 mites/gram of tissue) south of the RRV line of incidence. Latitude was found to be significantly correlated with the probability of detecting RRV-positive plants, but plant hardiness zones were not. Plot factors such as plant size, wind barriers, and sun exposure were found to have no effect on P. fructiphilus or the presence of RRV. The reason for the absence of RRV and low populations of P. fructiphilus in this southeast region of the United States are unclear.
Anthony LeBude, Amy Fulcher, Jean-Jacque Dubois, S. Kris Braman, Matthew Chappell, J.-H (J.C.) Chong, Jeffrey Derr, Nicole Gauthier, Frank Hale, William Klingeman, Gary Knox, Joseph Neal, and Alan Windham
Three, 2-day hands-on experiential learning workshops were presented in three southeastern United States cities in June 2014, by the Southern Nursery Integrated Pest Management (SNIPM) working group. Attendees were provided 4 hours of instruction including hands-on demonstrations in horticultural management, arthropods, plant diseases, and weeds. Participants completed initial surveys for gains in knowledge, skills, and abilities as well as their intentions to adopt various integrated pest management (IPM) practices after the workshop. After 3 years, participants were again surveyed to determine practice adoption. Respondents changed their IPM practice behavior because of attending the workshops. Those returning the survey set aside more time to scout deliberately for pests, plant diseases, and weeds; used a standardized sampling plan when scouting; and adopted more sanitation practices to prevent plant disease. Fewer horticultural management practices were adopted than respondents originally intended. Future emphasis should be placed on using monitoring techniques to estimate pest emergence, for example, traps and pheromone lures, as well as plant phenology and record keeping. However, more work is needed to highlight both the immediate and long-term economic benefits of IPM practice adoption in southeastern U.S. nursery production.
Amy Fulcher, Sarah A. White, Juang-Horng (JC) Chong, Joseph C. Neal, Jean L. Williams-Woodward, Craig R. Adkins, S. Kristine Braman, Matthew R. Chappell, Jeffrey F. Derr, Winston C. Dunwell, Steven D. Frank, Stanton A. Gill, Frank A. Hale, William E. Klingeman, Anthony V. LeBude, Karen Rane, and Alan S. Windham
Mobile device applications (apps) have the potential to become a mainstream delivery method, providing services, information, and tools to extension clientele. Testing, promoting, and launching an app are key components supporting the successful development of this new technology. This article summarizes the considerations and steps that must be taken to successfully test, promote, and launch an app and is based on the authors’ experience developing two horticulture apps, IPMPro and IPMLite. These apps provide information for major pests and plant care tasks and prompt users to take action on time-sensitive tasks with push notifications scheduled specifically for their location. App testing and evaluation is a continual process. Effective tactics for app testing and evaluation include garnering focus group input throughout app development and postlaunch, in-house testing with simulators, beta testing and the advantages of services that enhance information gained during beta testing, and postlaunch evaluations. Differences in promotional and bulk purchasing options available among the two main device platforms, Android and iOS, are explored as are general preparations for marketing the launch of a new app. Finally, navigating the app submission process is discussed. Creating an app is an involved process, but one that can be rewarding and lead to a unique portal for extension clientele to access information, assistance, and tools.
Amy Fulcher, Juang-Horng (JC) Chong, Sarah A. White, Joseph C. Neal, Jean L. Williams-Woodward, Craig R. Adkins, S. Kristine Braman, Matthew R. Chappell, Jeffrey F. Derr, Winston C. Dunwell, Steven D. Frank, Stanton A. Gill, Frank A. Hale, William E. Klingeman, Anthony V. LeBude, Karen Rane, and Alan S. Windham
With increased mobile device usage, mobile applications (apps) are emerging as an extension medium, well suited to “place-less” knowledge transfer. Conceptualizing, designing, and developing an app can be a daunting process. This article summarizes the considerations and steps that must be taken to successfully develop an app and is based on the authors’ experience developing two horticulture apps, IPMPro and IPMLite. These apps provide information for major pests and plant care tasks and prompt users to take action on time-sensitive tasks with push notifications scheduled specifically for their location. Topics such as selecting between a web app and a native app, choosing the platform(s) for native apps, and designing the user interface are covered. Whether to charge to download the app or have free access, and navigating the intra- and interinstitutional agreements and programming contract are also discussed. Lastly, the nonprogramming costs such as creating, editing, and uploading content, as well as ongoing app management and updates are discussed.