Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2023) 14(1): 16; 1–14

https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmad014
Surveys and Needs Assessments

Surveys and Needs Assessments

Adoption of Amyelois transitella (navel orangeworm)

monitoring and management practices across California
tree nut crops

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023

Phoebe E. Gordon1,*, , Brittney K. Goodrich2, , Houston Wilson3,
1
Cooperative Extension, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Madera, CA 93638, USA,2Department
of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA,3Department of Entomology, University of
California, Riverside, Parlier, CA 93648, USA *Corresponding author, mail: pegordon@ucanr.edu

Subject Editor: Michelle Samuel-Foo

Received 24 February 2023; Editorial decision 26 June 2023

In California, the most significant insect pest of almonds and pistachios is the navel orangeworm, Amyelois
transitella (Walker) and is a pest of walnuts. This pest attacks the nuts and infestation is associated with
aflatoxin contamination. While there are multiple integrated pest management (IPM) practices available,
anecdotal evidence suggests that not all tools are equally utilized. To understand current industry practices
and barriers to adoption, the authors surveyed tree nut growers and industry professionals across 7
University of California Cooperative Extension meetings in California’s Central Valley. Findings indicate that
as managed acres decreased, participants were less likely to report using as many IPM tools, and pest control
advisers reported higher use of multiple practices compared to orchard owners and managers. Key barriers
to adoption varied by practice and included high economic costs, low labor availability, environmental
conditions, and/or timing constraints. Many respondents were skeptical of the efficacy of mating disruption,
a relatively new strategy compared to other IPM tools. Finally, a cluster analysis identified thirteen aggregate
grower profiles. Groups primarily differed in their use of monitoring practices, although some groups were
also less likely to use sanitation or pesticides. Two groups were distinguished as “early adopters” through
their use of mating disruption and/or ovibait traps. These findings document variability in adoption of IPM
practices for A. transitella in tree nuts. Identification of the primary barriers and constraints for specific
grower groups will inform research and extension efforts to further promote adoption of key IPM strategies.

Key words: integrated pest management, navel orangeworm, tree nuts, Lepidoptera, mating disruption

Introduction In general, practices that are easy to use (Hammond et al. 2006)
and have a high perceived value (Kaine and Bewsell 2008) are more
Concern for the environmental and human health impacts of pes-
likely to be adopted. Researchers have also tried to identify traits
ticides has led various regulatory agencies and consumer groups to
that make a grower more likely to adopt IPM practices. For in-
demand greater adoption of nonchemical pest management strat-
stance, growers who farm more land and have help in the form
egies in agriculture (Kogan 1998). For decades, integrated pest man-
of unpaid family labor are more likely to adopt new practices
agement (IPM) has been championed as an approach to meet these
(Fernandez-Cornejo et al. 1993, Fernandez-Cornejo 1998). Grower
demands through the combined use of biological, cultural, mechan-
reliance on Cooperative Extension sometimes (Napit et al. 1988)
ical, and chemical controls (Stern et al. 1959). The IPM approach
but not always (Fernandez-Cornejo 1998) increased adoption of
emphasizes the use of nonchemical strategies and judicious use of
IPM, and studies have shown that growers tend to be skeptical of
chemical controls when necessary. In theory, adoption of IPM can
practices that appear to be based in ideology (Fernandez-Cornejo
lead to reduced pesticide use, although this has not always been the
et al. 1993), have high costs (Creissen et al. 2019), or variable ef-
case (Napit et al. 1988, Bauske et al. 1998) and adoption of key
ficacy (Shennan et al. 2001). Despite efforts to identify a typology
nonchemical practices can be constrained by a variety of economic,
to predict the likelihood of uptake and several decades of research
environmental, and social factors.

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 1
which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2
and extension efforts to promote IPM practices, complete adoption
of IPM practices is still not universally seen across all cropping
systems.
The lack of universal adoption could be due to the reliance of ex-
tension personnel on diffusion theory, which is the assumption that
continual exposure to a new idea or practice will eventually lead to
adoption. In this model, adoption speed is determined by a grower’s
acceptance of new technologies, often demonstrated by a normal
curve where a small number of innovators lead adoption, followed
by a less innovative majority, and finally by information and tech-
nology laggards (Rogers 2010). This theory ignores economic in-
centives and psychological behaviors that drive growers to continue
with an already established practice that keeps perceived risk low.
Kaine and Bewsell (2008) demonstrate the dangers of assuming suc-
cess based on diffusion theory with a study on the adoption of IPM
among New Zealand apple growers. Adoption of mating disruption
for codling moth and the use of selective chemicals to control mites
and preserve mite predators was only implemented after miticide
resistance drove behavioral change; ignoring the agroecological
drivers could make it appear as if Cooperative Extension educa-
tional efforts solely drove the change (Kaine and Bewsell 2008).
Other researchers have demonstrated that market factors (Ridgley
and Brush 1992) drive differential IPM and technology adoption
rather than diffusion efforts by extension personnel. In fact, Kaine
(2004) argues that farm management practices should be viewed
through the lens of consumer theory, in which adoption of a new
management practice, IPM or otherwise, is akin to purchasing a
high-investment item or abandoning a brand that a consumer
was previously loyal to, requiring proof that the old practice is no
longer useful, a new practice is more useful, or that their needs have
changed. Additionally, IPM educators should accept that the adop-
tion of new practices will be piecemeal; growers will adopt practices
that are useful to them and mesh well with their current practices
(Ridgley and Brush 1992).
Amyelois transitella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae):
Primary Pest of California Tree Nuts
Navel orangeworm, Amyelois transitella (Walker), is the most sig-
nificant insect pest of almonds and pistachios and can be a problem
in walnuts as well. Adult moths directly oviposit onto the nuts, and
larvae feed on the developing kernel. Damage from A. transitella
infestation not only reduces crop yield and quality but is also asso-
ciated with Aspergillus spp. fungi that produce aflatoxins (Palumbo
et al. 2014), which are known carcinogens heavily regulated in
key markets. There is no research-backed economic threshold for
A. transitella damage, however damage results in lower payments
to growers, and the added threat of aflatoxin contamination in ex-
port shipments places even further pressure on growers to achieve
low levels of A. transitella damage. An industry-accepted standard
is 1–2% of nuts have been infested with A. transitella, and proces-
sors either reward growers with premiums for low levels of damage
or penalize them for high rates of damage. Thus, the importance of
IPM adoption for A. transitella in California’s tree nut orchards is
an industry-wide issue due to its connections to nut quality, trade
relations, regulations, environmental concerns, and human health
considerations.
Seasonal Ecology of A. transitella
A. transitella overwinter as larvae or pupae in remnant “mummy”
nuts left in the orchard after harvest. Adults emerge from these
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1
remnant nuts as early as March, with peak flight typically occurring
in April/May. Since new crop nuts are not yet available at this time
of year, these first flight moths must utilize mummy nuts as a re-
productive substrate, which is a more limited and lower quality
host (Siegel et al. 2010). The second flight of adult moths generally
appear in late June, which approximately coincides with the avail-
ability of the new almond crop. The ability of A. transitella to infest
new crop nuts is mediated by hull integrity. Almonds, pistachios, and
walnuts are effectively impervious to A. transitella infestation until
the fleshy pericarp (i.e., hull/husk) begins to split, which provides
access to the developing kernel. In almonds, early-splitting cultivars
become vulnerable in early July, while pistachios and walnuts split
in August/September and September/October, respectively. As such,
second flight A. transitella adults in late June and early July can typ-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023
ically make use of new crop almonds, which experience hull split
around this time. These new crop nuts are both highly abundant and
more nutritious than the remnant mummy nuts (Kuenen and Siegel
2010, Siegel et al. 2010), which results in significant A. transitella
population growth. Subsequently, the third (August) and fourth
(September) flights of A. transitella become substantially larger as
well, as the season progresses and additional new crop nuts become
available (Wilson et al. 2020).
Management of A. transitella
Sanitation
The foundation of A. transitella management is orchard sanitation,
which consists of removing the remnant mummy nuts from trees,
aggregating them in row middles, and then destroying them during
the winter period. This eliminates both overwintering larvae and re-
moves potential reproductive substrate for first-flight moths in the
spring. This practice, while critical, has significant challenges since
it can incur a cost of over $200 an acre (Duncan et al. 2019) and
requires entering orchards with heavy equipment during the rainy
season. The alternative, hiring manual labor to remove the nuts by
hand, is infeasible for many growers due to the higher cost and/or
low availability of agricultural labor in California. Regardless of
equipment, weather, and labor, the small size and durability of pista-
chios make them particularly difficult to gather and destroy.
Monitoring
Monitoring for A. transitella can be accomplished with pheromone
lures (attract males), ovipositional baits (attract gravid females), and/
or the combination of phenyl propionate with a pheromone lure (at-
tracts males and females). These lures can be placed into either wing-
or delta-traps with a sticky liner to recover adult moths and track
flight activity. Growers can also utilize egg traps, which consist of a
small black cylinder with fine ridges that contains an ovipositional
bait. Gravid females are attracted to the cylinder and deposit eggs
onto the ridges. This trap can be used in the spring to set a biofix for
estimating population development rates, which typically informs
the timing of chemical controls later in the season. Despite the avail-
ability of several monitoring tools, no economic thresholds have
been developed for A. transitella. Rather, egg traps are largely used
by the industry to determine a biofix date, to determine later spray
times, and the remainder of the trap/lure combinations are used to
gauge population size and/or determine peak flight activity periods.
An alternative biofix is to use January 1 as a biofix as this produces
similar results with less monitoring. There have been no published
studies comparing a January 1 approach to an egg trap approach.
This information, when used with crop phenology, can then be used
to determine the optimal timing of insecticide applications (Wilson
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1
et al. 2020). An additional monitoring strategy involves visual in-
spection of orchard trees and remnant nuts during the winter to de-
termine the total abundance and infestation level of mummy nuts.
While there is not a well-defined methodology for this type of sam-
pling, many growers and consultants have developed their own ap-
proaches to this.
Insecticides
Insecticide sprays are considered to be the most commonly em-
ployed A. transitella management tool, with applications typically
timed to coincide with peak periods of crop vulnerability (i.e., hull
degradation), although some growers do apply chemical controls in
the spring period as well. While guidelines for spray timing have
been established for almonds and pistachios (Haviland et al. 2020a,
2020b), application timing in walnuts is less clear (Grant et al. 2020).
Currently, the most commonly used active ingredients for control of
A. transitella are pyrethroids (e.g., bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin,
permethrin), a diamide (chlorantraniliprole), and diacylhydrazine
(methoxyfenozide) (Wilson et al. 2020).
Timely Harvest
Because A. transitella populations increase later in the season, coin-
ciding with increased crop vulnerability, growers are recommended
to harvest nut crops as soon as possible to minimize exposure to
this pest. This is largely a logistical problem for many growers, with
some unique nuances for each of the 3 nut crops. Many almond
orchards include 2–4 varieties that have different harvest times ran-
ging from late July through early October. Almonds are shaken onto
the ground and collected between 7 and 10 days later. In contrast,
pistachio orchards have only 1 female cultivar per field, but many or-
chards require 2 harvest events to remove the crop, as not all nuts in
a fruit cluster mature at the same rate. Pistachios are removed from
the orchard directly after being shaken from the trees. Walnuts only
have 1 harvest, and due to the risk of the husks staining the shells,
nuts are removed from the orchard the same day they are shaken
from the tree. Slow or uneven husk splitting may leave a walnut crop
vulnerable to A. transitella damage. The prohibitive cost of owning
harvest equipment leads many small to medium-sized growers to rely
on contract harvesters, which can lead to delays in timely harvesting,
for instance, if the harvester falls behind schedule due to problems
in another orchard.
Mating Disruption
Mating disruption, which uses synthetic sex pheromone to interfere
with pests’ ability to locate and mate with the opposite sex, has been
successfully used to reduce pest populations in several crops (Welter
et al. 2005, Carde 2007, Lance et al. 2016, Benelli et al. 2019). This
technology was recently developed for A. transitella, and there are
now 4 commercial products available to tree nut growers. The effi-
cacy of mating disruption for A. transitella was demonstrated to re-
duce crop damage in almonds by up to 50% (Haviland et al. 2021).
While in pistachios mating disruption has been shown to depress
sentinel female mating (Higbee and Burks 2008), there are no pub-
lished studies that demonstrate a reduction in crop damage, perhaps
due to higher populations of A. transitella in pistachio orchards
and seasonal variability in hull integrity (Higbee and Burks 2008).
Regardless, many pistachio growers have been adopting mating dis-
ruption as well. Finally, while mating disruption can also be used
to control A. transitella in walnuts, this crop has a unique architec-
ture (i.e., large and tall trees) and studies are still underway to opti-
mize the use of this tool in walnuts. For all crops, the use of mating
3
disruption is thought to be most effective when applied over large
contiguous acreage, which presents a unique challenge to growers
that operate on smaller or more dispersed acreage.
While technically a pesticide, the chemical used for mating dis-
ruption is residue free and has no known negative impacts on hu-
mans or the environment, making it an attractive pest management
tool to both regulators and consumers. One drawback to mating
disruption has been the costs of this technology, which depending
on the product used can cost approximately $90–120 per acre. In
contrast, 1 insecticide spray is estimated at around $25–85 per spray
per acre, depending on the specific active ingredient or formulation,
application rate, and application method (i.e., aerial or ground ap-
plication). More than 1 insecticide application for A. transitella may
be required each season, depending on perceived A. transitella abun-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023
dance, crop vulnerability, harvest delays, or the number of cultivars
in an orchard (Duncan et al. 2019). While the combined use of crop
sanitation and mating disruption could potentially reduce the need
for insecticide applications, especially in years with low A. transitella
abundance, most growers will still make at least 1 insecticide ap-
plication since the currently available AIs are, for the most part, af-
fordable and effective, and the risks of aflatoxin contamination is
so high.
Adoption of IPM Strategies for A. transitella
An effective A. transitella management program requires the com-
bined use of multiple tools to keep crop damage below the industry-
accepted threshold of <2% infestation in almonds and <1% in
pistachios. There are anecdotal reports from extension and industry
personnel that adoption of the previously listed practices is uneven
across California tree nut growers, and many continue to experience
infestation rates beyond the 2% threshold. In order to better under-
stand current barriers to adoption of IPM practices for A. transitella,
a pest management survey was developed and administered at 7
UC Cooperative Extension meetings focused on tree nuts across the
Central Valley of California.
Survey Development and Implementation
The pest management survey (UC Davis Institutional Review Board
protocol 1514515-1) was developed in fall 2019. The survey con-
sisted of 4 main sections: demographics, monitoring and man-
agement, barriers to adoption, and sources of information. The
demographics questions allowed participants to self-identify their
primary industry role (“Role”), the number of acres they managed
(“Acres”), how many years they had been managing A. transitella
(“Time”), and what other tree nut crops they managed (“Crops”).
The monitoring and management section asked survey partici-
pants to indicate use of the various available monitoring traps for
A. transitella and degree-day models, along with all cultural and
chemical management practices. The section on barriers to adop-
tion allowed participants to indicate why they may not be using cer-
tain practices, and the last section on sources of information asked
participants to indicate the extent to which they relied on different
sources of information on A. transitella management. The full survey
included a total of 23 questions (Supplemantary Table S1).
The survey was administered across multiple grower meet-
ings that took place in winter 2020–2021 (Supplementary Table
S2) using an audience response system (Turning Technologies,
Youngstown, OH) that interfaced with Microsoft PowerPoint
(Microsoft Corporation, Redmond WA). The response system al-
lows for anonymous collection of data using remote clickers that
4 Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1

were handed out before the survey to every audience member.
Respondents were informed that participation in the survey con-
noted consent, and that they could skip questions or stop taking
the survey at any point. No incentive was offered for participa-
tion. At each meeting, the survey was administered over a 30-min
period prior to any presentation on A. transitella management.
Survey questions were displayed via PowerPoint on a large screen,
and each question was read aloud to the audience, who then re-
sponded via the clickers. A concern was that many respondents
managed multiple crops and might attend multiple meetings. To
control for this, respondents were asked to answer questions based
on the crop meeting they attended (i.e., answer questions per-
taining to almond management if they were at an almond-focused
meeting). Responses were classified by the crop that each meeting
based on the local or global maximum average silhouette values,
following (Hennig and Liao 2013).
Survey Results and Discussion
Across the 7 meetings, a total of 555 participants answered at least
1 question. After data collection, those that self-identified as spray
applicators and input vendors were excluded from analysis in order
to focus on just the known key decision makers in orchard pest man-
agement (i.e., orchard owners, managers, and PCAs). Each question
had a range of 415 to 496 participant responses per question; not
all participants responded to all questions. There were 280 com-
plete survey responses and 241 partial responses. While the survey
also sought to determine whether years of experience managing A.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023

was centered around and hopefully reduced redundant answers if
someone took the survey multiple times at different commodity-
based meetings.
Data Analysis
Data were collected from orchard owners, ranch managers, pest
control advisers (PCAs), and others (e.g., spray applicators) (Table
1). Self-identified “other” participants were excluded from the ana-
lysis since they likely do not make decisions about pest management
in these orchard systems. Average response rates for each question
were initially summarized for each crop type, defined by the com-
modity meeting they attended, and compared across the different
demographic groups reported (acreage, age, experience, and role).
If a participant only responded to 1 demographics question, their
responses were only included in that category.
Given the number of A. transitella monitoring and management
methods, cluster analyses were used to group participants together
to characterize specific combinations of management strategies.
Cluster analysis is a multivariate statistical analysis used to group
responses together across multiple dimensions to more easily de-
cipher complex data. Two cluster analyses were performed, 1
combining orchard owners and managers, and 1 examining PCA
responses. The cluster analyses were performed using the cluster
(Version 2.1.0) package in R (Maechler et al. 2019), which made
use of the K-Medoids algorithm and Euclidean distance as the
measure of dissimilarity. Groups were then selected in the dataset
transitella influenced answers, it was found to have less explana-
tory power than acreage and role. It is excluded from this part of
the survey results, however, it was included in the cluster analysis.
Answers to the monitoring and management questions based on
experience can be found in the supplementary tables and figures
(Supplementary Fig. S1).
Operational Features—Roles and Total Acreage
Half of survey respondents were orchard owners, although this
differed by crop type, with pistachio tending to have fewer or-
chard owners and more ranch managers than almond and walnut
(Table 1). Respondents from the pistachio industry also tended to be
dominated by larger growers, with a higher percentage of pistachio
respondents managing more than 2,000 acres, compared to walnut
and almond respondents (Table 1).
Taken together, these differences in roles and total acreage reflect
unique characteristics of the California tree nut industry. Relative to
the other tree nuts, pistachios tend to be dominated by larger oper-
ations that hire farm managers and operate over larger tracts of land.
The average pistachio farm size is 202 acres, whereas it is 159 and
56 acres for almonds and walnuts, respectively (USDA NASS 2017).
Furthermore, pistachio operations with >1,000 acres account for 3.7%
of total growers, whereas operations at this scale account for only 2.3%
and 0.7% of total almond and walnut growers (USDA NASS 2017).
Moreover, pistachio industry members who took the survey tended to
be skewed even more toward larger acreage than statewide statistics.

Table 1. Demographic breakdown by crop type (determined by those who attended crop-specific meetings). Uneven population size is due
to differential response rate; not all participants answered every question

Demographic Answer Almonds Pistachios Walnuts Overall

Industry role Orchard Owner 52% 26% 56% 50%

Ranch Manager 15% 46% 19% 30%
PCA 33% 29% 26% 20%
n 234 70 169 473
Total acres managed <50 19% 8% 25% 20%
51–250 25% 11% 26% 23%
251–500 10% 7% 10% 9%
501–2000 19% 18% 19% 18%
>2001 28% 55% 20% 29%
n 243 71 178 492
Time spent managing pest 1–5 yr 21% 40% 32% 28%
6–15 yr 34% 27% 30% 32%
16–30 yr 24% 27% 22% 24%
>31 yr 21% 6% 16% 17%
n 241 67 172 480
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1 5

Table 2. Monitoring and management practices by crop type (determined by those who attended crop-specific meetings). Uneven popula-
tion size is due to differential response rate; not all participants answered every question

Question Answer Almonds Pistachios Walnuts Overall

Do you evaluate mummy nuts to determine abundance and infest Yes, multiple 57% 43% 33% 46%
levels? times/year
Yes, once/ 28% 28% 26% 28%
year
Yes, some 5% 7% 8% 6%
years
No 10% 21% 33% 20%
n 240 67 173 475
Do you use egg traps to monitor activity? Yes, every 61% 56% 51% 57%
year
Yes, some 7% 6% 4% 6%

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023

years
No 32% 38% 44% 37%
n 234 68 167 459
Do you use pheromone traps to monitor activity? Yes, every 66% 66% 61% 64%
year
Yes, some 6% 6% 3% 5%
years
No 28% 28% 35% 31%
n 232 71 172 464
Do you use Petersona traps (or similar traps baited with pistachio- Yes, every 42% 24% 30% 35%
almond lures to trap adult females) to monitor activity? year
Yes, some 7% 6% 6% 6%
years
No 51% 70% 65% 59%
n 222 67 159 437
Do you use biofix and degree-day models to estimate the timing Yes, every 76% 72% 53% 68%
of flights? year
Yes, some 5% 3% 5% 5%
years
No 19% 25% 41% 28%
n 232 69 167 456
Do you use mating disruption? Yes, every 25% 58% 16% 27%
year
Yes, some 13% 9% 8% 11%
years
No 61% 33% 76% 62%
n 233 69 163 453
Do you remove and destroy mummy nuts from your orchards? Yes, every 82% 80% 71% 78%
year
Yes, some 16% 7% 11% 13%
years
No 2% 13% 19% 10%
n 231 69 167 455
Do you use pesticides to control? Yes, every 86% 76% 68% 78%
year
Yes, some 9% 12% 16% 12%
years
No 5% 12% 16% 10%
n 233 67 159 454
On average across all your blocks, how many sprays do you 0 6% 9% 28% 14%
apply? 1 33% 21% 49% 37%
2 41% 41% 18% 32%
3 15% 24% 4% 12%
4 5% 4% 1% 3%
>5 1% 1% 1% 1%
n 232 68 169 452

aPeterson traps are the industry eponym for ovipositional bait traps.

Monitoring and Management Practices they did this at least once a year (Table 2). About two-thirds of re-
Evaluation of mummy nuts for A. transitella infestation during the spondents indicated that they used egg traps to monitor female A.
winter was fairly common, with 74% of respondents indicating transitella egg deposition (63%) and pheromone traps to track adult
6
Fig. 1. Responses to the question “What do you use when timing a spray (select all that apply)?” Responses were separated by the acreage under management
and pooled over years of experience managing A. transitella, industry role, and commodity meeting.
male flights (69%) in some or all years, and this was equivalent
across all crop types. The use of ovipositional bait traps to monitor
gravid female activity was less common, which is not surprising
given that these lure types are relatively new to the industry com-
pared to egg traps and pheromone lures. About two-thirds of all re-
spondents across all crops reported the use of biofix and degree-day
models every year to estimate A. transitella flights (Table 2).
There was a small number of participants who reported occa-
sional use of these tools, which ranged between 3 and 16%, de-
pending on the industry and practice (Table 2). Use of IPM practices
can be selective, depending on economic constraints (Kaine and
Bewsell 2008) or grower attitudes (Ridgley and Brush 1992). These
results could reflect experimentation among the participants, either
testing out a new tool or trying and discarding something that does
not work for them or is not cost effective.
While crop sanitation and pesticide use for A. transitella were
both frequently reported in almond and pistachio orchards, use
of both practices was lower in walnuts (Table 2). This is likely
due to the relatively lower damage caused by A. transitella in wal-
nuts, where greater emphasis is typically placed on management of
codling moth (Tortricidae: Cydia pomonella) and walnut husk fly
(Tephritidae: Ragoletis completa), neither of which require winter
sanitation. In some instances, walnut growers may have also mis-
reported insecticide use for A. transitella use in this survey since
many active ingredients that target C. pomonella can also impact
A. transitella (e.g., chlorantraniliprole, methoxyfenozide, lambda-
cyhalothrin, bifenthrin).
Use of mating disruption in some or all years was more fre-
quently reported in pistachio (67%) than almonds (38%) and wal-
nuts (24%), which may be due to the proportionally larger average
acreage size of pistachio participants. As mentioned, mating dis-
ruption for Lepidoptera is thought to work best when applied over
large contiguous acreage to reduce the risk of colonization by gravid
females from nearby orchards (Carde 2007). The low adoption of
mating disruption in walnuts is also likely because A. transitella is a
pest of lesser concern, although there are companies that offer mating
disruption products that affect both A. transitella and C. pomonella.
Influence of Operational Features on Monitoring
and Management
When monitoring and management data were cross tabulated
with total acreage managed and industry role, adoption of certain
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023
practices appeared to be connected with 1 or both of these fea-
tures. In general, respondents with less acreage were associated with
lower use levels of the various monitoring and management strat-
egies (Figs. 1 and 2). This was true for 3 of the 5 monitoring tools
(pheromone traps, ovipositional bait traps, biofix, and degree days)
as well as for 2 of the 3 management practices that were included in
this section (sprays and mating disruption). This finding could be be-
cause smaller operations tended to rely more heavily on input from
PCAs (Fig. 1), but it is also possible that these same operations tend
to have less time and/or resources available for these activities, and
may even be farming as a second profession. Industry role could also
have a confounding effect, as PCAs tended to manage larger acre-
ages. For instance, 62% of responding PCAs managed more than
2,000 acres, compared with 10% of orchard owners and 29% of
ranch managers.
More PCAs reported using monitoring tools when timing A.
transitella sprays than orchard owners or ranch managers (Fig.
3, Supplementary Fig. S5). This is likely driven by the fact that
PCA job performance is measured by their ability to make ac-
curate recommendations and keep pest damage low, which re-
quires more intensive monitoring; a record of monitoring efforts
may also show due diligence in the event that there is heavy insect
damage in an orchard. At the same time, this could also reflect
a greater degree of experience and training, since maintaining a
PCA license, which is a state-required certification, requires an-
nual continuing education. While orchard owners or managers
can obtain a Private Applicators License to write their own pesti-
cide recommendations, this is limited to land they directly farm.
It also requires continuing education, though less than the PCA
license. In previous California IPM surveys, PCAs were found to
be important conduits through which IPM practices were filtered
to growers, influencing adoption (Grieshop et al. 1988), though
independent PCAs were found to be more influential in changing
grower practices than those hired through a chemical or manage-
ment company (Shennan et al. 2001).
Barriers to Adoption
Barriers to adoption tended to vary across practices, and key limiting
factors included availability of labor and equipment, material costs,
regulatory restrictions, and prohibitive orchard conditions. In some
instances, these barriers were dependent on the size of farming
operation.
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1 7

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023

Fig. 2. Adoption of various monitoring and management practices, including (2A) evaluating mummy nuts, (2B) use of egg traps, (2C) pheromone traps, (2D)
Ovibait traps, (2E) biofix and degree-day models, (2F) mating disruption, (2G) sanitation of mummy nuts, and (2H) chemical pesticides. In some instances,
adoption of certain practices varied by size of the operation. Data separated by the size of operation is averaged over commodity meeting, industry role, and
experience in managing A. transitella. The option “Yes, some years”, was removed due to the relatively small percentage of audience responses; percentages
as presented reflect this omission.

Insecticides frequently cited high material costs and regulatory restrictions.

There were relatively fewer barriers indicated for insecticide use These findings reflect the fact that insecticides for A. transitella
compared to other tools (Table 3). While a majority of growers are readily available, affordable, and are generally known to be
reported no barriers to insecticide use, those that did most efficacious.
8 Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1

Sanitation could be the lower degree of survey participation from growers in

The most common barrier to winter sanitation was difficulty ac-
cessing the orchard (Table 3), followed by labor/equipment costs
and availability. While labor and equipment barriers are expected,
lack of orchard access tends to be more variable and here it was sur-
prising to see it so frequently reported. Lack of winter orchard access
is typically due to inclement weather and/or wet soil conditions that
prohibit the operation of heavy machinery in orchards. While this
is a known impediment to sanitation, in this study this barrier was
found to be on par with labor and equipment, if costs and avail-
ability are taken together as barriers. A possible confounding factor
the southern San Joaquin Valley, which receives much less rain than
the more northern areas in the Central Valley. Regardless, given
these findings, it may be necessary to develop lighter or novel sani-
tation equipment that can operate under these poor conditions.
Alternatively, it may be important to emphasize the need to conduct
this task as soon as conditions are favorable, which in almonds is
usually after the first fog or light rain of the winter (i.e., sanitize be-
fore orchard conditions degrade).
Respondents managing fewer acres were less likely to report
issues with orchard access; on average, 50% of respondents who

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023

Fig. 3. Responses to the question “What do you use when timing a spray (select all that apply)?” Industry role results are averaged over acreage, experience
managing A. transitella, and crop. While most respondents tended to rely on hull split, PCAs tended to incorporate additional points of information.

Table 3. Participants reported barriers to the 4 A. transitella IPM tools. Questions were multiple choice, and data reported to indicate what
percentage of participants selected barriers. Results averaged across all demographics

Question Answer Total responses (%)

What are barriers that prevent you from carrying out winter sanitation? Difficulty orchard access 51
None, component of my program 41
Labor/equipment costs 30
Labor/equipment availability 18
Efficacy unclear 8
Other 8
Other practices more cost effective 3
What are barriers that prevent you from applying a pesticide? None, component of program 66
Material costs 23
Regulatory restrictions 22
Availability of labor/equipment 10
Other 9
Efficacy unclear 7
Others more cost effective 6
Material costs 42
What are barriers that prevent you from adopting mating disruption? Efficacy unclear 30
Acreage too small 28
Others more cost effective 27
None, component of program 19
Other 15
Disrupts ability to monitor 9
What are barriers that prevent you from early/timely harvests? None, component of program 47
Availability of labor/equipment 45
Late-maturing varieties 23
Efficacy unclear 4
Regulatory restrictions 3
Others more cost effective 3
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1
managed more than 250 acres reported difficulty with orchard
access, as opposed to those who managed 50 or fewer (35%) or
51–250 acres (39%). Additionally, more respondents with small op-
erations reported sanitation being a regular part of their manage-
ment program. Approximately 40% of those managing 250 acres or
less reported no issues with sanitation, compared to 501–2,000 acres
(25%) and more than 2,000 acres (30%). This implies those who are
managing or consulting on fewer acres may have an easier time com-
pleting their sanitation during favorable time windows.
Timely Harvest
Equipment availability was also the most cited barrier to executing
a timely harvest, followed by the production of late-maturing var-
ieties (Table 3), and these findings were consistent across the dif-
ferent demographic and operational features of survey respondents.
Aside from breeding efforts that can take decades, there is little to
be done about a late-maturing crop and increasing the availability
of equipment for harvest and/or sanitation is likely constrained by
the availability of capital for any given operation. For small-scale
growers, purchasing such expensive harvest and sanitation equip-
ment is not an option, and instead it is necessary to contract with
a company that specializes in harvesting nuts to carry out these
services. In this case, the timing of harvest and sanitation is largely
left up to the discretion of the service providers, who are themselves
balancing the demands of their own equipment and personnel avail-
ability with variable crop phenology and orchard conditions across
their clientele. Reducing the impacts of this barrier will be difficult,
unless the economic conditions change dramatically such that add-
itional investments in harvesting equipment are more lucrative for
small growers and harvest companies. The development of more af-
fordable harvest equipment could help alleviate this problem.
Mating Disruption
Adoption of mating disruption was found to be limited by a
combination of high material costs, unclear efficacy, and/or inad-
equate acreage for the practice to be effective (Table 3). The cur-
rent mating disruption products range in price from $90 to 140/
acre, which represents approximately 2 pesticide applications for
a conventional almond operation (Duncan et al. 2019). That said,
mating disruption has been found to reduce A. transitella damage
by 50% in almonds (Haviland et al. 2021), and this may justify
the added costs, although such a significant cost share may require
a greater burden of proof beyond a single study. Furthermore,
it is surprising that almond growers (31%), more so than pista-
chio (11%) and walnut growers (24%), frequently indicated hesi-
tancy to adopt mating disruption due to unclear efficacy, given
that clear information on the efficacy of this product with regards
to reducing crop damage only exists for almonds, and not pista-
chio and walnut. It is possible that external forces, such as resist-
ance of A. transitella to commonly used insecticides, will end up
driving industry adoption of mating disruption, as happened in
the adoption of codling moth mating disruption for apple growers
in New Zealand (Kaine and Bewsell 2008). There are already re-
ports of reduced efficacy of pyrethroids for control of A. transitella
(Demkovich et al. 2015) and the California tree nut industry may
face additional pressure in the future to more widely adopt add-
itional or alternative strategies, such as crop sanitation and mating
disruption, as well. The United States Department of Agriculture’s
National Resource Conservation Service has started to offer
monetary compensation to growers for adopting IPM tools for
managing A. transitella (R. Roy, personal communication, 22
9
November 2022), and this may also increase adoption of mating
disruption. The difference in mating disruption use between the al-
mond and pistachio industries may also be due to scale; pistachio
survey respondents tended to manage larger acreages than almond
and walnuts.
Respondents also frequently indicated that inadequate acreage
was another barrier to adoption of mating disruption (Table 3),
which is logical given that this technology is known to operate
most effectively when implemented over large contiguous acreage
(Carde 2007, Haviland et al. 2021). Given this constraint, it is not
surprising that this barrier was disproportionately reported by par-
ticipants who managed small acreages (55% of those who managed
50 acres or less, compared to a range of 11–22% for those who fell
into larger acreage categories). It is still a plausible barrier to those
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023
who manage larger acreages as it is not uncommon for growers to
operate multiple small, noncontiguous orchard blocks as part of a
larger operation.
Sources of Information
For all survey participants, the most frequently reported source
of information on A. transitella management was PCAs (Table 4).
This was not surprising, as it is well known that these individuals
play a critical role in grower knowledge networks (Warner 2006,
Hoffman et al. 2014) and many orchard owners and ranch man-
agers regularly employ them as part of their production system.
Furthermore, due to their licensing and continuing education re-
quirements, PCAs likely participate in a greater quantity of ex-
tension and training activities compared to orchard owners and
managers.
Owner and Ranch Manager Cluster Analysis
Orchard owners and ranch managers, referred to collectively as
“growers” in this section, were grouped to perform a cluster ana-
lysis to reveal common combinations of A. transitella monitoring
and management strategies. This analysis only used responses to the
A. transitella monitoring and management questions, and the cor-
responding crop conference they attended to group growers with
similar combined strategies. A total of 234 orchard owners and
ranch managers responded to all questions necessary to be included
in the cluster analysis.
The cluster analysis revealed 13 groups that were roughly split
across the 3 commodities, though there was some crossover between
crops (Tables 5, 6 and 8, Supplementary Table S3). While there was
generally little variation in sanitation and the use of pesticides across
groups that had a commodity in common, there was often 1 un-
usual group with lower pesticide sprays (i.e., groups A3 and A4 in
almonds, group P2 in pistachios and groups W3 and W4 in walnuts)
and sanitation (i.e., group P3 in pistachios and group W5 in wal-
nuts). Groups within commodities tended to vary by whether they
Table 4. Importance of information sources in the agricultural in-
dustry. Results are averaged over all demographic groups and
meetings
Source of information Frequently (%) Occasionally (%) Never (%)
PCAs 90 8 2
UCCE/UC/USDA/CSU 39 47 14
Industry pubs 28 60 12
Friends/neighbors 19 47 34
Sales representatives 16 40 44
10 Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1

evaluated mummy nuts and/or used other monitoring practices (e.g.,
pheromone traps, egg traps, etc.). Another difference distinguishing
groups within commodities was the use of mating disruption. In each
of the pistachio and almond categories, there was 1 group that was
more likely to use this relatively new management practice (i.e., A2
in almonds and P1 in pistachios).
Orchard Owners and Ranch Managers—Almond Groups
Groups A1 and A2 seemed to monitor relatively more than other
almond groups using the different traps (Table 5), biofix, and degree-
day calculations. Groups A1 and A2 were differentiated by group
A2 heavily adopting ovipositional bait traps and mating disruption.
This group appears to be composed of early adopters and may offer
extension personnel and other stakeholders valuable insights into
some growers simply use January 1 as their biofix, which may be
the case here as well (Wilson, pers. comm.). The last group, group
A4, exhibits fairly low usage of various A. transitella monitoring
tools and notably does not use consultants at all when timing their
sprays. Their use of hull split timing for pesticide application is high;
nearly every member of the group reported using it. This suggests
that group A4 may consist of those who have a Private Applicator
License, which allows them to write their own pesticide recom-
mendations rather than relying on a PCA. A pesticide recommenda-
tion is legally required to spray pesticides and is intended to reduce
or eliminate unnecessary pesticide sprays.
Orchard Owners and Ranch Managers—Pistachio Group
Only 3 groups were formed within pistachio respondents (Table

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023

the specific circumstances under which they find mating disruption
and ovipositional bait traps to be beneficial.
Groups A3 and A5 were groups that monitored relatively less
than the other groups (Table 5) and rely heavily on their PCAs and
hull split for treatment timings. They differ primarily in their use of
biofix and degree-day use: 95% of the members of group A5 use
it, whereas only 24% of group A3 use it. While attaining a biofix
requires trapping, these individuals may be receiving biofix infor-
mation from another party, presumably their PCA. Alternatively,
5). Group P2, which contained 4 people, was highly unusual in
that they reported almost no usage of any monitoring or man-
agement tools. These growers were on small acreages (only 1 was
above 50 acres) and all had been managing A. transitella for 5 yr
or less, which may suggest that they are relatively new to man-
agement, with orchards too young to harvest, and therefore at
the time of the survey may have not required any A. transitella
management. Pistachios have a longer period of juvenility within
tree crops and do not bear a crop worth harvesting until 5 or

Table 5. Results from cluster analysis of orchard owners and managers (growers). Mating disruption, pesticide use, and mummy evalu-
ation variables were converted to ordinal categorical variables to be included in the cluster analysis. They are coded as follows: 0 = never
use practice, 1 = use practice in some years, and 2 = use practice every year

Cluster type Almond dominant Pistachio dominant

Group number A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 P1 P2 P3

Size (n) 24 34 21 18 21 22 4 11
Crop
 Almond 100% 94% 100% 67% 95% 0% 0% 0%
 Pistachio 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
 Walnut 0% 6% 0% 33% 5% 0% 0% 0%
Monitoring
 Mummy evaluation 1.9 2.6 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 0.0 2.3
 Egg traps 75% 88% 5% 44% 24% 82% 0% 18%
 Pheremone traps 88% 74% 14% 39% 19% 95% 0% 9%
 Ovipositional traps 4% 94% 5% 6% 0% 41% 0% 9%
 Biofix and degree days 96% 88% 24% 33% 95% 86% 0% 36%
Spray timing
 Trap catch 79% 76% 5% 11% 19% 59% 0% 9%
 Degree day 79% 59% 5% 17% 86% 82% 0% 27%
 Time of year 17% 21% 14% 17% 71% 45% 0% 45%
 Hull split 100% 85% 52% 94% 100% 86% 0% 73%
 Consultant suggestion 88% 76% 100% 0% 86% 73% 50% 82%
Management
 Sanitation 75% 85% 71% 78% 86% 91% 25% 73%
 Mating disruption 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.4
 Pesticide use 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.0
 # Pesticide sprays 1.9 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 0.0 2.2
Acres
 <50 8% 9% 38% 28% 33% 0% 75% 18%
 51–250 50% 32% 33% 11% 33% 5% 25% 36%
 251–500 17% 9% 10% 6% 14% 0% 0% 27%
 501–2,000 21% 29% 5% 39% 19% 19% 0% 9%
 2,000+ 4% 21% 14% 17% 0% 76% 0% 9%
Years managing A. transitella
 1–5 8% 9% 30% 6% 10% 36% 100% 20%
 6–15 42% 26% 30% 44% 48% 32% 0% 30%
 16–30 29% 29% 25% 17% 24% 32% 0% 40%
 31+ 21% 35% 15% 33% 19% 0% 0% 10%
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1 11

Table 6. Results from cluster analysis of orchard owners and managers. Mating disruption, pesticide use, and mummy evaluation variables
were converted to ordinal categorical variables to be included in the cluster analysis. They are coded as follows: 0 = never use practice, 1 =
use practice in some years, and 2 = use practice every year

Cluster type Walnut dominant

Group number W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

Size (n) 11 17 19 17 15
Crop
 Almond 9% 12% 0% 6% 7%
 Pistachio 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
 Walnut 91% 88% 100% 94% 93%
Monitoring
 Mummy evaluation 2.4 1.9 0.6 2.0 1.6
 Egg traps 73% 88% 79% 6% 60%

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023

 Pheremone traps 91% 88% 58% 29% 67%
 Ovipositional traps 27% 82% 11% 6% 13%
 Biofix and degree days 82% 82% 37% 12% 80%
Spray timing
 Trap catch 91% 41% 95% 18% 27%
 Degree day 73% 18% 11% 18% 27%
 Time of year 100% 6% 5% 12% 7%
 Hull split 91% 18% 11% 29% 27%
 Consultant suggestion 100% 82% 79% 94% 73%
Management
 Sanitation 100% 100% 79% 82% 0%
 Mating disruption 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1
 Pesticide use 1.8 1.8 0.9 0.9 1.9
 # Pesticide sprays 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.6 1.0
Acres
 <50 45% 24% 32% 18% 27%
 51–250 36% 29% 37% 59% 20%
 251–500 9% 12% 26% 12% 7%
 501–2,000 9% 18% 5% 12% 13%
 2,000+ 0% 18% 0% 0% 33%
Years managing A. transitella
 1–5 30% 12% 42% 24% 21%
 6–15 30% 29% 26% 35% 36%
 16–30 30% 41% 21% 18% 21%
 31+ 10% 18% 11% 24% 21%

6 years after planting, which could explain why we do not see
similar groups in almonds and walnuts, which begin to bear ap-
preciable crops in their third and fourth year, respectively. Group
P1 exhibited relatively high usage of monitoring and all manage-
ment tools, including mating disruption. Growers in this group
mirror the early-adopter group in almond growers (group A2).
Group P3 seemed to use few monitoring tools, however, 82%
used a consultant recommendation on when to apply pesticides,
thus they may be relying heavily on their PCA for monitoring and
management.
Orchard Owners and Ranch Managers—Walnut Groups
There were 2 walnut groups that reported heavy use of most A.
transitella monitoring tools: W1 and W2 (Table 6). They differed in
whether they used the traps when timing a spray: group W1 used all
information, whereas W2 mostly reported PCA recommendations.
Similar to the high-monitor almond groups, walnut groups W1 and
W2 were also differentiated by the use of ovipositional traps; group
W2 reported high usage whereas W1 did not.
In 1 walnut group, W5, none of the growers sanitized their or-
chards. Of the remaining 2 walnut groups, W4 seemed to monitor
less than others. Growers in this group rely heavily on their PCAs for
timing A. transitella sprays, though pesticide usage in this group was
lower than most other groups, suggesting this group does very little
management specific to A. transitella. The remaining group, W3, was
defined by moderate to low use of A. transitella spray indicators
aside from PCA suggestions and monitoring data, though their use
of all monitoring tools aside from egg traps, which provides a biofix
date, was low.
Pest Control Advisors—Cluster Analysis
An additional cluster analysis was performed specifically for PCA re-
spondents (Tables 7 and 8, Supplementary Table S4). The analyses of
PCA data used responses to the monitoring and management ques-
tions, but unlike the orchard owner and ranch manager analysis,
PCAs were not separated by the corresponding crop conference they
attended, since many of them managed A. transitella across 2 or more
tree nut crop types. Additionally, we discarded “Recommendation of
a PCA” as an option for timing pesticide applications in case any
PCAs only selected this response as if they were a grower. Overall,
87% of PCAs managed A. transitella in at least 2 crops and 42%
managed it in all 3 crops, so overall strategies would not likely differ
much based on the specific crop conference they were attending. A
total of 97 PCAs responded to all questions necessary to be included
in the cluster analysis.
12 Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1

Table 7. Results from cluster analysis of PCAs. Mating disruption, pesticide use, and mummy evaluation variables were converted to or-
dinal categorical variables to be included in the cluster analysis. They are coded as follows: 0 = never use practice, 1 = use practice in some
years, and 2 = use practice every year

Group number PCA1 PCA2 PCA3 PCA4 PCA5

Group size (N) n = 11 n = 58 n = 10 n=5 n = 13

Crop
 Almond 64% 74% 50% 40% 0%
 Pistachio 9% 0% 20% 0% 100%
 Walnut 27% 26% 30% 60% 0%
Monitoring
 Evaluate mummy 2.00 2.52 1.20 2.20 2.00
 Egg traps 27% 71% 30% 40% 69%
 Pheromone traps 36% 93% 70% 40% 100%

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023

 Ovipositional traps 45% 66% 50% 60% 23%
 Biofix and degree day 9% 100% 100% 80% 100%
Spray timing
 Trap catch 36% 88% 50% 80% 77%
 Degree day 9% 81% 50% 80% 69%
 Time of year 45% 31% 20% 100% 23%
 Hull split 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%
Management
 Sanitation 100% 78% 80% 40% 85%
 Mating disruption 0.91 1.10 0.70 0.20 1.38
 Pesticides 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
 Number pesticides app 1.91 1.83 1.50 1.40 2.31
Acres
 <50 0% 7% 10% 0% 0%
 51–250 9% 5% 10% 0% 8%
 251–500 0% 7% 10% 0% 0%
 501–2,000 27% 17% 20% 40% 15%
 2,000+ 64% 64% 50% 60% 77%
Years experience
 1–5 9% 26% 44% 40% 46%
 6–15 27% 38% 33% 40% 15%
 16–30 9% 24% 22% 0% 31%
 31+ 55% 12% 0% 20% 8%

Table 8. Simplified cluster analysis results

Cluster analysis group A. transitella management

Monitoring Management tools Spray timing

A1 High monitoring Sanitation and sprays Many decision inputs

A2 High monitoring, ovipositional Sanitation, mating disruption, and sprays Many decision inputs
A3 Low monitoring Sanitation and sprays Consultant
A4 Moderate monitoring Sanitation and sprays Hull split
A5 Moderate monitoring Sanitation and sprays Many decision inputs
P1 High monitoring Sanitation, mating disruption, and sprays Many decision inputs
P2 No monitoring No management No decision inputs
P3 Low monitoring Sanitation and sprays Consultant
W1 High monitoring Sanitation and sprays Many decision inputs
W2 High monitoring, ovipositional Sanitation and sprays Consultant
W3 Moderate monitoring Sanitation Traps and consultant
W4 Low monitoring Sanitation Consultant
W5 Moderate monitoring Sprays Consultant
PCA1 Low monitor Sanitation and sprays Hull split
PCA2 High monitor Sanitation, mating disruption, and sprays Many inputs
PCA3 High monitor Sanitation and sprays Traps and degree day
PCA4 Moderate monitor Sprays Many inputs
PCA5 High monitor Sanitation, mating disruption, and sprays Many inputs

The PCA cluster analysis revealed 5 groups, numbered PCA1 every member of this group used sanitation as a control method
through PCA5 (Table 7). Like the grower cluster analysis, 1 group, and used hull split to determine A. transitella spray timings. This
PCA1, reported low trap use for timing pesticide sprays, though group was predominantly composed of respondents who attended
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1
an almond meeting. Members of PCA2 put high effort into A.
transitella monitoring and management, reporting high usage of
most monitoring and management tools. Group PCA2 was the lar-
gest group by far, composed of 58 members, and was also dom-
inated by respondents who attended an almond meeting, though
25% of PCA2 attended a walnut meeting. Group PCA4 had the
highest number of walnut attendees composing 1 group (60%) and
reported lower usage of sanitation and pesticide use. Given that
A. transitella is less important in walnuts, it is not surprising that
more walnut attendees would fall into this group. Group PCA5
was solely composed of PCAs who attended the pistachio meeting
and reported the highest usage of mating disruption and pesticide
sprays (though these were not significantly different), as well as
heavy reliance on biofix and degree days, pheromone traps, and
hullsplit.
A defining characteristic of group PCA3 was that no member
of the group used hullsplit to determine A. transitella sprays. This
is a surprising finding given that healthy nuts in all 3 crops are
immune to A. transitella infest until the pericarp starts to dehisce.
All PCAs in group PCA3 reported using biofix and degree day
estimates, though only 50% reported using it when asked what
they use for spray-timing decisions. Despite the low reported use
of several monitoring tools when timing sprays, we assume most
of group PCA3 use biofix and degree day estimates as one of
many tools to develop their recommendations for A. transitella
spraying based on this group’s complete adoption of biofix and
degree days.
Conclusions
Findings from this survey indicate that growers and PCAs make
use of different combinations of monitoring and management strat-
egies to combat A. transitella in California tree nuts. The chosen
combination of practices appears to be unique to certain crops, size
of operations, and the specific role played by an individual in the
crop management system. While survey findings demonstrate that
in some cases extension efforts to emphasize the importance of key
IPM practices such as winter sanitation appear to have been suc-
cessful, they also reveal a range of economic, environmental, and
logistical constraints that hinder adoption of specific practices by
certain groups. In this way, the survey data provide a road map for
prioritization of future research and extension efforts focused on the
development and adoption of IPM for A. transitella in tree nuts.
It is important to note that this survey was implemented across
a series of Cooperative Extension meetings, which did allow for a
large, easily accessible pool of respondents, but may have also re-
sulted in a skewed audience that was more primed toward adop-
tion of key IPM practices emphasized by Cooperative Extension.
This survey also did not take into account education efforts led by
industry processors. Many large processors have educators who
are also active in educating growers on reducing damage from A.
transitella, and they are possibly a key source of information that
we did not assess.
Future survey efforts would benefit from inclusion of participants
that do not regularly attend or engage with Cooperative Extension
and may allow for some comparison between those audiences. That
said, the importance of IPM for A. transitella is heavily emphasized
by other industry-based extension partners (e.g., processing com-
panies, crop commodity boards, and as this survey shows, PCAs)
and so it is likely that the growers and PCAs surveyed here are rep-
resentative of the broader tree nut industry.
13
Supplementary Material
Supplementary material is available at Journal of Integrated Pest
Management online.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to extend thanks to Joshua Reger, Jessica Maccaro,
Danielle Evans, Lino Salinas, and Reva Scheibner for assistance with survey
implementation at grower meetings. This survey project was supported with
funding from the Almond Board of California, the California Pistachio Re-
search Board, and the California Walnut Board.
Author Contributions
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023
Phoebe Gordon (Conceptualization [Equal], Data curation [Equal], Funding ac-
quisition [Equal], Investigation [Equal], Methodology [Equal], Project administra-
tion [Equal], Writing – original draft [Equal]), Brittney Goodrich (Formal analysis
[Equal], Writing – review & editing [Equal]), and Houston Wilson (Conceptual-
ization [Equal], Funding acquisition [Equal], Investigation [Equal], Methodology
[Equal], Project administration [Equal], Writing – review & editing [Equal]).
Funding
This survey project was supported with funding from the Almond Board of Cali-
fornia (award number ENTO25), the California Pistachio Research Board (award
number ED-2019-38-OC1), and the California Walnut Board (award number
2020 LAWREA). All authors declare they have no financial interests relating to
this work. This survey was declared IRB exempt (UC Davis Institutional Review
Board protocol 1514515-1). Informed consent was obtained from participants.
References
Bauske EM, Xehnder GM, Sikora EJ, Kemble J. Southeastern tomato growers
adopt integrated pest management. HortTechnology. 1998:8(1):40–44.
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.8.1.40
Benelli G, Lucchi A, Thomson D, Ioriatti C. Sex pheromone aerosol de-
vices for mating disruption: challenges for a brighter future. Insects.
2019:10(10):308. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10100308
Carde RT. Using pheremones to disrupt mating of moth pests. In: Perspectives
in ecological theory and integrated pest management. New York:
Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 122–169.
Creissen HE, Jones PJ, Tranter RB, Girling RD, Jess S, Burnett FJ, Gaffney M,
Thorne FS, Kildea S. Measuring the unmeasurable? A method to quan-
tify adoption of integrated pest management practices in temperate arable
farming systems. Pest Manag Sci. 2019:75(12):3144–3152. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ps.5428
Demkovich M, Siegel JP, Higbee BS, Berenbaum MR. Mechanism of resistance
acquisition and potential associated fitness costs in Amyelois transitella
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) exposed to pyrethroid insecticides. Environ
Entomol. 2015:44(3):855–863. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv047
Duncan RA, Gordon PE, Holtz BA, Stewart D, Sumner DA. Sample costs to es-
tablish an orchard and produce almonds San Joaquin Valley North Micro-
Sprinkler Irrigation. Davis, CA, USA: University of California, Agriculture
and Natural Resources; 2019.
Fernandez-Cornejo J. Environmental and economic consequences of tech-
nology adoption: IPM in viticulture. Agric Econ. 1998:18(2):145–155.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1998.tb00494.x
Fernandez-Cornejo J, Beach ED, Huang W-Y. The adoption of IPM
techniques by vegetable growers in Florida, Michigan and Texas.
J Agric Appl Econ. 1993:26(1):158–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s1074070800019271
Grant JA, Symmes EJ, Baldwin RA, Fichtner EK, Roncoroni JA, Westerdahl
BB, Adaskaveg JE, Bostock RM, Browne GT, Buchner RP, et al. UC IPM
pest management guidelines: walnut. Oakland, California: UC ANR
Publication 3471; 2020.
14
Grieshop JI, Zalom FG, Miyao G. Adoption and diffusion of integrated
pest management innovations in agriculture. Bull Entomol Soc Am.
1988:34(2):72–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/besa/34.2.72
Hammond CM, Luschei EC, Boerboom CM, Nowak PJ. Adoption of inte-
grated pest management tactics by Wisconsin farmers. Weed Technol.
2006:20(3):756–767. https://doi.org/10.1614/wt-05-095r1.1
Haviland DB, Baldwin RA, Hembree KJ, Michailides TJ, Westerdahl BB,
Beede RH, Daane KM, Fukada TA, Kallsen CE, Shrestha A, et al. UC IPM
pest management guidelines: pistachio. Oakland, California: UC ANR
Publication 3461; 2020a.
Haviland DR, Rijal JP, Rill SM, Higbee BS, Burks CS, Gordon CA.
Management of navel orangeworm (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) using four
commercial mating disruption systems in California almonds. J Econ
Entomol. 2021:114(1):238–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaa297
Haviland DR, Symmes EJ, Adascaveg JE, Duncan RA, Roncoroni JA, Gubler
WD, Hanson B, Hembree KJ, Holtz BA, Stapleton JJ, et al. UC IPM
pest management guidelines: almond. Oakland, California: UC ANR
Publication 3431; 2020b.
Hennig C, Liao TF. How to find an appropriate clustering for mixed-
type variables with application to socio-economic stratifica-
tion. J R Stat Soc C: Appl Stat. 2013:62(3):309–369. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2012.01066.x
Higbee BS, Burks CS. Effects of mating disruption treatments on navel
orangeworm (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) sexual communication and damage
in almonds and pistachios. J Econ Entomol. 2008:101(5):1633–1642.
https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493(2008)101[1633:eomdto]2.0.co;2
Hoffman M, Lubell M, Hillis V. Linking knowledge and action through
mental models of sustainable agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2014:111(36):13016–13021. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400435111
Kaine G. Consumer behaviour as a theory of innovation adoption in agricul-
ture. Soc Res Working Pap. 2004:1(4).
Kaine G, Bewsell D. Adoption of integrated pest management by apple
growers: the role of context. Int J Pest Manag. 2008:54(3):255–265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09670870802065256
Kogan M. Integrated pest management: historical perspectives and contem-
porary developments. Annu Rev Entomol. 1998:43(1):243–270. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.243
Kuenen LPS, Siegel JP. Protracted emergence of overwintering Amyelois transitella
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) from pistachios and almonds in California. Environ
Entomol. 2010:39(4):1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN09277
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2023, Vol. 14, No. 1
Lance DR, Leonard DS, Mastro VC, Walters ML. Mating disruption as a suppres-
sion tactic in programs targeting regulated lepidopteran pests in US. J Chem
Ecol. 2016:42(7):590–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0732-9
Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K, Studer M, Roudier
P, Gonzalez J, Kozlowski K, Schubert E, et al. Finding groups in data:
cluster analysis extended Rousseeuw et al. Clust. Package Version 2.1.0;
2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cluster
Napit KB, Norton GW, Kazmierczak RF, Rajottei AG. Economic impacts of
extension integrated pest management programs in several states. J Econ
Entomol. 1988:81(1):251–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/81.1.251
Palumbo JD, Mahoney NE, Light DM, Siegel J, Puckett RD, Michailides TJ.
Spread of Aspergillus flavus by navel orangeworm (Amyelois transitella)
on almond. Plant Dis. 2014:98(9):1194–1199. https://doi.org/10.1094/
PDIS-09-13-1015-RE
Ridgley A-M, Brush SB. Social factors and selective technology adoption: the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/14/1/16/7241214 by guest on 17 September 2023
case of integrated pest management. Hum Organ. 1992:51(4):367–378.
https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.51.4.mm16ku7104p76652
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovation. Simon and Schuster; 2010.
Shennan C, Cecchettini CL, Goldman GB, Zalom FG. Profiles of California
farmers by degree of IPM use as indicated by self-descriptions in a
phone survey. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2001:84(3):267–275. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00248-6
Siegel JP, Bas Kuenen LPS, Ledbetter C. Variable development rate and sur-
vival of navel orangeworm (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on wheat bran diet
and almonds. J Econ Entomol. 2010:103(4):1250–1257. https://doi.
org/10.1603/EC09309
Stern V, Smith R, van den Bosch R, Hagen K. The integration of chemical and bio-
logical control of the spotted alfalfa aphid. Hilgardia. 1959:29(2):81–101.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Census of agriculture; 2017. https://www.nass.usda.gov/
Publications/AgCensus/2017/
Warner KD. Extending agroecology: grower participation in partnerships is
key to social learning. Renew Agric Food Syst. 2006:21(2):84–94. https://
doi.org/10.1079/raf2005131
Welter SC, Pickel C, Millar J, Cave F, Van Steenwyk RA, Dunley J. Pheromone
mating disruption offers selective management options for key pests. Calif
Agric. 2005:59(1):16–22. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v059n01p16
Wilson H, Burks CS, Reger JE, Wenger JA. Biology and management of navel
orangeworm (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in California. J Integr Pest Manag.
2020:11(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmaa025