Transcript RadioSource.NET - Everglades Research & Education Center

SUGARCANE
RESEARCH &
EXTENSION BY
UF/IFAS
PRESENT PROGRAMS
AND FUTURE PLANS
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY
Dr. Robert Gilbert

Stage III CP Breeding Program
• Collaborators: USDA, FSCL

Cultivar Maturity Trials
• Collaborators: SCGC, USDA

Transgenic Sugarcane Evaluation
• Collaborators: Agron. Dept., TREC, USDA

Organic Amendments for Sandland
Nutrition
• Collaborators: FL Crystals, USDA

Sugarcane Response to Flooding
• Collaborators: USDA

Green Cane Harvest
• Collaborators: SCGC, SWFREC, FL Crystals,
USDA, USSC
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY
SCMV field day
Mill mud strip
No mill mud
Somaclonal variation
CP Cultivar field day
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY
Low water table
Flooded cane
Adventitious roots
Burnt vs. green
Raking residue
Trash weight
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY

RESULTS
Stage III CP Breeding Program
• CP clones grown on > 80% of FL acreage

Cultivar Maturity Trials
• Harvest schedule recommendations on EDIS

Transgenic Sugarcane
• SCMV-resistant high-yielding clones identified

Organic Amendments for Sandland
Nutrition
• Mill mud > soybean rotation = inorganic
fertilizer

Flooded Cane
• 3-month flood reduced sucrose yield 30% in
plant cane
SANDLAND ORGANIC AMENDMENTS STUDY
Plant Cane Yield
a
TSA (tons sucrose/acre)
5.0
4.5
b
4.0
3.5
3.0
b
No Nutrients
Forage Soybean
c
2.5
2.0
1.5
Green Manure Soybean
c
Fertilizer
Mill Mud
1.0
0.5
0.0
Plant Cane
Fig. 4
SCMV-resistant
VR18-54
320
SPT ( lbs sucrose/ton )
300
280
260
88-1508
88-1762
88-1834
89-2143
89-2377
240
220
200
Early-Season
Nov. 8
180
Mid-Season
Dec. 28
Late-Season
Feb. 16
160
0
20
40
60
80
100
Days after Oct. 14
120
140
160
S o il T e m p e ra tu re
(7 - 1 3 J a n u a ry, 2 0 0 5 )
S o il T e m p e ra tu re °C
2 4 .0
2 2 .0
2 0 .0
G re e n
Rake
B u rn t
1 8 .0
1 6 .0
1 4 .0
M
M
:0
12
12
:0
0
A
A
0
A
:0
12
12
12
:0
:0
0
0
0
A
M
M
M
A
M
A
0
:0
12
12
12
:0
:0
0
0
A
A
M
M
1 2 .0
T im e (1 5 -m in a v g )
Soil Temperature
(11 - 17 March 2005)
Soil Temperature °C
26.0
24.0
22.0
Green
Rake
Burnt
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
A
:00
2
1
M
A
:00
2
1
M
A
:00
2
1
M
A
:00
2
1
M
A
:00
2
1
M
A
:00
2
1
Time (15-min avg.)
M
A
:00
2
1
M
A
:00
2
1
M
EREC Green Cane TCA
60
50
b
ab
a
a
a
a
b
TCA
40
ab
a
Green
30
Rake
Burnt
20
10
0
PC-Early
PC-Late
1R-Early
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY
FUTURE RESEARCH PLANS

Continuing:
•
•
•
•
•

Stage III
Crop Modeling
Sandland Nutrition
Transgenic Sugarcane
Green Cane
New:
• Green Cane
Management on Sand
• Sugarcane for Ethanol
proposal
Multi-disciplinary Projects:
Agronomy: Gilbert, Kingston &
Ezenwa
Weeds: Rainbolt
Insects: Nuessly & Cherry
Diseases: Raid
Water Quality: Daroub & Morgan
Crop Nutrition: McCray & Morgan
Extension: Rice & Baucum
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY
Green cane production system
Drs. Kingston et al.

Field trials for agro-ecology
and management of green cane
• Experiments on muck and sandy
soils.
• Collaborators – Gilbert, Kingston,
Ezenwa, Eiland, Rice, Shine, Luo, Raid,
Rainbolt, Roka,

Applications for more precise
agriculture
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY
Agro-ecology of green cane system


Muck soil expt.
established 200405
Compares burnt,
trash rake & trash
blanket


Sandland expt.
Established 2005-06
Compares burnt,
trash rake, trash
blanket & trash
blanket with disking
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY
Applications for more precise agriculture
Dr. G. Kingston et al.


Assessing utility of earth conductivity
for applications of precision
agriculture on EAA Histosols.
• Collaborators – Kingston, Luo, Shine, Rice
Cost benefit analysis of land levelling
for sugarcane production on sandland
soils.
• Collaborators – Ezenwa, Kingston
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY
Earth conductivity and precision
agriculture
Earth conductivity & Depth of Pahokee Muck soil
250
y = 1.08x + 7.81
Depth (cm)
200
2
r = 0.93
150
100
Depth_pahokee
Depth_USSC
50
0
0
Objective
• Is bulk electrical
cond. of muck a
function of soil
depth?
• Is soil depth related
to properties that
affect cane yield?
eg. pH and sulfur
50
100
150
200
Emv (mS/m)



Commenced
summer 2005
Initial results show
good correlation of
ECa with depth to
~3ft.
Chemical data to be
interpreted.
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY
Cost benefit of land leveling
Earth conductivity (EMh) for blocks 41-AE, BF & CH-21 at ALICO
7600
222 3
0 1
5 664
7 102
6 8 5366 97
3 6 7 38
1035152 96 1313 176177 22
7 6
0 669 668 667 666 66
593 592 54 54 5054850 43 43 36 38
1 4 67
2222
50 53 129132
9 660 661 662 663
9 4 7
8
482
178
7
95
98 104
8 38
0 5 65 65 65
1 548545 4
5 36 36386
175 2222
50 50743 43
101 49
8 3
594 59
8
54 12 13 179
2
481
390 336 99
94
655 654 653 65
9
9 6 656
651
174 2122
0 54 544 3 508439 4 36
385
7
50
43
595 59
9
1001054855 12 4 180
480
1 236
93 13 173 218 7
9
0
7 648
39
1
64
0
36
65
3
0
632
22
64
55 54
47
596 589 55
944 433
126
502 50
2 1
629
56
392
78
92 13517 18 2122
479
1
46
633
441
542
2 36
125
597 588
501 510 43393
57
628
171182 22
69
370
21
478
91
552
45
4 6
265266
1213
541
442 1 4360 384
634 7 598 587
58
500 511 43 39
170 3 53
62
44
7
3 7 18 21230 4 297 8
90 1213
371383
553 0 47 443
26 267 29
359
59
54
9 4214
635 6 599 586
430395
62
2
499 51
122 16 18 231263 296
43
9
476
372382
89 138
554
268 29
444
60
168 5
539
636
600 585
121
429396 358
18 232 2 295
1
26 269
42 88
498 51
625
37338
475 3445
139 7
555
61 120 16 186 212 3
300
4
8
2
42 397357
23 261 294
601 58
637
538
41 87 140
380
4
374
11914 166
270
556
49747514446 7
624
7
1
4
62
18 2123 0 293301
42
26
379
40 86 141
602 583
7
8
118 165
7 53 496473 7 39 356
5 271
638
0
55
23
2 2
21
375 8
623
51544 426
63
259 29 30
188
37
39 85
399
603 582 8 6 5
9 6 272 1
117 164 2023
55 53 49 472 448 5 355
64
258 29 3
516 42 0
7
30
1
189
38 84 6
40 376377
8
3 0
604 58
11 3163 2023
7 29
14
559 5494471 449 4 354
2527
65
37
42 1
53
8
83
40
4
580
517
5
2190 23
4 9 30
6 28
605
207 2527
3
36 1114416
560 534 49 470 450423
9
353
82 114 161191 23
579
402
5
5 5
145
518
206 025 27288 30
35
606
561533 492469 451422 3
24
319
0
2
81
40
6 0
66 113 16 19
352 5
578
254 6 30 32
6
205241 27 287
9
1 4 33
10 11 27 34 80 14
639 622 7
1 51
2
8
42
49
40
8
56
9
60
30731321
46 452
67 112 715 193
351 334 12
577
532
2 3 7
14
6
20424 2527 286
0 5 33
26
8
9
7 0 4240
8 7 2
563
640 1 608
4904652
33 6879 111 15
2 8 30 3132
62
453
4 3 32527
350 333 13
576
148 19 2024
5
7
531
8
78
28
6
33
25
9
6 1 4140
309316 3
4652
69 110 157 5 244251
9
564
32
19 202
641 620 60 575
32
489
9 8332 14
454
279 4
149
3433
7
24
77 109 156
245 0 28 310315 4
5 530 465
418
25
15
31 70
32
610 4 56
488 522455
150 196201 6
8 9 1
642 619
57
23
280283311 4
24
71 76 108 155
408 3433 33 616
31325
464
417
249
30
566 529
1
197200
6
22
643 8 61
7
05
7 1 4
487 52345
281282312 3 6
61
573
409 3434033
2972 7510 15 15
17
3132
247248
463
416
567
21
198199
4
612
457
6 2153
528 6
0 6
2873 74 10 15
644 617
572
48 2
41
40
5 7 34341329 3 18 20
46524 41
568
32 33
3
61
34
458 411 345 2 8 2 19
527 5
6
571
48 1
645 61
34 32
414
46
31
1
30
4
569 6 4 525459
4 3327
2 34
646 615 61 570
52 48 460
41341 34
631
Northing (m)
7400
7200
7000
6800
5800
Objective

Determine yield
response & cost
benefit of land
leveling on sandland

Commenced summer
2005
214
6000
6200
6400
56
55
213 215
96
95
57
54
630
94 97
58
59
52
92 99
61
91
62
49
63
64
13
14
48
65
12
47
66
11
46
15
10
19
67
45
68
9
44
20
69
8
43
21
7
22
70
42
6
71
41
23
5
24
25
26
35
36
29
28 27
6600
72
40
4
3
73
39
74
2
38
1
37
75
137
172
174
5
171 17
216
212
217
211
210
218
258
257
256
255
295
254
6
6 32
294 29
327
283
5
3 297 32
2
284 29
328 36
363
101
208
271
298 324
221
285 292
1
1
0
8
90
25
17
329 36
131 14
168
207
364
270 286
299
102
3
222
32
291
130 1
179
330 360
250 9
89
14
300
167
26
7
2
206
28
365
32
3
3
10
22
3
290
331 359
180
129 142
249 268
383 398 39
321
205
88
288
166
366
289 301
104
332
394
224
181
128
320
204
248 267
358
382 397
143 165
367
87 105
395
333
9
182 203 225
7
127
31
381 396
35
247
144 164
368
2 86
106
8 334
20
3
31
18
226 246
356
380
126
369
145 163
201
317 335
85 107
9
184
125
227
355 370 37
0
245
146 162 185 20
336
8
316
84 10 124
228
378
199
4 371
399
1
5
244
337 35
392
414 41
147 16
315
9
430
83 10 123
266
229
377
3
338 35
372
243
400 413
9
148
314
391
416 42
0 122
11
5
82
376
339 352
230 242 26
401 412
373
149
390
7 428
302 313
41
1
8
27
340 351
81 111 12
5
1 264 277
160 186
402
374 37
198 231 24
1
2
389
41
427
150
31
8
41
0
279 303
341 350
159 187
80 112 12
3
6
8 403
240 26
27
6
38
7
0
2
42
19 23
41
1
151
280 304 31 342 349
419
8
119
262
74
158 18 196
3840
79 113
275
239
425
5 310 343
2 3
409 420
118 1523 7 189 195
261
281 30
386 5
15
348
424
274
78
238
40
114
6
9
4
4
260
2 30 30 34 347
8
117 153
190 19 234
28
40
7
3
77
23
273
385 406
421 42
193
259
307 308 345 346
191
115 116 154
5
6
407
6
155
384
422
76
192 23 23
15
100
50
16
134
60
51
17
173
136
93 98
53
18
135
176
8
133 13
170
9
132 13
7
169 17
6800
219
209 220
253
272
25
252
7000
7200
20
15
431
444
432 443
445
2
433 44
446
4
43 441
447
435
440
448
436
439
437
7400
449
438
10
0
EMh (mS/m)
7600
Easting (m)


Ditch cleaning &
cultivation causes
“dished” surface
profile between
beds.
Potential for effect
on drainage & soil
fertility.
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY ON
MINERAL SOILS
Dr. Ike V. Ezenwa
Current studies


N fertilization of sugarcane on
organic- and non-amended mineral
soil
Rate and method of P application on
mineral soils
Main Focus of Program

Improved agronomic management practices
• N, P, K fertilization
• Soil organic matter Improvement
• No-till production systems
• Weed management

Sustainable harvesting methods
• Green cane harvesting
N fertilization of sugarcane on organicand non-amended mineral soil
No compost- 0 N
No compost- 234 kg N/ha
With Compost- 0 N
With compost- 234 kg N/ha
N fertilization of sugarcane on organicand non-amended mineral soil
Sugarcane heights in 15 June - 7 September 2005.
80
Stalk height (inches)
70
60
50
40
0 lb/A N
70 lb/A N
140 lb/A N
210 lb/A N
30
20
10
Jun
Jul
Aug
Date
Sep
Oct
SUGARCANE AGRONOMY ON
MINERAL SOILS
Future research plans
Green cane harvesting:
Positive vs. Negative effects?

Obtain and analyze data on effects of
green cane harvesting

Help industry determine potential
impact of the practice
SOIL and WATER SCIENCE
Dr. K.T. Morgan
• Program Emphasis
 Improved nutrient use efficiency
 Contribution of crop residue to N, P, and K
cycling
 Soil nutrient modeling
• Studies
 Demonstration of CRF use on sugarcane
 Documentation of N reductions using CRF
 N, P, and K availability from crop residues
(Green Cane Harvest)
SOIL and WATER SCIENCE
CRF DEMONSTRATION
Sugarcane Leaf Nitrogen
2.40
Leaf N Concentration (%)
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
Standard 100%
CRF 75% rate
1.20
1.00
5/8/05
CRF 50% rate
5/18/05
5/28/05
6/7/05
6/17/05
6/27/05
Sampling Date
7/7/05
7/17/05
7/27/05
SOIL and WATER SCIENCE CRF
RATE STUDY
• Experimental Design
Randomized complete block
3 replications per treatment
Repeated sampling over time
• Treatments
Soluble fertilizer 5 X per year
Complete CRF at planting
Slow release N / soluble P and K at
planting
Soluble N, P, and K at planting/ slow
release N at 60 days after planting
N rates from 100% to 50% of 265 lb/ac
SOIL and WATER SCIENCE
GREENCANE HARVEST
• Measurements -




Stalk heights and weights
Leaf N concentration
Soil N concentration
Estimated sugar yield
• Crop Residue - Mineralization
 Burned cane - ash
 No-till - surface residue
 Till – incorporated residue
• Soil Transformations
 Nitrification rates
 Denitrification rates
 Phosphorus solubility
SOIL and WATER SCIENCE
FUTURE RESEARCH PLANS
• Use of soil test
•
for phosphorus
fertilization.
Soil variability
effects on
nutrition.
Water Quality and BMP
Research
Samira Daroub*, Ming Chen,
Orlando Diaz, and Timothy Lang
Highlights of Research Results
and
Overview of New Scope of Work
Specific Conductance in EAA
Canals


Specific conductance research on farm
canal water completed. Report issued by
IFAS accepted by SFWMD and FDEP,
March 2005
No BMPs needed for specific conductance
in EAA
Control of Particulate P
Final Report submitted to SFWMD
and FDEP:
Control floating aquatic weeds
Limit main canal drainage velocity
Regularly remove canal sediments
New Scope of Work





Particulate P Demonstration
Farm
Analysis of Existing BMP Data
BMP Training Workshops
BMP Consultation Program
Extension Publications
BMP Demonstration Farm
Objective: evaluate the impact of
improved particulate P control practices
compared to conventional practices on
drainage water quality
Overview:
• two similar sugarcane blocks at EREC
• each block isolated w/ pump and
monitoring equip
• agronomics: sugarcane production w/
fallow, rotational crops
Improved BMP Block
200 acres sugarcane
Weed boom upstream of pump
Aggressive FAW control
Velocity control
Canal level control
Control Block
150 acres sugarcane
Weed boom near pump
Minimal aq weed control
Drainage manager controlled
Flow-Weighted P Species Concentrations
180
TP
TDP
Percent Reduction
Species
2003
2004
TP
46%
49%
TDP
41%
56%
PP
50%
35%
PP
160
Phosphorus (ppb)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Control
IMP
Control
IMP
2003
2003
2004
2004
BMP Training Workshops


Half-day training workshops offered at
Everglades REC
Topics include BMPs related to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Soil testing
Fertilizer application
Water table management
Particulate P control
Sediment control
Pesticide Safety
CEUs offered
Analysis of Existing BMP
Data





Compile IFAS conducted BMP research into
one comprehensive accessible database
Determine questions of interest
Conduct initial low level analyses
Follow up with higher order geo-statistical
and modeling analyses
Produce and extend recommendations
BMP Consultation Program
Purpose:
• Optimize BMP implementation throughout EAA
Methods:
•
•
•
•
Individual consultations between IFAS and growers
Utilize knowledge base of IFAS and grower community
Develop recommendations for individual farms
Impact measured by tracking changes in farm loads
Personnel:
• Samira Daroub, Orlando Diaz, Tim Lang
Extension Publications




Sediment Control
Soil Testing
Fertilizer Spill Prevention
Fertilizer Application Control
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Landowners’ support of this project
thru EAA-EPD funding is greatly
appreciated
Sugarcane Nutrition
Dr. Mabry McCray
Current Studies
DRIS Fertilizer Supplement Study

Cooperators: Florida Crystals, Stitt Ranch, Lykes Bros.

25 paired comparisons in plant cane fields in 2004/05,
29 comparisons in plant and 1st stubble fields in
2005/06

Tests the effect of a fertilizer supplement based on DRIS
leaf nutrient indices in April/May

Develop guidelines for economic use of DRIS-based
supplements and for incorporation of leaf analysis into
an overall program
Sugarcane Nutrition
DRIS Study Harvest Data – All Fields
(2004/05)
TCA
TSA
%
Yld
Control
47.84
5.69
11.89
DRIS
47.82
5.55
11.60
# Comparisons
16
19
16
Sugarcane Nutrition
Current Studies
Leaf and Soil Survey





Cooperators: Florida Crystals, Duda, King Ranch, R. C.
Hatton, Hilliard Bros., Lykes Bros., Alico, Stitt Ranch
162 plant cane fields sampled in 2004, 63 additional
fields in 2005
Look for trends in deficiencies or imbalances
Examine nutrition in relation to production
First year results indicated that Si, Mg, and Mn were the
nutrients most limiting production in fields surveyed
Sugarcane Nutrition
Current Studies
Phosphorus Rate Study




2 locations planted in fall 2004
(Okeelanta and EREC),
6 P rates, band and broadcast
Ike Ezenwa planted a similar test on a
mineral soil in 2004/05
IFAS/SCGC rate tests are ongoing
All available data will be used to update
IFAS recommendations
Sugarcane Nutrition
Current Studies
Silicon/Magnesium Study
 2 locations planted in fall 2004, Sugar Farms
Cooperative (muck) and Hilliard Bros (sand)
 Designed to compare sources, rates, and
placement of silica and magnesium amendment
materials
 Found significant increases in tons sugar/acre
with Ca silicate application in first year (05/06) at
each location
 Application of magnesium increased percent
sugar yield but did not significantly increase tons
sugar/acre (05/06)
Sugarcane Nutrition
New Research




Nutritional Impact of Green Harvest –
EREC location started in 2004/05, Hilliard
location started fall 2005
Comparison of sugarcane on organic soil
with and without added N fertilizer (EREC)
– fall 2005
Furrow application of mill mud and
compost on a mineral soil (Hilliard Bros) –
fall 2005
Silicon rate study (EREC) – fall 2005
Economic Thresholds for
Wireworm Control in Plant
Cane on Sand and Muck
Dr. Phil Stansly
Southwest Florida Research and Education Center
Dr. Ron Cherry
Everglades Research and Education Center
Objective
To determine when it is really
necessary to use soil insecticides for
wireworm control when planting
sugarcane
Methods



Determine if wireworms can be
sampled at planting to decide if soil
insecticides are required.
Determine if soil type affects
wireworm populations.
Determine if season affects
wireworm populations
Benefits





Economic savings
Reduced handling toxic substances =
safety issue
Reduce environmental contamination
Good public relations
Reduce possibility of insecticide
resistance
Acknowledgements


Thanks to Florida Sugar Cane League
for substantial funding
Thanks to Paul Grose and King Ranch
for cooperation and land use
Sugarcane Insect Pest
Management
Yellow Sugarcane Aphid
Lesser Cornstalk Borer
Dr. Gregg Nuessly
W
i
r
e
w
o
r
m
s
Yellow
Sugarcane
Aphid
Early season YSA feeding reduces
internode width/length and
leaf length with season long effect
of reduced sugar at harvest
Leaves with <50% green color at time
of treatment for aphids:
50% of leaves = 12% yield loss
90% of leaves = 19% yield loss
Sugarcane Insect Pest Management
Yellow
Sugarcane
Aphid
Evaluated all CP98 and CP99 Stage
IV clones for susceptibility to YSA
Susceptible CP98-1569
Evaluated biology and efficacy of
natural enemies to control YSA
Graduate student Fall 2006
Sugarcane Insect Pest Management
Resistant CP98-1497
Lesser
Cornstalk
Borer
Early season damage to
sugarcane, corn & beans
Worse in warm, dry Spring
following similar Winter
Graduate student begins
January 2006
Sugarcane Insect Pest Management
Shot
holes
Dead
shoots
Wireworms
Evaluating seed treatment insecticides for
wireworm control in vegetables
Then examine technology transfer to sugarcane
Sugarcane Insect Pest Management
FUTURE RESEARCH
PLANS
1. Continue to evaluate effects of green
harvest sugarcane production systems on
insect populations and sugarcane damage
2. Examine the biology and control of lesser
cornstalk borer in sugarcane
3. Examine the ecology of yellow and
white sugarcane aphids
Sugarcane Insect Pest Management
SUGARCANE WEED SCIENCE
Dr. C.R. Rainbolt

K4 herbicide evaluation for plant cane
and sandland cane
• Collaborators: DuPont, ALICO, USSC,
Duda, Paige Farms, Les Baucum, Ike
Ezenwa

Palisade ripener and seedcane
evaluation
• Collaborators: Syngenta, King Ranch, USSC,
SCGC, FL Crystals

Experimental herbicide evaluation
• Collaborators: Syngenta, FMC, ISK
Biosciences, Bayer Crop Science
SUGARCANE WEED
CONTROL
K4 on sandland cane
Palisade seed piece trial
Experimental herbicides
Sandea for nutsedge control
WEED SCIENCE

Palisade ripener and seedcane
evaluation
• Increased number of nodes per linear
foot of stalk and increased stand
counts in field trial

Experimental herbicide evaluation
• Initial trials are encouraging with
some herbicides

K4 herbicide evaluation for plant
cane and sandland cane
• Establishing rate guidelines for weed
SUGARCANE WEED
CONTROL
Envoke + Asulox applied
to 4-5 inch tall crabgrass
and fall panicum
applied 13 days later
applied 20 days later
WEED SCIENCE
FUTURE RESEARCH



Nutsedge
interference with
sugarcane
Biology of sorghum
almum
Green cane residue
weed suppression
Barn Owls as rodent
controllers
Dr. Richard Raid
Jason Martin
Graduate Student
UF Barn Owl Project
Areas of Activity




Barn owl behavior and population
studies
Rodent population dynamics
Examining the effectiveness of
barn owls as rodent controllers
Public education and agricultural
outreach
Barn Owl Population Studies

282 barn owls banded
since June 2004 (89
adults and 193 nestlings)



Spring 2005: nests in
52% of 233 nest
boxes in Palm Beach
County
Fall 2005: nests in
71% of 233 boxes,
but most destroyed
by hurricane Wilma
Spring 2006: nests in
78% of 85 boxes
Rodent Population Studies




Trapping surveys
conducted Jan. 2005 –
Dec. 2006
Surveys conducted 3
times during growing
season (post-harvest, midway, pre-harvest) along 16
field ditches in EAA
Collecting data on
community structure and
abundance
Preliminary results
indicate very low
populations after harvest,
but gradual increases
through growing season
Owl/Rodent Relationships




6 sites selected to examine
the impact of owl
predation on rodent
abundance (3
experimental, 3 control)
25 nest boxes placed in
each experimental site to
establish high predator
density, while very low owl
density maintained in
controls
At least 60% nesting
occupancy in experimental
sites in spring 2006
Rodent populations and
Education and Outreach





Educational booths and
displays during special
events
Distribution of owl pellets
to schools and community
groups
Nest box construction with
Boy Scouts, Audubon,
schools, and other groups
Conducting field trips and
owl prowls
Creation of barn owl
website with live nest
cameras
CONCLUSIONS




UF/IFAS sugarcane research now encompasses
many disciplines.
• Agronomy
Crop Nutrition
Soil
Science
• Weed Science
Entomology
Water Quality
New faculty at SWFREC: Ike Ezenwa & Kelly
Morgan
New extension agents: Ron Rice & Les
Baucum
Thanks to sugarcane industry for their
financial support.