i

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Agricultural

Research

Service

Agriculture

Information

Bulletin 

Number 802

July 2008

Federal Entomology

Beginnings and Organizational 

Entities in the United States 

Department of Agriculture, 

1854–2006, With Selected 

Research Highlights
ii
i

Federal Entomology

Beginnings and Organizational 

Entities in the United States 

Department of Agriculture, 

1854–2006, With Selected 

Research Highlights

T.J. Henneberry

Henneberry was Center Director, Arid Land Agricultural 

Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, Maricopa, AZ

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Agricultural

Research

Service

Agriculture

Information

Bulletin 

Number 802

July 2008
ii

Abstract

Henneberry, T.J. 2008. Federal Entomology: 

Beginnings and Organizational Entities in the United 

States Department of Agriculture, 1854–2006, With 

Selected Research Highlights. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 

Washington, DC. Agricultural Information Bulletin 

802, 87 pp.

Entomology has played an important role in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) since 1862 

and prior to that in the Agricultural Division of the 

U.S. Patent Office beginning in 1854. The science 

has had organizational status at various levels in the 

USDA hierarchy. Since its inception it has grown in 

stature and numbers in research, regulatory, and pest 

management functions in USDA and has been extended 

into other branches of government. The first Federal 

entomologist received his appointment in 1854 as an 

expert in assembling statistics and other information 

on seeds, fruits, and insects in the United States. This 

text presents some of the history of the growth, impact, 

broadening of responsibility, and implementation of 

entomology in U.S. organizations and its expansion 

into research, education, extension, and regulatory 

functions.

KEYWORDS: Agricultural Research Service, 

Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau, 

Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, 

Entomology.

Mention of trade names, commercial products, 

or companies in this publication is solely for the 

purpose of providing specific information and does 

not imply recommendation or endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not 

recommended.

ARS Mission

The Agricultural Research Service conducts research to 

develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems 

of high national priority and provides information 

access and dissemination to: 

•	 ensure high quality, safe food and other agricultural

products, 

•	 assess the nutritional needs of Americans sustain a

competitive agricultural economy, 

•	 enhance the natural resource base and the

environment, and 

•	 provide economic opportunities for rural citizens,

communities, and society as a whole.

While supplies last, single copies of this publication 

can be obtained at no cost from Thomas Henneberry, 

USDA-ARS-ALARC, 21881 North Cardon Lane, 

Maricopa, AZ 85239. 

Copies of this publication may be purchased in various 

formats (microfiche, photocopy, CD, print on demand) 

from the National Technical Information Service, 

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (800) 

553-6847, www.ntis.gov.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and 

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from 

any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of 

discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

July 2008
iii

Acknowledgments

The author appreciates the reviews of the following 

individuals during various stages in the development 

of this manuscript: W. Klassen, University of Florida, 

Homestead, Florida; P. Schwartz, USDA-ARS, EQL, 

Beltsville, MD; E. Harris, USDA-ARS, Honolulu, 

HI; J. Klun, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD; and retired 

USDA employees H. Shimanuki, R. Faust, D. Hardee, 

G. Jackson, A. Cohen, W.L. Tedders Jr., A.F. Howland, 

L.B. Reed, W.J. Reid, Jr., R.L. Wallis, C. Doucette, W. 

Shands, F.F. Smith, W.N. Sullivan, O.H. Hills, H.H. 

Toba, R. Brubaker, C. Ignoffo, M. Gilliam, R. Radcliffe, 

J. Coulson, P. Vail, and H. Moffitt. Their constructive 

comments, suggestions and contributions are important 

parts of the text in its present form. The author also 

thanks J.E. Throne and R.T. Arbogast, USDA-ARS, 

Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, 

Biological Research Unit, Manhattan, KS, for their 

personal communications regarding stored products insect 

research; M.M. Furniss, University of Idaho, Moscow, 

ID, for information on the history of forest entomology 

research; and Dial Martin, USDA-ARS retired, for 

information on cotton insect research. The author also 

appreciates the suggestions and editorial expertise of 

Gerald Smith, editor, USDA-ARS.
iv

Preface

The more than 150-year existence of Federal entomology 

is paved with accomplishment and outstanding scientific 

leadership. 

Entomology in the Federal establishment began before 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was 

formed. From a single entomologist hired in 1854 in 

the Agricultural Division of the United States Patent 

Office, and later in 1863 in the newly established USDA, 

Federal entomological research grew to be represented 

by more than 500 scientists at numerous research 

laboratories and work sites in the United States and in 

some foreign countries. At present there are about 400 

Federal entomologists in USDA’s Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS). In addition to the research community, 

quarantine, regulatory, and Federal-State extension

and cooperative entomology activities provide vital 

services to agriculture and to the Nation as a whole. 

Other Federal organizations such as the Forest Service, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and military 

establishments also have entomology programs. This 

entire cadre of Federal entomology expertise started 

with the single employee mentioned earlier. 

Major emphasis in this publication is placed on the 

transition of entomological research and other entomology 

programs in Federal government organizations 

beginning with the first Patent Office entomologist to the 

present multidisciplinary structure of ARS. Regulatory, 

quarantine, cooperative Federal/State/extramural, and

other programs that have branched off from the original 

entomological organization or developed independently 

are discussed within the limits of access to available 

information. 

New and improved crop and animal arthropod pest 

protection technology has contributed to the ability of 

the nation’s agricultural system to provide food, fiber, 

and animal and human health protection for the needs of 

continuing human population growth. A chronological 

record of the development, progress, and some 

accomplishments of the entomological organizations 

within USDA are presented in this document. Some 

of the early USDA organizational actions and program 

responsibility changes that affected entomological 

activity are included here for continuity. Most of the events 

reported herein have been gleaned from publications and 

the author’s personal knowledge and correspondence 

with existing and former USDA employees. I have taken 

information liberally from published materials, but in 

all cases have made the effort to identify the original 

sources if they are known. 

Many other events and organizational and personnel 

changes have certainly occurred during the more than 

150 years of entomology in the Federal government 

than are recorded in this manuscript. But without 

permanent record or recall from the memories of former 

and present employees or others they may not appear 

here. Unfortunately, for these and other reasons, many 

of the details, personalities, heroes, stories and myths 

that readers remember or have heard about may have 

been lost for lack of documentation. This is not a 

unique lament. Osborn’s introduction to Fragments of 

Entomological History (1937) refers to the scarcity of 

records documenting the beginnings of entomology in 

America. As with other phases of history, much that 

would be interesting now was not thought at the time 

to have historic value or lacked an interested party to 

record the events. Errors and omissions as a result of 

these occurrences or for other reasons are accepted in 

this writing as the sole responsibility of the author. 

Any opinions, expressed or implied, are those of the 

author and do not reflect the view of the USDA or any 

of its components.

Where applicable and possible, dates reported here for 

occurrences other than publications are those cited as dates 

of Presidential document signing, Congressional action, 

USDA Administrator’s or Secretary’s announcements, 

or published effective dates of the described events. 

Calendar dates, when known, were recorded as opposed 

to fiscal year dates.
v

Contents

Abbreviations........................................................................................................................................................viii

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Agriculture in early colonial days, early insect infestation outbreaks, land grant colleges, Congressional 

interest, insecticides—the good and bad, insect losses and entomological cooperation across 

organizations.

Historical Reporting of Entomological Events........................................................................................................ 2

Four major historical documents, commemoration of 100 years of entomology and objectives of 

this document.

Colonial Entomology, Agriculture, and Insect Pests ............................................................................................... 2

Colonists introduced honeybees and initiated sericulture activity. Search for plants adaptable to 

the new world. Nuisance insects and recognition of pests of fruit and vegetables. Experimental 

gardens were established, and Native Americans taught colonists production methods for 

indigenous crops.

Agricultural Growth and Federal Exploration ......................................................................................................... 4

Changing agriculture interest during and after the Revolutionary War. Local publications, 

newspapers, and colonists’ reports to England. First economic entomology publications in the 

United States. Support for Smithsonian Institution and United States explorations.

Early American Agricultural Interests ..................................................................................................................... 5

Old world cultivation practices. Interest in improving agriculture by early leaders of the country. 

Philosophical societies and improved printing press capability for communicating technology. 

Federal Financial Support for Agriculture ............................................................................................................... 6

American Revolution influences. First United States President and request for agricultural 

support. First agriculture appropriation to collect agricultural statistics.

U.S. Patent Office and Professional Entomology’s Beginnings at Federal and State Levels.................................. 6

First Federal entomologist. First State entomologists, reports of Thaddeus Harris and William 

Peck, educational systems, and the first entomology department were barometers of developing 

entomological awareness.

Congressional Actions Affecting Agricultural Development and Science .............................................................. 7

Agricultural Organic Act, Homestead Act, Morrill Land Grant Act, Experiment Stations, and 

7Smith-Lever Act for Agricultural Extension Activity.

United States Department of Agriculture................................................................................................................. 8

Formation of the United States Department of Agriculture and the first Commissioner of 

Agriculture. Original research facilities and the Beltsville, Maryland, Agricultural Research 

Center.

USDA’s Division of Entomology............................................................................................................................. 9

Formation of the Division of Entomology, events and personalities shaping the course of Federal 

entomology. Early entomological publications and their role in technology transfer and scientific 

communication. First federal entomologist—diversified duties with little time for research. 

Recognized need for regulatory actions and inspections of foreign plant impacts. Initiation of 

problem solving economic entomology under C.V. Riley and L.O. Howard.
vi

Bureau of Entomology........................................................................................................................................... 16

Restructuring of the Division of Entomology to reflect the expanding scope of Federal 

entomological concerns and involvement, awareness of exotic pest introductions, program 

implementation and expansion.

Entomology Research Leadership and Program Direction.................................................................................... 17

Research leadership and program orientation in the Bureau. Program changes, new programs, 

and expanding responsibility.

Federal Horticultural Board ................................................................................................................................... 18

Plant Quarantine Act of 1912. Need for an organization to administer the Act. The first Federal 

Horticultural Board Chairman. Exotic pest introduction impact. Initial plant inspection at ports 

of entry.

Beginning of the End of an Era: Establishment of the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration.................. 19

Retirement of L.O. Howard, first separation of entomology research and regulatory functions 

occurred. Recognition of the increase and importance of exotic pest introductions, quarantine 

activities, and regulatory responsibilities. Need for control efforts to cope with new pests.

Bureau of Plant Quarantine.................................................................................................................................... 20

Consolidation of all of the Department’s work on regulatory, disease and pest eradication, and 

quarantine functions.

Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine ........................................................................................................ 20

Consolidation of entomological research activities to coordinate and centralize research, 

regulatory, and action programs to optimize efforts for solving the Nation’s entomological 

problems.

Agricultural Research Administration ................................................................................................................... 21

Mobilization of agricultural efforts to meet World War II needs and for increasing agricultural 

support and demands of a war economy.

BEPQ Organizational Changes and Other Events................................................................................................. 22

New responsibility areas, regional administrative offices, and Insects—Yearbook of Agriculture.

Agricultural Research Service ............................................................................................................................... 24

Department of Agriculture reorganization to avoid duplication of effort and to strengthen 

coordination of research, production, economic, and marketing functions of the agency. USDA 

Agricultural bureaus dissolved. Forest entomology transferred to Forest Service and Stored 

Products Entomology transferred to the Agricultural Marketing Service.

Entomology Research Branch—Beginning of a New Era..................................................................................... 24

Discipline-oriented research branch designations with focus on commodities and specific areas 

of research interest.

Entomology Research Division ............................................................................................................................. 25

Research branches renamed as divisions resulting in new identification of entomology 

organizational units with minor changes in responsibilities.

Research Accomplishment Highlights................................................................................................................... 45

Examples of research accomplishments, and changes in laboratory locations and program 

orientation in 1963.
vii

A Study of Discipline-Commodity-Oriented Entomology Research .................................................................... 47

Typical discipline-commodity-oriented entomology research 1891 to 1972 with centralized 

leadership. Program initiations, termination, and relocations responding to needs of national 

agricultural entomology.

More on Entomology Regulatory Programs.......................................................................................................... 58

Food and Drugs Act, Insecticide and Fungicide Act, Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. 

Plant Pest Control and Plant Quarantine Divisions of the Crops Regulatory Programs established as a 

result of the 1953 USDA reorganization. Separation of research and regulatory work. Research agencies 

were to provide needed technology development to support regulatory activities. 

Separation of Regulatory Activities From ARS..................................................................................................... 60

Plant Pest Control and Plant Quarantine removed from the Agricultural Research Service in 1971 

and established as a separate agency. Animal regulatory and protection activities also merged in 

the new agency.

Reorganization of ARS .......................................................................................................................................... 60

Agricultural Research Service reorganization of 1972, decentralization and establishment of 

a regional-area organization with headquarters support staff and multidiscipline research 

orientation.

ARS Entomology Research 1972 to 2007 ............................................................................................................. 64

Entomology research in the decentralized non-discipline-oriented organization, leadership and 

productiveness. Examples of accomplishments. 

ARS Leadership in Areawide Pest Management................................................................................................... 65

Formation of USDA areawide working group. First areawide pest management (AWPM) program 

partnerships. Examples of subsequent AWPM successes.

Current ARS and Federal Entomology Research Organization............................................................................. 67

National Program Staff, Laboratory and Center Directors, and Research Leaders of ARS in 2004.

Future of Federal Entomology Research ............................................................................................................... 67

Crop and animal production values. Yield and control costs remain unacceptable. Invasive pests of 

continuing concern.

References ............................................................................................................................................................. 72
viii

Abbreviations

AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science

AAEE American Association of Economic Entomologists

ADA Associate Deputy Administrator

AEE Association of Economic Entomologists

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APHS Animal and Plant Health Service

ARA Agricultural Research Administration

ARS Agricultural Research Service

AWPM areawide pest management

BEPQ Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine

Bt Bacillus thuringiensis (Berliner)

ESA Entomological Society of America

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

IPM integrated pest management

NPD National Program Director

PPQ Plant Protection and Quarantine

SEA Science and Education Administration

SY scientific year (see page 45 for definition)

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
1

Introduction

American colonists encountered the insect world in 

their limited agricultural endeavors and also reported 

nuisance pests (gnats, mosquitoes, lice, and the 

like) in correspondence to Europe and elsewhere. 

Occasionally, historians refer to pests and damage to 

fruits and vegetables, but most accounts suggest little 

more than an avocational interest in entomology in 

the United States until the mid-1800s. The earliest 

entomological reports are vague and uninformative. 

Little information is recorded on insects economic 

and agricultural effects. The lack of recognition of 

serious insect pest problems remains unexplained and 

speculative, but many authors suggest that the minimal 

agricultural enterprises of the early colonists and 

limited commerce between Europe, other countries, 

and the Colonies delayed exotic pest introductions 

that are often responsible for insect outbreaks. Also, 

the earliest colonists were adventurers, hunters, and 

explorers with little interest in agricultural production. 

These suggestions partially explain the lack of 

concern with insect pests and entomology but does 

not address the lack of attention to these issues in later 

years, after serious insect problems were recognized 

and agriculture became of prime importance to the 

Colonies. 

With expanding agricultural horizons, appointments of 

the first State and Federal professional entomologists in 

the same year, 1854, did attest to an increasing concern 

and awareness of the role of insects in the agricultural 

economy and the harm they could do to the well-being 

of people. Insect outbreaks affecting cereals and grain, 

vegetables and fruit, cotton, and forests, as well as 

increasing understanding in the mid-1800s to the early 

1900s of the interaction of insects in the transmission 

of organisms causing disease in humans and animals, 

were convincing evidences of need for entomological 

solutions to pest problems.

Establishment of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) and the land-grant college system 

in 1862 and legislation in 1889 supporting State 

research experiment stations provided the educational 

opportunities and the experimental foundations for 

the growth of entomology and agricultural sciences 

in general. These actions also positioned the country 

well for its subsequent growth to becoming a leading 

agricultural nation of the world. Creation of an 

agricultural extension organization in 1914 formed the 

final link for technology transfer to the consumer and 

stakeholder. 

Entomology in USDA expanded its scope of activity 

with increasing awareness of problems. Increasing 

levels of Congressional support resulted in research at 

more than 100 locations to solve high-priority research 

problems of international importance. The role of the 

entomological community in World Wars I and II in 

providing for well-fed United States military forces and 

agricultural commodity assistance for our allies, as well 

as protection from insect-related diseases, were well 

recognized. These accomplishments further increased 

the value of the science in the public mind. 

Discovery of chemicals with effective insecticidal 

activity during World War II was a boon to mankind 

in the battle for insect control. These new materials 

resulted in savings of millions of dollars in annual 

crop value and lives due to reductions in insect-related 

disease in humans and animals. Accurate accounts of 

benefits to humanity are rare or nonexistent, and there 

may never be a satisfactory way to give full credit for 

the contribution of insecticides to human welfare. 

The effects, as we all know, were not all positive. 

The adverse results from overuse, misuse, resistance 

development, and environmental issues are well 

documented. The issues provided entomologists with 

unprecedented challenges to develop more effective 

application technology, alternative use patterns, new 

and safer chemicals, and integration of chemicals with 

cultural, biological, behavioral, physical, regulatory, 

and other alternative methods that are ecologically 

oriented and socially and environmentally compatible. 

The technology to achieve these goals surfaced through 

scientific breakthroughs in many disciplines. Advances 

in molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry, and other 

sciences promise unprecedented depth and scope in 

investigations leading to progressively higher levels of 

achievement and understanding of the complexity of 

agroecosystems. Federal entomologists in the United 

States and at foreign locations have made significant 

contributions through research, regulatory, quarantine, 

and technology-transfer activities that reduced farm 

and other agricultural production losses and improved 

animal welfare. Nonetheless, currently estimated 

damage by insect and mite pests continues to be in the 

range of 10 to 15 percent with additional yield losses 

of 10 to 40 percent during post-harvest handling. Costs 
2

of insecticides in the United States in recent years 

have exceeded $2 billion annually. Losses as a result 

of invasive insect species are estimated at $100 billion 

annually. There is obviously room for continuing study 

in agricultural entomology; similar concerns apply 

to animal welfare and environmental issues. Current 

programs are making significant progress in developing 

ecologically oriented approaches to pest control. The 

future—with advanced genetics, molecular biology, and 

other new technology—promises novel and exciting 

new approaches in pest management. 

Now is an opportune and appropriate time to record 

some of past events and accomplishments in Federal 

entomology that influenced the present state of the 

art and provide for increasing levels of excellence in 

the future. Studies to identify arthropods, trace their 

evolution, define ecological relationships, and describe 

the importance of pest and beneficial arthropod species 

and their interactions in ecosystems have provided a 

firm basis for integrated pest management. Avoiding 

crop and animal losses to arthropod pests, reducing 

the cost of pest control, improving crop and animal 

production, and protecting human health and the 

environment have been driving forces in the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture since it was established by 

Congress in 1862. 

Within this text, the beginnings of entomology in the 

early days of the Colonies and its transition to the 

present are written to record past accomplishments 

and provide expectations for the increasing value 

of future contributions from research that provides 

solutions to agricultural and environmental problems. 

Federal entomology, since its inception, benefited 

from synergistic interactions, cooperations, and 

communications with other segments of the 

entomological community in university, State, private 

industry, and other establishments. The main objective 

of this publication is to document entomological 

activity in the Federal government, with particular 

reference to research, filling some gaps of earlier 

presentations, and updating information from the mid1930s to the present. Some tangential entomological 

events in States, industries, and other Federal agencies 

are included since they affected and complemented, or 

in some other way were involved in, Federal efforts.

Historical Reporting of Entomological 

Events

In the American Colonies and early years of the 

United States, entomological activities were sparsely 

documented. Four exceptions very briefly cover 

colonial times, with detail beginning about 1800 and 

continuing to the mid-1930s (Howard 1930, Essig 

1931, Weiss 1936, Osborn 1937). These four authors 

are to be applauded for documenting the beginning 

of the entomological profession in the United States. 

Howard’s History of Applied Entomology (Somewhat 

Anecdotal); Essig’s A History of Entomology; Weiss’s 

The Pioneer Century; and Osborn’s Fragments of 

Entomological History are valuable contributions to 

the recording of personal, local, State, Federal, and 

some international entomology, accomplishments, and 

personalities. 

In addition, the commemoration of the first 100 years 

of the Entomological Society of America (ESA) 

reviewed the emergence of entomology and ESA’s 

role in the environmental movement and the new order 

of biotechnology and other advanced research (Smith 

1989). This review documents the development of the 

professional societies, their successes and weaknesses 

in an agriculturally developing nation, and the loss of 

public confidence with increasing knowledge of the 

environmental impact of insecticides. 

Entomological achievements accomplished through 

ecologically oriented pest management have dispelled 

most critics’ objections of the science’s long-term 

goals in global ecology. The present document briefly 

reviews interest in entomology, beginning with the 

first colonists, as a prelude to the formal pursuit of 

entomology as a profession in the United States (which 

began in the late 1800s). Barnes (1985) credited the 

1800s American agricultural revolution with providing 

the first major market for entomological expertise. 

Colonial Entomology, Agriculture, and 

Insect Pests

In spite of the lack of specific information, there are 

numerous historical referenes to the foundations of 

agriculture and the subsequent role of entomology in 

early New World agriculture. John Rolfe of Jamestown, 

VA, experimented with tobacco as early as 1613; and 

in Jamestown and Plymouth, MA, early settlers learned 

from Native Americans how to grow corn (Baker et 
3

al. 1963), beans, and potatoes (Moore 1967). Also at 

Jamestown, mulberry trees were identified by early 

settlers soon after their arrival in 1607 (Edwards 1940). 

Silkworm [Bombyx mori (L.)] eggs were imported from 

Italy, France, and Spain by the Virginia Company. In 

1619, the Virginia Company required each man in the 

colonies to plant six mulberry trees a year for 7 years 

in anticipation of a developing silk industry (Edwards 

1940). Silk was produced in all of the original colonies 

except Maryland (Senechal 2005). 

In other areas, South Carolina settlers experimented 

with many tropical crops to find varieties that were 

suited to the area. When the first settlement was 

established in Georgia, an experimental garden was 

established, and a botanist was hired to collect in 

the West Indies and Central and South America 

plants having recognized potential for adaptation and 

use in the new Colony. Honeybees (Apis mellifera

Linnaeus), as well as attempts to establish sericulture, 

were introduced into Massachusetts in early colonial 

days (Montgomery 1955). Apiculture developed into 

an active, productive industry in the United States; 

honeybee research began later to provide state-of-theart technology and improve beekeeping efficiency. 

The attempts to establish a long-term sericulture 

industry during colonial times and thereafter were 

not successful despite some limited success in the 

late 1800s in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, 

and California (Bollman 1872). In the late 1890s, 

Congress made a special appropriation to promote 

silk culture in the United States. This was largely the 

result of an effort by James Wilson, then Secretary 

of Agriculture, to develop a household silk products 

culture in the South to improve economic conditions. 

Interest in sericulture revived briefly in the 1930s in 

California (Montgomery 1955), but it was also shortlived. Reasons for the lack of success have not been 

elaborated, but it appears that few Americans had either 

patience with the detail required for silkworm rearing 

or the delicate touch required before automation for 

unreeling the single strand of silk from the cocoon 

(Senechal 2005).

The limited crop production in the early American 

Colonies did not suffer seriously from insect attack, 

according to Howard (1930), Osborn (1937), and Davis 

(1952). This may be, but it was not particularly long 

after the first settlers arrived until insect problems were 

recognized. There is a lack of documentation of the 

economic effects of insect infestations, and authors 

have left confusing histories, or no records at all, of the 

importance of insects. However, the occasional records 

mentioning insects in colonial times suggest more 

than idle concern for entomology in the early days of 

American colonization. 

Native insects that attacked native plants were 

known to adapt to new varieties brought by settlers 

as well as those plants developed from seeds or 

cuttings (Waite et al. 1926). It also was common 

knowledge that some plant materials brought from 

abroad were insect-infested and diseased. Slingerland 

and Crosby (1924) reported that John Hull in 1661 

observed that for 4 years cankerworms devoured 

most of the apples in Boston. In addition, reports of 

nuisance pest aggravations were common in early 

letters from the Colonies to England (Weiss 1936). 

Personal correspondence, local newspapers, and other 

documents also mentioned gnats, mosquitoes, bedbugs 

[Cimex lectularis Linnaeus], and other aggravating 

insects. Mention of several species of nuisance insects 

(gnats, mosquitoes, flies, etc.) were found in reports 

by John Josselyn on his travels through the Colonies in 

1638–1639 and 1663–1671 (Felter 1927). 

Angoumois grain moth [Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier)] 

was recognized as a pest in 1728, and other established 

pests reported in the 18th century were webbing clothes 

moth [Tineola bisselliella (Hummel)], codling moth 

[Cydia pomonella (Linnaeus)], Hessian fly [Mayetiola 

destructor (Say)], pear sawfly [Caliroa cerasi

(Linnaeus)], and oystershell scale [Lepidosaphes ulmi 

(Linnaeus)] (Sasscer 1940); but few serious widespread 

insect devastations were recorded. Baird (1917) found 

reports of oak trees stripped bare by insects in 1791 

in Vermont and 1797 in Virginia. Parker (1954), in a 

similar manner, found documentation of grasshoppers 

attacking crops in Massachusetts Colony in 1740. 

Many local insect outbreaks were probably recorded 

only by word-of-mouth and quickly forgotten. 

Records have been found of primitive attempts by 

early settlers to prevent insect damage—for example, 

building 9-foot fences to exclude plum curculio 

[Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst)] or hanging dead 

mice in trees for plum curculio to lay their eggs 

in, in preference to fruit (Waite et al. 1926). Other 

recommendations involved burning brimstone, tobacco, 

leather, rags, and other materials to repel pests. Drilling 

holes in fruit trees and filling them with sulfur, salt, 
4

calomel, or other materials was practiced to taint the 

plant sap and make it unpalatable for fruit-eating 

insects. These early attempts were ineffective because 

of the materials used; but with increased knowledge 

of plants and insect biology and physiology, repellents 

and systemic insecticides would in the future become a 

reality for management of some pests.

Henshaw (1895) listed the following numbers of 

papers and authors on economic entomology published 

through 1854:

 Number Number

Year of papers of authors

before 1800 11 10

1801–1810 4 4

1811–1820 24 18

1821–1830 42 18

1831–1840 32 2

1841–1845 46 19

1846–1850 74 28

1851–1854 53 12

1854 14 7

In the papers published from 1771 to 1840, 48 injurious 

insects or groups of insects were discussed. 

Parks (1954) reported that by 1854 a few pests 

were causing serious damage in Ohio. Of particular 

concern were hessian fly, plum curculio, aphids, and 

codling moth. Forest tent caterpillar [Malacosoma 

disstria Hübner], cucumber beetle [Diabrotica 

undecimpunctata howardi Barber], peach tree borer 

[Synanthedon exitiosa (Say)], and periodical cicada 

[Magicicada septendecim (Linnaeus)] were also 

mentioned in the literature as pests in the late 1700s 

and early 1800s. 

Evidence suggests that there was individual interest 

in entomology during the early development of the 

country, but organized entomology in the United States 

was slow to develop before 1855. Lack of recognition 

of the value of the science may have contributed to the 

lack of interest as suggested by some authors. Lack of 

agricultural colleges or Federal or State agricultural 

institutions to present factual entomological 

information was surely an important factor. The 

positive effect of these organizations on the importance 

of the science after 1862 is certain.

Agricultural Growth and Federal 

Explorations

Colonel Landon Carter was credited with writing the 

first paper dealing with economic entomology in the 

United States (Howard 1930). Carter’s paper, published 

in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society

in 1771, was entitled “Observations concerning the 

fly weevil, that destroys wheat, with some useful 

discoveries and conclusions regarding the propagation 

and progress of that pernicious insect, and methods to 

be used to prevent the destruction of the grain by it.” *

During the Revolutionary War and shortly thereafter, 

changes in the insect pest situation began to be 

recognized. This appears to support geographical 

isolation of the American Colonies and limited 

commerce as factors limiting interest in development 

of entomology. W.D. Peck’s paper, published in 

1795 in Massachusetts Magazine, was entitled “The 

description and history of the cankerworm” (Davis 

1952).* Pests of squash and pumpkin such as chinch 

bug [Blissus leucopterus leucopterus (Say)] (thought to 

be indigenous to the country) and the introduced pests 

hessian fly, codling moth, and Angoumois grain moth, 

began to receive attention as important factors limiting 

fruit and grain production. 

Entomology found its value in its practical application 

of knowledge to preventing crop yield losses. 

With increasing agricultural production, additional 

insect pests began to appear, and the importance 

of entomological study began to be recognized. 

Devastations by locust, chinch bug, and Colorado 

potato beetle [Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)] in 

the early 1800s; spread of boll weevil [Anthonomus 

grandis grandis Boheman] in the late 1800s; and 

documentation of the relationships between mosquitoes 

and yellow fever and malaria in the late 1800s and 

early 1900s did much to highlight the importance 

of entomology to the welfare of society. Serious 

outbreaks of yellow fever during colonial times 

resulted in suffering, death, and major concern for the 

welfare of the Colonies. Within a short time additional 

information on other insects’ relation to diseases of 

humans and animals further elevated the status of 

entomology as an important science. 

* “Fly weevil” was a common name for Angoumois 

grain moth, and “cankerworm” a shortened version of 

spring cankerworm [Paleacrita vernath (Peck)].
5

Incidental interest in entomology at the Federal level 

first appeared indirectly in the form of financial 

support for insect collections in association with 

early explorations in the United States to collect and 

catalog information on birds, mammals, and reptiles 

during 1819–1821 and later (Osborn 1937). Thomas 

Say (1787–1834), often referred to as the Father of 

American Entomology (Say himself favored Friedrick 

V. Melsheimer with the title) was an important 

member of several federally supported expeditions 

to southwestern and western areas of the continent to 

collect specimens of interest to natural history (Osborn 

1937, Weiss 1936). Melsheimer, mentioned above, 

published the first book on American entomology in 

1806 (Osborn 1937). Say published on hessian fly 

as early as 1816, peachtree borer in 1828, and cotton 

leafworm [Alabama argillacea (Hübner)] in 1828. His 

reports on the exploration’s findings were published 

in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 

of Philadelphia. [The society was organized in 1743 

under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin (Knoblauch 

et al. 1962).] Osborn (1937) suggested that if Say is the 

“Father of American Entomology,” surely Melsheimer 

should be the “Grandfather of American Entomology.” 

Federal funding and Congressional support were also 

provided in the early 19th century for the Smithsonian 

Institution. The Smithsonian Institution was established 

by Congress on August 10, 1848, as a trust from funds 

bequeathed to the United States from James Smithson, 

an English scientist. The purpose of the institution, 

per Smithson’s bequest, was to “increase and diffuse 

knowledge among men.” The institution performs, 

as part of its responsibilities, the essential work of 

insect preservation, identification, and systematics 

research as well as study of evolution and species 

diversity. Entomology in the Smithsonian Institution 

was initiated in the early days of its formation. Federal 

funding for this effort was a milestone in recognition of 

entomology at the national level. The program became 

formal with the appointment in 1881 of Charles V. 

Riley (Division of Entomology Chief) as Honorary 

Curator and with transfer of USDA insect collections to 

the Smithsonian the same year.

Early American Agricultural Interests

Agricultural practices in the early American Colonies, 

despite experimentation by individuals, remained 

basically the same as “Old World” crop production 

methods (Baker et al. 1963). However, the basic crops 

grown and the forms of tillage that dominated colonial 

agriculture for more than 200 years were those of 

Native Americans as adopted by the settlers (Sauer 

1941). Following the American Revolution, many 

of the new Nation’s leaders were farmers or came 

from farm backgrounds, and they were interested in 

improving agricultural production. Recognition of 

need for improvements in agriculture in the New World 

was inspired by the agricultural revolution in England 

during the 18th century and an overall increasing 

European interest in science (Wiser and Bowers 1981). 

Two well-known agricultural groups established by 

progressive farming interests in the United States were 

the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture 

and the South Carolina Society for Promoting 

Agriculture. Both societies were organized in 1785. 

Their objectives and those of other philosophical 

societies were to exchange information, communicate 

scientific improvements, and improve early American 

agriculture (Weiss 1936). Thereafter, societies with 

similar interests were developed in New York in 

1791, Massachusetts in 1792, and Connecticut in 

1794 (Knoblauch et al. 1962). Thus, during colonial 

times and shortly thereafter interests and progress in 

agriculture were largely a product of the societies that 

were established to exchange information, though 

it appears that the societies did little to advance 

entomology (Barnes 1985). 

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George 

Washington were members of the Philadelphia Society 

(Fletcher 1959). Washington’s Mount Vernon estate 

cultivated the spirit of scientific research. He worked to 

conserve his soil, diversified crops, and pioneered the 

use of new machinery. Similarly, to improve American 

agriculture Franklin and Jefferson brought back 

accounts of agricultural inventions and new agricultural 

materials from their travels in Europe. Jefferson was a 

farmer, and he used his Monticello estate in Virginia as 

an experimental farm (Baker et al. 1963). 

Though the groundswell of interest and recognition 

of need for research to provide new knowledge for 

the American farmer began with these and other early 

colonists, formal authority and responsibility for 

scientific activity in Federal agricultural research would 

not be implemented until the late 1800s. The growing 

need for agricultural study was probably helped by 

such advances as the invention of the steam-powered 

printing press in 1811, which resulted in the ability 

to produce inexpensive newspapers, magazines, and 

other publications for dissemination of agricultural 
6

information (Barnes 1985). The most important 

agriculture publications of the time were Cultivator, 

Country Gentleman, and American Agriculturalist. 

Damage caused by insects were frequently reported in 

local news outlets.

Federal Financial Support for Agriculture

The beginnings of Federal entomology in the 

United States obviously followed closely the early 

development of public and governmental agricultural 

interests. Formal focus on support for entomological 

and other agricultural sciences at the Federal level 

paralleled people’s activities, interests, and needs that 

were essential to the establishment of the United States 

and the growing requirement of the new country to 

provide food, fiber, and a healthy environment for its 

people. Formation of USDA was a result of a long 

series of changes and improvements in American 

farming (Baker et al. 1963). 

The American Revolution brought an awakening of the 

peoples’ need to become a self-sustaining country. As 

the new country’s first President, George Washington 

retained his interest in agriculture and in agricultural 

advances from England. Information was provided 

him through his continuing correspondence with two 

English farm leaders, Arthur Young and Sir John 

Sinclair (Edwards 1937). Young was the first secretary 

and Sinclair the first president of an English Board of 

Agriculture established in 1793 to survey the conditions 

of British agriculture and advise farmers of progress 

and needs. Sinclair became aware of Washington’s 

pending retirement and advised him to recommend a 

Board of Agriculture, or some similar institution, with 

agriculture societies for correspondence in the capital 

of each State. On December 7, 1796, in his last annual 

message to Congress, Washington urged the creation of 

a board of agriculture.

Washington’s request that the government support 

agriculture—the livelihood of the majority of the 

population—brought forth in Congress a ringing 

declaration on the need for government to develop 

information for the agricultural community. In spite 

of this enthusiastic response by Congress and urgings 

of important figures of the time such as John Quincy 

Adams and others, a Federal agricultural department 

would not become a reality until 1862, 66 years after 

Washington identified farmers’ need for help.

A House of Representatives committee did 

recommend, on January 11, 1797, the first proposal that 

an American Society of Agriculture be formed with a 

secretary to be paid by the government. The proposal 

never came to vote. Though this action stimulated 

development of a number of additional State and local 

agricultural organizations, Congress did not respond 

with appropriated Federal funds until March 3, 1839. 

On that date, $1,000 was designated for 1 year to 

collect agricultural statistics and for other agricultural 

purposes. This action followed establishment of the 

United States Patent Office on July 4, 1836, with 

appointment of Henry L. Ellsworth as commissioner. 

Ellsworth’s efforts in collecting and distributing seed to 

farmers at his own expense, his report to Congress, and 

requests for support for agriculture were major factors 

in the 1839 appropriation. Additional appropriations 

of $1,000 in 1842, $2,000 each in 1843 and 1844, and 

$3,000 in 1845 were a result of Ellsworth’s continuing 

efforts. Funding for agriculture on an annual basis 

was sporadic for several years thereafter. Ellsworth’s 

interest in agriculture was whetted by the many 

applications being submitted to the Patent Office for 

improved agricultural tools. He apparently established 

the Agricultural Division of the Patent Office to 

accommodate the patent applications for agricultural 

inventions and for seed collection (Moore 1967). 

U.S. Patent Office and Professional 

Entomology’s Beginnings at Federal and 

State Levels

The Patent Office became part of the newly established 

Department of the Interior on March 3, 1849. Federal 

entomology had its beginning when Townend Glover, 

an entomologist, was appointed on June 14, 1854, to 

the Agricultural Division of the Patent Office to collect 

statistics on seeds, fruits, and insects (Fernald 1896, 

table 1). He served in that capacity until 1859, when 

he resigned to teach entomology at the Agriculture 

College of Maryland. It is surprising to the author 

that Glover has not been given the title of “Father of 

Federal Entomology.” His work on seeds, fruits, and 

insects and curatorship of his natural history collection 

following his resignation in 1859 apparently continued 

until he was again hired following establishment 

of USDA and transfer of responsibilities of the 

Agricultural Division of the Patent Office to the new 

Department. In effect, the Agricultural Division of the 

Patent Office became the Department of Agriculture 

(Moore 1967). 
7

In the first half of the 19th century, interest in 

entomology increased in the States because of increases 

in damage and recognition of the influence of pest 

insects on crop growth and production. Thaddeus 

W. Harris published his report on The Insects of 

Massachusetts Injurious to Vegetation in 1841. 

Harris’ work was authorized by a State commission 

from which he received $175 (Montgomery 1955). 

Thus, Harris probably became the first person in the 

United States to be monetarily rewarded for work 

in entomology. Accordingly, he has been called the 

“Father of Economic Entomology” (Smith 1989). His 

writings identified and provided remedial suggestions 

for over 50 injurious insect species. This number would 

increase to 209 by 1925, 85 of which attacked fruit 

crops (Waite et al. 1926). 

Asa Fitch’s appointment in 1854 in the State of New 

York followed the New York State Legislature’s 

approval in 1853 of $1,000 for examination of insects 

injurious to vegetation (Howard 1930). Thus, the 

year 1854 has special meaning to entomologists. 

Fitch’s appointment for $1,000 in New York and that 

of Glover for an unknown amount by the Federal 

government in the same year may have been the 

first action recognizing entomology as a profession. 

However, W.D. Peck was employed in 1805 at Harvard 

University to lecture on natural history (Osborn 

1937). It is difficult to believe, with his interests, 

that entomological information was not part of the 

curriculum. As a librarian at Harvard, T.W. Harris also 

taught an entomology course from 1831–1842, but 

attendance was voluntary. 

Congressional Actions Affecting 

Agricultural Development and Science

Three United States legislative acts of importance to 

entomology and American agriculture were passed in 

1862. These acts provide for an efficient and productive 

Federal-State agricultural community able to feed 

and clothe people and protect animal and plant health 

in the United States and many other nations. USDA 

was established as a result of the Agriculture Organic 

Act passed by Congress and signed by President 

Abraham Lincoln on May 15, 1862 (Baker et al. 1963, 

Rasmusson and Baker 1962). The new law established 

at the seat of Government of the United States, a 

Department of Agriculture, the general designs and 

duties of which were to acquire and to diffuse among 

the people of the United States useful information on 

subjects connected with agriculture, and to procure, 

propagate, and distribute among the people new and 

valuable seeds and plants.

The Homestead Act, approved by Lincoln on May 20, 

1862, opened half a continent to the plow (Stefferud 

1962). The Act provided 160 acres of public land to 

the head of a family after the land had been cleared, 

improved, and lived on for 5 years. Though need 

for agricultural colleges had been expressed in the 

1840s (Knoblauch et al. 1962), passage of the Act 

primed the pump again in recognizing need to provide 

agricultural information, education, and technology 

transfer to American farmers. Michigan established the 

first agricultural college in 1855, seven years before 

the Morrill Land Grant Act (Knoblauch et al. 1962). 

Funding for the college was supported by endowments 

and private donations. 

The Morrill Land Grant Act, passed by Congress 

on July 2, 1862, donated public land to States for 

establishment of colleges to benefit American 

agriculture and mechanic arts. The Act provided 

the opportunity for educational facilities to provide 

knowledge to improve agricultural technology. Iowa 

in 1862 was the first State to accept funding for 

establishment of a college under the Morrill Land Grant 

Act (Baker et al. 1963). Massachusetts Agricultural 

College became a reality in 1863 (University of 

Massachusetts 2005). Indiana accepted the Morrill Act 

land grant funds in 1865, selected the college site in 

1869, and registered its first students in 1874 (Deay 

1955). By 1872, 35 States had received the endowment 

of land scrip prescribed in the Act (Watts 1872). 

A milestone in development of entomology as a 

science in the experiment stations was establishment 

of the first entomology department in 1874 at Cornell 

University under the leadership of John H. Comstock. 

Formation of agricultural educational systems 

nationwide had major influence on development of 

agricultural and other sciences, including entomology. 

Though the Morrill Act provided facilities for teaching 

of agricultural science, it would be 25 years before 

State agricultural experiment stations with research 

responsibilities would become a reality in the land 

grant agricultural system. 

Following passage of the Land Grant Act, some farm 

leaders and government officials questioned the need 

for experiment station research as part of the academic 

community. Others stressed that research was a vital 
8

component that provided scientific knowledge essential 

to improving agriculture. The extended debates 

concerning the issues of agricultural research delayed 

development of State experiment stations until the 

Hatch Act, which provided Federal aid, passed on 

March 2, 1887. The Morrill Act created the essential 

teaching link for providing knowledge to equip 

scientists with the tools for research implementation, 

but the long wait for facility funding to complete the 

circle from teaching to research implementation was 

frustrating to the scientific community. 

Interest in agricultural research and the experiment 

station concept began in Europe and was first fostered 

in America through the philosophical societies. 

The European initiative to put scientists to work for 

agriculture began in the 1840s (Knoblauch et al. 1962). 

The experiment station concept in America was first 

adopted in 1856 in New York by early American 

agricultural enthusiasts following their experiences 

in experiment stations in England, Scotland, and 

Germany. Connecticut, in 1875, provided financial 

support to establish the first agricultural experiment 

station in the United States at Wesleyan University, 

Middletown, CT. California also established an 

experiment station in 1875, as did North Carolina in 

1877, Massachusetts in 1878, and New York and New 

Jersey in 1880 (Moore 1967). Iowa established its 

experiment station on March 2, 1888. Fourteen State 

experiment stations were established before the 1887 

passage of the Hatch Act. 

Much later, on May 8, 1914, the Smith-Lever Act 

provided that extension work be administered 

cooperatively by USDA and State agricultural colleges. 

This Act provided for instruction and practical 

demonstrations on agriculture and home economics 

in communities and provided agricultural information 

through field demonstrations, publications, and 

other methods. The means to bring new agricultural 

research information to consumers and stakeholders 

on a timely basis was finally established. Memoranda 

of understanding between USDA and States firmly 

established that all extension work with USDA funding 

would be carried out through the State colleges of 

agriculture.

Entomology research and other entomology programs 

in the land grant university systems, private educational 

institutions, and agricultural and other associated 

industries paralleled that occurring at the in-house 

Federal level. Histories of State entomologists 

from the mid-1800s and experiment station 

entomology activities through 1937 were published 

by Howard (1930) and Osborn (1937). Also, much 

of the background and leadership of these and other 

entomologically oriented organizations during 1889 

to 1939 is presented in the proceedings of the Joint 

Session of the American Association of Economic 

Entomologists (AAEE) with the Entomological Society 

of America (ESA) in the “Symposium of Fifty Years 

of Entomological Progress” (Journal of Economic 

Entomology, vol. 33, 1940) and by various contributors 

in the Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 

1989 (vol. 3) that deals with the centennial celebration 

of the society’s founding. 

Additionally, Smith (1989) traced and reviewed 

important events affecting ESA from 1889 to 1989. 

His stated objective was to review the setting in which 

the discipline of entomology emerged in the United 

States. Smith’s presentation accomplished many things, 

including commendation and congratulation for some 

of the outstanding past and contemporary Federal 

and State leadership and constructive identification 

of areas of need and improvement. He also provided 

a retrospective of the first 100 years of ESA and its 

predecessor organization, an invaluable assessment of 

entomology as a science, and its internal conflict with 

implementation of its developed technology and the 

associated responsibility for the environment. 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA)

As a result of the Organic Act, USDA was formed on 

May 15, 1862, and Isaac Newton was sworn in as the 

first Commissioner of Agriculture on July 1, 1862. His 

staff (nine employees) were the members of the former 

Agricultural Division of the United States Patent 

Office, Department of the Interior. (For comparison and 

perspective, USDA in 2004 employed about 110,000 

people.) The Organic Act charged the Commissioner 

of Agriculture with the responsibility to acquire and 

preserve all information on agriculture that he could 

by means of books, correspondence, and scientific 

experiments. 

Scientific efforts in the early years of USDA were 

useful, but very little bona fide research was done 

before 1890 (Moore 1967). Most of the scientists 

were kept busy on service work—analyzing soils, 
9

marl, manure, and crops; classifying plants; making 

observations on crops and insects; trying new crops; 

and answering inquiries from farmers. Commissioners 

appointed in the early developmental stages of USDA 

were not research oriented, and the slow Federal 

progress in developing research programs encouraged 

the States to expand the State experiment station 

system. This complex of events probably does much to 

explain the issues of duplication of effort and research 

responsibilities of State and Federal organizations that 

remain in never-ending debate (Knoblauch et al. 1962).

Heads of USDA were designated Commissioners until 

February 9, 1889, when the Department was elevated 

to Cabinet level and the Secretary title was adopted 

(Baker et al. 1963). 

Newton defined objectives in his first report for USDA:

•	 Collecting, arranging, and publishing statistical and 

other useful agricultural information

•	 Introducing valuable plants and animals

•	 Answering inquiries of farmers regarding 

agriculture

•	 Testing agricultural implements

•	 Conducting chemical analyses of soils, grains, 

fruits, plants, vegetables, and manures

•	 Establishing a professorship of botany and 

entomology

•	 Establishing an agricultural library and museum

These objectives were similar to those outlined by 

Congress in establishing USDA. Glover’s talents and 

his work in the Patent Office were known to Newton, 

and he was hired in the new USDA. The first botanist 

in the department, Charles C. Parry, was not hired until 

1872.

USDA in 1863 consisted of six rooms that were 

formerly the offices of the Agriculture Division in the 

Patent Office Building (Rasmussen and Baker 1962). 

These rooms housed a horticulturist, a chemist, an 

entomologist (Glover), a statistician, an editor, and 24 

other employees. 

A propagating garden in Washington, DC, between 

Madison and Adams Drives and Fourth and Sixth 

Streets, and areas between Independence and 

Constitution Avenues and 12th and 14th Streets, 

served as an experimental farm. The latter property 

was transferred to USDA when the army no longer 

needed it as a cattle yard. Funds appropriated in 1867 

financed the 1868 construction of the USDA building, 

which served as headquarters until 1930. Congressional 

appropriations in 1897 and 1912 provided for 

construction of portions of the current Department 

buildings to accommodate some of the nearly 14,000 

employees that made up the Department staff by 1912. 

Arlington Farm, 400 acres in Rosslyn, VA, was 

established by an Act of Congress in 1900 that 

transferred the land from the War Department to 

USDA. The site was used by the Bureau of Plant 

Industry until 1941, when it was transferred back to the 

War Department for construction of the Pentagon. Onsite Arlington Farm experimental work was transferred 

to Beltsville, MD, in 1941. 

The Beltsville facility began with the purchase of 475 

acres of land in 1910 to be used as a demonstration 

farm for the Bureau of Animal Industry. Beltsville 

ultimately became the present day Agricultural 

Research Center of more than 10,000 acres. In 

1934, the Secretary of Agriculture announced 

plans for several Bureaus to conduct activities at 

Beltsville. Work on animal diseases in Bethesda, MD; 

experimental greenhouse plant propagation on the 

Washington Mall between 13th and 14th streets; bee 

culture at Somerset, MD; and insect control at Takoma 

Park, MD, were specifically mentioned for relocation 

to Beltsville. Beltsville became the Beltsville Research 

Center in 1934, the first of several name changes: 

National Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville 

Research Center again, Agricultural Research Center, 

and Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Since 

2000, it has been the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville 

Agricultural Research Center. 

USDA’s activities were not fully accepted by all in the 

Federal establishment as a high priority for government 

(Moore 1967). In the early years of USDA, Senate 

debates following submittal of a bill to elevate the 

organization to Cabinet level suggested that Cabinet 

posts were for essential government activities and that 

fostering agriculture was in no sense essential to the 

government of the country. 

USDA’s Division of Entomology

Until the early 1900s, USDA consisted of the Bureaus 

of Animal Industry and Weather, which conducted 

some research. Other scientific work, including 

entomology, took place in discipline-oriented, problemsolving divisions. The head of each division and 

Bureau reported directly to the Commissioner, and later 
10

Secretary, of Agriculture. As the first Commissioner 

of Agriculture, Newton formed the Division of 

Entomology with Glover as Federal Entomologist 

(Baker et al. 1963). Glover served as Federal 

Entomologist until 1878 (Dodge 1888). 

Glover’s interest in establishing a museum meshed 

nicely with the charge for USDA from Congress and 

one of the Commissioner’s objectives. The natural 

history collections assembled by Glover during his 

time in the Patent Office formed the base for the 

Agricultural Museum established by Commissioner 

Newton on August 1, 1864 (Baker et al. 1963). The 

collection was housed in USDA until 1905, when it 

was taken over by the Smithsonian Institution and other 

organizations. The insect collections of the Agricultural 

Museum had been transferred to the Smithsonian in 

1881. 

Glover’s contribution to development of the 

Agricultural Museum had far-reaching effects in 

support of the Smithsonian Institution. His many duties 

and responsibilities as Curator of Natural History 

Collections severely compromised his ability to do 

original entomological study, but his 1865 report to 

the Commissioner of Agriculture on the potential 

importance of European insect introductions into the 

United States and the need to inspect all plant materials 

entering the country was a landmark in concern for 

exotic pest problems (Howard 1930, Rainwater and 

Parencia 1981). Glover’s warning, as history records, 

was completely justified. Recent estimates suggest that 

invasive species cost the American public more than 

$100 billion annually (Faust 2001). Until 1800 only 

about 36 insects were identified as invasive species 

(Simberloff 1986, Simberloff et al. 1997, Sakai et al. 

2001). Capinera (2002) reported that Europe was the 

principal origin of nonindigenous vegetable pests in 

North America. Establishment of invasive species in 

the United States peaked during 1850–1899. Recently 

the increasing importance of invasive species was 

recognized in the establishment of the Invasive Species 

Council in 1999 by Presidential Executive Order 

13112. The objective of the council is to develop an 

Invasive Species Management Plan (Faust 2001).

Charles V. Riley, the second Federal Entomologist, had 

established a reputation for excellent entomological 

work as the State Entomologist of Missouri prior to 

his appointment in USDA. Riley’s concern for the 

effects of the Rocky Mountain locust [Melanoplus 

spretus (Walsh)] outbreak on the economy of grainproducing States gained him early national recognition. 

His actions were instrumental in getting the 1876 

Congress to appropriate money to establish the United 

States Entomological Commission in 1877 (Baker 

et al. 1963). In his 1874 annual report to the State of 

Missouri, Riley devoted considerable time to describing 

the depredations of grasshoppers, which resulted in 

losses of millions of dollars each year. He suggested 

that Congress establish a commission to attend to 

grasshopper, chinch bug, cotton leafworm, and other 

insects causing widespread damage. Riley further 

suggested that commission members be chosen by the 

National Academy of Science and approved by the 

Secretary of the Treasury (Howard 1930). 

Two bills were introduced in Congress in early 1876 

providing $5,000 per year for each of five scientists. 

Neither bill passed, but a more modest appropriation 

was approved in March 1876 providing $18,000 to 

the Director of the Geological Survey to be spent by 

three scientists to investigate Rocky Mountain locust. 

Reduced appropriations of $10,000 were approved in 

both 1878 and 1879. The purpose of the commission 

was to study grasshoppers, which were causing severe 

damage to rangeland and other vegetation in the 

West. Riley served as its first chief. Other commission 

members were Alpheus Packard and Cyrus Thomas. 

The commission produced seven bulletins: two on 

grasshoppers; one each on cotton leafworm, Hessian 

fly, and chinch bug; a general index to reports and 

insects of Missouri; and the last a treatise on insects 

injurious to forest and shade trees. 

Riley had become so well known as a national 

entomological figure that he was appointed to succeed 

Glover as Federal Entomologist in June 1878. Riley 

brought Theodore Pergrande and Eugene A. Schwartz 

with him from Missouri and also hired Leland O. 

Howard from Cornell in 1878 to assist in entomological 

work. Howard would become chief of the division and 

Bureau in later years. 

Cotton leafworm had become a serious cotton pest. 

During his first year as Federal Entomologist Riley 

hired John H. Comstock, then teaching at Cornell 

University, as a special agent to work with him in the 

summer of 1878 on the cotton leafworm problem. 

Work on cotton leafworm and other cotton insects was 

later transferred to the United States Entomological 

Commission. Riley resigned as Federal Entomologist 

in March 1879 but retained his office as Chief of the 

Entomological Commission until March 1881. He also 
11

continued working on cotton insects and published 

on cotton leafworm and bollworm [Helicoverpa zea

(Boddie)] in entomological commission reports. 

From 1879 to 1881, Comstock, on leave of absence 

from Cornell, served as Federal Entomologist. 

He continued to work on the reports of the cotton 

leafworm from observations made in 1878 in 

cooperation with Riley. In 1881, Riley returned to the 

Division of Entomology and remained chief until 1894. 

All functions of the Entomological Commission were 

gradually absorbed into the Division of Entomology 

(Osborn 1937). Comstock’s influence on many 

phases of entomology following his return to Cornell 

University is legendary. Much has been speculated 

on how his continued leadership would have affected 

development and direction of entomology at the 

Federal level had he remained chief of the Division of 

Entomology. 

Most of the division’s entomological work following 

Riley’s return focused on chinch bug, Hessian fly, 

codling moth, plum curculio, hop aphid [Phorodon 

humuli (Schrank)], and grasshoppers (Howard 1930). 

Entomology at the Federal level, however, was 

expanding rapidly. The division broadened its scope 

with the hiring of Albert Koebele in 1882, Daniel W. 

Coquillet in 1885, Charles L. Marlatt in 1888, and 

Francis Chittenden in 1891. Koebele distinguished 

himself with his work on biological control, Coquillet 

on citrus insects, Marlatt on insecticides and 

application equipment, and Chittenden on truck crop 

entomology. 

Interestingly, Howard (1930) reported that for a brief 

period, a Branch of Ornithology was an organizational 

entity of the Division of Entomology. The organization 

later became the Division of Economic Ornithology 

and Mammalogy from 1886 to 1896 and the Division 

of Biological Survey from 1896 to 1905. The reason for 

assigning ornithology to the Division of Entomology 

remains unknown, but appears to have been related 

to an interest in the value of birds to farmers as 

destroyers of injurious insects. Also, and probably 

more importantly, the American Ornithologist’s Union, 

with Riley’s help, obtained a $5,000 appropriation for 

study of the English sparrow problem and therefore the 

money was designated for the Division of Entomology. 

With increased responsibility for research on bird and 

animal migration, the Bureau of Biological Survey was 

established on July 1, 1905. Research expanded further 

to include wildlife conservation and environmental 

interactions. Ultimately on July 1, 1939, the Bureau of 

Biological Survey was transferred to the Department of 

the Interior and merged with the Bureau of Fisheries to 

become the Fish and Wildlife Service (Moore 1967). 

At some time during the early days of the Division of 

Entomology and for many years thereafter, “agents” 

were commissioned in various areas to perform highpriority tasks related to important entomological 

issues of the time that needed verification or additional 

information. Some of the earliest references to agents 

temporarily hired for special entomology tasks date 

from Riley’s tenure. During the period of 1881 to 1885 

the Division of Entomology budget increased from 

$7,000 to $42,900 (Dupree 1957). Some of the funds 

apparently were expended for assistants (agents) who 

were employed to visit areas of insect outbreaks at 

various locations in the Nation, and their observations 

and recommendations contributed greatly to solving the 

problems. A few, but by no means all, of the appointees 

who also distinguished themselves throughout their 

careers in entomology at other institutions or in 

permanent Federal positions were J.H. Comstock, 

who was employed as an agent in Alabama, Herbert 

Osborn in Iowa, Francis M. Webster in Indiana, and 

Henry C. Hubbard and William H. Ashmead in Florida; 

in each case the agent investigated and reported on 

insect problems in his area. A working association 

may have existed between special agents, field agents, 

and field stations, all of which were discontinued 

in 1894 by Secretary of Agriculture Julius Sterling 

Morton (Osborn 1937). The reason for discontinuing 

the program remains unknown, but was most likely 

due to lack of funding, though program redirection 

or reduction may have also been considerations. In 

retrospect, the decision was poorly advised. Only a few 

of many outstanding entomologists that participated 

in the program are mentioned above, but they provide 

outstanding testimony to its contributions.

Riley became involved in practical aspects of 

controlling injurious insects to prevent crop damage. 

From Glover’s earliest work, which included 

agricultural statistics, collections of insects and seed, 

and early identifications and life histories of pest 

insects and their natural enemies, Federal entomology 

has been charged with problem-solving focused on 

improvement of food and fiber crops and animal 

production by increasing yields and quality and 

improving animal health. 
12

Riley recognized a need to control damaging insect 

infestations and the potential of insecticides for the 

purpose. Available materials were not very effective 

(Howard 1930). As an editorial comment in the 

first issue of Practical Entomologist, Cresson et 

al. (1865) stated, “Quack remedies were exploited 

and most entomologists frowned on the idea of 

insecticides. Agricultural journals have from year 

to year presented through their columns various 

recipes as preventive of the attacks or destructive to 

the life of curculio, apple-moth, squash-bug, or other 

pests. The majority of the proposed decoctions and 

washes were considered useless.” The authors further 

suggested that if the destruction of insects is to be 

accomplished satisfactorily, it will have to be the result 

not of chemical preparations, but of simple means 

directed by a knowledge of the history and habits of the 

depredators. 

In general, methods of controlling vegetable insects 

in the early 20th century stressed identification of the 

insect, characterization of the injury, natural control 

(abiotic and biotic), production inputs, and hostplant resistance as potential methods for controlling 

pest infestations (Waite et al. 1926). The chemical 

component of insect control methodology was used 

cautiously. Insect pest populations were known to be 

held in check by natural agents and could be reduced 

by cultural means. When it became necessary to 

combat them with chemicals in the form of dusts, 

sprays, baits, or fumigants, such methods were 

acknowledged as expensive and not always satisfactory, 

but valuable because they were the only means of 

relief once the crop or product became infested. This 

approach, with little modification, would do credit 

to the most discerning of current-day integrated pest 

management specialists.

The standard insecticides in the 1870s and 1880s 

were paris green and london purple for gnawing 

insects, kerosene-soap emulsion for sucking insects, 

and pyrethrum for household insects. These remained 

for many years the chemical tools of the economic 

entomologist (Howard 1930). Waite et al. (1926) 

referred to lime-sulfur concentrate, nicotine sulfate, 

kerosene emulsion, lubricating oil emulsion, lead and 

calcium arsenate. and paris green as the more important 

insecticides available at the time. Klassen and Schwartz 

(1985), Klassen (1989), and Kenaga (1989) suggest that 

little new occurred in insecticide chemistry until carbon 

tetrachloride, chloropicrin, and paradichlorobenzene 

fumigants were discovered between 1908 and 1911. 

The more notable insecticide discoveries had their 

beginning about 1942. The public reaction of nearpanic proportions to the devastations of Colorado 

potato beetle in the 1860s, gypsy moth [Lymantria 

dispar (L.)] beginning in 1892, and boll weevil in the 

1890s provided near-perfect perceptions of disasters in 

the making that encouraged insecticide use. Concern 

for safety of insecticides and resources, particularly 

on edible commodities, began with the increase in 

insecticide use. Busbey (1962) reported that the search 

for more effective, safer insecticides began in Federal 

laboratories in the late 1920s and continued through 

the mid-1950s, when redirections to fund nonchemical 

control methods took higher priority. 

Even with the concerns for the safe use of insecticides, 

the public’s fear of insect losses resulted in—and 

often continues to result in—acceptance of the 

widespread use of arsenicals in the 1800s and other 

insecticides at later dates. The evolution throughout 

the era of increasing insecticide resistance, harmful 

effects of residues on nontarget organisms, and other 

environmental assaults is well documented. These 

problems developed despite warnings from the few 

scientists who predicted resistance and other adverse 

effects (Smith 1989). The euphoria associated with the 

“quick fix” insecticide approach was shared by most 

of the entomological community, not only that of the 

agriculturally oriented economic entomologists. 

Misuse, overuse, and plain error in implementation 

of scientific technology for chemical control of pests 

were real. However, the entomological community’s 

total assumption of the stigma associated with chemical 

control and its adverse environmental impacts has been 

abundantly overextended and must be ameliorated by 

extensive recent evidence of changes in the focus of 

entomology, education, research, and extension that 

has resulted in significant progress and intensified 

development of ecologically oriented integrated pest 

management (IPM) for some major pests. An active, 

highly competent group of entomologists and other 

scientists are making significant progress in refining 

and developing new pest-management systems. New, 

more selective chemistries, resistance management, 

sampling, action thresholds, and other technologies 

are being employed to develop safe, efficient, effective 

use of chemical control in IPM. The current-day 

entomological community is keenly aware of social, 

environmental, and economic considerations in pest 

management.
13

Returning to Riley, perhaps the most notable of his 

achievements was his support of exploration and 

introduction of natural enemies for biological control 

of insect pests. He was responsible for initiation of 

classical biological control in Federal entomology. 

During 1883 and 1884 Riley encouraged importation 

of the natural enemy Cotesia glomerata (L.) into the 

United States for control of imported cabbageworm 

[Pieris rapae (L.)] (Coulson et al. 2000). This was 

the first insect parasite of foreign origin imported for 

establishment in the United States. The most famous 

example of his biocontrol initiatives is Koebele’s 

importation of vedalia beetle [Rhodalia cardinalis

(Mulsant)] from Australia into California in 1888 

for control of cottony-cushion scale [Icerya purchasi 

Maskall]. Doutt (1964) commented that though the 

biological control method antedated the introduction of 

vedalia beetle, it is everywhere agreed that this project 

against cottony-cushion scale established the procedure 

as a valid method of pest control. 

The value of biological control has been so widely 

acclaimed that since 1919 foreign parasite introduction 

laboratories have been located in 19 or more different 

countries and Puerto Rico to work on biological control 

of numerous insect pests (Vail et al. 2001). Quarantine 

facilities are currently located in six States to handle 

and clear imported beneficial insects for use in the 

United States. 

Though the potential of biological control was clearly 

recognized, until 1934 all USDA foreign explorations, 

introductions, and releases of natural enemies were 

handled independently by commodity-oriented units of 

the entomology sections, branches, investigations, and 

Bureaus (Coulson et al. 2000). 

Riley also recognized natural resistance to insect attack 

in some plants. He recommended grafting European 

grapes susceptible to grape phylloxera [Daktulosphaira

vitifoliae (Fitch)] onto resistant American rootstock 

(Hooker 1929, Summers 1925). His role in saving the 

French wine industry was rewarded with the French 

Order of Merit in Agriculture. In spite of this success 

and a report of wheat varieties resistant to Hessian 

fly (Havens 1792) and later a wheat selected for leaf 

rust resistance that also provided resistance to Hessian 

fly, opportunities for developing resistant plants by 

selective breeding were not pursued extensively until 

Painter published his book, Insect Resistance in Crop 

Plants.

Throughout his career, Riley also played a role in 

publication and documentation of entomological study. 

The first journal in the United States that addressed 

applied entomology was Practical Entomologist, 

published from 1865 to 1867 by the Entomological 

Society of Philadelphia (later named the American 

Entomological Society). With its demise, Riley and 

Benjamin D. Walsh initiated American Entomologist in 

1868 (American Entomologist and Botanist after 1869). 

American Entomologist and Botanist was discontinued 

in 1879. Riley revived it in 1880 as American 

Entomologist: An Illustrated Magazine of Popular and 

Practical Entomology. 

Smith (1989) wrote that Riley was a strong proponent 

of the 1887 Hatch Act, which provided Federal 

financing for State experiment stations. Following 

passage of the Act, Riley was quick to advocate 

formation of an organization to establish entomological 

professionalism in agriculture. He instructed his 

assistant L.O. Howard, with the help of James Fletcher, 

to develop documents and convene a conference to 

be held in conjunction with the American Association 

for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in 

1889 to consider such an organization. Fletcher was 

President of the Entomological Club, a special interest 

group formed in 1872 in association with AAAS, 

which was formed in 1847. At the meeting Riley 

was elected president of the Association of Official 

Economic Entomologists (AOEE), S.A. Forbes and 

Albert J. Cook were elected vice-presidents, and John 

B. Smith became secretary. AOEE was later named the 

Association of Economic Entomologists and finally 

the American Association of Economic Entomologists 

(AAEE)

Riley also became the first editor of Insect Life, which 

published the proceedings of the AOEE. Insect Life

was published by USDA beginning in 1888 and 

continuing to 1895 (Smith 1989). 

The congressional mandate for USDA to collect, 

analyze, and publish statistical and other useful 

agricultural information has been closely followed 

throughout its history. For entomology, when Insect 

Life was discontinued, it was promised that in its 

place USDA would publish two series of bulletins, 

one technical in nature and the other of more general 

interest (Howard 1897a). AAEE proceedings were 

published in USDA Bulletins from 1895 until 1907 

(7th to 19th annual meetings). It is small wonder 

that biographers account Riley as more than an 
14

entomologist, describing him with the talents of an 

artist, poet, writer, journalist, linguist, naturalist, and 

philosopher (Wood 2005).

Throughout their history, Federal entomology programs 

have interacted with, supported, and complemented 

State programs. These relationships were facilitated 

by enactment of the Hatch Act on March 2, 1887. 

Riley’s early involvement in establishing a professional 

entomological organization and working closely 

with State entomologists provided for lasting and 

productive cooperation. Entomological activities were 

established within the Department of Agriculture’s 

Office of Experiment Stations in 1888. The name 

was changed to Office of Extension Service on May 

8, 1914, and to State Experiment Stations Division, 

Agricultural Research Service, in 1953. In 1961, the 

organization became known as the Cooperative State 

Research Service and is currently the Cooperative 

State Research, Education, and Extension Service 

(CSREES). 

The mission of CSREES is to advance knowledge 

about agriculture, the environment, human health 

and well-being, and communities (Rockey 2004). To 

accomplish this, CSREES provides program leadership 

to identify, develop, and manage programs that support 

university-based or other organizationally based 

agricultural research, education, and extension and 

provides Federal assistance for such activities though 

grants and agreements. 

CSREES and preceding organizations have played 

important roles in development of American, as well 

as worldwide, agricultural entomology research and 

technology transfer through education and through 

cooperative extramural research efforts and other 

activities with State and other agencies. The book 

State Agricultural Experiment Stations: A History 

of Research Policy and Procedure by Knoblauch et 

al. (1962) is a source of information on policy and 

legislation enabling and implementing growth of the 

agricultural experiment station concept as part of the 

land grant college system. Throughout their histories, 

Federal and State research organizations have engaged 

in dialogue to establish the roles of their scientists 

in the agricultural community, their responsibilities 

and priorities, and the limits of each organization’s 

involvement at local levels.

In 1894, Howard succeeded Riley as chief of the 

Division of Entomology. Spilman (1989) considered 

Howard one of the giants in the history of entomology 

and a man of wit, a raconteur, a diplomat, an 

accomplished administrator, and a great economic 

entomologist. Howard expanded Federal interests 

into economic aspects of insect problems that affect 

agricultural production as well as other entomological 

areas. Charles L. Marlatt from Kansas State Agriculture 

College had been employed in the Division of 

Entomology since 1888. He became the first assistant 

and subsequently associate entomologist of the 

division. 

In 1897, the entomological work of the Federal 

government was conducted in a single laboratory in 

the District of Columbia. Early research consisted 

of species identifications, life history studies, and 

development of control methods. Four events in the last 

decade of the nineteenth century had a profound effect 

on the perception of the importance and direction of 

Federal entomology (Howard 1930):

•	 Discovery of gypsy moth in Massachusetts

•	 Discovery of San Jose scale [Quadraspidiotus 

perniciosus (Comstock)] in the eastern United 

States

•	 Discovery of Mexican boll weevil in Texas,

•	 Discovery that malaria was carried and transmitted 

by mosquitoes

San Jose scale, more than any insect pest of the past, 

stimulated worldwide development of insect control 

interests and eradication efforts (Marlatt 1940). Its 

presence stimulated “quarantine consciousness.” 

The first quarantine regulation in the United States 

was enacted in California in 1881. The Federal Plant 

Quarantine Act was not established until 1912. 

The diversified areas of insect involvement identified 

by Howard and their potential for damaging food 

and fiber production and human health fueled a 

desire to increase the quality and quantity of research 

towards solving these threats. Howard’s enthusiasm 

for entomology and his writings highlighted public 

awareness of entomological problems (Sollers 1952). 

While Riley pioneered the area of natural and 

biological control of insects, Howard expanded and 

developed these areas as well as uncovering the 

role of insects in relation to human disease. He was 

among the first scientists to document the dangers of 

insect-borne diseases to humans (Howard 1909). His 

discovery that kerosene could be used in mosquito 

control captured the attention of the Army and public 
15

health officials battling yellow fever (Moore 1947). 

Howard (1902) also initiated some of the first efforts 

in Federal entomology to consider microbial control 

of insect pests. His introductions of fungal cultures 

for grasshopper control were among the first of many 

attempts to use exotic organisms in insect control. The 

early recognition of honeybee and silkworm diseases 

and USDA’s investigations of milky disease for control 

of Japanese beetle [Popillia japonica Newman (White 

and Dutky 1940)] were credited for drawing attention 

to the potential of micro-organisms in biological 

control (Steinhaus 1964). 

Howard’s support for applied economic entomology 

is well illustrated in his writings in 1897 and 1898 

concerning gypsy moth and San Jose scale. Gypsy 

moth was brought into the United States from Europe 

and accidentally released in 1869 at Medford, MA, but 

for various reasons it did not become of concern until 

1889. All of the gypsy moth work was done under State 

authority and with Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

funds. Federal funds were requested (1894–1895), 

but Congress did not respond until 1896–1897 when 

appropriations were made for USDA to document 

the ravages of gypsy moth and evaluate the research 

approaches that were undertaken to solve the problem 

(Howard 1897b). After a detailed study, Howard 

concluded that the efforts of Massachusetts would 

rank as one of the great experiments in economic 

entomology. Howard further concluded that the State’s 

appropriation for extermination in lieu of management 

was justified and extermination was possible and within 

sight with continued appropriations. Unfortunately, 

State funding was terminated in 1901, and the gypsy 

moth infestation expanded to include 400 square miles 

of Massachusetts forests within a short time and a 

much greater area in later years.

Howard (1898) wrote that San Jose scale was the first 

pest in economic entomology to excite so much public 

interest in the United States; and in view of that it 

aroused the fruit-growing population of the country to 

a sense of the value of entomological investigations, 

it brought about legislation against injurious insects 

in a number of States, and it alone was responsible 

for an appeal for national legislation, not only by the 

horticulturalists of the country but also by dealers in 

nursery stock. To Howard the advent of the pest had 

been far from an unmixed evil. 

The Division of Entomology consisted of a few 

assistants and field agents when Howard assumed 

leadership in 1894 (Osborn 1937). During Howard’s 33 

years, the division became the Bureau of Entomology 

employing several hundred people in various States. 

Howard’s broad interest in public health and safety and 

his international relationships resulted in the Bureau’s 

increasing influence and improved service to include a 

higher level and scope of the scientific community.

Budget appropriations to accomplish the everexpanding Federal entomological goals, as well as to 

address other agricultural concerns, were increased 

in most cases each year from 1879 to 1930. Funding 

for the Division of Entomology in 1879 was $10,000. 

Annual amounts varied thereafter through 1900, 

and increased fairly regularly through 1930. The 

growth of all USDA programs with more diverse 

responsibilities resulted in recognition of the need 

for reorganization to facilitate communication and 

efficiency. The organization of USDA at the end of the 

19th century with only two Bureaus—Animal Industry 

and Weather—was viewed as inadequate to serve the 

Nation’s agricultural needs. The Bureau of Animal 

Industry was established in 1884 and the Weather 

Bureau in 1891 (Baker et al. 1963). There were other 

independent Federal scientific organizations that were 

considered by many in executive and congressional 

positions as unwieldy, difficult to organize, and 

operationally autonomous. Because of congressional 

concern for the need to intensify and expand research, 

divisions with similar goals and objectives were 

combined in 1901 to form four Bureaus: Plant Industry, 

Soils, Chemistry, and Forestry. Additionally, some 

divisions were consolidated into the Bureau of Animal 

Industry. The Bureau of Statistics was established in 

1903, and the Bureau of Biological Survey in 1905. 

The Division of Entomology was also targeted for 

restructuring, but remained an independent entity 

because Howard stressed his view of the division’s 

importance and the need for a visible Federal 

entomology community (Howard 1930). In 1902, as 

a result of the expanding role of Federal entomology 

and apparently increasing political pressure, Associate 

Division Chief Charles L. Marlatt prepared, at 

Howard’s request, an organizational structure to 

accommodate the subject areas of the existing 

entomology. The organizational structure maintained 

entomology’s visibility. The suggested organizational 

structure was included in the 1902 annual Division 

of Entomology report to the Secretary of Agriculture 

with the recommendation for its adoption by the 

1904 Congressional Appropriation Committee. 
16

Apparently, the work of the Division was organized 

and assigned as described in Marlatt’s 1902 report 

before Congress not only accepted the organizational 

structure but elevated it to Bureau status on July 1, 

1904. Congressional recognition of the importance of 

Bureau of Entomology

The entomological research organization and program areas as submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture by 

Marlatt in 1902 were as follows (Howard 1930): 

Program Area Program Leader

Field crop insect investigations:

(a) Southern section—cotton, tobacco, sugarcane W.D. Hunter

(b) Northern section—cereals and forage plants F.M. Webster

Fruit insect investigations: A.L. Quaintance

(a) Southern section—citrus and other tropical fruits 

(b) Northern section—orchard fruits, deciduous 

Small fruit and truck crop insect investigations F.H. Chittenden

Forest and forest product insect investigations A.D. Hopkins

Insecticide and insecticide machinery investigations: C. Marlatt

(a) Section of field operations and experiments 

(b) Section of chemical analyses and tests 

Investigations of insects affecting stored products F.H. Chittenden, 

followed by E.A. 

Back after 1904

Investigations of insects in relation to disease of humans W.D. Hunter after 

and animals and as animal parasites 1904

Insect laboratory, collections, and experimental E.F. Phillips

garden apicultural investigations

Special insect investigations—miscellaneous work: L.O. Howard

(a) Section for investigation and introduction of beneficial (Division/Bureau Chief) 

insects, and quarantine

(b) Section for fungal and other diseases of insects 

(c) Section for special insect investigations—emergency 

unclassified work 

Sericultural investigations 

Librarian and bibliographer

entomology in the early part of the 20th century was a 

major accomplishment. House and Senate debates, as 

previously discussed, denied a need to elevate USDA 

to Cabinet level status until 1889. The organizational 

entities of the new Bureau were divisions (Osborn 

1937). 
17

Entomology Research Leadership and 

Program Direction

Walter D. Hunter was hired from Iowa State College 

in 1901 and placed in charge of the Field Crop Insect 

Investigations Southern Section in the new Bureau. 

Because of his interests, Hunter was also assigned 

responsibility for insects affecting humans and 

animals. According to Osborn (1937), this remained 

in effect until man-and-animal insect work was 

removed from the Southern Section of the Field Crop 

Insect Investigations in 1926 and cotton insect work 

was removed in 1930; in each case, the section was 

established as an independent division. Frank C. 

Bishopp provided leadership for research on Insects 

Affecting Man and Animals, and Roby W. Harned 

was named Chief of the Cotton Insects Investigations 

Division. 

Francis M. Webster retired from Ohio State University 

with extensive experience in field crop entomology 

and was hired in 1903–1904 to head up the Field 

Crop Insect Investigations Northern Section on cereal 

and forage plants. One of his first field laboratories 

was established in 1905 in Richmond, IN, to work on 

hessian fly (Luginbill 1955). The laboratory was moved 

in 1909 to the Purdue University Experiment Station 

and for many years did important research on corn 

insects, wheat jointworm [Tetramesa tritici (Fitch)], 

white grub, aphids, Hessian fly, and chinch bug. Altus 

L. Quaintance, with experience in tree fruit insects in 

Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, was hired in 1904 to 

head the Division of Fruit Insects Investigations. Some 

early work on deciduous fruit insects was established 

at Vincennes, IN, in 1923 on San Jose scale, and 

the program was expanded over the years to include 

peachtree borer, tarnished plant bug [Lygus lineolaris

(Palisot de Beauvois)], oriental fruit moth [Grapholita 

molesta (Busck)], and codling moth. Tobacco insects 

work was also transferred from Field Crop Insect 

Investigations Southern Section to Small Fruit and 

Truck Crop and Garden Insects Investigations, and 

sugar cane insect work was transferred to Field Crops 

Insect Investigations Northern Section, Cereal and 

Forage Crops Investigations. 

Later program changes within the Bureau were also 

made. For example, in addition to his other duties on 

small fruit and truck crop insects, Frank H. Chittenden 

was charged with investigations concerning insects 

attacking flower gardens, ornamental greenhouse 

plants, and shade trees; and later investigations 

concerning insects affecting sugar beets, strawberries, 

brambleberries, and mushrooms. He was also assigned 

studies of stored-products insects. 

Ernest A. Back was Chief of Investigations of Insects 

Affecting Stored Products from 1917 to 1935 (Howard 

1930, Osborn 1937). However, research on insects 

infesting stored products had been initiated much 

earlier in the Division of Entomology. In the late 19th 

century, for example, Chittenden (1897) found that 150 

to 200 insect species more or less frequently infested 

stored materials. About half of the recognized species 

he listed and their parasites had been reared by his staff 

at the Washington, DC, location. His report included 

studies on the biologies, life cycles, and parasites of 

insects affecting stored vegetables, grains, cowpeas, 

beans, and coffee. 

Andrew D. Hopkins had distinguished himself with his 

work on southern pine beetle [Dendroctonus frontalis

Zimmerman] in West Virginia (Furniss 1997). He was 

in charge of work on forest insects in the Division of 

Entomology from 1902 (Furniss and Wickman 1998). 

Hopkins was originally hired in USDA’s Bureau of 

Forestry in 1901 by Gifford Pinchot (Furniss 1997). 

His first assignment was to investigate bark beetle 

problems in South Dakota forests. With his background 

and experience, he apparently was the obvious choice 

to be in charge of forest insects research in the Bureau 

of Entomology. Hopkins remained as Chief of Forest 

and Forest Product Insect Investigations until 1923, 

when Frank C. Craighead became Chief of Forest 

Insects Investigations (Wickman et al. 2002, Furniss 

2003). 

The Bureau of Entomology conducted forest insect 

research in 1935 in California, Colorado, Idaho, and 

Oregon on western bark beetle and in Connecticut, 

Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin—and Oxford, England—on 

forest tree insects. The work in England was probably 

associated with natural enemy exploration and 

introduction.

Work on bee culture was begun in 1885 by special 

agent Nelson W. McClain. Honeybees were introduced 

into the country by early colonists (Montgomery 1955). 

However, the first Italian honeybees were imported 

in 1859, apparently by the Patent Office. Until 1853, 

beekeeping methods did not differ materially from what 

had been used in the Old World for centuries. In 1853, 

L.L. Langstroth, “Father of American (or Modern) 
18

Beekeeping,” published his Hive and the Honeybee and 

Moses Quinby, “Father of Commercial Beekeeping,” 

published The Mysteries of Beekeeping Explained

entirely independently of each other (Montgomery 

1955). The principles set forth in these two books 

provided impetus for expansion of beekeeping in the 

United States and probably stimulated research interest 

at the Federal level. Everett F. Phillips became Chief of 

the Apicultural Investigations Division in 1907. 

Insect identification was not designated as a separate 

division until 1928, when Harold Morrison became 

chief of the newly established Division of Insect 

Identification. Additional changes in leadership from 

1904 to 1935 were described by Osborn (1937). 

Parencia (1978) traced Federal cotton insect work from 

the cotton leafworm studies of Riley and Comstock 

through expansion of research in Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Georgia, 

Arizona, Mexico, and Hawaii. Federal entomologists 

contributed significantly to our knowledge and 

control of boll weevil, bollworm, tobacco budworm 

[Heliothis virescens (Fabricius)], cotton aphid [Aphis 

gossypii Glover], cotton fleahopper [Pseudatomoscelis 

seriatus (Reuter)], cotton leafperforator [Bucculatrix 

thurberiella Busck], pink bollworm [Pectinophora 

gossypiella (Saunders)], Lygus bugs, and many 

miscellaneous pest insects, mites, beneficial insects, 

and insect pathogens. 

By 1913, 35 entomological field laboratories had been 

established in various States. Entomological research 

had expanded into the pursuit of knowledge and 

control measures for boll weevil, gypsy and browntail 

moths, San Jose scale, and some insect vectors of 

plant diseases. Identification of mosquito-borne 

agents causing malaria, yellow and dengue fevers, and 

filariasis, as well as tick-borne agents of tick fever of 

cattle, were major events of the late 1800s and early 

1900s, highlighting need for expanded research in 

medical entomology (Howard 1930, Matheson 1950). 

The Bureau of Entomology would also, at later dates, 

develop separate sections for research on gypsy moth, 

browntail moth [Euproctis chrysorrhoea (Linnaeus)], 

and Japanese beetle. Some of the early work on 

fighting gypsy moths with aerial applications would be 

classified as “methods development specific activity.” 

Methods development expanded small-scale studies 

in the laboratory to demonstrate sucessful use of the 

technology under field conditions. This success led to 

formation of a Methods Development Branch in ARS 

in 1969 (Kauffman and Kingsley 2000).

During World War I, the Bureau of Entomology 

received special funds for control and eradication 

of certain insects (Baker et al. 1963), none of 

which appear directly related to the war effort. The 

sudden interest and increased appropriations remain 

unexplained; however, the unusual interest may simply 

relate to an increased concern for protection of food 

and fiber sources during the war years. European corn 

borer [Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner)], Japanese beetle, 

and pink bollworm were three of the insect species that 

the Bureau helped to combat as a result of increased 

financial support from Congress. 

European corn borer is believed to have entered the 

country about 1909 or 1910 and was discovered first 

in 1917 near Boston, MA. In 1918, the Bureau began 

a study of the species. Through the years, the work 

expanded; major research locations were established 

Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio (Luginbill 1955).

Japanese beetle was found in 1916 near Riverton, NJ, 

in a shipment of iris roots from Japan. The Bureau 

began active work on the pest in 1917, and in 1919 

imposed a domestic quarantine financed by a special 

appropriation. 

Pink bollworm was discovered in Texas in 1917, and 

the Department assisted in its control by pulling and 

burning plants, cotton, and seed in infested areas. 

Metcalf (1940) called attention to the fact that the 

emergencies of World War I revealed to the public the 

importance of insects and established entomology as a 

great science. Essig (1940) concurred, attributing the 

phenomenal development of crop production to the 

need forced on the United States to feed itself and its 

allies as part of the war effort.

Federal Horticultural Board

While Federal attention to entomology research 

increased, the important area of invasive pests, though 

recognized as early as 1865 by Glover (Howard 1930), 

was not addressed at the Federal level until the early 

1900s. Sasscer (1940) was at a loss to explain the 

apparent indifference of legislators toward developing 

measures to exclude new pests from the United States. 

He recalled a song of the time that appeared to fit the 

existing state of mind in the late 1800s to the early 

1900s regarding insect pests and plant diseases: “Let 

earth withhold her goodly root, Let mildew blight the 
19

* Marlatt was Acting-in-Charge during 1927–1928 

pending formal appointment in 1929, or his initial 

acting-official appointment spanned the 1927 fiscal 

year.

rye, Give the worm the orchard fruit, The wheat field to 

the fly.” 

The United States suffered heavy losses as a result 

of pests imported from other countries through 

commerce. This is not surprising, since until 1912 

most agricultural products entered the country 

without any plant quarantine restrictions (Sasscer 

1940). Opportunity for introduction of exotic insects 

apparently began soon after the discovery of America. 

A Puerto Rican historian suggested that the only reason 

Columbus landed in Puerto Rico on his second voyage 

in 1493 was to obtain water to keep alive plants he was 

bringing to the new continent.

It became apparent in the late 1800s that plant pests and 

insects were being brought into the country in imported 

commodities as well as in association with exploration 

efforts to bring in new seed and plant materials from 

abroad. Marlatt (1940) would describe the 1890s as an 

era of developing consciousness concerning quarantine 

and eradication of invasive pest species. Thirty exotic 

pest species were identified during the 1800s, with 

12 more recognized during the first 40 years of the 

1900s (Sasscer 1940). Sasscer also suggested there 

were probably many additional exotic species not 

yet observed. Another 40 years later, Sailer (1983) 

identified 1,683 introduced arthropod species that have 

become established in the United States. 

In spite of concern for introduced pests, the United 

States was one of the last countries to adopt effective 

quarantine to reduce introduction of new entomological 

problems from outside sources (Howard 1930). Though 

a number of States enacted quarantine legislation, 

beginning with California in 1881, repeated attempts 

to obtain Federal quarantine restrictions were not 

successful until much later. Congress did pass the 

Insect Pest Act in 1905, which provided Federal 

authority to regulate entry and interstate movement of 

living, injurious insects. Because of concern for exotic 

pest introduction on imported fruit tree and nursery 

stock, the Bureau of Entomology on its own authority 

further expanded its area of responsibility and began 

inspecting some of these plant materials in 1906 (Baker 

et al. 1963). Howard and Marlatt championed Federal 

regulatory and quarantine efforts. 

Increasing concern and expansion of pest infestation 

areas as well as discoveries of insect infestations in 

interstate commerce by State inspections resulted in 

congressional passage of the Plant Quarantine Act 

on August 20, 1912. The Act provided formally for 

regulation of importation and interstate shipment 

of plants and other commodities and appointment 

of a Federal Horticulture Board to administer the 

duties of the Act. Representatives of the Bureaus of 

Entomology, Plant Industry, and Forest Service were 

board members. Marlatt, Assistant Chief of the Bureau 

of Entomology, served as board chairman from 1912 

to 1928, Marlatt resigned as Chairman of the Board to 

become Chief of the Bureau of Entomology from 1929 

to 1933. Port inspections at various points of entry 

resulted in interception of numerous potential pests. 

These activities set the stage for a long association of 

Federal entomological research with plant and animal 

inspection, quarantine, and regulatory agencies. 

Beginning of the End of an Era: 

Establishment of the Plant Quarantine and 

Control Administration

Howard retired as Chief of the Bureau of Entomology 

in 1927 and was replaced by Marlatt from 1927–28* to 

1933. A series of important events affected entomology 

research and regulatory activity in monitoring 

movement of plants and insects within and between 

agriculture communities and internationally that had 

been handled by the Federal Horticultural Board within 

the Bureau of Entomology from 1912 to 1928. 

The Federal Horticultural Board filled an important 

gap in Federal entomology activities, but it was evident 

that several different agencies were involved, with 

overlapping areas of responsibility. Closer coordination 

of Federal quarantine activities was the objective when 

the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration was 

established on July 1, 1928. Marlatt was in charge from 

1928 to 1929, followed by Lee A. Strong from 1929 to 

1932. The Federal Horticultural Board was abolished, 

and the regulatory responsibilities of the Board, the 

Bureau of Entomology, and the Bureau of Plant 

Industry were absorbed by the new administration. 

Entomology research and regulatory functions were 

separated. After only 4 years, the Plant Quarantine and 

Control Administration was abolished, and the Bureau 

of Plant Quarantine was established in 1932 to succeed 

it.
20

Marlatt retired in 1933 after serving for 3 years as 

Chief of the Bureau of Entomology. Baker et al. 

(1963) recalled the event as having left a serious gap in 

USDA. 

Bureau of Plant Quarantine

The new Bureau included all of the functions of the 

Plant Quarantine and Control Administration. These 

were the Divisions of Pink Bollworm and Thurberia 

Weevil Control, Date Scale Control, European Corn 

Borer Control, Japanese Beetle Control, and Mexican 

Fruitfly Control. Strong remained in charge of the new 

organization. On December 1, 1933, the plant disease 

eradication and control functions of the Bureau of 

Plant Industry were assigned to the Chief of the Bureau 

of Entomology, who established the Plant Disease 

Eradication Division which included projects on 

barberry eradication, blister rust control, citrus canker 

eradication, dutch elm disease control, and phony 

peach disease eradication (Baker et al. 1963). 

Bureau of Entomology and Plant 

Quarantine

Henry A. Wallace became Secretary of Agriculture 

on March 4, 1933. Faced with the threat of drastic 

budget reductions, he made a number of shifts in 

Bureau responsibilities that profoundly affected 

entomology. The Bureau of Entomology, the Bureau 

of Plant Quarantine, and the plant disease control 

and eradication work of the Bureau of Plant Industry 

were combined to form the Bureau of Entomology 

and Plant Quarantine (BEPQ) on July 1, 1934. BEPQ 

consolidation was implemented to provide more 

economical and effective administration of insect 

research and regulatory programs. 

BEPQ’s responsibilities included research on 

insecticides from plants, synthetic organic insecticides, 

spray residues, inorganic insecticides, fumigants, oil 

emulsions, analytical work, toxicology, and accessories 

for insecticides. The Bureau also had a Division of 

Foreign Plant Quarantine with inspection or regulatory 

activities in 18 States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and 

Washington, DC, and a Division of Domestic Plant 

Quarantine with many locations in the United States. 

Strong, who had been chief of the Bureau of Plant 

Quarantine, provided continuing leadership of the 

consolidated Bureau from 1934 to 1941.

The Bureau of Entomology consisted of the Divisions 

of—

Fruit and Shade Tree Insect Investigations. 

Japanese Beetle and Asiatic Garden Beetle 

 Investigations 

Forest Insects

Truck Crop and Garden Insects 

Cereal and Forage Insects 

Cotton Insects

Bee Culture

Insects Affecting Man and Animals

Insect Identification, Foreign Parasite 

 Introduction, and Control Investigations

Plant Disease Eradication 

The Insecticide Division of the Bureau of Chemistry 

and Soils (established in 1933) was transferred to the 

Bureau of Entomology in September 1935. In 1954 it 

became the Pesticide Chemical Research Section of the 

Entomology Research Branch (Luginbill 1955).

In 1935, the Division of Japanese and Asiatic Garden 

Beetle Investigations was made part of the Division of 

Fruit Insect Investigations.

The Bureau of Plant Quarantine consisted of the 

Divisions of—

Foreign Plant Quarantines 

Domestic Quarantines 

Japanese Beetle and European Corn Borer 

 Control 

Gypsy and Brown-Tail Moths 

Mexican Fruit Fly

Date Scale Eradication

Pink Bollworm

Thurberia Weevil

Quarantine stations were located at Hoboken, NJ; San 

Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Miami, FL; Laredo, TX; 

San Juan, PR; and Honolulu, HI.

Within BEPQ, a Division of Foreign Parasite 

Introduction (DFPI) was formed, which was charged 

with responsibility for exploration and importation 

of insect parasites and predators, and later of natural 

enemies of weeds and plants and insect pathogens 

(Vail et al. 2001). This division was the first USDA 

organization to provide centralized direction of natural 

enemy introductions (Coulson et al. 2000). It would 

remain operational under various names until 1972.
21

The Division of Control Investigations was formed 

in 1934 at the same time that BEPQ was established 

(Latta 1951). A technical unit transferred from the 

Bureau of Plant Quarantine that was developing 

commodity treatment methods for mediterranean 

fruit fly [Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann)] and a 

physiology and toxicology unit from the Bureau of 

Entomology were the major components of the new 

division. Mediterranean fruit fly commodity treatment 

had previously been transferred to the Bureau of Plant 

Quarantine from the Bureau of Plant Industry when 

the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration was 

formed. 

Insect physiology and toxicology work began 

between 1915 and 1919, when physiological studies 

were initiated to find a substitute for nicotine. The 

physiology and toxicology research was subsequently 

housed in 1930 in a new laboratory at Takoma Park, 

MD, and later moved to Beltsville, MD, during 

1934 and 1935. Research on insect physiology and 

toxicology and development of new control methods 

remained centered at Beltsville. Insecticide testing 

expanded to locations at Orlando and Sanford, FL, in 

1937; to Anaheim, CA, in 1945; and to Yakima, WA, in 

1946 and 1947. Commodity treatment work was done 

at El Paso and Alpine, TX; Moorestown, Hoboken, and 

White Horse, NJ; Sunset, New Orleans, and Lafayette, 

LA; St. Louis, MO; Gulfport, MS; Burgan, NC; Ft. 

Valley, GA; Washington, DC; and Arlington Farms, 

VA, from 1934 to 1951. In 1951–1952, the Division of 

Control Investigations was abolished and all programs 

transferred to Stored Products Investigations. 

Frank Campbell (1935, personal communication), 

considered development of insect physiologytoxicology research as one of the most progressive 

steps ever taken by the Bureau. Need for fundamental 

entomology studies was recognized, and authority was 

given to scientists to proceed without the restrictions of 

focusing on a specific pest or commodity. This concept 

would prevail. 

Though many USDA laboratories became established 

to address specific problems, pioneering research was 

supported by administrators as research not aimed at 

specific practical problems or objectives but rather at 

the advancement of science. The research was to be 

undertaken to discover the underlying principles and 

develop theory that would facilitate research on specific 

problems as needs arose. It was expected to build a 

foundation for the quick, effective, and economic 

solution of research problems. The first research 

laboratory was established at Beltsville on August 

21, 1957, with the assignment of investigations on 

mineral nutrition of plants. Sixteen pioneering research 

laboratories were established by 1961. Some of the 

pioneering entomology research areas addressed were 

insect physiology, behavior, biological control, and 

insect pathology.

Agricultural Research Administration

Though World War II provided immediate stimulus 

and awareness of the need to rally agricultural research 

in support of the war effort, the issues of Bureau 

dysfunctions and overlapping program responsibilities 

again became an issue to Congressional leadership. 

These problems had existed for a long time. Several 

attempts were made to improve communication and 

efficiency: 

March 23, 1897, to Appointment of an Assistant

September 30, 1897 Secretary of Agriculture to 

supervise some scientific 

divisions and a Foreign 

Market Section

October 1, 1921, to Appointment of a Director of

June 30, 1934 Scientific Work to advise

the Secretary and Bureau 

chiefs 

From March 16, 1936 Assignment of the Chief of 

the Office of Experiment 

Stations as Director of 

Research 

Apparently, none of these actions were completely 

satisfactory. For example, during the 16-year 

secretaryship of James Wilson beginning in 1897, a 

new era of scientific interest was born. From 1901 

to 1904, eight additional research Bureaus were 

established with increasing numbers of personnel 

and increasing budgets (Baker et al. 1963). In 1913, 

at the end of Wilson’s tenure, incoming Secretary of 

Agriculture David Houston viewed the Department as a 

number of autonomous Bureaus with diverse functions. 

This situation persisted for many years thereafter, and 

Secretary William Jardine in 1925 and later Secretaries 

of Agriculture addressed the same issues. Irving et 

al. (1981) commented on some of these issues that 

lead to the perception of a need to establish a unified 

research organization. Issues of jurisdiction and lack 
22

* The War Production Board was established in 1942 

and the War Food Administration in 1943. Both were 

terminated in 1945.

of cooperation among the Bureaus were said to be 

common and of paramount concern. 

The frequent cases of overlapping responsibilities and 

duplications of effort became a continuing aggravation 

to Congress and the executive branch (Shaw 1950). 

Thus, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 

December 7, 1941, Secretary Claude R. Wickard, who 

was aware of the Bureau’s controversies, realigned 

USDA in an attempt to improve the situation and 

optimize agricultural support for the war effort; this 

realignment became effective on February 23, 1942. 

He created the Agricultural Research Administration 

(ARA) as an administrative layer to provide overall 

cooperation and coordination among the research 

Bureaus. The duties of the Director of Research in the 

Office of Experiment Stations were assumed by ARA. 

ARA consisted of—

Bureau of Plant Industry

Bureau of Agricultural Chemistry and 

Engineering

Bureau of Animal Industry

Bureau of Dairy Industry

Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine

Bureau of Home Economics

The Office of Experiment Stations and the Beltsville 

Agriculture Research Center were also included.

Individually the Bureaus were highly competent 

and productive. The Federal agricultural research 

community made huge strides during the war and 

brought agricultural sciences and technology to new 

levels of excellence. Following the death of Strong in 

1941, Percy Annand provided able leadership of BEPQ 

during the war years and into 1950, when he died. 

During World War II, insect control research in Federal 

agencies was a vital part of the war effort (Baker et 

al. 1963). Plant protection from insect ravages and 

increased production of food and fiber to support the 

Nation and its fighting forces and to provide assistance 

to our allies were high priorities. Control of lice, 

fleas, mosquitoes, and flies was vital to the health and 

operational efficiency of military forces (Knipling and 

Linquist 1962). Better methods and improved materials 

for delousing personnel and facilities were credited 

with reducing typhus in the European theater of war. 

The much-sought-after but elusive development 

of aerosol insecticide application achieved a major 

breakthrough in 1941 with the concept of liquefied gas 

(freon) as an insecticide solvent and propellant (Fulton 

and Sullivan 1962). The technology was immediately 

adopted and implemented in the war effort. Aerosol 

technology reaches into the lives of people throughout 

the world in its many applications in medicine, 

cosmetics, lubricants, household use, and numerous 

other applications. The effects of this achievement 

remain grossly understated. 

The discovery of hydrocarbon insecticides, insect 

repellants, and the role of DDT in World War II 

are well known. The discovery of DDT and aerosol 

bombs and their use in the southwestern Pacific were 

acknowledged by some as responsible for shortening 

the war against Japan, perhaps by many years (Davis 

1955). On the home front, BEPQ in cooperation with 

the War Production Board and later the War Food 

Administration* certified weekly the amounts and types 

of insecticides needed for crop production. As a result, 

no pesticide rationing was instituted, and there were 

no serious insect outbreaks in commercial agricultural 

crops. Entomologists continue to play an important 

role in military organizations with medical entomology 

expertise in the United States Army, Navy, and Air 

Force that support U.S. forces worldwide (Berté 2005).

BEPQ Organizational Changes and Other 

Events

The years 1942 to 1953 saw a number of events of 

interest and additional changes in the organizational 

structure of BEPQ:

Year Action 

1942 Division of Grasshopper Control established 

by transferring activities relating to 

grasshopper, chinch bug, and Mormon cricket 

[Anabrus simplex (Haldeman)] control from 

Division of Domestic Quarantine.

1949 Golden Nematode [Heterodera rostochiensis] 

Division established.
23

1950 Avery S. Hoyt becomes Chief of BEPQ and 

served in that capacity until 1953.

1951 Golden Nematode Division, Japanese Beetle 

Control Division, and Gypsy and BrownTail Moth Control Division redesignated as 

projects.

Division of Insect Pest Survey and 

Information renamed Division of Insect 

Survey and Identification. Four Assistant 

Bureau Chiefs—Regulatory, Research, 

Control, and Insecticides and Chemistry—

assigned to specific divisions.

Four regional offices established for 

administrative and regulatory work. 

Division of Stored-Product Insect 

Investigations established. This unit 

superceded the Division of Control 

Investigations and included functions of the 

Divisions of Cereal and Forage Insects, Fruit 

Insects, Truck Crop and Garden Insects, and 

Insects Affecting Man and Animals.

1952 Division of Fruit Fly Investigations 

established, and included research 

on Japanese beetle, European chafer 

[Rhizotrogus (Amphimallon) majalis 

(Razoumowsky)], Hall scale [Nilotaspis Halli 

(Green)], and oriental fruit fly [Bactrocera 

dorsalis Hendel].

Division of Insect Identification and 

Detection created and additional duties 

assigned to it.

Division of Bee Culture and Biological 

Control established by combining Bee 

Culture and some functions of Foreign 

Parasite Investigations and Fruit Insects and 

Forest Insects Division.

Division of Foreign Plant Quarantine 

redesignated Division of Plant Quarantine.

Division of Insecticide Investigations 

established to accommodate research 

functions not transferred from Division of 

Control Investigations to Stored-Products 

Insects Investigations.

Insects—The Yearbook of Agriculture

published by USDA in 1952. From the 

editor’s preface we begin to appreciate 

an amazing success story that began with 

a single entomologist in 1854: “Into this 

yearbook have gone the results of nearly 100 

years of the study of insects. The Bureau of 

Entomology and Plant Quarantine, which was 

responsible in large measure for the book, 

traces its origins that far back. The century 

has seen great changes in farming methods, 

the intensiveness and extent of agriculture, 

transportation and crops. All have affected 

profoundly our relationships with insects” 

(Stefferud 1952). 

Insects revealed the diversity of Federal 

involvement in entomology—from 

identification, need for knowledge of 

insects, role of beneficial insect species, 

status on depredations of pest species, 

problems associated with chemical control, 

and alternatives to chemical control to 

the damaging roles of the major insect 

pests of home, people, animals, and 

various commodities. The authors were 

an outstanding collection of leaders of the 

first half of the 20th century in university, 

experiment station, State and Federal 

establishments, and industry, all with 

long-term records of accomplishment and 

contributions to agriculture and the scientific 

community. 

1953 Division of Insects Affecting Cotton and 

Other Fiber Plants established, and Division 

of Cotton Insect Investigations abolished. 

The Bureaus remained, but the perception of a need 

for a mechanism to deal with issues of jurisdiction 

and cooperation among Bureaus, as previously 

mentioned, did not subside. USDA had attempted to 

correct its internal problems in 1941 by creating ARA 

as an administrative layer between the Bureaus and 

the Secretary. ARA was designed to ride herd on the 

Bureaus, define research roles, coordinate programs, 

and attempt to guide USDA programs through the 

budgetary process in accord with what it determined 

to be priorities. This effort was not wholly effective 

because of strong opposition and foot-dragging by the 

then-powerful Bureau chiefs, all of whom had strong 

supporters in certain parts of Congress and in many 
24

States (Klassen 1990). Thus, continued Congressional 

dissatisfaction with a loose confederation of 

independent and autonomous Bureaus and agencies, 

as reported in 1952 by a Commission headed by 

former President Herbert Hoover, finally led to their 

dissolution. Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson 

announced on October 13, 1953, that the effective date 

for reorganization was November 2, 1953. 

Before reorganization the Bureau comprised the 

following divisions: Bee Culture and Biological 

Control, Cereal and Forage Insect Investigations, 

Insects Affecting Cotton and Other Fiber Plants, Forest 

Insect Investigations, Fruit Insect Investigations, Insect 

Detection and Identification, Insect Investigations, 

Insects Affecting Man and Animals, Plant Quarantine, 

Stored Product Insect Investigations, and Truck Crop 

and Garden Insect Investigations. 

Agricultural Research Service

Abolishing the scientific Bureaus as organizational 

entities was particularly controversial, but the action 

prevailed. Functions of the research Bureaus of 

ARA, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and 

the Production and Marketing Administration were 

transferred to new or reorganized services. The 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was designated 

the principal in-house research agency of USDA and 

retains that responsibility (Agricultural Research 

Service 1982, 1991, 1999, 2003). 

ARS’s units were Farm Research, Nutrition Consumer 

and Industrial Use, Marketing, Regulatory and Control, 

and Administrative Management. Entomology activity 

was performed in ARS research, regulatory, and 

control units. Functions of BEPQ were transferred 

to ARS and later assigned to the Director of Crops 

Research or the Director of Crops Regulatory Programs 

as appropriate for their missions and objectives. As 

a result of the reorganization, former Bureaus were 

designated “branches,” and former divisions were 

designated “sections” (Anonymous 1954, Coulson et 

al. 2000). The Crops Regulatory Program Division 

consisted of Plant Pest Control Branch and Plant 

Quarantine Branch. The Division of Forest Insects was 

transferred to the Forest Service (established 1905). 

The Division of Stored-Products Insects Investigations 

became the Stored Products Insects Section of the 

newly established (November 2, 1953) Agricultural 

Marketing Service, Marketing Research Biological 

Science Branch. 

Excellent overviews of forest entomology research 

from 1953 to 1993, with emphasis on biological 

control, have been published (Dix 2000, Dix et al. 

2000). The catalyst for ecological awareness in forests 

was Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962). Steen 

(2005) wrote that other writers had repeatedly failed to 

capture public attention, but Carson, a scientist talented 

in literary expression, electrified a slowly growing 

science-dominated environmental movement. 

The Division of Stored-Product Insect Investigations 

of BEPQ, which was formed in 1951, superseded the 

Division of Control Investigations and included some 

functions from the Divisions of Cereal and Forage 

Insects, Fruit Insects, Truck Crop and Garden Insects, 

and Insects Affecting Man and Animals (Baker et 

al. 1963). The Division of Control Investigations 

included most of the Bureau’s research on commodity 

treatment. Lyman S. Henderson was named as chief of 

the new division. Stored-Products Division’s research 

outline in 1953 showed work on insects attacking 

processed foods that included studies on insectresistant packaging materials, treatments to prevent 

insect damage to building materials, and treatments to 

prevent insect damage to cured meats. Work on insects 

inhabiting households and industrial establishments 

also included research on protecting military equipment 

such as fabric, rope, and similar materials. 

The Agricultural Marketing Service was created 

in 1953 as a result of yet another reorganization of 

USDA; insect problems involved in the marketing of 

agricultural products became a specific area of research 

responsibility in the new agency. The stored-products 

insect program transferred from BEPQ was broadened 

and strengthened in the new agency. The work was 

reassigned back to ARS, Market Quality Research 

Division, Stored-Products Insects Branch, in 1963. 

Entomology Research Branch—Beginning 

of a New Era

Following transfer of forest insect and stored-products 

insect work to other agencies and abolishment of 

BEPQ, the sections within ARS’s Entomology 

Research Branch were—

Fruit Insects Investigations 

Insects Affecting Cotton and Other Fiber Plants 

Cereal and Forage Insect Investigations 

Truck Crop and Garden Insect Investigations 

Insects Affecting Man and Animals 
25

Insecticide Investigations 

Bee Culture and Biological Control 

Insect Identification and Detection 

In 1957, branches were redesignated as divisions 

(Baker et al. 1963) and the sections as research 

branches. Within branches, investigation units were 

located throughout the United States and in some 

foreign countries. 

Edward F. Knipling served as Director of the 

Entomology Research Branch from 1953 to 1957. Few 

entomologists influenced insect pest management as 

profoundly as Edward F. Knipling (Klassen 2003). 

During World War II, Knipling and his colleagues 

developed highly effective measures to protect 

both military personnel and civilian populations 

from major arthropod-borne diseases. The sterile 

insect technique was Knipling’s conception, and he 

successfully guided its development and use against 

screwworm and various other pests. He inspired and 

guided development of a wide range of ecologically 

selective methods of insect detection and suppression. 

Knipling became a leading proponent and theoretician 

of areawide pest management and design of systems 

of pest population suppression to achieve synergy 

between control methods efficient at high pest 

population densities and those efficient at low densities. 

Knipling was convinced that many pest problems could 

be met without harm to the environment by areawide 

application of systems including augmentation of 

natural enemies.

Knipling’s address at the National Agricultural 

Chemicals Association meeting in 1958, during the 

heyday of unilateral chemical control enthusiasm, 

illustrates his remarkable foresight of the need for 

change (Knipling 1958). He recommended research to 

learn more about various enzyme systems and growthregulating mechanisms; nutritional requirements; 

factors involved in diapause; influences on behavior, 

reproduction, and migration; the mode of action of 

insecticides; and other fundamentals. Development of 

a proper balance between basic and applied research is 

essential, and once achieved it must be maintained. He 

recommended that more attention be given to methods 

of insect control that do not require use of chemicals or 

that require only minimal use. 

Entomology Research Division

The Entomology Research Division and its branches 

existed with minor internal changes for approximately 

18 years. Knipling’s leadership as Director of the 

Entomology Research Division continued through 

1971 when he was appointed as Science Advisor to the 

Administrator of ARS. Knipling served in that capacity 

from 1971 to 1973 (Klassen 2003). Clarence H. 

Hoffman succeeded E.F. Knipling as Acting Director 

until H.C. Cox was appointed Director. Cox served as 

the Entomology Research Division Director in parts of 

1971 and 1972. 

The 1950s to the 1970s saw far-reaching and 

lasting changes in Federal entomological research 

communities. Insect pest control using synthetic 

chemicals began during World War II. The benefits 

attributed to these chemicals have been and continue to 

be of monumental importance. However, problems did 

develop and have become more evident with increasing 

research. Effects on nontarget organisms, chemical 

residues, arthropod resistance to chemicals, high cost, 

and the temporary nature of treatments became of 

increasing concern beginning in the late 1940s. 

DDT, perceived to be one of the most notorious of 

the offending chemistries, came into use in the early 

1940s. The first case of an insect species resistant to the 

material—the housefly [Musca domestica Linnaeus]—

was reported in 1946. Twelve insect species were 

reported resistant to synthetic insecticides in 1948. 

This number increased to 157 species in 1963 and 165 

species in 1966. Tabashnik (1994) reported that more 

than 500 pest species have resistance to conventional 

insecticides. Statistics continue to show increases in 

the number of resistant species as of 1999 (Castle et al. 

1999). 

Resistance and numerous other adverse effects of 

insecticides stimulated entomological efforts to develop 

effective, efficient alternative insect controls that are 

compatible with and have minimum effect on the 

complex components of agroecosystems. Carson’s 

(1962) revelations on pesticides stimulated public 

concern for the environment that triggered a turning 

point in the entomological community’s approach to 

pest insect control. Concern from the public sector 

reinforced the decisions made under Knipling’s 

leadership to focus research on development of more 

ecologically oriented insect-control methods in lieu of 

unilateral reliance on chemical control.
26

Under Knipling’s leadership, the Entomology Research 

Division began to reorient its research program in 

1953 from emphasis on conventional insecticides 

to development of more selective chemical and 

nonchemical methods to control major insect pests 

(Hoffman 1970). Within 15 years, 84 percent of 

the division’s resources was devoted to research to 

develop alternatives to conventional insecticides and 

conventional application technology for insect control 

compared to 16 percent to insecticide technology 

(table 1). Foresight into future needs of the 

entomological community were further reflected in 

establishment of pioneering research laboratories in 

insect physiology and insect pathology at Beltsville, 

MD; the Biological Control of Insects Laboratory 

at Columbia, MO: the Bioenvironmental Control 

Laboratory at Stoneville, MS; the Insect Attractants 

Laboratory at Gainesville, FL; and the Metabolism 

and Radiation Research Laboratory at Fargo, ND. 

The names of these laboratories have been modified 

over time but continue to be on the forefront of 

entomological research. During the 1960s and 1970s, 

ARS had more insect pathology and microbial control 

specialists that any other institution in the world (Vail 

et al. 2001). Numerous other changes were made 

at local laboratory and other levels that encouraged 

development of ecologically oriented insect pest 

management. 

Though Knipling published extensively, some of his 

best motivational influence on the research direction 

of human and financial resources of the Entomology 

Research Division was the numerous unpublished 

papers he wrote and circulated to agency and other 

scientists. The subject matter in the papers illustrates 

Knipling’s open-minded, innovative approach to 

entomological research of the era. Knipling was 

quick to call his efforts in these writings, by intent, as 

theoretical and thought provoking. The writings were 

meant to invite comments, criticisms both positive and 

negative, and open communications that stimulated 

and encouraged novel approaches to suppressing pest 

insect populations. Analysis of the communications 

leaves one with a profound appreciation for the scope 

of Knipling’s contributions to the development of new 

genetic, behavioral, and biological control approaches 

to solving entomological pest problems.

During the first 10 years following the abolishment 

of USDA Bureaus, there were some minor changes 

in organizational names. In 1963 the Entomology 

Research Division had laboratories at 99 locations in 32 

States and in France, Argentina, Mexico, Italy, Puerto 

Rico, and Guam (tables 2 and 3).

Table 1. Distribution of Entomology Research Division resources in 1968 according to major 

research program areas

Percentage of resources

Major lines of work By program Subtotal

Conventional insecticides 16 16

Other control methods 51

Biological control 14

Insect sterility 12

Plant resistance 7

Cultural and mechanical methods 4

Attractants, hormones, etc. 14

Fundamental entomology 33

Basic insect biology 19

Metabolism 2

Taxonomy 6

Insect transmission of plant and animal diseases 2

Agriculture 4

Source: Hoffman 1970.
27

Table 2. Entomology Research Division headquarters, research branches, 

and laboratory locations in 1963

[Developed from division records and the author’s personal files]

All research branch headquarters were located at Beltsville, MD. 

Branch Locations

Office of Entomology Research Division Beltsville, MD

Apiculture Research Branch Baton Rouge, LA

Beltsville, MD

Laramie, WY

Logan, UT

Madison, WI

Tucson, AZ

Cotton Insects Research Branch Baton Rouge, LA

Beltsville, LA

Brownsville, TX

College Station, TX

Florence, SC

State College, MS

Stoneville, MS

Tallulah, LA

Tempe, AZ

Tucson, AZ

Waco, TX

Fruit and Vegetable Insects Agana, Guam

Research Branch Albany, GA 

Beltsville, MD

Charleston, SC

Corvallis, OR

Farmingdale, NY

Florence, SC

Forest Grove, OR

Fort Valley, GA

Geneva, NY

Hilo, HI

Hoboken, NJ

Honolulu, HI

Kahului, HI

Kearneysville, WV

Lake Alfred, FL

Logan, UT

Mesa, AZ
28

Fruit and Vegetable Insects Mexico City, Mexico

Research Branch (cont’d.) Moorestown, NJ

Orlando, FL 

Orono-Presque Isle, ME

Oxford, NC

Quincy, FL 

Riverside, CA

Shreveport, LA

Sumner, WA

Twin Falls, ID

Vincennes, IN

Wenatchee, WA

Weslaco, TX

Wooster, OH

Yakima, WA

Grain and Forage Insects Ankeny, IA

Research Branch Baton Rouge, LA

Beltsville, MD

Bozeman, MT

Brookings, SD

Canal Point, FL

Columbia, MO

Florala, AL

Forest Grove, OR

Houma, LA

Lincoln, NE

Manhattan, KS

Mayaguez, PR

Mesa, AZ

Minot, ND

State College, MS

Stillwater, OK

Tifton, FA

Tucson, AZ 

University Park, PA

West Lafayette, IN

Wooster, OH

Branch Locations

Table 2. Entomology Research Division headquarters, research branches, 

and laboratory locations in 1963—cont’d.
29

Insect Identification and Beltsville, MD

Parasite Introduction Research Branch Berkeley, CA

Moorestown, NJ

Riverside, CA

Washington, DC

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Paris, France

Rome, Italy

Insects Affecting Man and Animals Beltsville, MD

Research Branch Corvallis, OR

Denver, CO 

Fresno, CA

Kerrville, TX

Lincoln, NE

Mission, TX

Orlando, FL 

Stoneville, MS

Pesticide Chemicals Research Branch Beltsville, MD 

Brownsville, TX

Kerrville, TX

Orlando, FA

State College, MS

Tifton, GA

Vincennes, IN

Yakima, WA

Branch Locations

Table 2. Entomology Research Division headquarters, research branches, 

and laboratory locations in 1963—cont’d.
30Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963

[Developed from division records and author’s personal files]

Alabama

Florala Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

White-Fringed Beetle Investigations Biology, ecology, and control of whitefringed beetles

Argentina

Buenos Aires Insect Identification and 

Parasite Introduction Research Branch

Biological Control of Weeds Investigations 

(Satellite of Berkeley, CA, laboratory)

Exploration for insect enemies of 

alligator weed

Arizona

Mesa Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Vegetable and Sugar Beet Disease Vector 

Investigations(Satellite laboratories at Twin Falls, ID, and Logan, UT)

Biology, ecology, and control of insects 

that attack vegetables and sugar beets

Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Alfalfa and Cloverseed Insects 

Investigations (Satellite of Tucson, AZ, laboratory)

Resistance of alfalfa varieties to 

injurious insects, biological control of spotted alfalfa aphid

Grasshopper Investigations 

(Satellite of Bozeman, MT, laboratory)

Biology and ecology of grasshoppers

Tempe Cotton Insects Research 

Branch

Western Cotton Insects Investigations 

(Satellite of Tucson, AZ, laboratory)

Biology and control of insects and 

spider mites that affect cotton and other fiber plants

Tucson Apiculture Research Branch Honey Bee Pollination Investigations Insect pollination of agricultural crops, 

effect of insecticides on insect pollinators

Cotton Insects Research 

Branch

Western Cotton Insects Investigations 

(Satellite laboratory at Tempe, AZ)

Biology and control of insects and 

spider mites that affect cotton and other fiber plants

Location Branch Unit Investigating
31

Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Alfalfa and Cloverseed Insects 

Investigations(Satellite laboratories at Mesa, AZ, and Forest Grove, OR)

Control of alfalfa, clover, and other 

legume insects in the West

California

Berkeley Insect Identification and 

Parasite Introduction Research Branch 

Biological Control of Weeds Investigations 

(Satellite laboratories at Rome, Italy, and Buenos Aires, Argentina)

Biological control of weeds

Fresno Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals Research Branch 

Western Insects Affecting Man and Animals 

Investigations (Satellite of Corvallis, OR, laboratory) 

Insects that affect humans and 

animals, especially mosquitoes

Riverside Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch 

Arid Areas Citrus and Vegetable Insects 

Investigations

Biology and control of insects 

and mites on citrus and other subtropical fruits and vegetables

Bean, Berry and Leafy Vegetable Insects 

Investigations 

Biology and control of insects that 

affect vegetables, strawberries, and bramble berries, and methods of applying insecticides with ground equipment

Deciduous Fruit Disease Vector 

Investigations (Satellite laboratories at Corvallis, OR) 

Insect transmission of tree fruit virus 

diseases

Insect Identification and 

Parasite Introduction Research Branch

Foreign Parasite & Predator Investigations 

(Satellite of Paris, France, laboratory)

Exploration and research on beneficial 

insects

Colorado

Denver Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals Research Branch

Livestock Insects Investigations (Satellite of 

Kerrville, TX, laboratory)

Insect transmission of bluetongue 

disease in sheep

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
32

District of Columbia

Washington Insect Identification and 

Parasite Introduction Research Branch

Taxonomic Investigations of Acarina

Taxonomic Investigations of Coleoptera Taxonomy of beetlesTaxonomic Investigations of Diptera Taxonomy of two-winged fliesTaxonomic Investigations of Hemiptera and 

Thysanoptera

Taxonomy of aphids, true bugs, thrips, 

etc.

Taxonomic Investigations of Hymenoptera Taxonomy of bees, wasps, etc.

Taxonomic Investigations of Lepidoptera Taxonomy of moths and butterfliesTaxonomic Investigations of Orthoptera Taxonomy of grasshoppers, crickets, 

etc.

Taxonomy of mites and ticks

Florida

Canal Point Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Sugarcane Insects Investigations (Satellite 

of Houma, LA, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of 

sugarcane insects

Lake Alfred Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Biological Control of Citrus Insects 

Investigations

Biological control of citrus insects and 

mites

Orlando Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Humid Areas Citrus Insects Investigations Biology and control of insects and 

mites that affect citrus and other subtropical fruits

Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals Research Branch

Insects Affecting Man Investigations Biology and control of insects of 

medical importance to the military services and of household insect pests

Pesticide Chemicals Research 

Branch

Synthesis Investigations (Satellite of Beltsville, MD, laboratory)

Development of synthetic organic 

insecticides

Quincy Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Tobacco Insects Investigations (Satellite of Oxford, NC, laboratory)

Biology and control of insects that 

affect tobacco in the field

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
33

France

Paris Insect Identification and 

Parasite Introduction Research Branch

Foreign Parasite and Predator 

Investigations

(Satellite laboratories at Riverside, CA, 

Beltsville, MD, and Moorestown, NJ)

Explorations in Western Europe for 

insect enemies of agricultural pests

Georgia

Albany Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Pecan Insects Investigations(Satellite laboratory at Shreveport, LA)

Biology and control of insects and 

mites that affect pecans

Fort Valley Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Peach Insects Investigations Biology and control of insects that 

affect peaches

Tifton Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Forage Insecticide Residue Investigations Insects that attack legume and grass 

crops in the southeastern plains, insecticide residues on forage crops

Southern Grain Insects Investigations (Satellite laboratories at Vincennes and 

West Lafayette, IN, Stillwater, OK, and State College, MS)

Biology and control of corn earworm 

and other insects that attack grain

Pesticide Chemicals Research 

Branch

Analytical Investigations (Satellite of Beltsville, MD, laboratory)

Analysis of pesticides, pesticide 

residues, and accessory materials

Guam

Agana Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch 

Hawaii Fruit Investigations (Satellite of Honolulu, HI, laboratory) 

Biology, ecology, and control of oriental 

fruitfly, Mediterranean fruitfly, and melonfly

Hawaii

Honolulu Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Hawaii Fruit Fly Investigations(Satellite laboratories at Hilo and Kahului, 

HI, and Agana, Guam)

Biology, ecology, and control of 

oriental fruitfly, Mediterranean fruitfly, and melonfly; development of quarantine treatments for commodities infested with fruitflies and mango seed weevils 

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
34

Hilo Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Hawaii Fruit Fly Investigations (Satellite of Honolulu, HI, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of oriental 

fruitfly, Mediterranean fruitfly, and melonfly

Kahului Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Hawaii Fruit Fly Investigations (Satellite of Honolulu, HI, laboratory)

Biology and ecology of subtropical 

fruitflies

Idaho

Twin Falls Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch 

Vegetable & Sugar Beet Disease Vector 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Mesa, AZ, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of insects 

that affect sugar beets, beans, and other vegetables

Indiana

Vincennes Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch 

Humid Areas Deciduous Fruit Insects 

Investigations

(Satellite laboratories at Wooster, OH, and 

Kearneysville, WV)

Biology and control of insects and 

mites that affect deciduous tree fruits

Pesticide Chemicals Research 

Branch 

Analytical Investigations (Satellite of Beltsville, MD, laboratory) 

Analysis of pesticides, pesticide 

residues, and accessory materials

Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch 

Southern Grain Insects Investigations (Satellite of Tifton, GA, laboratory, with 

laboratory at Stillwater, OK)

Resistance of wheat varieties to 

Hessian fly attack; plant resistance to corn earworm in sweet corn

Ankeny Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch 

European Corn Borer Research Laboratory 

Corn Borer Investigations 

(Satellite laboratory at Wooster, OH)

Biology, ecology, and chemical control 

of European corn borer, varietal resistance, and biological control

West Lafayette Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Chemical Analysis Investigations Pesticide researchSouthern Grain Insects Investigations(Satellite of Tifton, GA, laboratory)

Plant resistance to corn earworm in 

sweet corn

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
35

Italy

Rome Insect Identification and 

Parasite Introduction Research Branch

Biological Control of Weeds Investigations (Satellite of Berkeley, CA, laboratory) 

Exploration in Mediterranean region for 

insect enemies of range weeds

Kansas

Manhattan Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch 

Small Grain Insects Investigations Resistance of wheat strains to attack 

by Hessian fly and wheat jointworm, research on insect vectors of wheat diseases

Louisiana

Baton Rouge Apiculture Research Branch Bee Breeding Investigations Methods of queen and package bee 

production, genetics of bees, insect pollination

Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch 

Sweetclover and Other Legume Insects 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Lincoln, NE, laboratory) 

Biological control of armyworms and 

cutworms

Rice Insects Investigations Insect vectors of rice diseases

Cotton Insects Research 

Branch 

Cotton Insects Insecticide Resistance 

Investigations 

Resistance of cotton insects to 

insecticides

Houma Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch 

Sugarcane Insects Investigations(Satellite laboratories at Canal Point, FL, 

and Mayaguez, PR)

Chemical and biological control of 

sugarcane borer, insect vectors of sugarcane diseases

Shreveport Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch 

Pecan Insects Investigations (Satellite of Albany, GA, laboratory) 

Biology and control of insects and 

mites that affect pecans

Cotton Insects Research 

Branch 

Boll Weevil Investigations Biology and control of insects and 

spider mites that affect cotton, including boll weevil

Tallulah Cotton Insects Research 

Branch

Boll Weevil Investigations (Satellite of State College, MS, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of boll 

weevil

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
36

Maine

Orono and Presque Isle 

Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Branch 

Potato Aphids Investigations Biology, ecology, and control of aphids 

that affect seed and culinary potatoes

Maryland

Beltsville Office of the Director 

Administrative Office Agricultural Research Center Insect Pathology Pioneering Research 

Laboratory 

Insect pathogens and conditions under 

which they cause disease in insect populations

Physiological and biochemical 

processes of insects, action of insecticidal compounds on these processes 

Apiculture Research Branch Headquarters

Bee Disease Investigations (Satellite laboratory at Laramie, WY)

Diseases of honeybee and other insect 

pollinators, bee management, and insect pollination

Cotton Insect Research Branch HeadquartersFruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Headquarters

Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Insects 

Investigations

(Satellite laboratory at Farmingdale, NY)

Biology and control of insects and 

mites that affect vegetables and methods for preventing insect contamination of processed fruits and vegetables; research on biology and control of insects that affect flowering bulbs, annual and perennial flowers, ornamental and flowering shrubs, and greenhouse crops

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
37

Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

HeadquartersAlfalfa Weevil Investigations

(Satellite laboratory at University Park, PA)

Biology, ecology, and control of alfalfa 

weevil and other insects that attack legumes in the eastern United States

Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals Research Branch

HeadquartersAnaplasmosis Vector Investigations (in 

cooperation with ADP)

Research on ticks and mites as vectors 

of animal diseases

Insect Identification and 

Parasite Introduction Research Branch

HeadquartersSorting and AssignmentForeign Parasite and Predator 

Investigations (Satellite of Paris, France, laboratory)

Exploration and research on beneficial 

insects

Pesticide Chemicals Research 

Branch

HeadquartersAerosol Investigations Development of testing of improved 

insecticide formulations for application in aerosol form and further research on propellants, improvements of equipment

Analytical investigations(Satellite laboratories at Tifton, GA, 

Vincennes, IN, Kerrville, TX, and Yakima, WA)

Development and application of 

chemical and bioassay methods for analysis of insecticidal chemicals and their residues in agricultural crops, animal tissues, mil, and soils

Biological Investigations (Satellite laboratory at Brownsville, TX)

Screening and evaluation of new 

compounds for insect control; development of improved methods of disinfecting aircraft

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
38

Natural Products Investigations Search for naturally occurring 

substances that can be used in insect control, determination of the chemical structure of such substances, preparation of identical chemical compounds

Synthesis Investigations(Satellite laboratories at Orlando, FL, and 

State College, MS)

Synthesis of compounds for evaluation 

in insect control, development of improved formulations and methods of application for insect control

Mexico Mexico City Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Mexican Fruit Fly Investigations Biology, ecology, and control of 

fruitflies and other insect and mite pests that threaten United States subtropical horticulture and development of quarantine treatments for insect-infested tropical fruits

Mississippi

State College Grain and Forage Insect 

Research Branch

Southern Grain Insects Investigations (Satellite of Tifton, GA, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of corn 

earworm, plant resistance to earworm attack, research on other corn insects

Cotton Insect Research Branch Boll Weevil Investigations

(Satellite Laboratories at Tallulah, LA, and 

Stoneville, MS)

Fundamental and applied research on 

all phases of boll weevil program

Pesticide Chemicals Research 

Branch

Synthesis Investigations (Satellite of Beltsville, MD, laboratory)

Biochemical investigation of boll weevil

Stoneville Cotton Insects Research 

Branch

Boll Weevil Investigations (Satellite of State College, MS, laboratory)

Biology and control of insects and 

spider mites that affect cotton

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
39

Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals Research Branch

Livestock Insects Investigations (Satellite of 

Kerrville, TX, laboratory)

Biology and control of insects that 

affect livestock, especially deerflies and houseflies

Missouri

Columbia Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Sweetclover and Other Legume Insects 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Lincoln, NE, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of insects 

that attack forage crops and seeds, including soybeans, in the southern United States

Montana

Bozeman Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Grasshopper Investigations(Satellite laboratory at Mesa, AZ)

Biology, ecology, and control of 

grasshoppers

Northern Grain Insects Investigations (Satellite of Brookings, SD, laboratory)

Biological and chemical control 

of wheatstem sawfly and plant resistance to sawfly attack

Nebraska

Lincoln Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Sweetclover and Other Legume Insects 

Investigations

(Satellite laboratories at Baton Rouge, LA, 

and Columbia, MO)

Resistance of alfalfa to spotted 

alfalfa aphid, pea aphid, and potato leafhopper; resistance of sweetclover varieties to sweetclover weevil and sweetclover aphid

Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals Research Branch

Livestock Insects Investigations (Satellite of Kerrville, TX, laboratory)

Biology and control of insects that 

affect livestock, especially stable flies and cattle grubs

New Jersey

Hoboken Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Plant Quarantine Commodity Treatment 

Investigations

Treatments for plants and commodities 

regulated by plant quarantine

Moorestown Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Japanese Beetle and European Chafer 

Investigations

(Satellite laboratory at Geneva, NY)

Biology and control of japanese beetle 

and other soil-infecting insects

Insect Identification and 

Parasite Introduction Research Branch

Counterpests Quarantine, Propagation, and 

Shipping Investigations

Receipt and distribution of foreign 

parasites and predators for biological control of harmful insects

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
40

Foreign Parasite and Predator 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Paris, France, laboratory)

Exploration and research of beneficial 

insects

New York

Farmingdale Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Insects 

Investigations 

(Satellite laboratory of Beltsville, MD)

Biology and control of insect and mites 

of greenhouse and ornamental plants

Geneva Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Japanese Beetle and European Chafer 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Moorestown, NJ, laboratory)

Biology, control, and methods of 

detection of European chafer and methods of treatment of infested nursery stock

North Carolina

Oxford Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Tobacco Insects Investigations(Satellite laboratories at Quincy, FL, and 

Florence, SC)

Biology, ecology, and control of insects 

that affect flue-cured tobacco in the field

North Dakota

Minot Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Northern Grain Insects Investigations (Satellite of Brookings, SD, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of 

wheatstem sawfly and plant resistance to sawfly

Ohio

Wooster Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Humid Areas Deciduous Fruit Insects 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Vincennes, IN, laboratory)

Biology and control of insects and 

mites that affect grapes and deciduous tree fruits

Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Corn Borer Investigations (Satellite of Ankeny, IN, laboratory)

Plant resistance of corn strains to 

European corn borer

Oklahoma

Stillwater Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Small Grain Insects Investigations(Satellite of Tifton, GA, laboratory, with 

laboratories at West Lafayette and Vincennes, IN)

Biology, ecology, and control of 

greenbug and mites that attack small grains, chemical control of armyworms and cutworms of small grains

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
41

Oregon

Corvallis Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Deciduous Fruit Disease Vector 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Riverside, CA, laboratory)

Biology and control of insect vectors of 

stone fruit virus diseases

Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals Research Branch

Western Insects Affecting Man and Animals 

Investigations

(Satellite laboratory at Fresno, CA)

Biology and control of insects that 

affect humans and animals, such as mosquitoes, biting flies, ticks, cattle grubs, and lice, in the western United States

Forest Grove Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Insecticide Application Methods 

Investigations

Methods of applying insecticides to 

truck crops with aircraft and ground equipment

Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Alfalfa and Clover Seed Insects 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Tucson, AZ, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of clover 

insects

Pennsylvania

University Park Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Alfalfa Weevil Investigations (Satellite of Beltsville, MD, laboratory)

Biology and ecology of forage insects, 

insect vectors of forage crop diseases, varietal resistance of alfalfa to potato leafhopper

Puerto Rico

Mayaguez Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Sugarcane Insects Investigations (Satellite of Houma, LA, laboratory)

Research on sugarcane insects

South Carolina

Charleston Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Winter Vegetable Insects Investigations Biology, ecology, and control of insects 

and mites that affect vegetables and berries

Florence Cotton Insects Research 

Branch

Southeastern Cotton Insects Investigations Biology and control of insects and 

spider mites that affect cotton

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
42Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating

Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Tobacco Insects Investigations (Satellite of Oxford, NC, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of insects 

that affect flue-cured tobacco in the field

South Dakota

Brookings Grain and Forage Insects 

Research Branch

Northern Grain Insects Investigations(Satellite laboratories at Bozeman, MT, and 

Minot, ND) 

Biology, ecology, and control of insects 

that affect corn and other grains

Texas

Brownsville Cotton Insects Research 

Branch

Pink Bollworm Investigations Chemical, biological, cultural, 

and mechanical control; plant resistance; ecological, physiological, biochemical, and morphological studies of pink bollworm

Bioclimatic group Relationship of climate and climatic 

factors to development, abundance, and distribution of insect and mites

Pesticide Chemicals Research 

Branch

Biological Investigations (Satellite of Beltsville, MD, laboratory)

Laboratory tests on effectiveness of 

insecticidal materials

College Station Cotton Insects Research 

Branch

Southwestern Cotton Insects Investigations(Satellite laboratory at Waco, TX)

Biology and control of insects and 

spider mites that affect cotton and other fiber plants

Kerrville Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals Research Branch

Livestock Insects Investigations(Satellite laboratories at Denver, CO, 

Stoneville, MS, Lincoln, NE, and Mission, TX)

Research on cattle grubs, hornflies, 

ticks, lice, fleas, screwworms, and other insects that attack livestock or poultry

Pesticide Chemicals Research 

Branch

Analytical Investigations (Satellite of Beltsville, MD, laboratory)

Analysis of pesticides, pesticide 

residues, and accessory materials

Mission Insects Affecting Man and 

Animals Research Branch

Livestock Insects Investigations (Satellite of Kerrville, TX, laboratory)

Research on screwworms that attack 

livestock or poultry
43

Waco Cotton Insect Research Branch Southwestern Cotton Insects Investigations 

(Satellite of College Station, TX, laboratory)

Biology and control of insects and 

spider mites that affect cotton

Weslaco Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Brown Soft Scale Investigations. Studies of brown soft scale of citrus

Utah

Logan Apiculture Research Branch Wild Bee Pollination Investigations Effect of pesticides on honeybees, 

biology of bee diseases, breeding and management for improvement of productivity, behavior, utilization of honeybees in pollination

Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Vegetable and Sugar Beet Disease Vector 

Insects Investigations 

(Satellite of Mesa, AZ, laboratory)

Biology and control of insects that 

affect sugar beets and vegetables

Washington

Sumner Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Bulb Insects Investigations Biology and control of insects 

that affect flowers, bulbs, and greenhouse plants

Wenatchee Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Arid Areas Deciduous Fruit Insects 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Yakima, WA, laboratory)

Biology, ecology, and control of insects 

and mites that affect deciduous fruits

Yakima Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Arid Areas Deciduous Fruit Insects 

Investigations

(Satellite laboratory at Wenatchee, WA)

Biology and control of insects and 

mites that affect deciduous fruits

Potato, Pea, and Sugar Beet Insects 

Investigations

Biology, ecology, and control of insects 

and mites that affect potatoes

Pesticide Chemicals Research 

Branch

Analytical Investigations (Satellite of Beltsville, MD, laboratory)

Analysis of pesticides, pesticide 

residues, and accessory materials

Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating
44Table 3. Research locations and program areas in the Entomology Research Division, 1963—cont’d.

Location Branch Unit Investigating

West Virginia

Kearneysville Fruit and Vegetable Insects 

Research Branch

Humid Areas Deciduous Fruit Insects 

Investigations 

(Satellite of Vincennes, IN, laboratory)

Biology and control of insects and 

mites that affect deciduous tree fruits

Wisconsin

Madison Apiculture Research Branch Bee Management Investigations Research on honeybee colony 

management

Wyoming

Laramie Apiculture Research Branch Bee Disease Investigations 

(Satellite of Beltsville, MD, laboratory)

Research on honeybee diseases
45

Research Accomplishment Highlights

The forward-looking, progressive leadership fostered 

by Knipling has persisted in the Federal entomology 

research community over five decades at this writing. 

The literature is replete with reports of the outstanding 

progress made in developing nonchemical insect 

pest control at Federal, university, and private-sector 

levels. Only a few examples of Federal entomological 

achievements during this period will be presented here 

to give the reader an appreciation for the effects of the 

redirected research effort toward ecologically oriented 

insect control in the Entomology Research Division. 

In 1954, the Insect Identification and Parasite 

Introduction Research Branch was established within 

the Entomology Research Division (Vail et al. 2001). 

Biological control increased from 5 scientific years 

(SY) in 1954 to a peak of 53 SY in 1965 (Coulson et 

al. 2000). (An SY is the work of one scientist employed 

full-time or the equivalent in part-time employees.) 

This decreased to 45 SY in 1972 because of budgetary 

restrictions. Successful biological control programs 

were developed for cereal leaf beetle [Oulema 

melanopus (Linnaeus)], alfalfa weevil [Hypera postica

(Gyllenhal)], and Rhodesgrass mealybug [Antonina 

graminis (Maskell)], as well as other introduced 

pests. Coulson et al. (2000) conservatively estimated 

that benefits resulting from selected ARS classical 

biological control programs equaled or exceeded $150 

million annually. Other successful programs involved 

beneficial insect augmentation and conservation, 

microbial control, and use of entomopathogenic 

nematodes. More complete and specific histories of the 

progress of Federal entomologists in biological control 

are presented in Coulson et al. (2000) and Vail et al. 

(2001). 

Another outstanding achievement was development 

of wheat varieties resistant to Hessian fly and wheat 

stem sawfly [Cephus cinctus Norton], alfalfa varieties 

to spotted alfalfa aphid [Therioaphis maculata

(Buckton)], and corn varieties to European corn borer 

(Luginbill 1969). Hessian fly infestations at one time 

resulted in greater than 50 percent yield loss in the 

United States; losses are minimal today largely due 

to development of resistant wheat varieties. Similarly, 

the discovery of a solid stem-wheat variety that was 

resistant to wheat stem sawfly resulted in more than 

$4 million annual saving to wheat farmers. Spotted 

alfalfa aphid was discovered in New Mexico in 1954. 

After only 3 years of Federal and State cooperative 

efforts, a resistant variety was developed and released. 

Farmer savings in control costs were estimated at $35 

to $70 million annually. The European corn borer was 

estimated to cause $350 million dollars in damage in 

1949 alone. A continuing program of developing corn 

borer resistance in hybrid corn reduced these losses 60 

percent.

Methods of using induced insect sterility to control 

or eradicate insect populations (Knipling 1960) were 

among the most significant contributions to entomology 

during the 1950s and 1960s. The best known method, 

sterile insect release, involves sustained overflooding 

of native insect populations with sterile insects of the 

same species at densities that are high enough that 

few fertile native matings take place. The method was 

hypothesized about 1937 by Knipling (Gall 1968). 

After many years of research, it became scientific 

reality when screwworm flies sterilized by irradiation 

with cobalt-60 were released at the rate of 800 per 

square mile on Curaçao in the Netherlands Antilles in 

1954. Eradication was complete about 3 months after 

the first release (Baumhover et al. 1955). 

Screwworm sterile release programs in the Southwest 

were similarly successful (Baumhover 1966, Knipling 

1960). The southwestern screwworm sterile release 

program resulted in estimated savings of $400 million 

or more during the research phases. Accumulated 

savings over the last 30–40 years far exceed that 

amount. Far more important was demonstration of the 

concept of areawide population suppression (Knipling 

1979). 

The program’s success had far-reaching and persistent 

positive effects on the direction of entomological 

research. The concept is clearly recognized as one of 

the most outstanding contributions in entomology. 

Knipling’s understanding of ecology, insect population 

dynamics, and dispersal gave him the vision to be the 

first entomologist to fully appreciate and employ the 

advantages of areawide pest population suppression 

compared to local focus of pest control on a farm-byfarm basis. His areawide concept profoundly affected 

approaches to applied entomological control and 

research worldwide. The sterile-insect release program, 

as one of the first areawide programs, is an outstanding 

achievement in its own right; but more importantly, 

its successful implementation led to a new era of basic 

research on biology, ecology, physiology, and genetics 

as foundations for sound, efficient, effective insect pest 

management. 
46

Insect responses to chemical, biological, and physical 

stimuli had long been seen as a potential way to 

manipulate behavior to achieve economic control 

through trapping and killing, luring and sterilizing, 

or disrupting mating behavior. Expanded efforts 

beginning in the mid-1950s resulted in identification 

of potent and specific insect sex pheromones. Jacobson 

(1965) compiled a list showing that sex pheromones 

were demonstrated in more than 200 insect species. 

Numerous additional sex pheromones and other 

behavior-modifying chemicals have been identified 

since then. Leonhardt and Moreno (1982) reported that 

sex pheromones were known for more than 250 insect 

species. Identification of sex pheromones set the stage 

for development of successful behavioral control using 

mating disruption technology for highly damaging 

insect pests such as pink bollworm in cotton and 

codling moth in tree fruits.

The potential of attractants combined with a toxicant 

(“attract and kill”) to provide low-cost control of pests 

over large areas was demonstrated in 1965 when the 

oriental fruit fly was eradicated using this method on 

the island of Rota (Steiner et al. 1965). Methyleugenol, 

a powerful male attractant, was combined with an 

insecticide and impregnated in cane-fiber squares. The 

squares were dropped along aircraft flight lines about 

5 miles apart. Daily monitoring with traps showed an 

immediate 93 percent reduction in the fly population. 

After 10 aerial drops, no flies were captured and none 

were found during 24 subsequent months of trapping 

and inspecting host fruits. Only 3.5 grams of toxicant 

per acre was required for the entire program. Numerous 

research projects throughout the United States have 

since focused on some modification of the attract-andkill approach.

During the 1960s scientists of the Entomology 

Research Division initiated extensive research on 

insect hormones and hormonelike materials that disrupt 

insect development rather than cause immediate death. 

Sterility in adult insects was observed after treatment 

with molting hormones or their analogs, whereas 

juvenile hormones interrupted insect development 

(Williams and Robbins 1968). Some of these hormonal 

materials had little effect on nontarget organisms but 

were effective against test insects at rates as low as 

one-billionth of a gram. New “hybrid” synthetic ethers, 

which are juvenile-hormone-like materials, have been 

found to block normal insect growth and development. 

Some of these components showed greater potency 

than the insects’ own hormones (Bowers 1969). These 

accomplishments were the forerunners of current, 

highly effective new insecticide chemistries with 

modes of action similar to those of insect growth and 

molting hormones. 

Cultural controls have been a fundamental tool in 

the entomologist’s arsenal for many years. New 

applications or modification of host-free periods were 

implemented in the 1960s. For example in the Pacific 

Northwest, the green peach aphid [Myzus persicae

(Sulzer)] vectors beet western yellows and beet yellows 

viruses, diseases that resulted in annual losses of as 

much as 25 to 30 percent of sugar beet yields (Wallis 

1967a,c). Beet western yellows, the most prevalent of 

the yellows diseases in the area, has 30 or more hosts 

other than beets that serve as virus reservoirs (Wallis 

1967b). Green peach aphids overwintered primarily in 

the egg stage on peach trees in the general area. Small 

numbers of the summer forms overwinter and feed on 

plants growing year-round in protected places. Many of 

the overwintering hosts of the summer aphid forms are 

also reservoirs for beet western yellows virus (Wallis 

1967b). Removal (by burning) of weeds growing in 

warm-spring water drain ditches in spring, before sugar 

beets began growing and aphids began migrating, 

resulted in 91 percent fewer aphids and 76 percent 

fewer diseased plants than in unburned check areas 

(Wallis 1965). The increased yield in the burned test 

area was estimated at more than 2 tons per acre.

Host elimination or replacement was also developed to 

reduce beet leafhopper [Circulifera tennellus (Baker)] 

populations in Idaho. Beet leafhopper is the vector of 

curly top virus. In large desert and range area studies in 

southern Idaho, Russian thistle [Salsola iberica Senn 

and Pace] was found to be the most important beet 

leafhopper summer host. Scientists recognized that the 

breeding area might be the vulnerable link in the hostplant cycle and postulated that if it were broken, the 

insect could be effectively controlled. Reseeding more 

than 200,000 acres of beet leafhopper breeding areas 

with crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum (L.) 

Gaertn] reduced curly top disease to a minor problem 

(Douglas and Cook 1954, Gibson and Fallini 1963). 

Establishment of crested wheatgrass also increased 

range carrying capacity for grazing ten-fold, increased 

dependability of available range forage, and reduced 

grass fire and wind erosion hazards (Gibson and Fallini 

1963).

These examples are only a few of the many outstanding 

achievements of scientists and staff of the Entomology 
47

Research Division and its predecessor organizations. 

The examples were selected to illustrate the diversity of 

research approaches and efforts directed to ecologically 

based insect pest management. 

With this record of success, it is understandable 

that some concern should arise when, in 1972, ARS 

underwent a major reorganization characterized by 

decentralization and abolishment of all subject-matter 

divisions (Coulson et al. 2000). The disciplinecommodity-oriented research branches that had been 

headed by branch chiefs and their staffs provided 

overall administrative and research program directions 

that were national in scope, but were centrally 

headquartered in Beltsville, MD. Though renamed and 

reorganized on several occasions (table 4), entomology 

as an organizational entity in USDA existed from 1863 

to 1972. (This does not include the single Federal 

Entomologist position established in 1854 in the 

Patent Office.) The broad subject areas of entomology 

research programs and commodities that were 

identified when the Bureau of Entomology was created 

in 1904 remained similar through 1972. 

A brief history of medical and veterinary 

entomology (Schmidt and Fluno 1973) and an 

overall entomological leadership review in USDA 

from 1853 to 1972 (Rainwater and Parencia 1981) 

have been published. Other historical accounts of 

entomology in USDA include the reviews of Geong 

(2001) on the establishment of medical entomology 

in the Bureau of Entomology, Coulson et al. (2000) 

and Vail et al. (2001) on the history of biological 

control, the unpublished report of Nolan (1939) on 

accomplishments in bee culture in the Bureau of 

Entomology and Quarantine, the review of the role 

of insect pollination of cultivated crop plants in 

agriculture by McGregor (1976), and the review by 

Parencia (1978) of 120 years of research on cotton 

insects in the United States. 

Also worthy of mention is the particularly active 

role Federal scientists have played in coordinating 

national programs (Parencia and Hardee 1996). This 

function is exemplified by the Cotton Insect Research 

and Control Conference, held annually since 1947. 

The Federal entomology role was recognized by the 

cotton industry and the National Cotton Council of 

America with publication of “Cotton Insects and Mites: 

Characterization and Management” (King et al. 1996) 

by the Cotton Foundation. The conference has been 

a major factor in bringing States, ARS, consultants, 

and the cotton industry together in their research, 

extension, and control efforts. The conference is part 

of what evolved into the Beltwide Cotton Research 

and Production Conferences sponsored by the National 

Cotton Council of America and others. 

A Study of Discipline-Commodity-Oriented 

Entomology Research

Changes in the entomology research branches and 

other discipline-oriented programs that related to new 

research, closures, redirections, and organizational 

structure are typified by the Insect Pests of Vegetables, 

Ornamentals and Specialty Crops Research Branch, 

which was dissolved in the 1972 ARS reorganization. 

Work on truck crop (vegetables, berries, etc.—

(table 5) insects began in 1854 with establishment of 

the Agriculture Division in the Patent Office. Work 

was carried on in USDA beginning in 1862 and 

formalized in the newly created Division of Truck Crop 

and Special Insect Investigations in 1904 in the new 

Bureau of Entomology. The early Federal entomology 

philosophy was to attack problems at the site. Small 

staffs at numerous locations where specific insect 

problems were developing were the order of the day. 

One of the earliest records of Federal vegetable insect 

research is that on Colorado potato beetle, which began 

soon after the insect was found invading potato fields in 

some western States in 1860. The effective use of paris 

green in 1867 against the Colorado potato beetle was 

one of the first recorded demonstrations of effective 

chemical control of a vegetable insect pest (Busbey 

1962). Paris green thereafter found additional use in 

controlling other pests and for many years remained the 

standard treatment for control of chewing insects. 

In 1891, Chittenden was appointed to the Division 

of Entomology Staff to develop information on truck 

crop insects. When the Bureau of Entomology was 

established in 1904, Chittenden was designated in 

charge of the Division of Small Fruit and Truck 

Crop Insect Investigations. The division investigated 

insect pests of vegetables and berries, greenhouse 

and ornamental plants, tobacco, sugar beet, and some 

specialty crops. Stored products and shade tree insects 

were also assigned, but were later transferred to other 

divisions. Some of the first work on truck crop insects 

in the division was conducted in the early 1900s at one 

of the Bureau of Entomology locations in Plymouth, 
48

Table 4. Federal entomological organizations and leadership from 1854 to 1972

Organization Years In charge

Department of the Interior, U.S. Patent Office 1854-1859 Townend Glover

Department of Agriculture:

 Division of Entomology 1863-1878 Townend Glover

1878-1879 Charles V. Riley

1879-1881 John H. Comstock

1881-1894 Charles V. Riley

1894-1904 Leland O. Howard

 

 Bureau of Entomology 1904-19271 Leland O. Howard

1927-19332 Charles L. Marlatt

1933-19342 Lee A. Strong

 

 Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine3 1934-1941 Lee A. Strong

1941-1950 Percy N. Annand

1950-1953 Avery S. Hoyt

 

 Entomology Research Branch 1953-1955 Edward F. Knipling

 

 Entomology Research Division4 1956-1971 Edward F. Knipling

1971-1972 HC Cox

Source: Baker et al. 1963.

1 The Plant Quarantine Act was passed in 1912, and a Federal Horticultural Board was appointed to administer the act. This was the first 

official Federal entomology involvement in quarantine procedures. 2 The Plant Quarantine and Control Administration was established in 1928 assuming responsibility for Bureau of Entomology and Bureau 

of Plant Industry regulatory work. The Bureau of Plant Quarantine followed in 1932, and in 1934 the Bureaus of Plant Quarantine and of 

Entomology were combined. 3 The unit became Crop Regulatory Programs in the 1953 abolishment of the bureaus, and subsequent reorganization of the unit had Plant 

Pest Control and Plant Quarantine Branches. 4 Abolished June 30, 1972. Since 1972 entomological research has been conducted in various laboratories under the administrative 

supervision of the ARS Area Directors. Clarence H. Hoffman served as acting division director until H.C. Cox’s appointment was formalized.
49

Table 5. Vegetable and berry insects research in the Entomology Research Division and its predecessor organizations through 1972

Location Original research assignment Additional assignment Status

Whittier, CA 1913 Potato insects (potato tuberworm) –

Transferred 1916 to Alhambra, CA

Baton Rouge, LA 1914 Vegetable insect investigations (turnip 

aphid); berry insects (strawberries)

1932, cole crop investigations (cabbage 

caterpillars)

1944, sweetpotato investigations (by 

transfer from Opelousas, LA)

1920, tomato fruitworm1925, cucumber beetles

Discontinued 1951

Madison, WI 1916 Onion investigations (onion maggot) 1917, melon investigations (cucumber 

beetle)

1923, pea insects investigations (pea 

aphid)

Discontinued 1952

Alhambra, CA 1916 Potato tuberworm, pea aphid 1917, celery insect investigations 

(celery leaftier)

1924, wireworms1925, vegetable insect investigations 

(pepper weevil)

1932, cole crop investigations1936, tomato insect investigations1945, onion insect investigations (onion 

thrips)

1949, vegetable insects investigations 

(serpentine leaf miner)

1949, seed corn maggot

Transferred 1951 to 

Whittier, CA

Biloxi, MS 1917 Sweetpotato insects (sweetpotato 

weevil)

1935, vegetable weevil (transferred from 

Gulfport, MS)

1927, wireworms

Transferred 1937 to 

Sunset, LA
50

Location Original research assignment Additional assignment StatusBay St. Louis, MS 1917 Sweetpotato insects (sweetpotato 

weevil)

Transferred 1937

Grand Bay, AL 1917 Sweetpotato insects (sweetpotato 

weevil)

Transferred 1937

MacClenny, FL 1918? Sweetpotato insects (sweetpotato 

weevil)

Plant City, FL 1918? Sweetpotato insects (sweetpotato 

weevil)

Waveland, MS 1918? Sweetpotato insects (sweetpotato 

weevil)

Chadburn, NC 1919 Seed corn maggot 1921, mole crickets

1922, strawberry weevil1932, cole crop investigations 

(melonworms, pickleworm)

Transferred 1939

Tampa, FL 1918 Sweetpotato weevil – Transferred 1928

Cash Corner, NC 1923 Temporary substation of Chadburn; 

seed corn maggot

–

Estancia, NM 1923 Bean insects (Mexican bean beetle) – Transferred 1935 to 

Grand Junction, CO

Gulfport, MS 1924 Vegetable weevil quarantine treatment 1946, sweetpotato weevil Transferred 1935 to 

Biloxi, MS

Table 5. Vegetable and berry insects research in the Entomology Research Division and its predecessor organizations through 1972—cont’d.
51

Location Original research assignment Additional assignment StatusCharleston, SC 1925 Seed corn maggot 1932, cole crop investigations 

(cabbage, caterpillars)

1934, wireworms (transferred from 

Fairfax, SC) 

1949, melon investigations 

(melonworm, pickleworm)

Active

Thomasville, AL 1925 Mexican bean beetle, temporary 

substation

– Discontinued, date 

unknown

Philadelphia, PA 1926 Physiology and toxicology investigations – Discontinued, date 

unknown

Riverton, NJ 1926? Physiology and toxicology investigations – Discontinued, date 

unknown

Twin Falls, ID 1925 Sugar beet insects 1949, beans and curlytop Discontinued after 

1972

Geneva, NY 1924 Bean insects (Mexican bean beetle) 1932, cole crop insects

1926, strawberry insects

Discontinued 1932

Toppenish, WA 1924 Wireworms –Columbus, OH 1925 Bean insects (bean leafhopper, Mexican 

bean beetle)

1932, cole crop insects Discontinued 1953

Birmingham, AL 1921 Mexican bean beetle, tomato fruitworm – Transferred 1929 to 

Norfolk, VA

Table 5. Vegetable and berry insects research in the Entomology Research Division and its predecessor organizations through 1972—cont’d.
52

Location Original research assignment Additional assignment StatusSanford, FL 1926 Celery insects (celery leaftier) 

Sweetpotato weevil

1931, vegetable insecticide 

investigations (Puerto Rican mole cricket)

Discontinued 1939

Picayune, MS 1926 Sweetpotato insects (sweetpotato 

weevil) 

– Discontinued 1937

Walla Walla, WA 1928 Wireworms 1933, sugar beet insects (transferred 

from Toppenish, WA)

Transferred 1961 to 

Yakima, WA

Sligo, MD 1926 Berry Insects Research Station Insect transmission of bramble diseases Transferred 1935 to 

Beltsville, MD

Puyallup, WA 1928 Berry insects, European earwig – Transferred 1941 to 

Union Gap, WA

Arlington Farm, 

Rosslyn, VA

1930 Berry Insects Research Station Berry insects Transferred 1935 to 

Beltsville, MD

San Jose, CA 1928 Vegetable weevil – Discontinued, date 

unknown

Norfolk, VA 1929 Bean insects – Discontinued 1958Santa Ana, CA 1924 Pepper weevil – Transferred 1931 to 

Alhambra, CA

Parma, ID 1927 Wireworms – Transferred 1941 to 

Twin Falls, ID

Corvallis, OR 1930 Pea insects (pea weevil) – Transferred 1939 to 

Forest Grove, OR

Fairfax, SC 1930 Wireworms – Transferred 1934 to 

Sanford, FL

Table 5. Vegetable and berry insects research in the Entomology Research Division and its predecessor organizations through 1972—cont’d.
53

Location Original research assignment Additional assignment StatusMoscow, ID 1931 Pea investigations (pea weevil) – Transferred 1935 to 

Walla Walla, WA

Ventura, CA 1931 Bean insects (lima bean pod borer) 1939, wireworms Transferred 1951 to 

Whittier, CA

Phoenix, AZ 1932 Lettuce insects 1935, sugar beet insects (beet 

leafhopper, transferred from Grand Junction, CO)

1948, beet leafhopper (melons)1949, vegetable insects investigations 

(serpentine leafminer)

Transferred 1959 to 

Mesa, AZ

Dayton, WA 1935 Pea weevil – Transferred 1935 to 

Walla Walla, WA

Logan, UT 1936 Sugar beet insects 1947, celery insects investigations 

(celery leaftier)

Discontinued 1964

Sunset, LA 1937 Relocation of Biloxi, MS, work; 

sweetpotato weevil, vegetable weevil, wireworms

– Transferred 1943 to 

Opelousas, LA

Forest Grove, OR 1939 Pea insects (pea weevil) 1948, insecticide application methods Discontinued 1948Scottsbluff, NE 1939 Potato insects (potato psyllid) – Discontinued 1956Union Gap, WA 1941 Potato insects (tuber flea beetle) – Transferred 1961 to 

Yakima, WA

Presque Isle, ME 1942 Potato insects (aphids) – Discontinued after 

1972

Table 5. Vegetable and berry insects research in the Entomology Research Division and its predecessor organizations through 1972—cont’d.
54

Location Original research assignment Additional assignment StatusPlant City, FL 1943 Celery insects (puerto rican mole 

cricket)

– Discontinued 1943

Opelousas, LA 1943 Sweetpotato insects (transferred from 

Sunset, LA) (sweetpotato weevil)

– Transferred 1944 to 

Baton Rouge, LA

Orono, ME 1945 Potato insects (aphids) – Discontinued after 

1972

Whittier, CA 1951 Relocation of Alhambra and Ventura 

work

1951, wireworm (transferred from 

Ventura, CA)

Transferred 1961 to 

Riverside, CA

Mesa, AZ 1959 Relocation of Phoenix work – Discontinued 1977

Yakima, WA 1961 Relocation and consolidation of Union 

Gap and Walla Walla work

– Active

Table 5. Vegetable and berry insects research in the Entomology Research Division and its predecessor organizations through 1972—cont’d.
55

IN (Luginbill 1955). Research was initiated on specific 

commodities or insect problems with funding by 

Congress in response to requests by constituents, by 

relocations and redirections of existing work, or by 

recognition of problems by the headquarters research 

program staff. 

Early vegetable insect work was conducted on pests 

of celery, potatoes, cole crops, onions, sweetpotatoes, 

beans, peas, lettuce, tomatoes, and melons. Insects 

studied were the potato tuberworm [Phthorimaea 

operculella (Zeller)], celery leaftier [Udea rubigalis 

(Guenée)], crickets, onion thrips [Thrips tabaci 

Lindeman], caterpillars, cucumber beetles, melon 

worm [Diaphania hyalinata (Linnaeus)], pickleworm 

[Diaphania nitidalis (Stoll)], pea weevil [Bruchus 

pisorum (Linnaeus)], pea aphid [Acyrthosiphon pisum 

(Harris)], sweetpotato weevil [Cylas formicarius 

elegantulus (Summers)], Mexican bean beetle 

[Epilachna varivestis Mulsant], tomato pinworm 

[Keiferia lycopersicella (Walsingham)], and tomato 

fruitworm [Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)]. Studies were 

initiated on strawberry insects at Baton Rouge, LA, as 

early as 1914 and at Geneva, NY, in 1926. Strawberry 

root weevil [Otiorhynchus ovatus (Linnaeus)] was 

studied at Chadbourn, NC, from 1922. Research on 

berry insects began at Puyallup, WA, in 1928 and at 

Arlington Farm in 1930. Studies were initiated on 

insect transmission of bramble diseases at Sligo, MD, 

in 1926; this project was later (1930) transferred to 

Arlington Farm and thence to Beltsville in 1935. 

Work on berry insects was apparently discontinued at 

Puyallup in 1930. 

Investigations on greenhouse and ornamental 

insect problems were sporadic and were originally 

accomplished under funds appropriated for tropical 

insects research (table 6). The first systematic study 

was initiated in 1918 with establishment of a laboratory 

and greenhouse facility in Washington, Washington, 

DC. In 1935, the buildings and greenhouses were 

completed at the Agricultural Research Center, 

Beltsville, MD, and greenhouse insect work was 

transferred to the new location. In 1925, research on 

narcissus bulb fly [Merodon equestris (Fabricius)] 

started in Santa Cruz, CA; then it was transferred to 

Puyallup, WA, and finally to Sumner, WA, in 1929; the 

work ended in 1969. Research on insects affecting bulb 

crops was initiated in 1929 at Babylon, NY, and ended 

in 1944. In 1948, a laboratory to investigate greenhouse 

and ornamental insect problems in cooperation with 

Cornell University was established at Farmingdale, NY; 

this work was discontinued in 1973. At present, work 

on greenhouse and ornamental insect pests is conducted 

at Beltsville and at the United States National 

Arboretum, DC, under administrative guidance of the 

Plant Science Institute at Beltsville.

From 1904 to 1929, tobacco insects research was 

conducted by the Southern Field Crops Insects 

Investigations groups but thereafter was transferred to 

the Truck Crop and Garden Insect Investigations. The 

first laboratory was established in 1907 at Clarksville, 

TN, to develop methods to control tobacco hornworms 

[Manduca sexta (Linnaeus)] and flea beetles [Epitrix 

hirtipennis (Melsheimer)]. In 1915, a substation of the 

Clarksville laboratory was established at Quincy, FL, 

to investigate insects affecting shade-grown tobacco. 

In 1928, an entomologist was sent to Tempe, AZ, to 

investigate potential tobacco insect problems pending 

commercial tobacco production in Arizona. Research 

on insect pests of stored tobacco started at Richmond, 

VA, in 1930 and in 1936 at Windsor, CT, and on fluecured tobacco at Oxford, NC, and Florence, SC, the 

same year.

Laboratories at Clarksville, Tempe, and Windsor 

were closed between 1932 and 1951. Also, in August 

1951 the functions of the Richmond laboratory were 

transferred to the Division of Stored Product Insect 

Investigations. In 1966, a substation of the Oxford 

laboratory was established on St. Croix, VI, to 

investigate nonchemical methods of suppressing insect 

populations. 

In 1929, a project was established at the request of the 

mushroom industry to develop methods of insect and 

mite control to end the producers’ excessive losses 

(table 6). Office and laboratory space was provided 

in Takoma Park, MD, with experimental mushroom 

houses and storage facilities at Arlington Farm. The 

entire project was transferred to Beltsville in 1935. 

Research continued there until 1953, at which time the 

project was terminated. 

Federal appropriations were made as early as 1899 to 

promote the sugar beet industry in the United States. 

Research dealt mainly with culture and seed production 

and subsequently with breeding disease-resistant 

varieties. Until 1905, the relationship between curly 

top disease and beet leafhopper was unknown. The 

first laboratory to investigate and develop methods of 

controlling beet leafhopper was established in 1909 

at Compton, CA (table 7); however, the first Federal 
56

Table 6. History of greenhouse and ornamental, tobacco, and mushroom insects research in the 

Entomology Research Division and its predecessor organizations through 1978

Location Est. Investigations Status

Greenhouse and Ornamentals

Washington, D.C. 1918 Greenhouse insects, gladiolus Transferred 1935 to Beltsville, MD

 bugs

Santa Cruz, CA 1925 Bulb insects Transferred 1927 to Puyallup, WA

Puyallup, WA 1927 Bulb insects Transferred 1929 to Sumner, WA

Babylon, NY 1929 Narcissus bulb insects Discontinued 1944

Sumner, WA 1929 Narcissus bulb insects Discontinued 1969

Beltsville, MD 1935 Greenhouse insects Active

Farmingdale, NY 1948 Greenhouse, ornamental insects Discontinued 1973

Tobacco

Clarksville, TN 1907 Hornworm, flea beetles Discontinued 1951

Florence, SC 1936 Insect pests of flue-cured 

 tobacco Discontinued, date unknown

Tempe, AZ 1928 Tobacco insects, tobacco 

 stalkborer Discontinued 19321

Oxford, NC 1935 Insects of flue-cured tobacco Discontinued, date unknown

Quincy, FL 

(substation of 

Clarksville) 1915 Shade tobacco insects Discontinued 1974

Richmond, VA 1930 Stored tobacco insect problems Transferred 1951 to Stored Product 

Insects

Windsor, CT 1936 Shade tobacco insects Discontinued 1942

St. Croix, VI 1966 Tobacco hornworm Discontinued, date unknown

Chadbourne, NC 1925 Wireworms

Mushroom

Takoma Park, MD 19292 Mites and mushroom flies Transferred 1935 to Beltsville, MD

Arlington Farm, 19293 Mites, mushroom flies, and Transferred 1935 to Beltsville, MD 

 Rosslyn, VA chemical residues

Beltsville, MD 1935 Mushroom flies Discontinued 1953, 

 Reestablished 1978

1

 Reassignment of research to investigating lettuce and vegetable insect problems in 1932, which was transferred 1934 to Phoenix, AZ; see 

Vegetable Insects Research, table 5. 

2

 Laboratory and office space.

3 Mushroom houses and storage.
57

Table 7. Locations of sugar beet insects1 research in the Entomology Research Division and its 

predecessor organizations in USDA through 1977

Location Status

Compton, CA 1909 Transferred 1917 to Alhambra, CA2

Jerome, ID 1910 Discontinued 1914

Alhambra, CA 1917 Transferred 1939 to Ventura, CA3

Riverside, CA 1919 Discontinued 1924

Twin Falls, ID 1925 Discontinued after 1972

Toppenish, WA 1925 Transferred 1933 to Walla Walla, WA

Richfield, CT 1927 Transferred 1930 to Salt Lake City, UT

Walla Walla, WA 1928 Transferred 1961 to Yakima, WA

Davis, CA 1929 Transferred 1933 to Modesto, CA

Grand Junction, CO 1929 Discontinued 1939

Hermiston, OR 1929 Transferred 1933 to Grand Junction, CO

Las Cruces, NM 1929 Discontinued, date unknown

Salt Lake City, UT 1930 Transferred 1936 to St. George, UT

Modesto, CA 1933 Discontinued 1943

Phoenix, AZ 1935 Transferred 1959 to Mesa, AZ

Logan, UT 1936 Discontinued 1964

St. George, UT 1936 Transferred 1938 to Modesto, CA

Fort Collins, CO 1957 Discontinued 1962

Mesa, AZ 1959 Discontinued 1977

Yakima, WA 1961 Discontinued, date unknown

1

 Except for the sugar beet wireworm project in Compton, CA, all sugar beet insect research concerned beet leafhopper.

2

 Scope expanded to include all irrigated-land wireworms.

3

 Wireworm only.
58

appropriation for sugar beet entomology did not come 

until 1913. Research was conducted on sugar beet 

insects by Federal entomologists at 20 locations in the 

United States. 

Commodity treatment work began in 1929 in Florida 

to develop methods of treating citrus for Mediterranean 

fruit fly infestations. The research continued in the 

Division of Control Investigations in BEPQ beginning 

in 1934 (table 8). In 1935, work on baled cotton 

fumigation was conducted at Alpine, TX. The Truck 

Crop and Garden Insects Section became associated 

with commodity treatment programs in 1937 when 

a laboratory was set up in the District of Columbia 

to develop treatments for plant material, such as rose 

stock and evergreens, imported under special permits. 

The project was transferred first to Arlington Farm 

in 1940, then to St. Louis, MO, in 1941, and finally 

in 1942 to El Paso, TX. The Hoboken, NJ, station 

was established in 1940 to investigate quarantine 

commodity treatment, closed in 1943, and reopened 

in 1946. A substation on golden nematode fumigation 

at Hicksville, NY, was also maintained for a period. In 

1953, when BEPQ was abolished, the Hoboken station 

(including the Hicksville substation) was assigned to 

the Truck Crops and Garden Insects Section of the 

Entomology Research Division. 

The events described in this case study are similar 

to the evolution of other research branches of the 

Entomology Research Division. Initiations and 

relocations of research as needs arose is good evidence 

of the responsiveness of the organization to consumer 

needs and the ability to establish priorities for existing 

research resources. Additionally, the flexibility and 

ability to respond quickly afforded the opportunity 

for continuity and long-term programs irrespective of 

personnel changes. 

More on Entomology Regulatory 

Programs

Quarantine, inspection, and regulation of within-State, 

interstate, and international commerce have been a 

major part of Federal entomology’s history. 

Research and regulatory programs have been separated 

and recombined on several occasions. The first 

separation was abolishment of the Federal Horticultural 

Board in the Bureau of Entomology and establishment 

of the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration 

(1928), which later became the Bureau of Plant 

Quarantine (1933). As part of the 1953 reorganization 

some functions—either research or regulatory 

responsibilities—of the Bureaus of Plant Protection, 

Animal Industry, Entomology, and Plant Quarantine 

were transferred to ARS. The entomology regulatory 

units were designated Plant Pest Control Branch and 

Plant Quarantine Branch. 

Apparently, these periodic organizational adjustments 

were a continuing effort to consolidate and improve 

efficiency of the animal and plant protection activities 

that began with establishment of the Agricultural 

Research Administration in 1941 and were among 

the earlier concerns of Secretaries of Agriculture 

Houston, Jardine, and others (Baker et al. 1963). The 

major responsibilities of USDA for regulatory and 

quarantine entomology have therefore undergone 

major changes since the first formal authorities for 

inspections and regulatory duties affecting interstate 

commodity movement and importations into the United 

States were established. As previously discussed, these 

authorities stem from the Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 

establishing a Federal Horticultural Board. The work 

of the board was accomplished within the Bureau of 

Entomology until 1928, when the Plant Quarantine and 

Control Administration was established. The Bureau 

of Plant Quarantine succeeded the Plant Quarantine 

and Control Administration in 1933, and the Bureau 

of Plant Quarantine was combined with the Bureau of 

Entomology in 1934. 

Following the 1953 USDA reorganization, quarantine 

and plant pest control work that was formally assigned 

as described above became the Plant Pest Control 

and Plant Quarantine Branches in the Regulatory and 

Control Organizational Unit of ARS. This included 

Federal and State cooperative pest surveys, regulation 

(quarantine), and control activities. Crop regulatory 

programs assumed responsibility for preventing 

introduction of foreign pests into the United States, 

eradicating or containing infestations of newly 

introduced pests before they could become established, 

and controlling spread of some native pests that 

were more effectively managed through coordinated 

areawide action (Spears and Upholt 1979). 

Control activities range from commodity fumigation 

and cold treatment to areawide control programs 

for insects such as boll weevil, gypsy moth, cereal 

leaf beetle, imported fire ant [Solenopsis geminata 

(Fabricius)], pink bollworm, and other pests. Control 
59

Table 8. Bureau of Entomology Plant Quarantine Commodity Treatment Research Stations 

in the Entomology Research Division and its predecessor organizations through 1968

Location Est. Investigations Status

Doylstown and 

Willowbrook, PA

1921 Rosebeetle fumigation Discontinued 1929

Washington, DC 19371 Quarantine commodity

treatment (roses, beans, 

evergreens)

Transferred 1940 to

Arlington Farm, Rosslyn, 

VA

Arlington Farm, 

Rosslyn, VA

1940 Quarantine commodity 

treatment

Discontinued 1941

Hoboken, NJ 1940 Quarantine commodity 

treatment

Discontinued 1943

St. Louis, Mo 1941 Fumigation treatment of 

evergreens and other plants

Transferred 1942 to

El Paso, TX

El Paso, TX 1942 Fumigation treatment of 

Mexican fruitfly, pink 

bollworm

Transferred 1949 to

Hoboken, NJ

Beltsville, MD 1945 Fumigation problems of 

evergreens, rose stock

Transferred 1968 to Plant 

Quarantine Division

Hoboken, NJ 1946 Quarantine commodity 

treatment

Transferred 1968 to Plant 

Quarantine Division 

Lafayette, LA 1946 Sweetpotato weevil quarantine Transferred 1968 to Plant

 Quarantine Division

Hicksville, NY 1951 Golden nematode Transferred 1968 to Plant 

Quarantine Division
60

work was cooperative with State departments of 

agriculture, State experiment stations, extension 

services, and the public sector.

Another aspect of Federal entomological activity 

involved regulation of chemicals for insect control 

(Spears and Upholt 1979). The Food and Drugs Act 

of 1906 was concerned for the most part with safety 

of foods, drugs, medicines, and legumes. It was 

administered by the Bureau of Chemistry (established 

1901). The need for the same overview on insecticides 

and fungicides resulted in the Insecticide and Fungicide 

Act of 1910. An Insecticide and Fungicide Board 

was formed to enforce the 1910 Act. The Chief of the 

Bureau of Entomology was a member of the board. In 

1927, all functions of the Insecticide and Fungicide 

Board were transferred to the newly established 

Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration, which 

was redesignated the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) in 1930. The Food and Drug Administration 

was transferred to the Federal Security Agency and is 

now part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Later, Congress enacted the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 1947 to 

replace the 1910 Act. The new Act was introduced 

soon after discovery of organic insecticides. The Act 

was modified at various times and totally revised in 

1972. Residue tolerances were set by the FDA. In 

December 1970 the Environmental Protection Agency 

was established and inherited administration of FIFRA 

for registration of pesticides (formerly in USDA) and 

establishment of pesticide residue tolerances (formerly 

set by FDA). 

Separation of Regulatory Activities From 

ARS 

One of the objectives of the 1953 reorganization of 

the Bureaus, to provide research to support regulatory 

activities in ARS, was never achieved because of 

competing demands of research and regulation. ARS 

was oriented toward basic scientific research, while 

plant protection and quarantine regulation and control 

required practical pest and disease management tools. 

A new agency was created in 1971 and called the 

Animal and Plant Health Service (APHS). In 1972, 

the meat and poultry inspection divisions of the 

Consumer and Marketing Service (later known as the 

Agricultural Marketing Service) were added to APHS, 

resulting in the name changing to Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). A recent book 

edited by Hallman and Schwalbe (2002) describes the 

current role of APHIS in agriculture, the challenges of 

preventing and coping with invasive pest species, and 

the history of the organization. 

Dowdy (2004) wrote that, “As a regulatory 

organization, APHIS provides leadership in protecting 

and improving the health and care of animal and 

plant resources, improving agricultural productivity 

and competitiveness and contributing to the national 

economy and public health. The agency consists 

of six main program delivery areas: Animal Care, 

International Services, Biotechnology Regulatory 

Services, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), 

Veterinary Services, and Wildlife Services. The 

primary mission of the agency is regulatory, but APHIS 

also conducts research projects in conjunction with 

specific regulatory needs. These research activities 

are primarily within PPQ, Veterinary Services, and 

Wildlife Services. Thus, APHIS employees are 

involved in the operational aspects of program delivery, 

as well as other aspects that provide scientific support 

of agency operations.”

Reorganization of ARS

In 1972, a departmental reorganization established 

the position of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for 

Science and Education with responsibility for several 

agencies, each with an administrator and associate and 

assistant administrators (Toba 1998): 

Agricultural Research Service 

Cooperative State Research Service 

Extension Service

National Agricultural Library 

Forest Service

Soil Conservation Service

The reorganization of ARS conformed to 

President Richard Nixon’s doctrine of government 

decentralization. In 1972 all divisions and branches 

were abolished. National Program and Program 

Analysis and Coordination Staffs were established 

to provide centralized leadership, planning, and 

coordination for commodity and discipline research 

areas. Deputy administrators were appointed to 4 

geographical regions, which were divided into 29 

areas. Additionally, an International Programs Division 

was established at Headquarters in the Beltsville and 

District of Columbia area. The National Program 
61

Staff was headed by assistant deputy administrators 

with national program leaders responsible for specific 

scientific areas:

Livestock and Veterinary Sciences*

Animal Diseases**

Beef Cattle**

Dairy Cattle**

Poultry**

Sheep and Other Animals**

Swine**

Marketing, Nutrition and Engineering Sciences*

Agricultural Structures and Electrification** 

Farm Machinery**

Food Safety and Health**

Human Nutrition and Family Living** 

Market Quality**

Marketing Specialist**

Processing Technology—Foods** 

Processing Technology—Fibers** 

Processing Technology—Industrial** 

Transportation and Facilities**

Plant and Entomological Sciences*

Bees**

Cotton**

Grain and Forage Insects** 

Forage-and-Range**

Fruit and Vegetable Insects** 

Fruits**

Genetics and Plant Breeding** 

Man, Animal and Stored Products Insects; and 

 Household Pests**

Narcotics**

Oilseeds**

Pest Management**

Plant Introduction**

Plant Pathology and Nematology** 

Sugar Crops**

Tobacco**

Vegetables**

Weeds**

Soil, Water and Air Sciences*

Environmental Quality**

Erosion and Sedimentation** 

Remote Sensing**

Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition** 

Soil-Plant-Atmosphere**

Waste Management and Microbiology** 

Water Management**

Watershed Hydrology**

* Assistant deputy administrator level.

** National program leader responsibility area.

Also, regional staffs consisted of assistant deputy 

administrators, assistants to deputy administrators for 

program planning and research, regional information 

officers, and regional administrative officers. Each 

region was divided into areas, each with an area 

director and assistant area director. The regions, areas, 

and office locations were—

Northeast Region, Beltsville, MD

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, 

 MD

Chesapeake-Potomac Area, Hyattsville, MD 

Eastern Regional Center, Wyndmoor, PA 

North Atlantic Area, Ithaca, NY 

Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Orient Point, 

 NY

North Central Region, Peoria, IL

Dakotas-Alaska Area, Fargo ND 

Illinois-Indiana-Ohio Area, Lafayette, IN 

Kansas-Nebraska Area, Clay Center, NE 

Michigan-Minnesota-Wisconsin Area, St. Paul, MN 

Missouri-Iowa Area, Columbia, MO 

National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA 

Northern Regional Research Center, Peoria, IL

Western Region, Berkeley, CA

Northern Arizona Area, Phoenix, AZ 

Colorado-Wyoming Area, Fort Collins, CO 

Idaho-Montana-Utah Area, Logan, UT 

Southern Arizona-New Mexico Area, Tucson, AZ 

Northern California-Nevada Area, Fresno, CA

Oregon-Washington Area, Pullman, WA 

Southern California-Hawaii Area, Riverside, CA 

Western Regional Research Center, Albany, CA

Southern Region, New Orleans, LA

Alabama-North Mississippi Area, 

 Mississippi State, MS 

Athens, Georgia Area, Athens, GA 

Florida-Antilles Area, Gainesville, FL 

Georgia-South Carolina Area, Tifton, GA 

Mid-Atlantic Area, Raleigh, NC 

Mississippi Valley Area, Stoneville, MS 
62

Oklahoma-Texas Area, College Station, TX 

Southern Regional Research Center, 

 New Orleans, LA 

Subtropical Texas Area, Weslaco, TX

Division and research branch entomology resources 

were incorporated into the region/area organization in 

1972. Designated ARS areas have been progressively 

consolidated, so that by 2006 only eight remained. 

Toba (1998) catalogued a brief chronology of events 

affecting ARS following the 1972 reorganization:

1974 In the Western Region, the area office in 

Riverside, CA, was closed and consolidated 

into the California-Hawaii-Nevada Area. The 

area office in Phoenix, AZ, was closed and 

consolidated into the Arizona-New Mexico 

Area.

1977 In the Northcentral Region, the area offices in 

St. Paul, MN, and Columbia, MO, were closed 

and combined, forming a new area called MidGreat Plains Area headquartered at Ames, IA.

1978 Conservation, research, and education in 

USDA was reorganized by consolidating ARS, 

Extension Service, CSRS, and NAL into the 

new Science and Education Administration 

(SEA). Under this administration were 

Research, Education and Teaching Staff, 

ARS, and the Cooperative Research and 

Education Service. Additionally, the Office of 

International Cooperative Development (OICD) 

was established and absorbed much of the 

responsibility of ARS’s International Program 

Division.

With further reduction in the number of area 

offices in SEA-ARS, the number of areas in 

Western Region was reduced from 5 to 4:

 California-Hawaii Area, Fresno, CA 

 California, Hawaii

 Arid Southwest Area, Logan, UT 

 Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada,Utah

 Rocky Mountain Area, Fort Collins, CO 

 Colorado, Montana, Wyoming

 Pacific Northwest Area, Pullman, WA

 Idaho, Oregon, Washington

1981 An International Activities Office was 

established in ARS and the International 

Program Division abolished. The International 

Activities Office had responsibility for ARS 

overseas laboratories and thus influenced 

entomology and biological control programs.

1982 SEA abolished. To reduce administrative 

costs, the number of positions on the National 

Program Staff was reduced from 57 to 

35. Under the new structure, the Deputy 

Administrator for National Programs had two 

associate deputy administrators (ADA), each 

with three national program directors (NPD) 

and several national program leaders (NPL).

ADA for Plant & Natural Resource Sciences 

Staff was assisted by NPDs for Natural 

Resources, Crop Production, and Crop 

Protection and by NPLs for—

 Water Management/Salinity 

 Soil Productivity/Environmental Quality 

 Hydrology

 Systems, Remote Sensing

 Grain crops

 Fiber, Oil, Tobacco

 Horticultural, Sugar

 Forage, Pasture, Range

 Engineering/Energy

 Plant Health

 Weeds

 Entomology

 Tillage/Erosion/Soil-Plant-Air, Plant 

 Physiology/Biotechnology, and Pest 

 Management were covered by ADAs 

 and NPDs

ADA for Animal, Human Nutrition, & 

Postharvest Sciences Staff was assisted 

by NPDs for Animal Production, Animal 

Protection, and Product Use, and by NPLs 

for—

Bioregulation

Product Losses

Product Quality

Animal Health

Insects, Man & Animals

Food Safety

Dairy

Textiles & Fibers

Beef & Sheep, Poultry, and Swine were 

 covered byADAs and NPDs
63

1984 To further reduce administrative costs, the 

number of areas was reduced from 26 to 11:

 Northeast Region, Beltsville, MD

 Beltsville Area, Beltsville, MD

 Beltsville Area Research Center

 Beltsville Human Nutrition Center

 National Arboretum

 Family Economic Research Group 

 North Atlantic Area, Philadelphia, PA 

 Connecticut

 Delaware

 Massachusetts

 Maine

 Maryland

 New Jersey

 New Hampshire

 New York

 Pennsylvania

 Rhode Island

 Vermont

 West Virginia

 Eastern Regional Research Center

 Plum Island Animal Disease Center 

 North Atlantic Human Nutrition 

 Center

 North Central Region, Peoria, IL

 Central Plains Area, Ames, IA 

 Iowa

 Kansas

 Missouri

 Nebraska

 National Animal Disease Center

 Mid-West Area, Peoria, IL 

 Illinois

 Indiana

 Ohio

 Northern Regional Research Center

 Northern States Area, St. Paul, MN 

 Michigan

 Minnesota

 North Dakota

 South Dakota

 Wisconsin

 Northern States Human Nutrition 

 Center

 Western Region, Oakland, CA

 Pacific Basin Area, Albany, CA 

 California

 Hawaii

 Western Regional Research 

 Center

 Pacific Basin Human Nutrition 

 Research Center

 Mountain States Area, Ft. Collins, CO 

 Arizona

 Colorado

 Nevada

 New Mexico

 Utah

 Wyoming

 Northwest Area, Portland, OR 

 Alaska

 Idaho

 Oregon

 Montana

 Washington

 Southern Region, New Orleans, LA

 South Atlantic Area, Athens, GA 

 Florida

 Georgia

 Puerto Rico

 North Carolina

 South Carolina

 Virginia

 Southern Plains Area, 

 College Station, TX 

 Arkansas

 Oklahoma

 Texas

 Southern Plains Human Nutrition 

 Research Center

 Mid-South Area, Stoneville, MS

 Alabama

 Kentucky

 Louisiana

 Mississippi

 Tennessee

 Southern Regional Research Center

1985 Regional headquarters were abolished, but 

area offices remained the same as in 1984. 

However, areas were realigned:

 Beltsville Area, Beltsville, MD 

 Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

 Midwest Area, Peoria, IL 

 Iowa

 Illinois

 Indiana

 Michigan

 Missouri

 Minnesota

 Ohio

 Wisconsin
64

 Mid South Area, Stoneville, MS 

 Alabama

 Kentucky

 Louisiana

 Mississippi

 Tennessee

 North Atlantic Area, Philadelphia, PA 

 Connecticut

 Delaware

 Massachusetts

 Maine

 Maryland

 New Jersey

 New Hampshire

 New York

 Pennsylvania

 Rhode Island

 Vermont

 West Virginia

 Northern Plains Area, Ft. Collins, CO 

 Colorado

 Kansas

 Montana

 North Dakota

 Nebraska

 South Dakota

 Utah

 Wyoming

 Pacific West Area, Albany, CA 

 Alaska

 Arizona

 California

 Hawaii

 Idaho

 Nevada

 Oregon

 Washington

 South Atlantic Area, Athens, GA 

 Florida

 Georgia

 Puerto Rico

 North Carolina

 South Carolina

 Virginia

 Virgin Islands

 Southern Plains Area, College Station, TX 

 Arkansas

 Oklahoma

 Texas

 New Mexico

The organization of ARS remains essentially the same 

at this writing (2006). Recruitments, retirements, 

changes in assignment, and other internal changes 

continue, normal activities of any organization.

ARS Entomology Research 1972 to 2007 

Rapid advances in entomological, genetic, biological, 

chemical, and physical sciences, data processing, and 

other scientific technologies during the past 30 years 

have provided new information and tools that facilitate 

development and implementation of ecologically 

oriented insect pest management systems. Integrated 

control (or integrated pest management—IPM) became 

the buzzwords of the entomological world during 

the 1960s and 1970s (Bottrel 1979, Bartlett 1956, 

Stern et al. 1959, Geier and Clark 1961, Smith and 

Reynolds 1965). The term became of such importance 

to entomologists that it was defined by an independent 

FAO (U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization) 

panel of experts in 1967 and adopted by the 

Entomological Society of America (Glass et al. 1975): 

“A pest management system that in the context of the 

associated environment and the population dynamics 

of the pest species utilizes all suitable techniques and 

methods in as compatible a manner as possible and 

maintains the pest populations at levels below those 

causing economic injury.” Though rarely cited, this 

definition remains a good description of the concept. 

As an interesting sideline that provides fuel to support 

the saying that “history repeats itself” and the common 

assertion that very little is really new, a century and a 

half ago Curtis (1860) wrote that man is not allowed to 

extirpate insect pests, though he is permitted to reduce 

and restrain these pests within narrowed limits. Perkins 

(1982) likened this philosophically to modern IPM.

The scope of Federal entomology research broadened 

with implementation of areawide IPM systems 

in cooperation with other agencies, growers, and 

agricultural industries. Areawide application of 

suppression technologies against key insect pests 

evolved with our increasing awareness of the 

limitations of attacking local infestations that represent 

only a small part of the total pest population. The 

concept developed and pioneered by Knipling (1979) 

suggests that moderate and consistent pressure applied 

to the total pest population is more effective than 

intensive pressure applied to small segments. 
65

This approach contrasts with the focus of individual 

farmers treating local infestations on a farm-by-farm 

basis. Their efforts are generally asynchronous and 

have little effect on the total pest population. Areawide 

pest suppression involves the efforts of the entire 

agricultural community. Coordinated efforts and 

input from many scientific disciplines, agricultural 

experiment station and extension staff, industry, and 

producers, as well as State and Federal agencies, 

provide synergy and commonality of interest and 

objectives.

There are numerous successful examples of IPM 

implementation in pilot tests conducted on large areas. 

The first areawide program, which served as a model 

for those to follow, was the sterile insect release system 

for suppressing screwworm. Many biological and 

ecological principles were implemented. 

In the southeastern U.S. cotton growing areas and 

in Arizona, areawide boll weevil management using 

combinations of population monitoring, cultural 

control, insecticide treatment thresholds, and crop 

management reduced pesticide use 50 to 90 percent 

and lowered producer costs, resulting in increased 

profits (Hardee and Henneberry 2004). The longterm intensive Federal effort in boll weevil research 

ultimately provided evidence that elimination of the 

boll weevil from the United States was technologically 

and operationally feasible (Parencia 1978). 

The boll weevil has occupied a prominent role in 

Federal entomology circles since it first crossed the 

Rio Grande River, apparently near Brownsville, TX, in 

1892. Its epidemiology, devastations, and effect on the 

history and culture of the southern United States have 

been written many times and reviewed most recently 

by Hardee and Harris (2003). The turning point from 

defensive to offensive tactics for boll weevil control 

apparently was realized when Congress established 

a Boll Weevil Research Laboratory (BWRL) on the 

Mississippi State University campus at Starkville. 

Knipling’s remarks at the laboratory’s dedication 

encouraged the goal of eradication. 

Research results at BWRL and other laboratories 

supported the rationale for the Pilot Boll Weevil 

Eradication Experiment conducted from July 1971 to 

August 1973 in parts of Mississippi, Alabama, and 

Louisiana. In spite of a highly vocal antieradication 

effort, a second Boll Weevil Eradication Trial was 

initiated in North Carolina and Virginia in 1978. In the 

same year a companion, optimum pest management 

trial was conducted in Mississippi to answer objections 

of the antieradication coalition. The successes of the 

incremental segments of boll weevil eradication effort 

are a monument to the efforts of Federal entomologists 

E.F. Knipling, Theodore B. Davich, and James R. 

Brazzel (Hardee and Harris 2003). 

In Arkansas, areawide management of bollworm and 

tobacco budworm increased farmer income by more 

that $18 per acre (Hardee and Henneberry 2004). 

In Arizona, pink bollworm, sweetpotato whitefly 

[Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)], and other cotton 

insects were opposed by areawide management using 

population monitoring, chemical treatment thresholds, 

resistance management, cultural control, and insectresistant cottons. Insecticide use went from 6.6 to 1.1 

applications, achieving savings of more than $110 per 

acre (Frisvold et al. 2000, Ellsworth and MartinezCastillo 2001, Henneberry and Nichols 2002). In 

addition to economic benefits for farmers, areawide 

pest management is environmentally acceptable. 

Areawide programs have been successes in other 

agricultural ecosystems. Such evidence of the 

superiority of areawide insect pest management over 

farm-by-farm local efforts and the resulting reductions 

in financial, environmental, and social costs are too 

evident to ignore. Continuing research on ecological 

relationships and interactions of pests, beneficial 

insects, their hosts, and host-plant resistance have 

improved areawide programs and identified additional 

technologies for expanded program options.

ARS Leadership in Areawide Pest 

Management 

The successful results of IPM research by State, 

Federal, and industry scientists during the 1970s 

and 1980s gave stimulus to development of a USDA 

initiative in 1993 to launch a program of operational 

areawide pest management (AWPM) trials (R.M. 

Faust, 2003, personal communication). A USDA 

areawide working group consisting of representatives 

from APHIS, CSREES, ARS, and State Agricultural 

Experiment Stations (SAES) from the four experiment 

station geographic regions identified key pests. 

The first 5-year program, initiated in 1995, was 

for management of codling moth in apple and pear 

orchards in the Pacific Northwest. An 11,000-acre 
66

apple and pear orchard trial using codling moth 

sex pheromone mating disruption as the key IPM 

component grew to 125,000 acres in Washington, 

Oregon, and California by the year 2000. Orchard 

sanitation, natural enemies, and early season Bt sprays 

were additional IPM components. Conventional 

insecticide use declined by 70 to 90 percent. Orchard 

growers realized savings estimated at $400 per acre. 

ARS’s partners included Washington State University, 

Oregon State University, and the University of 

California (Calkins et al. 2000, Stelljes 2001a, Calkins 

and Faust 2003).

Corn rootworm (Diabrotica spp.) was the target of 

another AWPM program developed in South Dakota, 

Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas. An “attract 

and kill” technology reduced populations 70 to 90 

percent at sample sites after 4 years of application. The 

insecticide-attractant combination was the main IPM 

component. Baits contain less than ounce of insecticide 

per acre and pose no problem to beneficial insect such 

as bees and ladybugs. The trial, initiated in 1996, 

partnered with seven universities: Illinois, Purdue, Iowa 

State, South Dakota State, Kansas State, Nebraska, and 

Texas A&M (Chandler et al. 2000).

A 4-year areawide IPM program in cooperation with 

grain elevator managers was initiated in Kansas 

and Oklahoma in 1997 (McGraw 2001, Flinn et al. 

2005). ARS, Kansas State University, and Oklahoma 

State University used two elevator networks (one in 

each State) that stored wheat harvested from about 

800,000 acres. Insect-sampling, decision-making, and 

risk-analysis databases were developed. Frequency 

of elevator fumigation was reduced by at least 50 

percent. A commercial pest-management company 

was developed using results of the study. The company 

currently has over 30 commercial grain elevators on 

contract.

Fire ants [Solenopsis geminata (Fabricius) and S. 

richteri Forel] have invaded over 350 million acres of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. Natural enemies 

(more than 22 parasitic fly species), microbial 

pesticides, and attracticides were combined in an 

effective AWPM for fire ants. Fire ant populations 

have been reduced 85 to 99 percent in demonstration 

sites. USDA and APHIS, with cooperators from Texas 

A&M, Oklahoma State, Clemson, South Carolina, and 

University of Florida, have developed an outstanding 

team effort (Vander Meer et al. 2005). 

Cultural control, resistant cultivars, crop diversification, 

and biological control were combined into a 

coordinated AWPM of wheat aphid pests. Wheat 

production in six States involving about 400,000 acres 

in dryland production are included. Producers in these 

areas are receiving benefits of new technology and 

management approaches (Faust 2001). 

Another program involved male annihilation, sterile 

releases, attract and kill baits, and biological control 

of fruit flies. The fruit fly areawide IPM program 

targets four key species: oriental fruit fly, melon fly, 

Mediterranean fruit fly, and solenaceous or Malaysian 

fruit fly (Wood 2001). Dozens of crops are at risk. The 

program focuses on five control tactics: sanitation, 

male annihilation, bait sprays, sterile fly releases, and 

biological control. The University of Hawaii, State of 

Hawaii, and ARS are cooperating in the program. 

Tarnished plant bug [Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de 

Beauvois)] areawide management in Mississippi was 

approached based on the ecological knowledge that 

marginal hosts of the insect exist in about 2.4 percent 

of the total land area. Destruction of early-season hosts 

resulted in 45 to 47 percent reduction of populations 

in cotton. Every dollar spent for control of the L. 

lineolaris weed host reduced insecticide costs by $8.50 

(Snodgrass et al. 2003, Able et al. 2005). 

The AWPM approach has also been successfully 

applied to pests from other realms of nature, such as 

the plant pests witchweed [Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze], 

leafy spurge [Euphorbia esula L.], and melaleuca 

[Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) Blake].

Federal-State-private-sector AWPM efforts have 

resulted in numerous awards and outstanding 

recognition. Four programs won the top technology 

transfer awards from ARS: the codling moth project 

in 1998, the corn rootworm project in 1999, and the 

Hilo fruit fly project in 2004, in addition to TEAM 

Leafy Spurge in 2003. Three projects have won 

USDA’s Group Honor Awards for successfully 

implemented programs against fruit fly, codling moth, 

and leafy spurge. Also, the United States Pacific Basin 

Agricultural Research Center in Hilo, HI, in 2004 

won a Federal Consortium Award for Excellence 

in Technology Transfer for fruit fly IPM work, and 

the Yakima (Washington) Agricultural Research 

Laboratory in 1999 won the same award for codling 

moth. 
67

The ARS areawide pest management effort is 

a continuing, long-term program to implement 

cooperation across disciplines, institutions, and 

geographic boundaries. Much experience and 

knowledge has been gained during each program 

operation and put to use in planning and improving new 

programs. The areawide concept has been accepted 

around the world. New horizons of accomplishment 

can be predicted.

Current ARS and Federal Entomology 

Research Organization

In 2007, ARS entomology research is conducted at 40 

or more laboratories across the country and at several 

laboratories abroad (table 9). Most entomologists 

entering ARS during the last 30 years appeared to 

have little or no concern for the lack of discipline 

visibility in the ARS organizational structure. Their 

self-generated research needs, research direction 

with national overview as described below, and 

accomplishments appear to be as satisfactory and 

acceptable to the agency and stakeholders as under the 

centralized, discipline-oriented organization prior to 

1972. 

Outstanding leadership for Federal entomological and 

other discipline-oriented research in ARS continues, 

and, on a decentralized basis, it continues to be 

recognized for its contributions that improve quality 

and quantity of national and international agricultural 

production and marketing systems. After 30 years of 

a multidisciplinary, decentralized organization, ARS 

entomological efforts appear functional and productive. 

Part of the rationale for developing a decentralized 

regional and area organization in 1972 was to enhance 

and increase multidisciplinary research, to bring 

management of research programs closer to area and 

regional problems, to increase cooperation between 

ARS and State experiment station scientists and other 

regional and local groups, and to eliminate a number 

of research administrative and support positions 

with a corresponding return of resources to hands-on 

research. Multidisciplinary cooperative research has 

been fostered with synergistic effects on depth and 

scope of research investigations and improvements in 

quantity and quality of the research product. Location 

of administrative research program managers in the 

field (table 10) achieves closer cooperative working 

relationships with State agricultural experiment 

stations. 

Leadership and continued focus on national aspects 

of ARS programs and coordination of research by 

commodity, discipline, and program areas are being 

accomplished by the National Program Staff and 

other planning and coordinating bodies (table 11). 

Also, within ARS a continuing program of long-term, 

high-risk, fundamental research provides a solid base 

for ensuring continued improvement in agricultural 

systems technology. Customer and stakeholder 

satisfaction remains high, as shown by the continuing 

level of support for entomology programs. 

Future of Federal Entomology Research

Need for expansion of entomological and all 

agricultural research appears obvious. Worldwide, 

current farm values of crop and animal production are 

estimated at more than $1.3 trillion. Various authors 

have suggested that farm production losses to insects 

and mites appear to be in the range of 10 to 15 percent, 

with additional losses of 10 to 40 percent during 

postharvest handling (Schwartz and Klassen 1981). 

Cost of insecticides in the United States in 1995 was 

$2.1 billion, and worldwide is currently estimated to 

exceed $120 billion. 

Efforts to save these yield losses and insect control 

costs has been a driving force in scientific communities. 

Over the past two decades, world food production 

outpaced population growth in most countries. 

However, a continuation of this trend is not assured. 

Measurable increases in numbers of undesirable pests 

moving across regional and international boundaries 

have accompanied rapid expansion and improvements 

of transportation systems. Invasive species cost well 

over $100 billion annually just in the United States. 

The Invasive Species Council was established in 

1999 by Presidential Executive Order 13112. Invasive 

species were defined as any plant, animal, or organism 

that is not native to the ecosystem and is likely to cause 

harm to human health or the environment, or to cause 

economic losses (Faust 2001). Research to develop 

methods to reduce the rate of introduction of invasive 

species; to develop detection, identification, and 

eradication technology for newly introduced pests; and 

to manage established invasive species have become 

high priorities.

The world’s human population exceeds 6 billion 

people. If the population growth rate is 1–2 percent, 

an additional 160,000 to 320,000 people are added to 
68

Table 9. Agricultural Research Service entomology research programs in 2003

Area/city and State Organizational entity

Beltsville

 National Arboretum Floral and Nursery Plants Research Unit

 (Washington, DC)

 Henry M. Wallace Plant Science Institute

 Beltsville Agricultural Bee Research Laboratory

 Research Center Chemicals Affecting Insect Behavior

 Insect Biocontrol Laboratory

 Systematic Entomology Laboratory

Mid South

 Baton Rouge, LA Honeybee Breeding, Genetics, and Physiology Research

 Starkville, MS Crop Science Research Laboratory

Corn Host Plant Resistance Research

 New Orleans, LA Southern Regional Research Center

 Crop Protection Chemical Research

 Stoneville, MS Southern Insect Management Research

Application and Production Technology Research

Biological Control and Mass Rearing Research

Midwest

 Ames, IA Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research

 Columbia, MO Biological Control of Insects Research

 Peoria, IL National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research

 West Lafayette, IN Crop Production and Pest Control Research

 Wooster, OH Application Technology Research

 Crop Bioprotection Research

North Atlantic

 Ithaca, NY Plant Protection Research

 Kearneysville, WV Appalachian Fruit Research Laboratory

Innovative Fruit Production

 Improvements and Production Research Unit

 Newark, DE Beneficial Insects Introduction Research

Northern Plains

 Brookings, SD Crop and Entomology Research

 Fargo, ND Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center

 Insect Genetics and Biochemistry Research

 Sunflower Research

 Sugar Beet Research Unit

 Laramie, WY Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research

 Lincoln, NE Midwest Livestock Insects Research

 Logan, UT Pollinating Insect-Biology, Management and Systematics Research

 Manhattan, KS Grain Marketing and Production Research Center

Plant Science and Entomology Research

Biological Research Unit

 Sidney, MT Pest Management Research Unit

Agricultural Systems Research Unit
69

Pacific West

 Albany, CA Western Regional Research Center

 Corvallis, OR Horticultural Crop Research

 Fairbanks, AK Subarctic Agricultural Research Unit

 Hilo, HI U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center

 Postharvest Tropical Commodities

 Tropical Plant Pest Research

 Plant Protection Research

 Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research

 Parlier, CA San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Center

 Commodity Protection and Quarantine Research

 Exotic and Invasive Diseases and Pests

 Phoenix, AZ Western Cotton Research Laboratory

 Shafter, CA Western Integrated Cropping Systems Research

 Tucson, AZ Honeybee Research Unit

 Cotton Insect Pest Management, Biological Control and 

 Biocontrol Genetics Research Unit

 Cotton Physiology, Genetics, and Host Plant Resistance Research

 Yakima (Wapato), WA Fruit and Vegetable Insect Research

South Atlantic

 Byron, GA Fruit and Nut Research

 Charleston, SC Vegetable Research

 Fort Pierce, FL U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory

 Subtropical Insects Research

 Gainesville, FL Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology

 Insect Behavior and Biocontrol Research Unit

 Imported Fire Ant and Household Insects Research

 Mosquito and Fly Research

 Post-Harvest and Bioregulation Research

 Chemistry Research

 Miami, FL Subtropical Exotic Pest Insect Research

 Tifton, GA Crop Genetics and Biology Research Unit

Crop Protection and Management

Southern Plains

 Beaumont, TX Rice Research

 College Station, TX Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center

 Areawide Pest Management Research

Southern Plains

 Kerrville, TX Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory

 Lane, OK South Central Agricultural Research Laboratory

 Genetics and Production Research

 Panama City, Panama Screwworm Research

 Stillwater, OK Wheat, Peanut and Other Field Crop Research

 Temple, TX Grassland Protection Research

 Weslaco, TX Crop Quality and Fruit Insects Research

Beneficial Insects Research

International

 Buenos Aires, Argentina South American Biological Control Laboratory

 Montpellier, France European Biological Research

Table 9. Agricultural Research Service entomology research programs in 2003—cont’d.

Area/city and State Organizational entity
70

Table 10. ARS Areas, 2007

Area States

Beltsville Area

10300 Baltimore Blvd 

Bldg 003 BARC-West

Beltsville, MD, 20705

Mid South Area Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee

Experiment Station and Lee Roads

P.O. Box 225 

Stoneville, MS 38776 

Midwest Area Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

1815 North University Street Ohio, Wisconsin

Peoria, IL 61604

North Atlantic Area Connecticut, Delaware Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

600 East Mermaid Lane New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, PA 19118 Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia

Northern Plains Area Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota Nebraska,

2150 Centre Avenue, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Building D, Suite 300

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Pacific West Area Arizona, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada,

800 Buchanan Street Oregon, Washington

Albany, CA 94710

South Atlantic Area Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South 

College Station Road Carolina, Virginia, Virgin Islands

P.O. Box 5677

Athens, GA 30604

Southern Plains Area Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; Panama

1001 Holleman Drive East

College Station, TX 77845

National Agricultural Library

10301 Baltimore Ave 

Beltsville, MD, 20705
71

Table 11. ARS Administrator’s Council, 2007

Position Location

Administrator Washington, DC

 Associate Administrator Research Programs

 Associate Administrator Research Operations

Program Planning and Coordination (National Program Staff) Beltsville, MD

 Deputy Administrator, Animal Production and Protection

 Deputy Administrator, Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems

 Deputy Administrator, Crop Production and Protection

 Deputy Administrator, Nutrition, Food Safety and Quality

 Director, Office of International Research Programs

Area and National Agricultural Library Directors

 Northern Plains Area Ft. Collins, CO

 South Atlantic Area Athens, GA

 Midwest Area Peoria, IL

 Beltsville Area Beltsville, MD

 Mid South Area Stoneville, MS

 North Atlantic Area Wyndmoor, PA

 Southern Plains Area College Station, TX

 Pacific West Area Albany, CA

 National Agricultural Library Beltsville, MD

Program Support and Operations (Headquarters)

 Deputy Administrator, Administrative and Financial Management Beltsville, MD

 Special Assistant to the Administrator Washington, DC

 Director, Budget and Program Management Staff Washington, DC

 Director, Information Staff Beltsville, MD

 Chief Information Officer Beltsville, MD

 Director, Office of Outreach, Diversity, and Equal Opportunity Washington, DC

 Director, ARS Homeland Security Wadhington, DC

 Assistant Administrator, Office of Technology Transfer Beltsville, MD

 Senior Legislative Advisor, Office of the Administrator Washington, DC
72

the world daily. These and similar demographics have 

intrigued and challenged scientists to develop new 

food and fiber production technology to provide for the 

needs of the escalating population. Since the 1960s, 

worldwide agricultural production has increased 80 

percent. 

The competitive struggles between mankind and 

arthropod pests for the products of mankind’s 

agricultural labors have existed since the beginning 

of time. The revolutionary discovery of DDT and, 

subsequently, thousands of other synthetic organic 

chemicals for insect control placed insecticides in the 

forefront of insect control. The bright future of the 

insecticide era became clouded with issues of heavy 

reliance, misuse, and in some instances overuse. 

Threats to human health, development of insect 

resistance, environmental contamination, harm to 

nontarget organisms, and proliferation of secondary 

pests have been reported. 

Maintaining or increasing crop and animal production 

but providing alternatives to chemical control is a 

formidable challenge. Foremost among the advanced 

concepts to provide economically, environmentally, 

and socially acceptable insect control continues to 

be integrated pest management (IPM). The concept 

originally addressed insect management, but was 

broadened to include diseases, weeds, and other pests. 

Successful IPM programs provide economic benefits 

to farmers and more environmentally acceptable crop 

protection practices. The exciting evidence of practical 

application of IPM provides a glimpse of the future of 

Federal entomology.

References

Able, C.A., G.L. Snodgrass, and J. Gore. 2005. A 

cultural method for area-wide control of tarnished plant 

bug. In FAO/IAEA International Conference on AreaWide Control of Insect Pests: Integrating the Sterile 

Insect and Related Nuclear and other Techniques, 

May 5–13, Vienna, Austria, pp.29-30. IAEA–CN–131. 

International Atomic Energy Agency and Food and 

Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

 [ARS] Agricultural Research Service. 1982. The 

Mission of the Agricultural Research Service. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

[ARS] Agricultural Research Service. 1991. 

Agricultural Research Service Program Plan, 

Implementation Plan 1992–1998. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.

[ARS] Agricultural Research Service. 1999. 

Agricultural Research Service Strategic Plan: Working 

Document 1997–2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service.

[ARS] Agricultural Research Service. 2003. 

Agricultural Research Service Strategic Plan: 

2003–2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Anonymous. 1954. USDA reorganizes research. 

Bureau names dropped in reshuffle. National 

Agricultural Chemicals Association News and 

Pesticide Review 12:8-19. 

Baird, A.B. 1917. An historical account of forest tent 

caterpillar and the fall webworm in North America. 

Annual Report of the Entomological Society of Ontario 

47:73-84.

Baker, G.L., W.D. Rasmussen, et al. 1963. Century 

of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States 

Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Centennial Committee.

Barnes, J.K. 1985. Insects in the new Nation: A cultural 

context for the emergence of American entomology. 

Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 

31:21-30.

Bartlett, B.R. 1956. Natural predators: Can selective 

insecticides help to preserve biotic control? 

Agricultural Chemistry 11:42-44;107-109.

Baumhover, A.H. 1966. Eradication of the screwworm fly, an agent of myiasis. Journal of the American 

Medical Association 196:240-248.

Baumhover, A.H., A.J. Graham, et al. 1955. Screwworm control through release of sterilized flies. Journal 

of Economic Entomology 48:462-468.

Berté, S.B. 2005. U.S. Army entomology support to 

deployed forces. American Entomologist 51:208-217.

Bollman, L. 1872. Silk cultivation. In Report of the 

Commissioner of Agriculture, November 15, 1872, pp. 

304-316. U.S. Government Printing Office.
73

Bottrell, D.R. 1979. Integrated Pest Management. 

Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC.

Bowers, W.S. 1969. Juvenile hormone: Activity of 

aromatic terpenoid ethers. Science 164:323-325.

Busbey, R. 1962. Organic insecticides. In A. 

Stefferud, ed., After a Hundred Years: The Yearbook 

of Agriculture 1962, pp. 34-36. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

Byers, J. 2002. Internet programs for drawing moth 

pheromone analogs and searching literature databases. 

Journal of Chemical Ecology 28:807-817.

Calkins, C.O., A.L. Knight, et al. 2000. Area-wide 

population suppression of codling moth. In K.H. Tan, 

ed., Area-Wide Control of Fruit Flies and other Pests, 

pp. 215-219. Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, 

Penang.

Calkins, C.O., and R.J. Faust. 2003. Overview of 

areawide programs and the program for suppression 

of codling moth in the western USA directed by the 

United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural 

Research Service. Pest Management Science 

509:601-604.

Capinera, J.L. 2002. North American vegetable pests: 

The pattern of invasion. American Entomologist 

48:20-39.

Carson, R.L. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, 

Boston.

Castle, S.J., N. Prabhaker, and T. J. Henneberry. 1999. 

Insecticide Resistance and Its Management in Cotton 

Insects. Technical Information Service, International 

Cotton Advisory Committee, Washington, DC.

Chandler, L.D., J.R. Coppedge, et al. 2000. Corn 

rootworm area-wide management across the United 

States, pp. 159-167. In K.H. Tan, ed., Area-Wide 

Control of Fruit Flies and other Pests. Penerbit 

Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.

Chittenden, F.H. 1897. Some Little Known Insects 

Affecting Stored Vegetable Products: A Collection 

of Articles Detailing Certain Original Observations 

Made Upon Insects in This Class. Bulletin 8 (New 

Series). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of 

Entomology.

Coulson, J.R., P.V. Vail, et al., eds. 2000. 110 Years of 

Biological Control Research and Development in the 

United States Department of Agriculture: 1883–1993. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

Cresson, E.T., A.R. Grote, et al. 1865. Introductory. 

Practical Entomologist 1:4-5.

Curtis, J. 1860. Farm Insects: Being the Natural History 

and Economy of the Insects Injurious to the Field 

Crops of Great Britain and Ireland and Also Those 

Which Infest Barns and Granaries With Suggestions 

for Their Destruction. Blackie and Son, Glasgow and 

Edinburgh, Scotland.

Davis, J.J. 1952. Milestones in entomology. In A. 

Stefferud, ed., Insects: The Yearbook of Agriculture 

1952, pp. 441-444. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Davis, J.J. 1955. The field of entomology. Its past, 

its present, its future—A symposium on a century of 

entomology in Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana 

Academy of Science for 1954, 64:173-174.

Deay, H.O. 1955. Entomology at Purdue: A symposium 

on a century of entomology in Indiana. Proceedings of 

the Indiana Academy of Science for 1954. 64:152-157. 

Dix, M.E. 2000. Forest Service—overview. In J.R. 

Coulson, P.V. Vail, et al., eds., 110 Years of Biological 

Control Research and Development in the United States 

Department of Agriculture: 1883–1993, ch. V, pp. 

100-119. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Research Service.

Dix, M.E., et al. 2000. Detailed history of biological 

control in the Forest Service. In J.R. Coulson, P.V. Vail, 

et al., eds., 110 Years of Biological Control Research 

and Development in the United States Department of 

Agriculture: 1883–1993, appx. iii, pp. 395-539. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

Dodge, C.R. 1888. The Life and Entomological Work 

of the Late Townend Glover, First Entomologist of 

the United States Department of Agriculture. Bulletin 

18. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of 

Entomology.
74

Douglass, J.R., and W.C. Cook. 1954. The Beet 

Leafhopper. Circular 342. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

Doutt, A.L. 1964. The historical development of 

biological control, In P. DeBach and E.I. Schlinger, 

eds., Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds, pp. 

21-42. William Clowes and Sons, London.

Dowdy, A. 2004. How APHIS perceives limits on 

federal employee participation. American Entomologist 

50:134-140. 

Dupree, A.H. 1957. Science in the Federal 

Government. A History of Policies and Activities to 

1940. Belknap, Cambridge, MA.

Edwards, E. E. 1937. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln 

and Agriculture. United States Department of 

Agriculture.

Edwards, E.E. 1940. American Agriculture—the first 

300 years. In G. Hambidge and M.J. Drown, eds., 

Farmers in a changing world, pp. 171-277. Yearbook of 

Agriculture 1940. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Ellsworth, P.C., and J.L. Martinez-Carrillo. 2001. IPM 

for Bemisia tabaci: A case study from North America. 

Crop Protection 20:853-869.

Entomological Society of America. 1989. 100 years of 

Entomology Serving Society. Entomological Society of 

America, Lanham, MD.

Essig, E.O. 1931. A History of Entomology. 

MacMillan, New York.

Essig, E.O. 1940. Fifty years of entomological 

progress, Part IV, 1919–1929. Journal of Economic 

Entomology 33:30–58. 

Faust, R. 2001. Invasive species and areawide 

management: What we have learned. Agricultural 

Research 49(11):2. 

Felter, H.W. 1927. The genesis of American materia 

medica including a biographical sketch of “John 

Josselyn, gent.” Bulletin Lloyd Library 26. (Extracts 

from Josselyn’s “An Account of Two Voyages to New 

England” published in 1672).

Fernald, C.H. 1896. The evolution of economic 

entomology. In Proceedings of the eighth annual 

meeting of the Association of Economic Entomologists, 

Buffalo, New York, August 21–22, 1896, pp. 

5-12. Bulletin 6 (New Series). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Division of Entomology.

Fletcher, S.W. 1959. The Philadelphia Society for 

Promoting Agriculture. The Society, Philadelphia, PA.

Flinn, P.W., D.W. Hagstrum, C.R. Reed, and T.W 

Phillips. 2005. Area-wide IPM for commercial wheat 

storage. In FAO/IAEA International Conference 

on Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests: Integrating 

the Sterile Insect and Related Nuclear and other 

Techniques, May 5–13, Vienna, Austria, p. 33. IAEA–

CN–131. United Nations, International Atomic Energy 

Agency and Food and Agricultural Organization.

Flores, A. 2004. Taming Melaleuca with IPM. 

Agricultural Research, Nov. 2004, pp. 4-8.

Frisvold, G., R. Tronstad, and J. Mortenson. 2000. 

Adoption of Bt cotton: Regional differences in 

producer costs and returns. In P. Dugger and D. Richter, 

eds., Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production 

Research Conference, January 4–8, 2000, San Antonio, 

TX. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, 

TN. 

Fulton, R.A., and W.N. Sullivan. 1962. Billions of 

bombs. In A. Stefferud, ed., After a Hundred Years: 

The Yearbook of Agriculture 1962, pp. 358-359. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

Furniss, M.M. 1997. American forest entomology 

comes on stage. Bark beetle depredations in the black 

hills forest reserve, 1897–1907. American Entomologist 

43:40-47.

Furniss, M.M. 2003. Forest entomology in the northern 

Rocky Mountains: 1909–1917, as reflected in the 

correspondence between Josef Brunner and A.D. 

Hopkins. American Entomologist 49:102-111.

Furniss, M.M., and B.W. Wickman. 1998. Photographic 

images and history of forest insect investigations on 

the Pacific Slope, 1903–1953. 1. California. American 

Entomologist 44:206-216.
75

Gall, M. 1968. The Insect Destroyer—portrait of a 

scientist. In. J. Hayes, ed., Science for Better Living, 

pp. 54-57. Yearbook of Agriculture 1940. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

Geier, P.W., and L.R.T. Clark. 1961. An ecological 

approach to pest control. In Proceedings of the 8th 

Technical Meeting, Warsaw, Indiana, November 9–10, 

1960, pp. 10-18. International Union Conservatory 

of Nature and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 

Lafayette, IN.

Geong, H.-G. 2001. Carving a niche for medical 

entomology: A quest for professional identity 

in American entomology. Part I: Understanding 

arthropods as disease spreaders. Part II: Insect 

control as a sanitary service. American Entomologist 

47:236-243.

Gibson, K.E., and J.T. Fallini. 1963. Beet Leafhopper 

Control in Southern Idaho by Seeding Breeding Areas 

to Range Grass. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service ARS 33–83.

Glass, E.H., W.P. Murdock, and J.S. Packer. 1975. 

Integrated Pest Management: Rationale, Potential, 

Needs and Improvement. Special Publication 75–2. 

Entomological Society of America.

Glover, T. 1865. Report of the entomologist and 

curator of the museum. In Report to the Commissioner 

of Agriculture, p. 88. United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

Hallman, G.J., and C.P. Schwalbe. 2002. Invasive 

Arthropods in Agriculture. Science Publishers, Enfield, 

NH.

Hardee, D.D., and F.O. Harris. 2003. Eradicating 

the boll weevil (Coleoptera: curculionidae): A clash 

between a highly successful insect, good scientific 

achievement, and differing agricultural philosophies. 

American Entomologist 49:82-97.

Hardee, D.D., and T.J. Henneberry. 2004. Area-wide 

management of insects infesting cotton. In A.R. 

Horowitz and I. Ishaaya, eds., Novel Approaches 

to Pest Management in Field Crops, Vegetables, 

and Ornamentals, pp. 119-140. Springer-Verlag, 

Heidelberg, Germany.

Harris, T.W. 1841. Report on Insects of Massachusetts 

Injurious to Vegetation. Folson Wells and Thurston, 

Cambridge, MA.

Havens, J.N. 1792. Observations on the hessian 

fly. Society of Agronomy. New York. Transactions 

1:89-107. 

Henneberry, T.J., and R.L. Nichols. 2002. Sweetpotato 

whitefly strain B (SPW): Accomplishments of the 

national research and action plan 1993 to 2002 and 

future goals. In T.J. Henneberry, R.M. Faust, et al., 

eds., 2002 Silverleaf Whitefly: National Research, 

Action and Technology Transfer Plan (formerly 

Sweetpotato Whitefly, Strain B): Fourth Annual 

Review of the Second 5-Year Plan and Final Report for 

1992–2002, San Diego, California, February 10–12, 

2002, pp. 1-43. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service.

Henshaw, S. 1895. Bibliography of the More Important 

Contributions to American Economic Entomology. 

Parts IV and V. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Entomology. 

Hoffman, C.H. 1970. Alternatives to conventional 

insecticides for control of insect pests. Agricultural 

Chemicals 25:14-19.

Hooker, H.D. 1929. George Husmann. The Missouri 

Historical Review 23:353-360.

Howard, L.O. 1897a. The Gipsy [sic] Moth in America: 

A Summary Account of the Introduction and Spread 

of Lymantria dispar in Massachusetts and of the 

Efforts Made by the State To Repress and Exterminate 

It. Bulletin 11 (New Series). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Division of Entomology.

Howard, L.O. 1897b. Introduction. In L.O. Howard, 

ed., Some Miscellaneous Results of the Work of 

the Division of Entomology, p. 7. Bulletin 7 (New 

Series). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of 

Entomology. 

Howard, L.O. 1898. The San Jose Scale in 1896–1897. 

Bulletin 12 (New Series). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Division of Entomology.

Howard, L.O. 1902. Experimental work with fungous 

diseases of grasshoppers. Department of Agriculture 

Yearbook 1901, pp. 459-470.
76

Howard, L.O. 1909. Economic loss to people of 

the United States through insects that carry disease. 

Bulletin No. 78. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Entomology. 

Howard, L.O. 1930. A History of Applied Entomology 

(Somewhat Anecdotal). Smithsonian Miscellaneous 

Collections 84, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

DC.

Irving, G.W., Jr., et al. 1981. Post-Harvest Technology 

Research. Paper No. 7. U.S. Congress, Office of 

Technology Assessment, Food and Agricultural 

Research Work Group II.

Jacobsen, M. 1965. Insect Sex Attractants. Interscience 

Publications, New York.

Kauffman, W.C., and P.C. Kingsley. 2000. Methods 

development, Plant Protection and Quarantine. In 

J.R. Coulson et al., eds., 110 Years of Biological 

Control Research and Development in the United 

States Department of Agriculture: 1883–1993, ch. VI, 

sec. B, pp. 125-130. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service.

Kenaga, E.E. 1989. History of insecticide introduction, 

use and registration: ESA participation. Bulletin 

Entomological Society of America 35:185-190.

King, E.D., J.R. Phillips and R.J. Coleman, eds. 

1996. Cotton Insects and Mites: Characterization and 

Management. Cotton Foundation Reference Book 

Series no. 3. Cotton Foundation, Memphis, TN.

Klassen, W. 1989. Insects and agriculture. In J.J. Menn 

and A.L. Steinhauer, eds., Progress and Prospectives 

in the 21st Century, Entomological Society of America 

Symposium, September 26–27, 1989, pp. 42-65. 

Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD.

Klassen, W. 1990. Comments on the history of the 

Agricultural Research Service. Expansion of a talk to 

ninth biennial workshop on host plant resistance to 

insects. University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 

Unpublished. 

Klassen, W. 2003. Memorial lecture. Edward F. 

Knipling: Titan and driving force in ecologically 

selective areawide pest management. Journal of the 

American Mosquito Control Association 19:94-103.

Klassen, W., and P.H. Schwartz, Jr. 1985. ARS 

research program in chemical insect control. In J.L. 

Hilton, ed., Agricultural Chemicals of the Future, 

Beltsville Research Symposium, pp. 261-291. Roman 

and Allanheld, Totowan, NJ.

Knipling, E.F. 1958. Research on insects. National 

Agricultural Chemical Association, News and Pesticide 

Review 16:8-9, 19.

Knipling, E.F. 1960. The eradication of the screwworm fly. Scientific American 203:54-61.

Knipling, E.F. 1979. The Basic Principles of Insect 

Population Suppression and Management. Agriculture 

Handbook 512. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Knipling, E.F., and A.W. Lindquist. 1962. Carriers of 

disease. In A. Stefferud, ed., After a Hundred Years: 

The Yearbook of Agriculture 1962, pp. 372-376. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

Knoblauch, H.C., et al. 1962. State Agricultural 

Experiment Stations. A History of Research Policy 

and Procedures. Miscellaneous Publication 904. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

Langstroth, L.L. 1853. Langstroth on the Hive and the 

Honey Bee, a Beekeeper’s Manual. Hopkins, Bridgman 

and Company, Northampton, MA.

Latta, R. 1951. A history of the division of control 

investigations, Bureau of Entomology and Plant 

Quarantine 1934–1951. Unpublished.

Leonhardt, B.A., and D.S. Moreno. 1982. Evaluation of 

controlled release laminate dispensers for pheromones 

of several insect species. In B.A. Leonhardt and M. 

Beroza, eds., Insect Pheromone Technology: Chemistry 

and Applications, pp. 159-173. ACS Symposium Series 

190. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

Luginbill, P. 1955. Federal entomology in Indiana: A 

symposium on a century of entomology in Indiana. 

Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science for 

1954. 64:161-164. 

Luginbill, P. 1969. Developing Resistant Plants. The 

Ideal Method of Controlling Insects, Production 

Research Report 111, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
77

Marlatt, C.L. 1940. Fifty years of entomological 

progress: Part I, 1889–1899. Journal of Economic 

Entomology 33:9-15.

Matheson, R. 1950. Medical Entomology, 2nd ed. 

Comstock Publishing Company, New York.

McGraw, L. 2001. Spreading good management 

practices among grain elevator managers. Agricultural 

Research, Nov. 2001, p. 14.

McGregor, S.E. 1976. Insect Pollination of Cultivated 

Crop Plants. Agriculture Handbook 496. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

Metcalf, C.L. 1940. Fifty years of entomological 

progress: Part III, 1909–1919. Journal of Economic 

Entomology 33:21-30.

Montgomery, B.E. 1955. Entomology before 1854: 

A symposium on a century of entomology in Indiana. 

Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science for 

1954. 64:142-147.

Moore, E.G. 1947. Men who went before. In A. 

Stefferud, ed., Science in Farming, pp. 1-16. Yearbook 

of Agriculture 1943–1947. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

Moore, E.G. 1967. The Agricultural Research Service. 

Praeger, New York.

Nolan, W.G. 1939. Accomplishments of the Bureau 

of Entomology and Plant Quarantine in Bee Culture. 

Agricultural Research Center, Bee Culture Branch, 

Beltsville, MD. Unpublished. 

Osborn, H. 1937. Fragments of Entomology. Published 

by the author, Columbus, Ohio.

Parencia, C.R., Jr. 1978. One Hundred Twenty Years 

of Research on Cotton Insects in the United States. 

Agriculture Handbook 515. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.

Parencia, C.R., Jr., and D.D. Hardee. 1996. 

Commemoration. In E.D. King, J.R. Phillips, and 

R.J. Coleman, eds., Cotton Insects and Mites: 

Characterization and Management, pp. xii–xiv. Cotton 

Foundation Reference Book Series no. 3. Cotton 

Foundation, Memphis, TN.

Parker, J.R. 1954. Grasshoppers: A new look at 

an ancient enemy. Farmer’s Bulletin 2064. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

Parks, T.H. 1954. A salute to entomologists. Ohio 

Farmer Magazine, May, 1954. Lancaster, OH. 

Perkins, J.H. 1982. Insects, Experts and the Insecticide 

Crises. Plenum, New York.

Prosser, C.W., G.L. Anderson, et al. 2002. Team 

leafy spurge: An areawide pest management program. 

Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7:47-62.

Quinby, M. 1853. Mysteries of Beekeeping Explained: 

Being a Complete Analysis of the Whole Subject. 

Saxton, New York.

Rainwater, C.F., and C.R. Parencia. 1981. 

Chronological summary of leaders in entomological 

research in the United States Department of 

Agriculture—1853–1972. Bulletin of the 

Entomological Society of America 27:247-249.

Rasmussen, W.D., and G.L. Baker. 1962. The 

Department is built. In A. Stefferud, ed., After a 

Hundred Years: The Yearbook of Agriculture 1962, pp. 

7-12. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Rockey, S. 2004. “I’m a Fed—am I only a second 

cousin?”: How CSREES perceives limits on federal 

employee participation. American Entomologist 

50:134-140.

Sasscer, E.R. 1940. Undesirable insect aliens. Journal 

of Economic Entomology 33:1-8.

Sailer, R.I. 1983. History of insect introductions. In

C. Wilson and C.L. Graham, eds., Exotic Plant Pests 

and North American Agriculture, pp. 15-38. Academic 

Press, New York.

Sakai, A.K., et al. 2001. The population biology of 

invasive species. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 32:305-332.

Sauer, C.O. 1941. The settlement of the humid east. 

In G. Hambridge and M.J. Drown, eds., Climate and 

Man, pp. 157-166. Yearbook of Agriculture 1941. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.
78

Saunders, J.G. 1923. Whither in entomology. Journal 

of Economic Entomology 16:31.

Senechal, M. 2005. Silk and society in Albania. 

American Entomologist 51:142-150.

Schmidt, C.H., and J.A. Fluno. 1973. Brief history 

of medical and veterinary entomology in the USDA. 

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 

63:54-60.

Schwartz, P.H., and W. Klassen. 1981. Estimate of 

losses caused by insects and mites to agricultural crops. 

In Hanson, A.A., and D. Pimental, eds., Handbook of 

Pest Management in Agriculture, vol. 1, pp. 15-77. 

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Senechal, M. 2005. Silk and society in Albania. 

American Entomologist 51:142-150.

Shaw, B.T. 1950. The Agricultural Research 

Administration—Its Philosophy and Organization. 

Office of Naval Research presentation, May 8, 1950. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Simberloff, D. 1986. Introduced insects: A biographic 

and systematic perspective. In H.A. Mooney and J.M. 

Deake, eds., Ecology of Biological Invasions of North 

America and Hawaii, p. 3-26. Springer-Verlag, New 

York.

Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown, eds., 

1997. Strangers in Paradise. Impact and Management 

of Non-Indigenous Species in Florida. Island, 

Washington, DC.

Slingerland, M.V., and C.R. Crosby. 1924. Manual of 

Fruit Insects. MacMillan, New York.

Smith, E.H. 1989. The Entomological Society of 

America: The First Hundred Years, 1889–1989. 

Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 

35:10-32.

Smith, R.F., and H. T. Reynolds, 1965. Principles, 

scope and definitions of integrated control. In

Proceedings of the Food and Agriculture Organization 

Symposium on Integrated Pest Control, Rome, Italy, 

October 17–21, 1964, 1: pp. 11-17. United Nations, 

Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Snodgrass, G.L., W.P. Scott, J.J. Robens, and D.D. 

Hardee. 2003. Suppression of tarnished plant bugs in 

cotton by treatment of early season wild host plant 

with herbicide. In P. Dugger and D. Richter, eds., 

Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences, January 

6–10, 2003, Nashville, TN, pp. 933-936. National 

Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN.

Sollers, H. 1952. Entomologists in Washington. In A. 

Stefferud, ed., Insects: The Yearbook of Agriculture 

1952, pp. 462-486. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Spears, J.F., and W.M. Upholt. 1979. Regulation 

of Pests and Pesticides. In W.B. Ennis, Jr., ed., 

Introduction to Crop Protection, pp. 342-373. American 

Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of 

America, Madison, WI. 

Spilman, T.J. 1989. Vignettes of the presidents of the 

Entomological Society of America. Bulletin of the 

Entomological Society of America 35:33-65.

Steen, H.K. 2005. The U.S. Forest Service: A History 

With a New Preface by the Author. Centennial Edition. 

Forest History Society in association with University of 

Washington Press, Durham, NC, and Seattle, WA.

Stefferud, A. 1952. Preface. In A. Stefferud, ed., 

Insects: The Yearbook of Agriculture 1952, p. ix. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

Stefferud, A. 1962. 1862. In A. Stefferud, ed., After a 

Hundred Years: The Yearbook of Agriculture 1962, pp. 

2-6. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Steiner, L.F., et al. 1965. Oriental fruit fly eradication 

by male annihilation. Journal of Economic Entomology 

58:961-964.

Steinhaus, E.A. 1964. Chapter 18: Microbial diseases 

of insects. In P. DeBach and E.I. Schlinger eds., 

Biological Control of Pests and Weeds, pp. 515-547. 

Reinhold, New York, NY.

Stelljes, K.B. 2001a. No coddling for this moth. 

Agricultural Research, Nov. 2001, p. 17.

Stelljes, K.B. 2001b. Team leafy spurge links 

technology and people to manage weed. Agricultural 

Research, Nov. 2001, p. 15.
79

Stern. V.M., R.F. Smith, and K.S. Hagen. 1959. The 

integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81-101. 

Summers, F.C. 1925. Charles V. Riley: Benefactor of 

Agriculture. Missouri Historical Review 19:611-621.

Tabashnik, B.E. 1994. Evolution of resistance to 

Bacillus thuringiensis. Annual Review of Entomology 

39:47-79. 

Toba, H.H. 1998. History of the Agricultural Research 

Service With Special Reference to Entomology, 

Chemistry and Agricultural Engineering Research in 

USDA. Unpublished report. 

[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 

1872. Progress of industrial education. In F. Watts, 

Report of the Commission of Agriculture, November 

15, 1872, pp. 348-397. 

University of Massachusetts. 2005. Fields of dreams. 

The magazine for alumni and friends 9(1):18-19 

(University of Massachusetts, Amherst).

Vail, P.V., et al. 2001. History of biological control 

programs in the United States Department of 

Agriculture. American Entomologist 47:24-50.

Vander Meer, R.K., S.D. Porter, et al. 2005. Areawide suppression of invasive fire ant populations. In

FAO/IAEA International Conference on Area-Wide 

Control of Insect Pests: Integrating the Sterile Insect 

and Related Nuclear and Other Techniques, May 5–13, 

Vienna, Austria, pp. 78-79. IAEA–CN–131. United 

Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency and Food 

and Agricultural Organization.

Waite, M.B., et al. 1926. Diseases and pests of fruit and 

vegetables. Agricultural Yearbook 1925, pp. 453-600. 

United States Department of Agriculture.

Wallis, R.L. 1965. Host elimination experiment for 

suppression of the green peach aphid and “yellows” 

on sugarbeets. Proceedings of the Washington State 

Entomological Society 20:170-171.

Wallis, R.L. 1967a. Green peach aphid and the spread 

of beet western yellows virus in the Northwest. Journal 

of Economic Entomology 60:313-315.

Wallis, R.L. 1967b. Some host plants of the green 

peach aphid and beet western yellows virus in the 

Pacific Northwest. Journal of Economic Entomology 

60:904-907.

Wallis, R.L. 1967c. Yield of sugarbeets in Pacific 

Northwest reduced by yellows viruses transmitted by 

green peach aphids. Journal of Economic Entomology 

60:328-330.

Walsh, B.D. 1866. Introduction. The Practical 

Entomologist 1:117-125.

Watts, F. 1872. Report of the Commissioner of 

Agriculture, November 15, 1872, pp. 4-5. United States 

Department of Agriculture.

Weiss, H.B. 1936. The Pioneer Century of American 

Entomology. Published by the author. New Brunswick, 

NJ.

White, T., and S.R. Dutky. 1940. Effect of introduction 

of milky diseases on populations of Japanese beetle 

larvae. Journal of Economic Entomology 33:306-309.

Wickman, B.E., T.R. Torgersen, and M.M. Furniss. 

2002. Photographic images and history of forest 

insect investigations in the Pacific Slope, 1903–1953. 

2. Oregon and Washington. American Entomologist 

48:178-185.

Williams, C.M., and W.E. Robbins. 1968. Conference 

on insect-plant interactions. Bioscience 18:791–792, 

797-799.

Wiser, V., and D. Bowers. 1981. Marketing Research 

and Its Coordination in USDA: A Historical Approach. 

Agricultural Economics Report 475. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture.

Wood, M. 2001. Forcing exotic, invasive insects into 

retreat: New IPM program targets Hawaii’s fruit fly. 

Agricultural Research, Nov. 2001, pp. 11-13.

Wood, M. 2005. Entomologist Charles Valentine 

Riley’s artifacts on papers: Treasures of the National 

Agricultural Library. Agricultural Research, Oct. 2005, 

pp. 20-21.