Determining the Practice of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)A Working Definition for the Year 2000 Goal
Harold Coble
Determining the Practice of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)Editors note: During his remarks to the General Session at the NCWSS meeting, Harold Coble discussed a working definition for Integrated Pest Management as related to the year 2000 IPM goal. Many members asked that this definition be included in the newsletter.
A key in the determination of whether the Administration's goal of 75 percent of U.S. cropland acres under IPM by the year 2000 has been reached is some rational definition of what growers must do in order to be considered as IPM practitioners. Adoption of IPM systems normally occurs along a continuum from largely reliant on prophylactic control measures and pesticides to multiple-strategy biologically intensive approaches, and is not usually an "either/or" situation. It is important to note that the practice of IPM is site-specific in nature, and individual tactics are determined by the particular crop/pest/environment scenario. Where appropriate, each site should have in place a management strategy for Prevention, Avoidance, Monitoring, and Suppression of pest populations (the PAMS approach). In order to qualify as IPM practitioners, growers should be utilizing tactics in three or more of the PAMS components.
Prevention is the practice of keeping a pest population from infesting a crop or field, and should be the first line of defense. It includes such tactics as using pest-free seeds and transplants, preventing weeds from reproducing, irrigation scheduling to avoid situations conducive to disease development, cleaning tillage and harvesting equipment between fields or operations, using field sanitation procedures, and eliminating alternate hosts or sites for insect pests and disease organisms.
Avoidance may be practiced when pest populations exist in a field or site but the impact of the pest on the crop can be avoided through some cultural practice. Examples of avoidance tactics include crop rotation such that the crop of choice is not a host for the pest, choosing cultivars with genetic resistance to pests, using trap crops or pheromone traps, choosing cultivars with maturity dates that may allow harvest before pest populations develop, fertilization programs to promote rapid crop development, and simply not planting certain areas of fields where pest populations are likely to cause crop failure. Some tactics for prevention and avoidance strategies may overlap in most systems.
Monitoring and proper identification of pests through surveys or scouting programs, including trapping, weather monitoring and soil testing where appropriate, should be performed as the basis for any suppression activities. Records should be kept of pest incidence and distribution for each field. Such records form the basis for crop rotation selection, economic thresholds, and suppressive actions.
Suppression of pest populations may become necessary to avoid economic loss if prevention and avoidance tactics are not successful. Suppressive tactics may include cultural practices such as narrow-row spacings or optimized in-row plant populations, alternative tillage approaches such as no-till or strip-till systems, cover crops or mulches, or using crops with allelopathic potential in the rotation.
Physical suppression tactics may include cultivation or
mowing for weed
control, baited or pheromone traps for certain insects, and temperature management or
exclusion devices for insect and disease management.
Biological controls, including mating disruption for insects, should be considered as alternatives to conventional pesticides, especially where long-term control of an especially troublesome pest species can be obtained. Where naturally-occurring biological controls exist, effort should be made to conserve these valuable tools.
Chemical pesticides are important in IPM programs, and some use will remain necessary. However, pesticides should be applied as a last resort in suppression systems using the following sound management approach:
(1) The cost:benefit should be confirmed prior to use (using economic thresholds where available);
(2) Pesticides should be selected based on least negative effects on environment and human health in addition to efficacy and economics;
(3) Where economically and technically feasible, precision agriculture or other appropriate new technology should be utilized to limit pesticide use to areas where pests actually exist or are reasonably expected;
(4) Sprayers or other application devices should be calibrated prior to use and occasionally during the use season;
(5) Chemicals with the same mode of action should not be used continuously on the same field in order to avoid resistance development; and
(6) Vegetative buffers should be used around stream banks to minimize chemical movement to surface water.
Agri-Growth Welcomes the 1999 North Central
Collegiate Weed Science Contest
VOLUNTEER OR REGISTER NOW!
Located in rural south central Minnesota, Agri-Growth, Inc., is pleased to once
again sponsor the 1999 North Central Collegiate Weed Science Contest. This year's event
will be held on Thursday, July 22, at Agri-Growth's research facility near Hollandale, MN.
The contest will include weed identification, sprayer calibration, unknown herbicide
identification, and problem solving.
For additional details and registration information contact Michelle Trihus at Agri-Growth, Inc., @ 507-889-4371 or email [email protected]. Anyone interested in volunteering to help with the contest should contact Michelle as well.
Agri-Growth is proud to be a four-time sponsor of the NCWSS contest.
Complete contest materials can be found on this website.
It's not too early to nominate your outstanding colleagues in the following award categories:
� Education
� Industry
� Professional Staff
� Research
� Service
� Young Scientist
The North Central Weed Science Society seeks to recognize the outstanding contributions of its members through the Distinguished Achievement Awards, but we need your help. The most deserving candidates will not receive awards if they are not nominated.
Complete details on the nominating process and eligibility of nominees and nominators will be published in the 1998 NCWSS Proceedings. The deadline for submission of all nomination materials to the committee chair will be September 10, 1999.
As chair of the committee, I am willing to apply one of the guiding principles of my life. That is, rules are made to be bent, sometimes severely. The point is, if you feel that the rules are constricting your ability to secure a worthy nominee, contact me and we can try to work it out. The goal is to get deserving people nominated.
Please direct questions and requests for nomination forms and instructions the Distinguished Achievement Award Chair, Doug Buhler, USDA-ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory, 2150 Pammel Drive, Ames, IA 50011. E-mail [email protected], phone 515 294-5502, and fax 515 294-8125.
Contact Brent Peterson by June 1st indicating your intention to nominate someone as a Fellow or to suggest a nominee.
Selection as a Fellow is the highest honor the society bestows on its members and is limited to 0.5 percent of the membership annually.
The Fellow Committee is responsible for identifying those individuals most deserving of this recognition. To assist with this task, members of the Society are encouraged to submit nominations for NCWSS Fellows or to suggest possible nominees for this award to the Chairman of the Fellow Committee, Brent Peterson.
The deadline for submitting nominations and supporting letters for this year is September 19, 1999. Directions for submission of nominations can be found in the Proceedings of the NCWSS. Eight copies of the nomination should be submitted to: Brent Peterson, 8113 S.W. 158th St. Ellendale, MN 56026; (507) 684-2029.
Questions
and comments regarding the NCWSS are welcome.
Comments regarding this website should be directed to the
web editor.
� 1998-2002, North
Central Weed Science Society,
Inc.