Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ~...

ATTRA is a project of the National Center for Appropriate Technology

BIOINTENSIVE

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT(IPM)

ATTRA is the national sustainable agriculture information center funded by the USDA’s Rural Business--Cooperative Service.

By Rex Dufour

NCAT Agriculture Specialist

July 2001

FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Contents“Conventional” and “Biointensive” IPM ......................................................................................................... 2Why Move to Biointensive IPM? ....................................................................................................................... 4Components of Biointensive IPM ...................................................................................................................... 5 How to Get Started ......................................................................................................................................... 5 The Pest Manager/Ecosystem Manager ..................................................................................................... 5 Proactive Strategies (Cultural Controls) ...................................................................................................... 6 Biological Controls ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Mechanical and Physical Controls ............................................................................................................. 12 Pest Identification ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Economic Injury & Action Levels ............................................................................................................... 14Special Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Cosmetic Damage and Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 14 Record-keeping ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Chemical Controls ........................................................................................................................................ 14Integrated Weed Management Systems ......................................................................................................... 17Current Status of IPM ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Crops with Developed IPM Programs ...................................................................................................... 19 Government Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 19The Future of IPM .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Food Quality Protection Act ........................................................................................................................ 20 New Options ................................................................................................................................................. 20 More Weed IPM ............................................................................................................................................ 20On-farm Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 21IPM On-line ........................................................................................................................................................ 21IPM Certification and Marketing .................................................................................................................... 21Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 22References ........................................................................................................................................................... 23Appendices: A: IPM Planning Considerations ................................................................................................................ 25 B: Microbial Pesticides ................................................................................................................................ 27 C: Microbial Pesticide Manufacturers and Suppliers ............................................................................. 34 D: Conservation Security Act 2000 ............................................................................................................ 37 E: Pest Management Practices in Major Crops ........................................................................................ 38 F: IPM Information Resources ................................................................................................................... 39

Abstract: This publication provides the rationale for biointensive IntegratedPest Management (IPM), outlines the concepts and tools of biointensive IPM,and suggests steps and provides informational resources for implementing IPM.It is targeted to individuals interested in agriculture at all levels.

//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 2

Pest management is an ecological matter. Thesize of a pest population and the damage itinflicts is, to a great extent, a reflection of thedesign and management of a particular agricul-tural ecosystem.

We humans compete with other organisms forfood and fiber from our crops. We wish tosecure a maximum amount of the food re-source from a given area with minimum inputof resources and energy. However, if theagricultural system design and/or manage-ment is faulty—making it easy for pests todevelop and expand their populations or,conversely, making it difficult for predatorsand parasites of pests to exist—then we will beexpending unnecessary resources for pestmanagement. Therefore, the first step in sus-tainable and effective pest management islooking at the design of the agricultural ecosys-tem and considering what ecological conceptscan be applied to the design and managementof the system to better manage pests and theirparasites and predators.

The design and management of our agricul-tural systems need re-examining. We’ve cometo accept routine use of biological poisons inour food systems as normal. But routine use ofsynthetic chemicals represents significantenergy inputs into the agricultural system, andcarries both obvious and hidden costs to thefarmer and society. Attempting to implementan ecology-based discipline like IPM in largemonocultures, which substitute chemicalinputs for ecological design, can be an exercisein futility and inefficiency.

IPM, as it was originally conceived, proposedto manage pests though an understanding oftheir interactions with other organisms and theenvironment. Most of the 77 definitions forIPM listed in The Database of IPM Resources(DIR) website, , despite some differences in emphasis,agree with this idea and have the followingelements in common:

� A conception of a managed resource, suchas a cropping system on a farm, as acomponent of a functioning ecosystem.Actions are taken to restore and enhancenatural balances in the system, not toeliminate species. Regular monitoringmakes it possible to evaluate the popula-tions of pest and beneficial organisms. Theproducer can then take steps to enhancenatural controls (or at least avoid or limitthe disruption of natural controls) of thetarget pest(s).

� An understanding that the presence of apest does not necessarily constitute aproblem. Before a potentially disruptivecontrol method is employed, appropriatedecision-making criteria are used to deter-mine whether or not pest managementactions are needed.

� A consideration of all possible pest manage-ment options before action is taken.

� A philosophy that IPM strategies integratea combination of all suitable techniques inas compatible a manner as possible; it isimportant that one technique not conflictwith another (1).

However, IPM has strayed from its ecologicalroots. Critics of what might be termed “con-ventional” IPM note that it has been imple-mented as Integrated Pesticide Management(or even Improved Pesticide Marketing) withan emphasis on using pesticides as a tool offirst resort. What has been missing from thisapproach, which is essentially reactive, is anunderstanding of the ecological basis of pestinfestations (see first bullet above). Alsomissing from the conventional approach areguidelines for ecology-based manipulations of thefarm agroecosystem that address the questions:

� Why is the pest there?� How did it arrive?� Why doesn’t the parasite/predator

complex control the pest?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○“Conventional” and “Biointensive” IPM


Ab

ov

eg

rou

nd

Be

ne

fic

ial

Ha

bit

at

& H

ea

lth

y S

oil

Cro

p G

en

eti

c D

ive

rsit

y

& C

ult

iva

rs A

pp

rop

ria

te

to E

co

sys

tem

& P

es

t

Pre

ss

ure

s

Sa

nit

ati

on

, P

lan

tin

g D

ate

s,

& C

rop

Ro

tati

on

Mo

nit

ori

ng

& I

D o

f P

es

tsM

on

ito

rin

g &

ID

of

Pe

sts

& B

en

efi

cia

ls

Me

ch

an

ica

l &

Ph

ys

ica

l C

on

rols

Ch

em

ica

l C

on

tro

ls

Ap

pli

ed

Bio

log

ica

ls

reactive

pro

active

Bio

inte

ns

ive

IP

MC

on

ve

nti

on

al

IPM


Biointensive IPM incorporates ecological andeconomic factors into agricultural system designand decision making, and addresses publicconcerns about environmental quality and foodsafety. The benefits of implementingbiointensive IPM can include reduced chemicalinput costs, reduced on-farm and off-farmenvironmental impacts, and more effectiveand sustainable pest management. Anecology-based IPM has the potential ofdecreasing inputs of fuel, machinery, andsynthetic chemicals—all of which are energyintensive and increasingly costly in terms offinancial and environmental impact. Suchreductions will benefit the grower and society.

Over-reliance on the use of synthetic pesticidesin crop protection programs around the worldhas resulted in disturbances to the environ-ment, pest resurgence, pest resistance to pesti-cides, and lethal and sub-lethal effects on non-target organisms, including humans (3). Theseside effects have raised public concern aboutthe routine use and safety of pesticides. At thesame time, population increases are placingever-greater demands upon the “ecologicalservices”—that is, provision of clean air, waterand wildlife habitat—of a landscape

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

dominated by farms. Although some pendinglegislation has recognized the costs to farmersof providing these ecological services (seeAppendix D), it’s clear that farmers andranchers will be required to manage their landwith greater attention to direct and indirect off-farm impacts of various farming practices onwater, soil, and wildlife resources. With thislikely future in mind, reducing dependence onchemical pesticides in favor of ecosystemmanipulations is a good strategy for farmers.

Consumers Union, a group that has carriedout research and advocacy on variouspesticide problems for many years, definesbiointensive IPM as the highest level of IPM:

Why Move to Biointensive IPM?

“a systems approach to pest managementbased on an understanding of pest ecology.It begins with steps to accurately diagnosethe nature and source of pest problems,and then relies on a range of preventivetactics and biological controls to keep pestpopulations within acceptable limits.Reduced-risk pesticides are used if othertactics have not been adequately effective,as a last resort, and with care to minimizerisks.” (2)

This “biointensive” approach sounds remark-ably like the original concept of IPM. Such a“systems” approach makes sense both intu-itively and in practice.

The primary goal of biointensive IPM is toprovide guidelines and options for the effectivemanagement of pests and beneficial organismsin an ecological context. The flexibility andenvironmental compatibility of a biointensiveIPM strategy make it useful in all types ofcropping systems.

Even conventional IPM strategies help toprevent pest problems from developing, andreduce or eliminate the use of chemicals inmanaging problems that do arise. Results of 18economic evaluations of conventional IPM oncotton showed a decrease in production costsof 7 percent and an average decrease in pesti-cide use of 15 percent (4). Biointensive IPMwould likely decrease chemical use and costseven further.

Prior to the mid-1970s, lygus bugs wereconsidered to be the key pest in Californiacotton. Yet in large-scale studies on insec-ticidal control of lygus bugs, yields in un-treated plots were not significantly differ-ent from those on treated plots. This wasbecause the insecticides often induced out-breaks of secondary lepidopterous larvae(i.e., cabbage looper, beet armyworm, andbollworm) and mite pests which caused ad-ditional damage as well as pest resurgenceof the lygus bug itself. These results, froman economic point of view, seem paradoxi-cal, as the lygus bug treatments were costly,yet the treated plots consistently had loweryields (i.e., it cost farmers money to losemoney). This paradox was first pointed outby R. van den Bosch, V. Stern, and L. A.Falcon, who forced a reevaluation of theeconomic basis of Lygus control in Califor-nia cotton (5).


○ ○ ○ ○ ○Components of Biointensive IPM

An important difference between conventionaland biointensive IPM is that the emphasis ofthe latter is on proactive measures to redesignthe agricultural ecosystem to the disadvantageof a pest and to the advantage of its parasiteand predator complex. At the same time,biointensive IPM shares many of the samecomponents as conventional IPM, includingmonitoring, use of economic thresholds, recordkeeping, and planning.

How To Get Started With IPM— PLANNING, PLANNING, PLANNING

Good planning must precede implementationof any IPM program, but is particularly impor-tant in a biointensive program. Planningshould be done before planting because manypest strategies require steps or inputs, such asbeneficial organism habitat management, thatmust be considered well in advance. Attempt-ing to jump-start an IPM program in the begin-ning or middle of a cropping season generallydoes not work.

When planning a biointensive IPM program,some considerations include:� Options for design changes in the agricul-

tural system (beneficial organism habitat,crop rotations)

� Choice of pest-resistant cultivars� Technical information needs� Monitoring options, record keeping, equip-

ment, etc.

The table in Appendix A provides more detailsabout these and other ideas that should beconsidered when implementing a biointensiveIPM program.

The Pest Manager / Ecosystem Manager

The pest manager is the most important link ina successful IPM program. The manager mustknow the biology of the pest and the beneficialorganisms associated with the pest, and under-stand their interactions within the farm envi-ronment. As a detailed knowledge of the pestis developed, weak links in its life cycle

Blocks on the Pesticide Treadmill

Resistance: Pesticide use exerts a powerful selection pressure for changing the genetic make-up ofa pest population. Naturally resistant individuals in a pest population are able to survive pesti-cide treatments. The survivors pass on the resistance trait to their offspring. The result is a muchhigher percentage of the pest population resistant to a pesticide. In the last decade, the number ofweed species known to be resistant to herbicides rose from 48 to 270, and the number of plantpathogens resistant to fungicides grew from 100 to 150. Resistance to insecticides is so common —more than 500 species — that nobody is really keeping score (2).

Resurgence: Pesticides often kill off natural enemies along with the pest. With their natural en-emies eliminated, there is little to prevent recovered pest populations from exploding to higher,more damaging numbers than existed before pesticides were applied. Additional chemical pesti-cide treatments only repeat this cycle.

Secondary Pests: Some potential pests that are normally kept under good control by natural en-emies become actual pests after their natural enemies are destroyed by pesticides. Mite outbreaksafter pesticide applications are a classic example.

Residues: Only a minute portion of any pesticide application contacts the target organism. Theremainder may degrade harmlessly, but too often water, wind, and soil will carries pesticides tonon-target areas and organisms, affecting the health of human and wildlife populations. Publicconcerns over residues are deepened by the lack of research and knowledge about possible syner-gistic interactions between pesticide residues and the hundreds of other synthetic chemical resi-dues now found in the environment.


become apparent. These weak links are phasesof the life cycle when the pest is most suscep-tible to control measures. The manager mustintegrate this knowledge with tools and tech-niques of biointensive IPM to manage not one,but several pests. A more accurate title for thepest manager is “ecosystem doctor,” for he orshe must pay close attention to the pulse of themanaged ecosystem and stay abreast of devel-opments in IPM and crop/pest biology andecology. In this way, the ecosystem managercan take a proactive approach to managingpests, developing ideas about system manipu-lations, testing them, and observing the results.

IPM options may be considered proactive orreactive. Proactive options, such as croprotations and creation of habitat for beneficialorganisms, permanently lower the carryingcapacity of the farm for the pest. The carryingcapacity is determined by factors like food,shelter, natural enemies complex, and weather,which affect the reproduction and survival of aspecies. Cultural controls are generally consid-ered to be proactive strategies.

The second set of options is more reactive.This simply means that the grower responds toa situation, such as an economically damagingpopulation of pests, with some type of short-term suppressive action. Reactive methodsgenerally include inundative releases of bio-logical controls, mechanical and physicalcontrols, and chemical controls.

Proactive Strategies (Cultural Control)

• Healthy, biologically active soils (increasingbelowground diversity)

• Habitat for beneficial organisms (increasingaboveground diversity)

• Appropriate plant cultivars

Cultural controls are manipulations of theagroecosystem that make the cropping systemless friendly to the establishment and prolifera-tion of pest populations. Although they aredesigned to have positive effects on farmecology and pest management, negative im-pacts may also result, due to variations inweather or changes in crop management.

In a non-farmscaped system, where pests have fewer natural controls and thus reach higher averagepopulations, they are more likely to approach or exceed the economic threshold level for the crop, makingpesticide treatments likely. In a farmscaped system, greater and more consistent populations of beneficialorganisms put more ecological pressure on the pests, with the result that pest populations are less likely toapproach the economic threshold. In other words, the ecological carrying capacity for a pest will probably be lower ina farmscaped system. For more on farmscaping, see p. 11.

Carrying Capacity of Farm Systems for Pest Populations:


Maintaining and increasing biological diversityof the farm system is a primary strategy ofcultural control. Decreased biodiversity tendsto result in agroecosystems that are unstableand prone to recurrent pest outbreaks andmany other problems (5). Systems high inbiodiversity tend to be more “dynamicallystable”—that is, the variety of organismsprovide more checks and balances on eachother, which helps prevent one species (i.e.,pest species) from overwhelming the system.

There are many ways to manage and increasebiodiversity on a farm, both above ground andin the soil. In fact,diversity aboveground influencesdiversity belowground. Research hasshown that up to halfof a plant’s photosynthetic production (carbo-hydrates) is sent to the roots, and half of that(along with various amino acids and otherplant products) leaks out the roots into thesurrounding soil, providing a food source formicroorganisms. These root exudates varyfrom plant species to plant species and thisvariation influences the type of organismsassociated with the root exudates (6).

Factors influencing the health and biodiversityof soils include the amount of soil organicmatter; soil pH; nutrient balance; moisture; andparent material of the soil. Healthy soils with adiverse community of organisms support planthealth and nutrition better than soils deficientin organic matter and low in species diversity.Research has shown that excess nutrients (e.g.,too much nitrogen) as well as relative nutrientbalance (i.e., ratios of nutrients for example,twice as much calcium as magnesium, com-pared to equal amounts of both) in soils affectinsect pest response to plants (7, 8). Imbalancesin the soil can make a plant more attractive toinsect pests (7, 8), less able to recover from pestdamage, or more susceptible to secondaryinfections by plant pathogens (8). Soils rich inorganic matter tend to suppress plant patho-gens (9). In addition, it is estimated that 75% ofall insect pests spend part of their life cycle inthe soil, and many of their natural enemies

occur there as well. For example, larvae of onespecies of blister beetle consume about 43grasshopper eggs before maturing (10). Bothare found in the soil. (Unfortunately, althoughblister beetle larvae can help reduce grasshop-per populations, the adult beetles can be aserious pest for many vegetable growers.)Overall, a healthy soil with a diversity ofbeneficial organisms and high organic mattercontent helps maintain pest populations belowtheir economic thresholds.

Genetic diversity of a particular crop may beincreased by planting more than one cultivar.

For example, arecent experimentin China (11)demonstrated thatdisease-susceptiblerice varieties

planted in mixtures with resistant varieties had89% greater yield and a 94% lower incidence ofrice blast (a fungus) compared to when theywere grown in monoculture. The experiment,which involved five townships in 1998 and tentownships in 1999, was so successful thatfungicidal sprays were no longer applied bythe end of the two-year program.

Species diversity of the associated plant andanimal community can be increased by allow-ing trees and other native plants to grow infence rows or along water ways, and by inte-grating livestock into the farm system. Use ofthe following cropping schemes are additionalways to increase species diversity. (SeeATTRA’s Farmscaping to Enhance BiologicalControl for more information on this topic.)

Crop rotations radically alter the environmentboth above and below ground, usually to thedisadvantage of pests of the previous crop.The same crop grown year after year on thesame field will inevitably build up populationsof organisms that feed on that plant, or, in thecase of weeds, have a life cycle similar to thatof the crop. Add to this the disruptive effect ofpesticides on species diversity, both above andbelow ground, and the result is an unstablesystem in which slight stresses (e.g., new pestvariety or drought) can devastate the crop.

“When we kill off the natural

enemies of a pest we inherit

their work” Carl Huffaker


When making a decision about crop rotation,consider the following questions: Is there aneconomically sustainable crop that can berotated into the cropping system? Is it compat-ible? Important considerations when develop-ing a crop rotation are:

• What two (or three or several) crops canprovide an economic return when consideredtogether as a biological and economic systemthat includes considerations of sustainable soilmanagement?

• What are the impacts of this season’s crop-ping practices on subsequent crops?

• What specialized equipment is necessary forthe crops?

• What markets are available for the rotationcrops?

A corn/soybean rotation is one example ofrotating compatible economic crops. Corn is agrass; soybean is a leguminous broadleaf. Thepest complex of each, including soil organisms,is quite different. Corn rootworm, one of themajor pests of corn, is virtually eliminated byusing this rotation. Both crops generallyprovide a reasonable return. Even rotations,however, create selection pressures that willultimately alter pest genetics. A good exampleis again the corn rootworm: the corn/beanrotation has apparently selected for a smallpopulation that can survive a year of non-corn(i.e., soybean) cropping (12).

Management factors should also be considered.For example, one crop may provide a lower

Other Cropping Structure Options

Multiple cropping is the sequential productionof more than one crop on the same land in oneyear. Depending on the type of croppingsequence used, multiple cropping can be usefulas a weed control measure, particularly whenthe second crop is interplanted into the first.

Interplanting is seeding or planting a crop into agrowing stand, for example overseeding acover crop into a grain stand. There may bemicroclimate advantages (e.g., timing, windprotection, and less radical temperature andhumidity changes) as well as disadvantages(competition for light, water, nutrients) to thisstrategy. By keeping the soil covered, inter-planting may also help protect soil againsterosion from wind and rain.

Intercropping is the practice of growing two ormore crops in the same, alternate, or pairedrows in the same area. This technique isparticularly appropriate in vegetable produc-tion. The advantage of intercropping is that

direct return per acre than the alternate crop,but may also lower management costs for thealternate crop (by reducing weed pressure, forexample, and thus avoiding one tillage orherbicide application), with a net increase inprofit.

Intercropping French beans with cilantro—a potential control for symphylans.

An enforced rotation program in the Imperial Val-ley of California has effectively controlled thesugar beet cyst nematode. Under this program,sugar beets may not be grown more than twoyears in a row or more than four years out of tenin clean fields (i.e., non-infested fields). In infestedfields, every year of a sugar beet crop must befollowed by three years of a non-host crop. Othernematode pests commonly controlled with croprotation methods include the golden nematodeof potato, many root-knot nematodes, and thesoybean cyst nematode.


the increased diversity helps “disguise” cropsfrom insect pests, and if done well, may allowfor more efficient utilization of limited soil andwater resources. Disadvantages may relate toease of managing two different crop specieswith potentially different nutrient, water, andlight needs, and differences in harvesting timeand method in close proximity to each other.For a detailed discussion, request the ATTRApublication, Intercropping: Principles and Produc-tion Practices.

Strip cropping is the practice of growing two ormore crops in different strips across a fieldwide enough for independent cultivation (e.g.,alternating six-row blocks of soybeans and cornor alternating strips of alfalfa and cotton oralfalfa and corn). It is commonly practiced tohelp reduce soil erosion in hilly areas. Likeintercropping, strip cropping increases thediversity of a cropping area, which in turn mayhelp “disguise” the crops from pests. Anotheradvantage to this system is that one of the cropsmay act as a reservoir and/or food source forbeneficial organisms. However, much moreresearch is needed on the complex interactionsbetween various paired crops and their pest/predator complexes.

The options described above can be integratedwith no-till cultivation schemes and all itsvariations (strip till, ridge till, etc.) as well aswith hedgerows and intercrops designed forbeneficial organism habitat. With all thecropping and tillage options available, it ispossible, with creative and informed manage-ment, to evolve a biologically diverse, pest-suppressive farming system appropriate to theunique environment of each farm.

Other Cultural Management Options

Disease-free seed and plants are available frommost commercial sources, and are certified assuch. Use of disease-free seed and nurserystock is important in preventing the introduc-tion of disease.

Resistant varieties are continually being bred byresearchers. Growers can also do their ownplant breeding simply by collecting non-hybridseed from healthy plants in the field. The

plants from these seeds will have a goodchance of being better suited to the local envi-ronment and of being more resistant to insectsand diseases. Since natural systems are dy-namic rather than static, breeding for resistancemust be an ongoing process, especially in thecase of plant disease, as the pathogens them-selves continue to evolve and become resistantto control measures (13).

Sanitation involves removing and destroyingthe overwintering or breeding sites of the pestas well as preventing a new pest from establish-ing on the farm (e.g., not allowing off-farm soilfrom farm equipment to spread nematodes orplant pathogens to your land). This strategyhas been particularly useful in horticultural andtree-fruit crop situations involving twig andbranch pests. If, however, sanitation involvesremoval of crop residues from the soil surface,the soil is left exposed to erosion by wind andwater. As with so many decisions in farming,both the short- and long-term benefits of eachaction should be considered when tradeoffs likethis are involved.

Spacing of plants heavily influences the devel-opment of plant diseases and weed problems.The distance between plants and rows, theshape of beds, and the height of plants influ-ence air flow across the crop, which in turndetermines how long the leaves remain dampfrom rain and morning dew. Generally speak-ing, better air flow will decrease the incidenceof plant disease. However, increased air flowthrough wider spacing will also allow moresunlight to the ground, which may increaseweed problems. This is another instance inwhich detailed knowledge of the crop ecologyis necessary to determine the best pest manage-ment strategies. How will the crop react toincreased spacing between rows and betweenplants? Will yields drop because of reducedcrop density? Can this be offset by reducedpest management costs or fewer losses fromdisease?

Altered planting dates can at times be used toavoid specific insects, weeds, or diseases. Forexample, squash bug infestations on cucurbitscan be decreased by the delayed plantingstrategy, i.e., waiting to establish the cucurbit


crop until overwintering adult squash bugshave died. To assist with disease managementdecisions, the Cooperative Extension Service(CES) will often issue warnings of “infectionperiods” for certain diseases, based upon theweather.

In some cases, the CES also keeps track of“degree days” needed for certain importantinsect pests to develop. Insects, being cold-blooded, will not develop below or abovecertain threshold temperatures. Calculatingaccumulated degree days, that is, the numberof days above the threshold developmenttemperature for an insect pest, makes theprediction of certain events, such as egg hatch,possible. University of California has an excel-lent website that uses weather station data fromaround the state to help California growerspredict pest emergence: .

Some growers gauge the emergence of insectpests by the flowering of certain non-crop plantspecies native to the farm. This method usesthe “natural degree days” accumulated byplants. For example, a grower might timecabbage planting for three weeks after theAmelanchier species (also known as saskatoon,shadbush, or serviceberry) on their farm are inbloom. This will enable the grower to avoidpeak egg-laying time of the cabbage maggot fly,as the egg hatch occurs about the timeAmelanchier species are flowering (14). Usingthis information, cabbage maggot managementefforts could be concentrated during a knowntime frame when the early instars (the mosteasily managed stage) are active.

Optimum growing conditions are always impor-tant. Plants that grow quickly and are healthycan compete with and resist pests better thanslow-growing, weak plants. Too often, plantsgrown outside their natural ecosystem rangemust rely on pesticides to overcome conditionsand pests to which they are not adapted.

Mulches, living or non-living, are useful forsuppression of weeds, insect pests, and someplant diseases. Hay and straw, for example,provide habitat for spiders. Research in Ten-nessee showed a 70% reduction in damage

to vegetables by insect pests when hay or strawwas used as mulch. The difference was due tospiders, which find mulch more habitable thanbare ground (15). Other researchers havefound that living mulches of various cloversreduce insect pest damage to vegetables andorchard crops (16). Again, this reduction is dueto natural predators and parasites providedhabitat by the clovers. Vetch has been used asboth a nitrogen source and as a weed suppres-sive mulch in tomatoes in Maryland (17).Growers must be aware that mulching mayalso provide a more friendly environment forslugs and snails, which can be particularlydamaging at the seedling stage.

Mulching helps to minimize the spread of soil-borne plant pathogens by preventing theirtransmission through soil splash. Mulch, ifheavy enough, prevents the germination ofmany annual weed seeds. Winged aphids arerepelled by silver- or aluminum-coloredmulches (18). Recent springtime field tests atthe Agricultural Research Service in Florence,South Carolina, have indicated that red plasticmulch suppresses root-knot nematode damagein tomatoes by diverting resources away fromthe roots (and nematodes) and into foliage andfruit (19).

Biotech Crops. Gene transfer technology is beingused by several companies to develop cultivarsresistant to insects, diseases, and herbicides.An example is the incorporation of geneticmaterial from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), anaturally occurring bacterium, into cotton,corn, and potatoes, to make the plant tissuestoxic to bollworm, earworm, and potato beetlelarvae, respectively.

Whether or not this technology should beadopted is the subject of much debate. Oppo-nents are concerned that by introducing Btgenes into plants, selection pressure for resis-tance to the Bt toxin will intensify and a valu-able biological control tool will be lost. Thereare also concerns about possible impacts ofgenetically-modified plant products (i.e., rootexudates) on non-target organisms as well asfears of altered genes being transferred to weedrelatives of crop plants. Whether there is amarket for gene-altered crops is also a


consideration for farmers and processors.Proponents of this technology argue that use ofsuch crops decreases the need to use toxicchemical pesticides.

Biological Control

Biological control is the use of living organisms—parasites, predators, or pathogens—to main-tain pest populations below economicallydamaging levels, and may be either natural orapplied. A first step in setting up a biointensiveIPM program is to assess the populations ofbeneficials and their interactions within thelocal ecosystem. This willhelp to determine thepotential role of naturalenemies in the managedagricultural ecosystem. Itshould be noted that somegroups of beneficials (e.g.,spiders, ground beetles,bats) may be absent orscarce on some farmsbecause of lack of habitat.These organisms mightmake significant contri-butions to pest manage-ment if provided withadequate habitat.

Natural biological control results when naturallyoccurring enemies maintain pests at a lowerlevel than would occur without them, and isgenerally characteristic of biodiverse systems.Mammals, birds, bats, insects, fungi, bacteria,and viruses all have a role to play as predatorsand parasites in an agricultural system. Bytheir very nature, pesticides decrease thebiodiversity of a system, creating the potentialfor instability and future problems. Pesticides,whether synthetically or botanically derived,are powerful tools and should be used withcaution.

Creation of habitat to enhance the chances forsurvival and reproduction of beneficial organ-isms is a concept included in the definition ofnatural biocontrol. Farmscaping is a term coinedto describe such efforts on farms.Habitat enhancement for beneficial insects, for

example, focuses on the establishment offlowering annual or perennial plants thatprovide pollen and nectar needed duringcertain parts of the insect life cycle. Otherhabitat features provided by farmscapinginclude water, alternative prey, perching sites,overwintering sites, and wind protection.Beneficial insects and other beneficial organ-isms should be viewed as mini-livestock, withspecific habitat and food needs to be includedin farm planning.

The success of such efforts depends on knowl-edge of the pests and beneficial organisms

within the croppingsystem. Where dothe pests and bene-ficials overwinter?What plants are hostsand non-hosts?When this kind ofknowledge informsplanning, the eco-logical balance canbe manipulated infavor of beneficialsand against thepests.

It should be kept inmind that ecosystem

manipulation is a two-edged sword. Someplant pests (such as the tarnished plant bugand lygus bug) are attracted to the same plantsthat attract beneficials. The development ofbeneficial habitats with a mix of plants thatflower throughout the year can help preventsuch pests from migrating en masse fromfarmscaped plants to crop plants.

See ATTRA’s Farmscaping to Enhance BiologicalControl for a detailed treatment of this subject.

Applied biological control, also known as aug-mentative biocontrol, involves supplementa-tion of beneficial organism populations, forexample through periodic releases of parasites,predators, or pathogens. This can be effectivein many situations—well-timed inundativereleases of Trichogramma egg wasps for co-dling moth control, for instance.

Beneficial organisms should be viewed asmini-livestock, with specific habitat andfood needs to be included in farm planning.


Most of the beneficial organisms used in ap-plied biological control today are insect para-sites and predators. They control a wide rangeof pests from caterpillars to mites. Some spe-cies of biocontrol organisms, such asEretmocerus californicus, a parasitic wasp, arespecific to one host—in this case thesweetpotato whitefly. Others, such as greenlacewings, are generalists and will attack manyspecies of aphids and whiteflies.

Information about rates and timing of releaseare available from suppliers of beneficialorganisms. It is important to remember thatreleased insects are mobile; they are likely toleave a site if the habitat is not conducive totheir survival. Food, nectar, and pollen sourcescan be “farmscaped” to provide suitable habi-tat.

The quality of commercially available appliedbiocontrols is another important consideration.For example, if the organisms are not properlylabeled on the outside packaging, they may bemishandled during transport, resulting in thedeath of the organisms. A recent study byRutgers University (20) noted that only two ofsix suppliers of beneficial nematodes sent theexpected numbers of organisms, and only onesupplier out of the six provided information onhow to assess product viability.

While augmentative biocontrols can be appliedwith relative ease on small farms and in gar-dens, applying some types of biocontrolsevenly over large farms has been problematic.New mechanized methods that may improvethe economics and practicality of large-scaleaugmentative biocontrol include groundapplication with “biosprayers” and aerialdelivery using small-scale (radio-controlled) orconventional aircraft (21).

Inundative releases of beneficials into green-houses can be particularly effective. In thecontrolled environment of a greenhouse, pestinfestations can be devastating; there are nonatural controls in place to suppress pestpopulations once an infestation begins. For thisreason, monitoring is very important. If aninfestation occurs, it can spread quickly if notdetected early and managed. Once introduced,biological control agents cannot escape

from a greenhouse and are forced to concen-trate predation/parasitism on the pest(s) athand.

An increasing number of commercially avail-able biocontrol products are made up of micro-organisms, including fungi, bacteria, nema-todes, and viruses. Appendix B, MicrobialPesticides, lists some of the formulations avail-able. Appendix C, Microbial Pesticide Manufac-turers and Suppliers, provides addresses ofmanufacturers and suppliers.

Mechanical and Physical Controls

Methods included in this category utilize somephysical component of the environment, suchas temperature, humidity, or light, to thedetriment of the pest. Common examples aretillage, flaming, flooding, soil solarization, andplastic mulches to kill weeds or to preventweed seed germination.

Heat or steam sterilization of soil is commonlyused in greenhouse operations for control ofsoil-borne pests. Floating row covers overvegetable crops exclude flea beetles, cucumberbeetles, and adults of the onion, carrot, cab-bage, and seed corn root maggots. Insectscreens are used in greenhouses to preventaphids, thrips, mites, and other pests fromentering ventilation ducts. Large, multi-rowvacuum machines have been used for pestmanagement in strawberries and vegetablecrops. Cold storage reduces post-harvestdisease problems on produce.

Although generally used in small or localizedsituations, some methods of mechanical/physical control are finding wider acceptancebecause they are generally more friendly to theenvironment.

Pest Identification

A crucial step in any IPM program is to identifythe pest. The effectiveness of both proactiveand reactive pest management measuresdepend on correct identification. Misidentific-ation of the pest may be worse than useless; itmay actually be harmful and cost time andmoney. Help with positive identification ofpests may be obtained from university person-


nel, private consultants, the Cooperative Exten-sion Service, and books and websites listedunder Useful Resources at the end of thispublication.

After a pest is identified, appropriate andeffective management depends on knowinganswers to a number of questions. These mayinclude:

• What plants are hosts and non-hosts of thispest?

• When does the pest emerge or first appear?

• Where does it lay its eggs? In the case ofweeds, where is the seed source? For plantpathogens, where is the source(s) ofinoculum?

• Where, how, and in what form does the pestoverwinter?

• How might the cropping system be alteredto make life more difficult for the pest andeasier for its natural controls?

Monitoring (field scouting) and economicinjury and action levels are used to help answerthese and additional questions (22).

Monitoring

Monitoring involves systematically checkingcrop fields for pests and beneficials, at regularintervals and at critical times, to gather infor-mation about the crop, pests, and naturalenemies. Sweep nets, sticky traps, and phero-mone traps can be used to collect insects forboth identification and population densityinformation. Leaf counts are one method forrecording plant growth stages. Square-foot orlarger grids laid out in a field can provide abasis for comparative weed counts. Records ofrainfall and temperature are sometimes used topredict the likelihood of disease infections.

Specific scouting methods have been developedfor many crops. The Cooperative ExtensionService can provide a list of IPM manualsavailable in each state. Many resources arenow available via Internet (see Appendix F forIPM-related websites).

The more often a crop is monitored, the moreinformation the grower has about what ishappening in the fields. Monitoring activityshould be balanced against its costs. Frequencymay vary with temperature, crop, growthphase of the crop, and pest populations. If apest population is approaching economicallydamaging levels, the grower will want tomonitor more frequently.

yellow stickymonitoring card

Monitoring for squash pests (aphids and whiteflies).


Economic Injury and Action Levels

The economic injury level (EIL) is the pestpopulation that inflicts crop damage greaterthan the cost of control measures. Becausegrowers will generally want to act before apopulation reaches EIL, IPM programs use theconcept of an economic threshold level (ETL orET), also known as an action threshold. TheETL is closely related to the EIL, and is thepoint at which suppression tactics should beapplied in order to prevent pest populationsfrom increasing to injurious levels.

In practice, many crops have no establishedEILs or ETLs, or the EILs that have been devel-oped may be static over the course of a seasonand thus not reflect the changing nature of theagricultural ecosystem. For example, a single

Cosmetic Damage and Aesthetics

Consumer attitudes toward how produce looksis often a major factor when determining acrop’s sale price. Cosmetic damage is animportant factor when calculating the EIL,since pest damage, however superficial, lowersa crop’s market value. Growers selling to amarket that is informed about IPM or aboutorganically grown produce may be able totolerate higher levels of cosmetic damage totheir produce.

Record-keeping: “Past is prologue”

Monitoring goes hand-in-hand with record-keeping, which forms the collective “memory”of the farm. Records should not only provideinformation about when and where pestproblems have occurred, but should alsoincorporate information about cultural prac-tices (irrigation, cultivation, fertilization,mowing, etc.) and their effect on pest andbeneficial populations. The effects of non-biotic factors, especially weather, on pest andbeneficial populations should also be noted.Record-keeping is simply a systematic ap-proach to learning from experience. A varietyof software programs are now available to helpgrowers keep track of—and access—data ontheir farm’s inputs and outputs.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Time and Resources

A successful biointensive IPM program takestime, money, patience, short- and long-termplanning, flexibility, and commitment. Thepest manager must spend time on self-educa-tion and on making contacts with Extensionand research personnel. Be aware that someIPM strategies, such as increasing beneficialinsect habitat, may take more than a year toshow results.

A well-run biointensive IPM system mayrequire a larger initial outlay in terms of timeand money than a conventional IPM program.In the long run, however, a good biointensiveIPM program should pay for itself. Directpesticide application costs are saved andequipment wear and tear may be reduced.

Chemical Controls

Included in this category are both syntheticpesticides and botanical pesticides.

Synthetic pesticides comprise a wide range ofman-made chemicals used to controlinsects, mites, weeds, nematodes, plant dis-eases, and vertebrate and invertebrate pests.These powerful chemicals are fast acting andrelatively inexpensive to purchase.

cutworm can do more damage to an emergingcotton plant than to a plant that is six weeksold. Clearly, this pest’s EIL will change as thecotton crop develops.

ETLs are intimately related to the value of thecrop and the part of the crop being attacked.For example, a pest that attacks the fruit orvegetable will have a much lower ETL (that is,the pest must be controlled at lower popula-tions) than a pest that attacks a non-saleablepart of the plant. The exception to this rule isan insect or nematode pest that is also a diseasevector. Depending on the severity of thedisease, the grower may face a situation wherethe ETL for a particular pest is zero, i.e., thecrop cannot tolerate the presence of a singlepest of that particular species because thedisease it transmits is so destructive.

Special Considerations


Pesticides are the option of last resort in IPMprograms because of their potential negativeimpacts on the environment, which result fromthe manufacturing process as well as from theirapplication on the farm. Pesticides should beused only when other measures, such as bio-logical or cultural controls, have failed to keeppest populations from approaching economi-cally damaging levels.

If chemical pesticides must be used, it is to thegrower’s advantage to choose the least-toxicpesticide that will control the pest but not harmnon-target organisms such as birds, fish, andmammals. Pesticides that are short-lived or acton one or a few specific organisms are in thisclass. Examples include insecticidal soaps,horticultural oils, copper compounds (e.g.,bordeaux mix), sulfur, boric acid, and sugaresters (23).

Biorational pesticides. Although use of this termis relatively common, there is no legally ac-cepted definition (24). Biorational pesticidesare generally considered to be derived fromnaturally occurring compounds or are formula-tions of microorganisms. Biorationals have anarrow target range and are environmentallybenign. Formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis,commonly known as Bt, are perhaps the best-known biorational pesticide. Other examplesinclude silica aerogels, insect growth regula-tors, and particle film barriers.

Particle film barriers. A relatively new technol-ogy, particle film barriers are currently avail-able under the tradename Surround WP CropProtectant. The active ingredient is kaolin clay,an edible mineral long used as an anti-cakingagent in processed foods, and in such productsas toothpaste and Kaopectactate. There ap-pears to be no mammalian toxicity or anydanger to the environment posed by the use ofkaolin in pest control. The kaolin in Surroundis processed to a specific particle size range,and combined with a sticker-spreader. Non-processed kaolin clay may be phytotoxic.

Surround is sprayed on as a liquid, whichevaporates, leaving a protective powdery filmon the surfaces of leaves, stems, and fruit.Conventional spray equipment can be used andfull coverage is important. The film works todeter insects in several ways. Tiny particles ofthe clay attach to the insects when they contactthe plant, agitating and repelling them. Even ifparticles don’t attach to their bodies, the insectsmay find the coated plant or fruit unsuitable forfeeding and egg-laying. In addition, the highlyreflective white coating makes the plant lessrecognizable as a host. For more informationabout kaolin clay as a pest management tool,see ATTRA’s publications Kaolin Clay for Man-agement of Glassy-winged Sharpshooter in Grapesand Insect IPM in Apples: Kaolin Clay.

Sugar Esters. Throughout four years of tests,sugar esters have performed as well as or betterthan conventional insecticides against mitesand aphids in apple orchards; psylla in pearorchards; whiteflies, thrips, and mites on

The pesticide Agrophos used in a new planting. The redcolor code denotes the most hazardous class of chemical.In this instance, the farmer had applied the product inthe bag (a granular systemic insecticide) by hand.


vegetables; and whiteflies on cotton. How-ever, sugar esters are not effective againstinsect eggs. Insecticidal properties of sugaresters were first investigated a decade agowhen a scientist noticed that tobacco leaf hairsexuded sugar esters for defense against somesoft-bodied insect pests. Similar to insecticidalsoap in their action, these chemicals act ascontact insecticides and degrade into environ-mentally benign sugars and fatty acids afterapplication. AVA Chemical Ventures of Ports-mouth, NH hopes to have a product based onsucrose octanoate commercially available bythe end of 2001. Contact: Gary J. Puterka, ARSAppalachian Fruit Research Station,Kearneysville, WV, (304) 725-3451 ext. 361, fax(304) 728-2340, e-mail.

Because pest resistance to chemical controlshas become so common, susceptibility topesticides is increasingly being viewed bygrowers as a trait worth preserving. Oneexample of the economic impact of resistanceto insecticides has been documented in Michi-gan, where insecticide resistance in Coloradopotato beetle was first reported in 1984 andcaused severe economic problems beginningin 1991. In 1991 and following years, controlcosts were as high as $412/hectare in districtsmost seriously affected, in contrast to $35−74/hectare in areas where resistance was not aproblem (25). The less a product is applied,the longer a pest population will remainsusceptible to that product. Routine use of anypesticide is a problematic strategy.

Botanical pesticides are prepared in variousways. They can be as simple as pureed plantleaves, extracts of plant parts, or chemicalspurified from plants. Pyrethrum, neem formu-lations, and rotenone are examples of botani-cals. Some botanicals are broad-spectrumpesticides. Others, like ryania, are very spe-cific. Botanicals are generally less harmful inthe environment than synthetic pesticidesbecause they degrade quickly, but they can bejust as deadly to beneficials as synthetic pesti-cides. However, they are less hazardous totransport and in some cases can be formulatedon-farm. The manufacture of botanicalsgenerally results in fewer toxic by-products.

Compost teas are most commonly used for foliardisease control and applied as foliar nutrientsprays. The idea underlying the use of com-post teas is that a solution of beneficial mi-crobes and some nutrients is created, thenapplied to plants to increase the diversity oforganisms on leaf surfaces. This diversitycompetes with pathogenic organisms, makingit more difficult for them to become establishedand infect the plant.

An important consideration when usingcompost teas is that high-quality, well-agedcompost be used, to avoid contamination ofplant parts by animal pathogens found inmanures that may be a component of thecompost. There are different techniques forcreating compost tea. The compost can beimmersed in the water, or the water can becirculated through the compost. An effortshould be made to maintain an aerobic envi-ronment in the compost/water mixture.ATTRA has more information about compostteas, available on request.

Pesticide application techniques

As monetary and environmental costs ofchemical pesticides escalate, it makes sense toincrease the efficiency of chemical applications.Correct nozzle placement, nozzle type, and nozzlepressure are very important considerations.Misdirected sprays, inappropriate nozzle size,or worn nozzles will ultimately cost the growermoney and increase the risk of environmentaldamage.

If the monitoring program indicates that thepest outbreak is isolated to a particular loca-tion, spot treatment of only the infested area willnot only save time and money, but will con-serve natural enemies located in other parts ofthe field. The grower should also time treat-ments to be least disruptive of other organisms.This is yet another example where knowledgeabout the agroecosystem is important.

With the increasing popularity of no-till andrelated conservation tillage practices, herbicideuse has increased. One way to increase appli-cation efficiency and decrease costs of


herbicide use is through band application. Thisputs the herbicide only where it is needed,usually in soil disturbed by tillage or seedplanting, where weeds are most likely tosprout.

Baits and microencapsulation of pesticides arepromising technologies. For example, Slamis an insecticide-bait mixture for control ofcorn rootworm. It is a formulation of a bait,curcubitacin B, and carbaryl (Sevin ) inmicrospheres. It is selective, and reduces theamount of carbaryl needed to control therootworm by up to 90%. (Remember that croprotation will generally eliminate the need forany corn rootworm chemical control.)

Another example of bait-insecticide technol-ogy is the boll weevil bait tube. It lures theboll weevil using a synthetic sex pheromone.Each tube contains about 20 grams ofmalathion, which kills the boll weevil. Thistechnique reduces the pesticide used in cottonfields by up to 80% and conserves beneficials.It is most effective in managing low, early-season populations of the boll weevil.

Integrated Weed ManagementSystems

Weeds as competitors in crops present anumber of unique challenges that need to berecognized when developing managementstrategies. The intensity of weed problemsduring a growing season will be influenced byweed population levels in previous years. Theaxiom “one year’s seeding equals seven years’weeding” is apt.

Weed control costs cannot necessarily becalculated against the current year’s cropproduction costs. Weeds present a physicalproblem for harvesting. Noxious weed seedmixed with grain reduces the price paid togrowers. If the seed is sold for crop produc-tion the weed can be spread to new areas. Forexample, the perennial pepperweed, thoughtto have been introduced to California in sugarbeet seed, now infests thousands of acres inthe state. In addition, weed economic thresh-olds must take into account multiple speciesand variable competetive ability of differentcrops. For example, 12.7 cocklebur plants in

Sustainable Agriculture and IPM

Sustainable agriculture is a system of agriculture that is ecologically, economically, and socially viable, inthe short as well as long term. Rather than standing for a specific set of farming practices, a sustainableagriculture represents the goal of developing a food production system that:

☞ yields plentiful, affordable, high-quality food and other agricultural products

☞ does not deplete or damage natural resources (such as soil, water, wildlife, fossil fuels, or the germplasm base)

☞ promotes the health of the environment

☞ supports a broad base and diversity of farms and the health of rural communities

☞ depends on energy from the sun and on natural biological processes for fertility and pest management

☞ can last indefinitely

IPM and sustainable agriculture share the goal of developing agricultural systems that are ecologically andeconomically sound. IPM may be considered a key component of a sustainable agriculture system.

A premise common to IPM and sustainable agriculture is that a healthy agroecosystem depends on healthysoils and managed diversity. One of the reasons modern agriculture has evolved into a system of large mo-nocultures is to decrease the range of variables to be managed. However, a system with few species, muchlike a table with too few legs, is unstable.


10 sq. meters of corn cause a 10% yield loss.Only 2 cockleburs in the same area planted tosoybeans will cause the same 10% crop loss(12).

“Rotation crops, when accompanied by care inthe use of pure seed, is the most effective meansyet devised for keeping land free of weeds. Noother method of weed control, mechanical, chemi-cal, or biological, is so economical or so easily prac-ticed as a well-arranged sequence of tillage andcropping.”

Tactics that can be integrated into weed man-agement systems include:

• Prevention — The backbone of any success-ful weed management strategy is preven-tion. It is important to prevent the intro-duction of seeds into the field throughsources like irrigation water or manure.

• Crop rotation —A practical and effectivemethod of weed management (discussed inprevious sections).

• Cultivation — Steel in the Field: A Farmer’sGuide to Weed Management Tools shows howtoday’s implements and techniques canhandle weeds while reducing or eliminat-ing herbicides (26).

• Flame weeding — good for control of smallweeds.

• Delayed planting — Early-germinatingweeds can be destroyed by tillage. Andwith warmer weather, the subsequentlyplanted crop (depending on the crop, ofcourse) will grow more quickly, thus com-peting better with weeds.

• Staggered planting schedule — This willallow more time for mechanical weedcontrol, if needed. This also lessens theweather risks and spaces out the work loadat harvest time.

• Surface residue management — As men-tioned earlier, a thick mulch may shade thesoil enough to keep weed seeds fromgerminating. In addition, some plantresidues are allelopathic, releasing com-pounds that naturally suppress seed germi-nation.

• Altered plant spacing or row width — Anexample is narrow-row (7–18" betweenrows compared to conventional 36–39"between rows) soybean plantings. Thefaster the leaves shade the ground, the lessweeds will be a problem.

• Herbivores — Cattle, geese, goats, andinsects can be used to reduce populationsof specific weeds in special situations.Cattle, for example, relish Johnson grass.Weeder geese were commonly used incotton fields before the advent of herbi-cides. Musk thistle populations can besatisfactorily reduced by crown- and seed-eating weevils. Goats may be used forlarge stands of various noxious weeds.

• Adjusting herbicide use to situation —Herbicide selection and rate can be ad-justed depending upon weed size, weedspecies, and soil moisture. Young weedsare more susceptible to chemicals thanolder weeds.

By integrating a variety of tactics, farmers canreduce or eliminate herbicide use. For moreinformation about weed management optionssee ATTRA’s publication, Principles of Sustain-able Weed Management for Croplands.

WEED PREVENTION

• Have a long, diverse rotation• Sow clean seed• Prevent weed seed formation• Avoid imported feeds or manures• Compost all manure thoroughly• Control weeds in field borders• Delay planting the crop (for faster crop

growth and quicker ground coverage)• Maintain good soil quality

Source: Leighty, Clyde E. 1938. Crop Rotation. p. 406-429.In: Soils and Men, 1938 Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Govt.Print. Office, Washington, DC.


Current Status of IPM

Crops with Developed IPM Programs

In the last twenty years or so, IPM programshave been developed for important pests incorn, soybeans, cotton, citrus, apples, grapes,walnuts, strawberries, alfalfa, pecans, and mostother major crops. These programs are con-stantly being revised or fine-tuned, and occa-sionally undergo a significant overhaul as theintroduction of a new technology or new pestmakes the present IPM program obsolete.

The best source of information on conventionalIPM is the Cooperative Extension Service (CES)associated with the land-grant university ineach state. Booklets and fact sheets describingIPM programs and control measures for a widerange of crops and livestock are available freeor for a small charge. For the address of a stateIPM coordinator, refer to the Directory of StateExtension Integrated Pest Management Coordina-tors. A free copy can be obtained from theCooperative State Research, Education, andExtension Service (27), or through the worldwide web at . (Adobe Acrobat Readermust be loaded on your computer in order toaccess this page.)

Government Policy

In 1993, leaders from USDA, EPA, and FDAannounced a goal of placing 75% of U.S. cropacreage under IPM by the year 2000. The IPMInitiative described three phases:

1. Create teams of researchers, Extensionpersonnel, and growers to propose projectsto achieve the 75% goal.

2. Fund the best of those projects.

3. Facilitate privatization of IPM practicesdeveloped in the process.

Although some progress is evident, the Initia-tive has not received full funding from Con-gress (28). In addition, the USDA’s criteria

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

for measurement have been criticized for notdistinguishing between practices that arerelated to “treatment” and those that are “pre-ventive,” that is, based on altering the biologi-cal and ecological interactions between crops,pests, and beneficial organisms. Practices thatconstitute “treatment” with or contribute to theefficiency of pesticides are considered as “in-dicative of an IPM approach” by USDA’scriteria, as are practices that draw upon and aremost compatible with biological relationshipson the farm (29).

A 1998 USDA-funded survey of pest manage-ment practices was published in August 1999and is available at . Highlights ofthis report are excerpted in Appendix E, PestManagement Practices: 1998 USDA SurveySummary Highlights.

The primary goal of biointensive IPM is toprovide guidelines and options for the effectivemanagement of pests and beneficial organismsin an ecological context. This requires a some-what different set of knowledge from thatwhich supports conventional IPM, which inturn requires a shift in research focus andapproach. Recommended actions to betterfacilitate the transition to biointensive IPM are:

• Build the knowledge/information infra-structure by making changes in researchand education priorities in order to empha-size ecology-based pest management

• Redesign government programs to promotebiointensive IPM, not “Integrated PesticideManagement”

• Offer consumers more choices in the mar-ketplace

• Use the market clout of government andlarge corporations

• Use regulation more consciously, intelli-gently, and efficiently


The Future of IPM

As this publication has highlighted, IPM in thefuture will emphasize biological and ecologicalknowledge in managing pests. Beyond that,specific areas are described here that willimpact research and implementation of IPM inthe future.

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

The FQPA, the amended Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),requires the EPA to review all federally regis-tered pesticides in the next 10 years and to usea more comprehensive health standard whenallowing re-registra-tion. The ultimateimpact is unknown,but FQPA will mostlikely result in stricterregulations concern-ing pesticide residuesin food, particularlywith respect toorganochlorines,organophosphates,and carbamates. Some of the most toxic pesti-cides have already been “de-registered” withrespect to some of their former uses. Theseregulations may provide incentive for morewidespread adoption of IPM. More informa-tion, including implementation status (from anAugust 1999 Progress Report) can be found atthe FQPA homepage: .

New Options

Pest control methods are evolving and diversi-fying in response to public awareness ofenvironmental and health impacts of syntheticchemical pesticides and resulting legislation.The strong growth of the organic foods mar-ket—20% annual expansion for the past severalyears—may also be a factor in the accelerateddevelopment of organic pest managementmethods.

Agricultural pests are developing resistance tomany synthetic agrichemicals, and new syn-thetic chemicals are being registered at aslower rate than in the past. This situation has

○ ○ ○ ○

helped open the market for a new generation ofmicrobial pesticides. For more information aboutmicrobial and “biopesticides”, see Appendix B,Microbial Pesticides, and Appendix C, MicrobialPesticide Manufacturers and Suppliers, and visitEPA’s biopesticides website at: .(Please note that this website will be discontin-ued sometime in 2001.)

Research is proceeding on natural endophytes —fungi or bacteria that have a symbiotic (mutu-ally beneficial) relationship with their hostplant—and their effects on plant pests. This

research mightyield productsthat could beused to inocu-late plantsagainst certainpests.

Syntheticbeneficialattractants such

as Predfeed IPM and L-tryptophan may helpincrease the efficacy of natural controls byattracting beneficials to a crop in greater num-bers than usual.

More Weed IPM

Weeds are the major deterrent to the develop-ment of more sustainable agricultural systems,particularly in agronomic crops. Problemsassociated with soil erosion and water qualityare generally the result of weed control mea-sures like tillage, herbicides, cultivation, plant-ing date and pattern, etc. (30). In the future,research will focus not on symptoms, such assoil erosion, but on basic problems such as howto sustainably manage soils. Weeds, as animportant facet of sustainable soil manage-ment, will consequently receive more emphasisin IPM or Integrated Crop Management (ICM)programs.

“A convergence of technical, environmental andsocial forces is moving agriculture towards morenon-pesticide pest management alternatives likebiological control, host plant resistance andcultural management.”

—Michael Fitzner, National IPM Program Leader,USDA Extension Service


On-farm Resources

As farm management strategies become in-creasingly fine-tuned to preserve a profitablebottom line, the conservation, utilization, anddevelopment of on-farm resources will take onadded importance. In the context ofIPM, this will mean greater empha-sis on soil management as well ason conserving beneficial organisms,retaining and developing beneficialhabitats, and perhaps developingon-farm insectaries for rearingbeneficial insects.

IPM On-line

There is an increasing body of infor-mation about production, market-ing, and recordkeeping available togrowers via the Internet. TheInternet is also a good source of in-formation about IPM, beneficial insects, prod-ucts, and pest control options for individualcrops. IPM specialists are generating high-quality websites as a modern educational deliv-ery tool, and many Extension Service leafletsare now being made available in electronic for-mat only. This trend will only accelerate asmore and more agriculturists familiarize them-

One Generic Model for Ecolabel/IPM Certification Standards*

selves with the Internet. See Appendix F for athorough listing of IPM resources available onthe Internet.

IPM Certification and Marketing

Certification of crops raisedaccording to IPM or someother ecology-based standardsmay give growers a marketingadvantage as public concernsabout health and environmen-tal safety increase. For ex-ample, since 1995, Wegmanshas sold IPM-labeled fresh-market sweet corn in itsCorning, Geneva, Ithaca,Syracuse, and Rochester, NewYork stores. Wegmans hasalsoadded IPM-labeled corn,beets, and beans to its shelves

of canned vegetables. One goal of the program,in addition to being a marketing vehicle, is toeducate consumers about agriculture and thefood system. Another goal is to keep all grow-ers moving along the “IPM Continuum.”Growers must have an 80% “score” on the IPMprogram elements within three years, or facelosing Wegmans as a buyer.


These “ecolabels,” as they’re known, arebecoming more popular, with over a dozenbrands now in existence. They may providefor a more certain market and perhaps a pricepremium to help growers offset any costsassociated with implementing sustainablefarming practices. A possible downside toimplementing such programs is that theyrequire additional paperwork, development ofstandards and guidelines, and inspections.There is concern from some quarters that IPMlabeling will cause consumers to raise morequestions about pesticide use and the safety ofconventional produce. Some advocates oforganic farming worry about consumer confu-sion over the relationship of the ecolabel to the“Certified Organic” label.

Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet, anational, non-profit, consumer advocacy andenvironmental education organization, haspartnered with apple farmers in the Northeastregion to create a supportive market environ-ment for farm products that are locally grownand ecologically responsible. The result is theCore Values eco-label:

There has been an IPM labeling programcasualty in 2000. Massachusetts’s “Partnerswith Nature” marketing program closed itsdoors after losing funding support from theMassachusetts Department of Food and Agri-culture. The program, which included IPMproduction guidelines, had operated since1994, with 51 growers participating in 1999.

A bibliography of IPM Certification, Labeling,and Marketing can be found at: .

Summary ○ ○ ○ ○

IPM can be a flexible and valuable tool whenused as a concept with which to approach pestmanagement. IPM is not a cookbook recipe forpest control, but a flexible approach for dealingwith agriculture’s ever-changing financial,regulatory, and physical environment.

The key to effective IPM is the farmer’s under-standing of its concepts. In 1916, Liberty HydeBailey wrote a small book, entitled The Prin-ciples of Fruit Growing, as part of a Rural ScienceSeries published by MacMillan Co. The text isa marvelous mix of scientific theory and prac-tice. Bailey ended with the following note:

“We have now completed the fruit book,having surveyed the field. It is a field ofgreat variety, demanding many qualities onthe part of the successful grower. Thegrower should first apprehend the prin-ciples and the underlying reasons, and toteach this is the prime purpose of the book.If the grower knows why, he will teachhimself how” (31).

FeedbackHelp us better help farmers. If youhave suggestions for improvement ofthis publi-cation, areas about whichyou’d like more information or detail,ideas, case studies, or sources of goodIPM information (articles or websites),please call Rex Dufour at 530-756-8518ext. 39, or e-mail at .

A CORE Values Northeast apple is locallygrown in the Northeast (New York and NewEngland) by farmers who are striving to pro-vide apples of superior taste and quality whilemaintaining healthy, ecologically balancedgrowing environments. Growers whose applesbear the CORE Values Northeast seal areaccredited in knowledge-based biointensiveIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) productionmethods. For more information about thisprogram, visit: .

The ecolabel to the right is a result of acollaboration between the World Wild-life Fund (WWF), the WisconsinPotato and Vegetable GrowersAssociation (WPVGA), and theUniversity of Wisconsin. Raisingconsumer demand for biology-based-IPM farm products is the goal of the program.


References:

1) Flint, M.L. and van den Bosch, R. 1977. A SourceBook on Integrated Pest Management. p. 173-174.Limited distribution. Supported by grant#G007500907 to UC International Center forIntegrated and Biological Control.

2) Benbrook, Charles M. 1996. Pest Management atthe Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY.272 p.

3) Prakash, Anand and Jagadiswari Rao. 1997.Botanical Pesticides in Agriculture. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL. 461 p.

4) Norton, G.W. and J. Mullen. 1994. EconomicEvaluation of Integrated Pest ManagementPrograms: A Literature Review. Virginia Coop-erative Extension Publication 448-120.112 p.

5) Altieri, Miguel A. 1994. Biodiversity and PestManagement in Agroecosystems. The HaworthPress, Binghamton, NY. 185 p.

6) Marschner, H. 1998. Soil-Root Interface: Biologi-cal and Biochemical Processes. p. 191-232. In: SoilChemistry and Ecosystem Health. P.M. Huang(ed.). Soil Science Society of America, Inc.,Madison, WI.

7) Phelan, L. 1997. Soil-management history and therole of plant mineral balance as a determinant ofmaize susceptibility to the European Corn Borer.Biological Agriculture and Horticulture. Vol. 15.(1-4). p. 25-34.

8) Daane, K.M. et al. 1995. Excess nitrogen raisesnectarine susceptibility to disease and insects.California Agriculture. July-August. p. 13-18.

9) Schneider, R.W. 1982. Suppressive Soils andPlant Disease. The American PhytopathologicalSociety. St. Paul, MN. 88 p.

10) Metcalf, Robert L. 1993. Destructive and UsefulInsects: Their Habits and Control, 5th ed.McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.

11) Zhu, Y., H. et al. 2000. Genetic diversity anddesease control in rice. Nature. 17 August.p. 718-722.

12) Leslie, Anne R. and Gerritt Cuperus. 1993.Successful Implementation of Integrated PestManagement for Agricultural Crops. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL. 193 p.

13) Elwell, Henry and Anita Maas. 1995. NaturalPest and Disease Control. Natural FarmingNetwork. Harare, Zimbabwe. 128 p.

14) Couch, G.J. 1994. The use of growing degreedays and plant phenology in scheduling pestmanagement activities. Yankee Nursery Quar-terly. Fall. p. 12-17.

15) Reichert, Susan E. and Leslie Bishop. 1989. Preycontrol by an assemblage of generalist predators:Spiders in garden test systems. Ecology. Fall.p. 1441-1450.

16) Bugg, Robert L., Sharad C. Phatak, and James D.Dutcher. 1990. Insects associated with cool-season cover crops in southern Georgia: Implica-tions for pest control in truck-farm and pecanagroecosystems. Biological Agriculture andHorticulture. p. 17-45.

17) Abdul-Baki, Aref A., and John Teasdale. 1997.Sustainable Production of Fresh Market Toma-toes and Other Summer Vegetables with OrganicMulches. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 2279. USDA-Agriculture Research Service, Washington, D.C.23 p. .

18) Anon. 1999. Green Peach Aphid And OtherEarly Season Aphids. Webpage, Statewide IPMProject, University of California, Division ofAgriculture and Natural Resources. .

19) Adams, Sean. 1997. Seein’ red: colored mulchstarves nematodes. Agricultural Research.October. p. 18.

20) Zien, S.M. 2001. B.U.G.S. Flyer. March. p. 1-3.

21) Marh, S. 2000. Mechanized delivery of beneficialinsects. The IPM Practitioner. April. p. 1-5.

22) Adams, Roger G. and Jennifer C. Clark (ed.).1995. Northeast Sweet Corn Production andIntegrated Pest Management Manual. Univ. ofConnecticut Coop. Ext. Service. 120 p.

23) McBride, J. 2000. Environmentally friendlyinsecticides are sugar-coated—For real.ARS News and Information. March 10. .

24) Williamson, R. C. 1999. Biorational pesticides:What are they anyway? Golf Course Management website. .


25) Grafius, E. 1997. Economic impact of insecticideresistance in the Colorado potato beetle(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on the Michiganpotato industry. Journal of Economic Entomology.October. p. 1144.

26) Bowman, Greg (ed.). 1997. Steel in the Field.USDA Sustainable Agriculture Network.Burlington, VT. 128 p.

27) Directory of State Extension Pest ManagementCoordinatorsWendy Leight/Michael FitznerAg Box 2220Coop State Research, Education, &Extension Service, USDAWashington, D.C. 20250-2220http://www.reeusda.gov/nipmn/

28) Green, Thomas A. 1997. The USDA IPM Initia-tive: What has been accomplished? IPM Solu-tions, Gempler’s Inc., Mt. Horeb, WI. November4 p.

29) Hoppin, Polly J. 1996. Reducing pesticide relianceand risk through adoption of IPM: An environ-mental and agricultural win-win. Third NationalIPM Forum. February. 9 p.

30) Wyse, Donald. 1994. New Technologies andApproaches for Weed Management in SustainableAgriculture Systems. Weed Technology,Vol. 8. p. 403-407.

31) Steiner, P.W. 1994. IPM: What it is, what it isn’t..IPMnet NEWS. October.


APPENDIX A:IPM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS


AP

PE

ND

IX B

: M

ICR

OB

IAL

PE

ST

ICID

ES

Bene

ficia

l Org

anis

m

Agro

bact

eriu

m ra

diob

acte

r

Ampe

lom

yces

qui

squa

lis

Baci

llus

popi

lliae

Baci

llus

subt

ilis

Baci

llus

subt

ilis F

ZB24

Baci

llus

thur

ingi

ensi

s va

r.ai

zaw

ai

Baci

llus

thur

ingi

ensi

s va

r.is

rael

ensi

s

Trad

e Na

me

Nor

bac

84-C

™N

ogal

l™G

alltr

ol-A

™

AQ-1

0™

Doo

m ™

Japa

dem

ic™

Epic

™Ko

diak

™M

BI 6

0Se

rana

de (Q

ST71

3)Sy

stem

3 (+

met

alax

yl +

PCN

B)C

ompa

nion

(EPA

Exp

erim

enta

l Use

Per

mit)

HiS

tick

N/T

(a R

hizo

bium

and

B. s

ubtil

is m

ix)

Subt

ilex

Rhi

zo-P

lus,

Rhi

zo-P

lus

Konz

XenT

ari D

F™Ag

ree™

(Tur

ex o

utsi

de U

S)D

esig

n™ (d

isco

ntin

ued

in20

00)

Mat

tch™

Gna

trol™

Vect

oBac

™Ba

ctim

os™

Skee

tal™

Aqua

bac™

Bact

icid

e™Ve

ctoc

ide

Tekn

ar™

Man

ufac

ture

rs a

ndSu

pplie

rs

New

Bio

Prod

ucts

New

Bio

Prod

ucts

AgBi

oChe

m

Ecog

en

Fairf

ax B

iolo

gica

l L

abor

ator

y

Gus

tafs

on, I

nc.

Gus

tafs

on, I

nc.

Gus

tafs

on, I

ncAg

raQ

uest

Inc

Hel

ena

Che

mic

al C

o.G

row

th P

rodu

cts

Mic

roBi

o G

roup

Mic

roBi

o G

roup

KFZB

Bio

tech

nik

Abbo

ttTh

erm

o Tr

ilogy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ecog

en

Abbo

ttAb

bott

Abbo

ttAb

bott

Beck

er M

icro

bial

Biot

ech

Int’l

Nu-

Gro

Gro

upTh

erm

o Tr

ilogy

Pest

s Co

ntro

lled

Cro

wn

gall

caus

ed b

y A.

tum

efac

iens

Pow

dery

mild

ew

Larv

ae o

f Jap

anes

e be

etle

s,O

rient

al b

eetle

s, c

hafe

rs, s

ome

May

& Ju

ne b

eetle

s

Rhi

zoct

onia

, Fus

ariu

m, A

ltern

aria

, &As

perg

illus,

that

cau

se ro

ot ro

ts &

seed

ling

dise

ases

. M

ay a

lso

beef

fect

ive

agai

nst s

ome

folia

rdi

seas

es.

For m

anag

emen

t of R

hizo

cton

iaso

lani

, Fus

ariu

m s

pp.,

Alte

rnar

iasp

p., S

cler

otin

ia, V

ertic

illium

,St

rept

omyc

es s

cabi

es o

n fie

ld(p

otat

oes,

cor

n), v

eget

able

s, a

ndor

nam

enta

l pla

nts

Lepi

dote

ra in

veg

etab

les

and

corn

Larv

ae o

f mos

quito

es, b

lack

flie

s &

mid

ges

Type

of A

ctio

n

Anta

goni

st

Hyp

erpa

rasi

te

Stom

ach

pois

on

Biol

ogic

al fu

ngic

ide/

anta

goni

st, a

pplie

d di

rect

lyto

see

d. I

t will

grow

with

root

sys

tem

.

Stom

ach

pois

on

Stom

ach

pois

on

Coun

tryRe

gist

ered

U.S

. (N

orba

c an

dN

ogal

l)

U.S

.

U.S

.


Bene

ficia

l Org

anis

mTr

ade

Nam

eM

anuf

actu

rers

and

Supp

liers

Pest

s Co

ntro

lled

Type

of A

ctio

nCo

untry

Regi

ster

ed

U.S

.

U.S

., Eu

rope

Stom

ach

pois

on

Stom

ach

pois

on

Inse

ct s

peci

fic fu

ngus

Mos

t lep

idop

tera

larv

ae w

ith h

igh

gut p

H, s

ome

form

ulat

ions

act

ive

agai

nst l

eaf b

eetle

s (i.

e. R

aven

™)

Col

orad

o po

tato

bee

tle a

nd s

ome

othe

r lea

f bee

tles

Mol

e cr

icke

t, c

higg

ers,

whi

te g

rubs

,fir

e an

ts, a

Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ~...

Documents

Transcript of Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ~...