American Entomologist
"Postmarked: Extension, U.S.A."
Volume 45
Pages 136-139
The authors of the book Ecologically Based Pest Management: New Solutions for a New Century (National Research Council 1996) thoroughly examined integrated pest management (IPM) and exposed some valid criticisms regarding its implementation. After reviewing the book, we asked the question: "What compelled the authors to re-invent and rename IPM?" We are convinced that the genesis of ecologically based pest management (EBPM) was predicated on a genuine concern about how IPM is practiced. However, we concur with Kogan's (1998) view that IPM practitioners, educators, and researchers should be troubled by the introduction of "repackaged" substitutes with new acronyms because the identity of this fully developed, already recognizable archetype [IPM] may be undermined.
The title of our article reflects our belief that the identity of IPM sometimes is treated like a loose football, being fumbled and kicked by every scientist, consultant, activist, educator, or politician who stands to gain from espousing the term. "Player-coaches" (IPM consultants, educators, and researchers) must articulate the "game plan" clearly to avoid confusing other "players" (i.e., agricultural producers) and the "fans" (i.e., nonfarming consumers) that play in or watch the game. As with professional football, the ultimate success of IPM as an economically viable, widely accepted concept depends upon performance by the "players" and endorsement by the "fans."
If IPM is to enjoy widespread public approval and adoption by producers, it must be a clearly defined, economically and socially acceptable concept with strong institutional and political support. Toward this objective we wish to pose and address the following questions: (1) Does IPM, as defined presently, represent a viable framework for management of pests in environmentally, economically, and socially responsible ways? and (2) Can IPM be practiced effectively within that framework? We believe the answer to both questions is yes and argue in football vernacular that IPM "player-coaches" must not fumble the ball by renaming it, but instead, must redesign the "game plan" to keep moving the ball towards the "end zone."
Definitions
Although the authors did not present a formal definition, the defined goals of EBPM are to provide controls that are effective; economically sound; safe to growers, workers, and consumers; easily implemented; and ensure long-term management of pests (National Research Council 1996). A widely accepted, perfect definition of IPM has not been developed, but Kogan (1998) reported that 64 different definitions cited in the scientific literature included the following elements:
A definition of IPM proposed by the USDA-sponsored Integrated Pest Management Committee (1998) includes many of the same elements: an integration of pest control tactics that emphasize prevention and avoidance of pest problems and meet economic, public health, and environmental goals. We fail to see any meaningful differences between this definition of IPM and the definition of EBPM by the National Research Council (1996).
We argue that a well designed IPM program is not specifically intended to grow a crop or promote a social viewpoint. It is intended to protect a crop from pests in an economically and environmentally responsible way. Yet, its design should be flexible enough to reflect the prevailing technological, economic, and social axioms of the time (Rajotte 1993). Many IPM tactics are preventive and involve ecological manipulations that temporarily or permanently modify the ecology of the crop production system (National Research Council 1996). However, a successful IPM program ultimately is defined by the economic and ecological interactions of the production system, regardless of the social and political constraints placed upon it. Therefore, "player-coaches" must pay careful attention to an IPM program's economic and ecological foundations. They can move the IPM program along the "IPM continuum" (Benbrook et al. 1996) and meet the economic, environmental, and social goals of the "players" and the "fans."
Despite these caveats, IPM garners its share of criticism. The proponents of EBPM (National Research Council 1996) suggested that IPM is not ecologically based, that IPM remains focused on the effective and efficient use of pesticides, and that IPM is not interdisciplinary in scope. Are these valid criticisms? If the answer is yes, does EBPM represent a fundamentally different paradigm, or is it a superficial repackaging of what already exists? Let's examine each criticism.
Criticism 1: IPM Is Not Ecologically Based
Stern et al. (1959), in originating the concept of integrated control, stated "the control of arthropod populations is a complex ecological problem." Levins and Wilson (1980) discussed the lack of theoretical breadth in the practice of IPM as it relates to ecology and suggested remedies for addressing those concerns. Cate and Hinkle (1994) documented the evolution of IPM and showed that many definitions proposed in the 1960s and early 1970s clearly identified IPM with a holistic, ecologically based focus. Today, IPM is widely recognized as having a solid ecological foundation (Kogan 1998). Although many pest management practitioners may not incorporate all ecological principles in the design of IPM programs, the conceptual framework that defines IPM clearly is ecologically based. The challenge for "player-coaches" is to develop a complete "game plan," accompanied by a fresh "playbook," that coheres to the ecological foundations laid out for IPM. In fact, one framework for developing such a "playbook" has been proposed (Frisbie and Smith 1989).
Criticism 2: IPM Is Pesticide Based
Pesticides represent a 29 billion-dollar industry worldwide (Benbrook et al. 1996). Undoubtedly, Dr. Stern and his colleagues recognized the economic and environmental realities that insecticides represented to agricultural production as they formulated the integrated control concept. The idea of blending chemical and natural controls is central to integrated control as outlined originally by Stern et al. (1959). Robert van den Bosch, one of the originators of the concept of integrated control, heaped stinging and somewhat deserved criticism on the apparent control that the agrochemical industry wielded upon research in pest management (van den Bosch 1978). Yet, he also recognized that the original concept of integrated control was never intended to exclude pesticides as an IPM tool (Hoy 1993).
During the 1960s and 1970s, IPM researchers and practitioners were confronted with two realities: many pesticides were not always compatible with nonchemical tactics, and pesticides were being used extensively and often prophylactically. The "player-coaches" responded by developing economic thresholds that were accompanied by improved scouting techniques, which ensured the judicious application of pesticides and reduced preventative applications. The Experiment Station Committee on Policy (ESCOP) supported those endeavors politically and institutionally in 1979 (Cate and Hinkle 1994). IPM arguably was viewed by some as a system to improve efficient use of pesticides (von Rumker et al. 1975), perhaps at the expense of research on biological and cultural control. However, IPM provided a framework for mitigating the problems of overuse and misuse of pesticides in many cropping systems.
Historically, pesticides have dominated the "game" of IPM, but times are changing politically and economically. Evaluation of efficacy of pesticides remains an important aspect of research in pest management; however, pesticide-focused research has declined in the main body of peer-reviewed literature in entomology, plant pathology, and weed science since 1980 (Benbrook et al. 1996).
Many existing pesticides are not compatible with preventive, nonchemical tactics such as biological control because their chemical properties and indiscriminate use create major problems for the overall health of the crop ecosystem (Metcalf 1994). There also is concern about pesticide residues in our food supply. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing regulatory policies in compliance with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) to ensure a safe food supply (Benbrook et al. 1996). The EPA is accomplishing this, in part, by discouraging the re-registration of older broad-spectrum pesticides and fast-tracking the registration of safer, more environmentally compatible ones. Both the EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are increasing efforts to improve financial support of research in biological control and the development and implementation of more ecologically grounded IPM programs (Benbrook et al. 1996).
The agrochemical industry is responding as well by attempting to develop safer, less environmentally disruptive pesticides and entering new business relationships with seed companies to develop crop protection biotechnologies. There is considerable debate about how these new technologies will fit into environmentally and socially responsible IPM programs (Harris 1991), but such tools offer new opportunities and challenges to IPM practitioners as the 21st century begins (Benbrook et al. 1996, Kogan 1998).
We believe that pesticides have a role in IPM programs, but we do not believe that the IPM "playbook" must remain pesticide-based. In our opinion, two key principles of IPM, the economic injury level and the economic threshold, can assist IPM practitioners in choosing and using selective pesticides in a manner that is least disruptive to ecologically grounded, preventive IPM tactics. IPM "player-coaches" must design a "playbook" that includes critical evaluation of the environmental hazards posed by pesticides (Higley and Wintersteen 1992) and recognition that pesticides should be used selectively only after all appropriate nonchemical preventive tactics have been implemented. Even the proponents of EBPM include the appropriate use of chemical controls in their paradigm (National Research Council 1996).
The preceding discussion illustrates ways in which IPM programs can be adapted to changing times and goals. We believe that IPM, with or without pesticides, provides the best guide for developing programs to manage crop pests.
Criticism 3: IPM Is Not Interdisciplinary
Historically, IPM and entomology have been linked closely, with laudable results. Jacobsen (1997) reviewed literature from 1970 to1995 and discovered that IPM was used as a key word in 683 entomology research articles, but in only 97 plant pathology research articles. It is unfortunate that IPM is primarily linked only with insect pest management. Gray (1995) reported that 70% of the IPM coordinators responding to his survey identified themselves as entomologists; only 9% identified themselves as weed scientists / agronomists. Yet, weed control represents the greatest single use of pesticides in our nation's agricultural crops.
Although they receive less press related to the subject of IPM, weed scientists and plant pathologists continue to make major contributions towards our understanding and development of IPM (Baldwin and Santelmann 1980, Jacobsen 1997). The development of ecologically sound IPM systems that reflect social and political realities will require closer linkages among weed scientists, plant pathologists, entomologists, agronomists, economists, engineers, political scientists, and sociologists. We argue that existing intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to development and adoption of ecologically grounded IPM programs are not unique to IPM but are equally present in the EBPM paradigm. These barriers must be addressed or removed to stimulate interdisciplinary cooperation and research.
Putting the Pieces Together-Oklahoma Examples
As a conceptual framework, IPM generously allows for development of ecologically grounded, economically sound pest management programs. A well-designed IPM program requires that the designers understand the following:
Oklahoma's Alfalfa Integrated Management team (AIM), an interdisciplinary research and extension working group, was created in 1987. AIM has developed crop management recommendations that include ecologically sound pest management tactics (e.g., variety selection, crop rotation, harvest methods) and focus on crop health management. The recommendations include economic thresholds based on scouting and support from computer-based expert systems (Norris et al. 1993). The impact of livestock grazing on insect and weed control also is being summarized (R. Berberet, personal communication). However, AIM has not yet provided specific guidelines for assessing or enhancing the potential for natural enemies in alfalfa.
Oklahoma's research base for wheat management is tenuous. Continuous wheat production is common and restricts the use of some cultural tools for managing pests. New sources of wheat resistance to diseases and insects are needed. Knutson et al. (1993) provided the most current information about biological control of aphids in wheat. However, strategies for encouraging activity of natural enemies and the decision rules for incorporating the impact of natural enemies are not supported scientifically. Furthermore, the strategies and decision rules are linked to aphid sampling methods and treatment thresholds that provide nominal information about the injury potential of the aphid population. Cattle graze more than 50% of the wheat in Oklahoma, yet the effects of grazing on management of diseases, insects, and weeds in wheat are not well understood. Comprehensive pest management systems for potential grazing systems that include alfalfa, grass pasture, and wheat also need to be developed.
To help address IPM research needs in wheat, the Southwestern Wheat Research and Education Consortium (SWREC) was created in 1997. Its goal is to facilitate multidisciplinary, cooperative research by scientists in Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma on wheat pasture systems. So far, several projects have been initiated, and results will be available within the next five years.
Developing a Complete "Game Plan" and "Scoring the Touchdown"
Although the way that IPM is "played" may need to change, we do not believe that IPM needs to be renamed. IPM "player-coaches" must forge a strategic, long-range "game plan" to develop, implement, and evaluate IPM programs. A good "defense" based on the use of ecologically grounded, preventive tactics allows for more targeted use of the "offense" (i.e., corrective tactics such as pesticides or augmentative biological control). After reviewing our own "game film," we offer some suggestions.
The development and implementation of ecologically grounded IPM strategies need long-term financial support for multidisciplinary efforts. Funding must support IPM research for at least 3 years or more to encourage collaboration among agencies and disciplines and allow ample time for participation by "players" and "player-coaches." The National Research Initiative program, the Pest Management Alternatives program, the regional IPM grant program, and the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program are good examples of support for programs that target development and implementation of IPM tools in multidisciplinary projects. Any political and institutional barriers that inhibit cooperation among disciplines must be removed at federal, state, and university levels. Research and educational partnerships among academia, industry, and producers must be strengthened.
All IPM practices must be identified clearly to allow "players" and "player-coaches" flexibility in designing a specific IPM "game plan." Pest problems in different areas or under different conditions require an acceptable assortment of IPM tactics. Growers require flexibility in developing IPM programs that may be unique to local conditions, yet also widely recognized as IPM. The apple and strawberry pest management programs developed in Massachusetts (Hollingsworth et al. 1992a, 1992b) are good case histories. These programs present an array of IPM practices that can be included into a unique IPM "playbook" tailored for individual growers.
As IPM research efforts begin to bear fruit, extension professionals must be prepared to deliver the information effectively and document adoption of IPM tactics over time. Extension professionals also must maintain an honest and open dialogue and cooperate with the private sector and public advocacy groups who press for reductions in pesticide use. To accomplish this, extension educators must expand their client base and develop educational partnerships with private industry and advocacy groups.
The most comprehensive, ecologically grounded IPM program has limited value if the "players" do not execute it. Producers must be confident that IPM programs provide them with a consistent economic benefit that outweighs the perceived risks of changing from their present "game plan" (Sorensen 1993). Therefore, ecologically grounded IPM programs must be economically feasible and include risk mitigation tools if we expect producers to change "game plans." The "players" and the private sector are attempting to address that challenge. The private sector is exploring the feasibility of marketing IPM insurance that is designed to help growers manage risk. Some grocers are working with farmers to grow and market "IPM grown" produce and capture the economic benefits from meeting customer demands for safe food that is grown in an environmentally friendly way (Benbrook et al. 1996). The private sector should be encouraged to develop innovative market solutions that address these challenges by removing institutional and political barriers.
Finally, "fans" must be convinced that IPM has value (Benbrook et al.1996). Less than 2% of all people living in the United States are involved directly in agricultural production, and that number is shrinking. The number of U. S. farms declined by 25% in the last 20 years and of those that remain, 15% produce 85% of all food and fiber (National Research Council 1989). "Players" and "player-coaches" must convince a nonfarming public that efforts in developing and implementing ecologically grounded IPM programs are a sound investment of public resources and are meaningful beyond the scope of efficient agricultural production. For example, the IPM for Schools Program is highly visible, presents the concepts and benefits of IPM to the nonfarm public, and deals with nonfarm pest control issues. Those of us involved in agriculture should support this type of program because it provides an excellent opportunity to educate the nonfarming public about IPM. Uninformed "fans" can turn quickly into skeptical "fans" and allow the financial and political support for IPM to erode.
IPM "player-coaches" must develop a winning IPM "game plan" that focuses on its ecological and economic identity. The "game plan" must be supported by the "fans" and approved by the "referees" (i.e., government regulators) who define the rules that the "players" must follow. Then, the "players" must execute the "game plan" without "fumbling." If we fail, "players" will revolt, "fan" support will wane, and the "referees" will be forced to take over the "game" and, perhaps suspend or expel "players" from the "league." We agree with Miller (1997) that IPM does not need to be reinvented but that its ecological foundations may need to be dusted off and implemented. Win or lose, we believe that IPM is the "name of the game."
We wish to thank Drs. Richard Berberet, Jim Criswell, and Kris Giles (Entomology and Plant Pathology Department) for early reviews of this manuscript. Approved for publication by the Director, Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station.
Literature Cited
Baldwin, F. L., and P. W. Santelmann. 1980. Weed science in integrated pest management. BioScience 30: 675-678.
Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth III, J. M. Halloran, M. K. Hansen, and S. Marquardt. 1996. Pest management at the crossroads. Consumers Union, New York.
Cate, J. R., and M. K Hinkle. 1994. Integrated pest management: the path of a paradigm. National Audubon Society, Washington, D.C.
Frisbie, R. E., and J.W. Smith Jr. 1989. Biologically intensive integrated pest management: the future, pp 156-184. In J. J. Menn and A. L. Stienhauer [eds.], Progress and perspectives for the 21st century. Entomol. Soc. Am., Lanham, MD.
Gray, M. E. I995. Status of CES-IPM programs: results of a national IPM coordinators survey. Am. Entomol. 41: 136-138.
Harris, M. K. 1991. Bacillus thuringiensis and pest control. Letter to the Editor, Science 253: 1075.
Higley, L. G., and W. K. Wintersteen. 1992. A novel approach to environmental risk assessment of pesticides as a basis for incorporating environmental costs into economic thresholds. Am. Entomol. 38: 34-39.
Hollingsworth, C. S., W. M. Coli, D. R. Colley, and R. J. Prokopy. 1992a. Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines for apple, pp. 12-16. In W. R. Autio and W. J. Bramlage [eds.], Fruit notes. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hollingsworth, C. S., S. G. Schloemann, D. R. Colley, and M. J. Else. 1992 b. Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines for strawberry, pp. 17-28. In W. R. Autio and W. J. Bramlage [eds.], Fruit notes. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hoy, M. A. 1993. Biological control in U. S. agriculture: back to the future. Am. Entomol. 39: 140-150.
Integrated Pest Management Committee. 1998. Determining the practice of integrated pest management: a working definition for the year 2000 goal. U.S. Dept. of Agric., October 1998
Jacobsen, B. J. 1997. Role of plant pathology in integrated pest management. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 35: 373-391.
Knutson, A., E. P. Boring III, G. J. Michels, Jr., and F. Gilstrap. 1993. Biological control of insect pests in wheat. Texas Agric. Ext. Serv. B-5044, College Station.
Kogan, M. 1998. Integrated pest management: historical perspectives and contemporary developments. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43: 243-270.
Levins, R., and M. Wilson. 1980. Ecological theory and pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 25: 287-308.
Metcalf, R. L. 1994. Insecticides in pest management, pp. 245-314. In R. L. Metcalf and W. H. Luckmann [eds.], Introduction to insect pest management. Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Miller, R. H. 1997. Book Reviews, Ecologically based pest management: new solutions for a new century. Environ. Entomol. 26: 725.
[NRC] National Research Council. 1989. Sustainable agriculture. Natl. Acad. Press. Washington, D. C.
[NRC] National Research Council. 1996. Ecologically based pest management: new solutions for a new century. Natl. Acad. Press. Washington, D. C.
Norris, P., M. Dicks, G. Cuperus, and J. Dean. 1993. Evaluation of the integrated crop management practices: a case study of Oklahoma alfalfa management (SP-53). Circular E-899, Oklahoma Coop. Ext. Serv., Stillwater.
[OASS] Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997. Oklahoma agricultural statistics 1997. OASS, Oklahoma City, OK.
Rajotte, E. G. 1993. From profitability to food safety and the environment: shifting the objectives of IPM. Plant Dis. 77: 296-299.
Sorensen, A. A. 1993. Regional producer workshops: constraints to the adoption of integrated pest management. National Foundation for Integrated Pest Management Education, Austin, TX.
Stern, V. M., R.F. Smith, R. van den Bosch, and K. S. Hagen. 1959. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29: 81-101.
van den Bosch, R, 1978. The pesticide conspiracy. Doubleday, New York.
von Rumker, R., F. Horay, and K. A. Lawrence. 1975. A study of the efficiency of the use of pesticides in agriculture. Environmental Protection Agency Strategic Studies Unit, Office of Pesticides Programs, EPA-540/9-75-025, Final report. Washington, D. C.
Footnotes:
Tom A. Royer is extension entomologist and assistant professor at Oklahoma State University with responsibilities in small grains, corn, sorghum and rangeland. Phillip G. Mulder is extension entomologist and assistant professor at Oklahoma State University with responsibilities in alfalfa, peanuts, pecans, peaches and 4H-youth. Gerrit W. Cuperus is IPM coordinator and Regents Professor at Oklahoma State University with research interests in stored grain entomology.