-
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
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 3
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 Integrated Pest Management Page 4
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).
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 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.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 6
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:
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 7
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
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 8
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.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 9
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
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 10
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
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 11
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.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 12
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-
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 13
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).
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 14
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
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 15
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.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 16
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
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 17
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.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 18
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.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 19
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
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 20
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
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 21
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.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 22
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.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 23
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. .
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 24
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.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 25
APPENDIX A:IPM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 26
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 27
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
.
-
//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 28
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