AREAWIDE PEST MANAGEMENT

Theory and Implementation

This page intentionally left blank

AREAWIDE PESTMANAGEMENTTheory and Implementation

Edited by

Opender Koul

Insect Biopesticide Research Centre,Jalandhar, India

Gerrit Cuperus

Stillwater,Oklahoma, USA

and

Norman Elliott

USDA-ARS Plant Science Research LaboratoryStillwater,Oklahoma, USA

www.cabi.org

CABI is a trading name of CAB International

CABI Head Office CABI North American OfficeNosworthy Way 875 Massachusetts AvenueWallingford 7th FloorOxfordshire OX10 8DE Cambridge, MA 02139UK USA

Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 617 395 4056Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Fax: +1 617 354 6875E-mail: cabi@cabi.org E-mail: cabi-nao@cabi.orgWebsite: www.cabi.org

© CAB International 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, byphotocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of thecopyright owners.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataAreawide pest management: theory and implementation/edited by Opender Koul,Gerrit Cuperus and Norman Elliott.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 978-1-84593-372-2 (alk. paper)

1. Pests--Integrated control. I. Koul, Opender. II. Cuperus, Gerrit W. III. Elliott,Norman. IV. Title.

SB950.A74 2008632'.9--dc22

ISBN-13: 978 1 84593 372 2 2007029243

Typeset by AMA DataSet Ltd, UK.Printed and bound in the UK by Biddles, King’s Lynn.

www.cabi.org

ContentsContents

Contents

About the Editors viii

Contributors x

Preface xiii

1. General Introduction to Areawide Pest Management 1Robert M. Faust

2. History and Ecological Basis for Areawide Pest Management 15Norman C. Elliott, David W. Onstad and Michael J. Brewer

3. Establishing Inter-agency, Multidisciplinary Areawide PestManagement Programmes 34Robert M. Nowierski and Hendrik J. Meyer

4. Dispersal and Migration of Insects and Their Importancein Pest Management 60David N. Byrne

5. A Landscape Perspective in Managing Vegetation forBeneficial Plant–Pest–Natural Enemy Interactions:a Foundation for Areawide Pest Management 81Michael J. Brewer, Takuji Noma and Norman C. Elliott

6. Social and Economic Aspects of Areawide Pest Management 97Sean P. Keenan and Paul A. Burgener

v

7. Environmental Monitoring in Areawide Pest Management 117J.D. Carlson and Albert Sutherland

8. The Role of Databases in Areawide Pest Management 142Vasile Catana, Norman Elliott, Kris Giles, Mustafa Mirik, David Porter,Gary Hein, Frank Peairs and Jerry Michels

9. Codling Moth Areawide Integrated Pest Management 159A.L. Knight

10. Corn Rootworm Areawide Pest Management in theMidwestern USA 191Laurence D. Chandler, James R. Coppedge, C. Richard Edwards,Jon J. Tollefson, Gerald R. Wilde and Robert M. Faust

11. Grape Areawide Pest Management in Italy 208Claudio Ioriatti, Andrea Lucchi and Bruno Bagnoli

12. Stored-grain Insect Areawide Integrated Pest Management 226David W. Hagstrum, Paul W. Flinn, Carl R. Reed and Thomas W. Phillips

13. Aphid Alert: How it Came to be, What it Achieved andWhy it Proved Unsustainable 244Edward B. Radcliffe, David W. Ragsdale, Robert A. Suranyi,Christina D. DiFonzo and Erin E. Hladilek

14. Areawide Suppression of Fire Ants 261M.D. Aubuchon and K. Vander Meer

15. Salt Cedar Areawide Pest Management in the Western USA 271Raymond I. Carruthers, C. Jack DeLoach, John C. Herr, Gerald L. Andersonand Allen E. Knutson

16. The Hawaii Fruit Fly Areawide Pest ManagementProgramme 300Roger I. Vargas, Ronald F.L. Mau, Eric B. Jang, Robert M. Faust and Lyle Wong

17. Areawide Pest Management for Non-rice Food Crops inSouth-east Asia 326M.D. Hammig, B.M. Shepard, G.R. Carner, R. Dilts and A. Rauf

18. Areawide Rice Insect Pest Management: a Perspective ofExperiences in Asia 351James A. Litsinger

vi Contents

19. Areawide Pest Management of Cereal Aphids inDryland Wheat Systems of the Great Plains, USA 441Kristopher Giles, Gary Hein and Frank Peairs

20. Boll Weevil Eradication: an Areawide PestManagement Effort 467Charles T. Allen

21. Current Approaches to Areawide Integrated PestManagement: Obstacles and Future Directions 560Opender Koul and Gerrit W. Cuperus

Index 573

The colour plate section may be found following p.274.

Contents vii

About the EditorsAbout the Editors

About the Editors

Opender Koul, Fellow of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences and theIndian Academy of Entomology, is an insect toxicologist/physiologist/chemicalecologist and currently the Director of the Insect Biopesticide Research Centre,Jalandhar, India. After obtaining his PhD in 1975 he joined the Regional ResearchLaboratory (CSIR), Jammu and then became Senior Group Leader of Entomologyat Malti-Chem Research Centre, Vadodara, India (1980–1988). He has been a visit-ing scientist at the University of Kanazawa, Japan (1985–1986), University of BritishColumbia, Canada (1988–1992) and Institute of Plant Protection, Poznan, Poland(2001). His extensive research experience concerns insect–plant interactions, spanningtoxicological, physiological and agricultural aspects.

Honoured with an Indian National Science Academy medal (INSA), theKothari Scientific Research Institute award, KEC Science Society award and theRecognition award of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences of India(2003–2004) for outstanding contribution in the field of insect toxicology/physiologyand plant protection, he has authored over 160 research papers and articles, andis the author/editor of the books Insecticides of Natural Origin (1997), PhytochemicalBiopesticides (2001), Microbial Biopesticides (2002), Biopesticides and Pest Management vol-umes I and II (2003), Predators and Parasitoids (2003), Integrated Pest Management: Potential,Constraints and Challenges (2004), Neem: Today and in the New Millennium (2004), TransgenicCrop Protection: Concepts and Strategies (2004), Insect Antifeedants (2005), Biopesticides and PestManagement: Conventional and Biotechnological Approaches (2007) and Ecologically Based Inte-grated Pest Management (2007), published by leading publishers globally. Dr Koul is onexpert panels in many committees and leading international and national journals.He has also been an informal consultant to BOSTID, NRC of USA at ICIPE, Nairobi.

Gerrit Cuperus was a Regent’s Professor and Integrated Pest Management Coor-dinator at Oklahoma State University for over 20 years. Dr Cuperus obtained hisPhD in 1982, joined the Department of Entomology at Oklahoma State Universityand has since been involved in national IPM programmes in the USA aiming at an

viii

interdisciplinary focus in solving management issues. Dr Cuperus has chaired andserved in different capacities in various state and national committees on food safetyand pest management. He has made specific contributions in extension/researchand has won distinguished service awards from the USDA. His research effortsfocused on stored product pest management have helped to build the Stored ProductResearch and Education Center (SPREC) at Oklahoma State University. He hasauthored over 60 research papers and articles and is an editor of Successful Implementa-tion of IPM for Agriculture Crops (1992), Stored Product Management (1995), Integrated PestManagement: Potential, Constraints and Challenges (2004) and Ecologically Based Integrated PestManagement (2007).

Norman Elliott is a Research Biologist at the US Department of Agriculture, Agri-cultural Research Service, Plant Science Research Laboratory, Stillwater,Oklahoma. Dr Elliott obtained his PhD in 1985 from Michigan State University andjoined USDA-ARS upon graduation. Dr Elliott has served in various capacities onstate and national committees on biological control and pest management. Hisresearch has focused mainly on the ecology and management of cereal aphids andtheir natural enemies, and on classical and conservation biological control. Dr Elliotthas authored or co-authored over 200 scientific research papers and articles.

About the Editors ix

ContributorsContributors

Contributors

Charles T. Allen, Program Director, Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation andExtension Specialist, Texas Cooperative Extension, PO Box 5089, Abilene, Texas 79608, USA

Gerald L. Anderson, USDA-ARS, Northern Plains Agricultural Research Center, Sidney,Montana 59270, USA

M.D. Aubuchon, USDA-ARS Center for Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 1600 SW23rd Drive, Gainesville, Florida 32608, USA; e-mail: MattAubuchon-ARS@ars.usda.gov

Bruno Bagnoli, CRA-Istituto Sperimentale per la Zoologia Agraria, via Lanciola, 12/A,50125 Florence, Italy

Michael J. Brewer, Integrated Pest Management Program, CIPS Building, Michigan StateUniversity, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

Paul A. Burgener, Research Coordinator, Agricultural Economics, Panhandle Research andExtension Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 4502 Avenue I, Scottsbluff, Nebraska69361, USA

David N. Byrne, Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Forbes 410, PO Box2100: (36), Tucson, Arizona 85721-0036, USA; e-mail: byrne@ag.arizona.edu

J.D. Carlson, Oklahoma State University, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, 217Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-6016, USA; e-mail: jd.carlson@okstate.edu

G.R. Carner, Regional Advisor, Environmental Services Program, Medan, North Sumatra,Indonesia

Raymond I. Carruthers, USDA-ARS, Western Regional Research Center, 800Buchanan St, Albany, California 94710, USA; e-mail: ric@pw.usda.gov

Vasile Catana, Oklahoma State University, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology,127 Noble Research Center, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078–3033, USA; e-mail: vasile.catana@okstate.edu

Laurence D. Chandler, USDA-ARS-NPA, 2150 Center Ave., Building D, Suite 300,Fort Collins, Colorado 80526, USA; e-mail: larry.chandler@ars.usda.gov

James R. Coppedge, USDA-ARS-SPA, 1001 Holleman Drive East, College Station,Texas 77840, USA

x

Gerrit W. Cuperus, 1008 E. Franklin, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074, USAC. Jack DeLoach, USDA-ARS, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, 808 E.

Blackland Road, Temple, Texas 76502, USAChristina D. DiFonzo, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, 243

Natural Science Building, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USAR. Dilts, Department of Plant Protection, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, West Java, IndonesiaC. Richard Edwards, Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette,

Indiana 47907, USANorman C. Elliott, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Plant

Science Research Laboratory, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075, USA; e-mail: Norman.elliott@ars.usda.gov

Robert M. Faust, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, NationalProgram Staff, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-2228, Mailstop 5139, Beltsville,Maryland 20705, USA: e-mail: rml@ars.usda.gov

Paul W. Flinn, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, 1515 CollegeAvenue, Room 101, Manhattan, Kansas 66502, USA

Kristopher Giles, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma StateUniversity, 127 Noble Research Center, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-3033, USA; e-mail:kris.giles@olastate.edu

David W. Hagstrum, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center,1515 College Avenue, Room 101, Manhattan, Kansas 66502, USA (retired)

M.D. Hammig, Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, Clemson University,Clemson, South Carolina 29634, USA; e-mail: mhammig@clemson.edu

Gary Hein, Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska Panhandle R&E Center, 4502Ave I, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69361, USA

John C. Herr, USDA-ARS, Western Regional Research Center, 800 Buchanan St, Albany,California 94710, USA

Erin E. Hladilek, Department of Entomology, University of Kentucky, S-225 AgriculturalScience Center North, Lexington, Kentucky 40546, USA

Claudio Ioriatti, Istituto Agrario di San Michele a/A, via E. Mach, 1, 38010 San Michelea/A (Trento), Italy; e-mail: claudio.Ioriatti@iasma.it

Eric B. Jang, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Pacific BasinAgricultural Research Center, PO Box 4459, Hilo, Hawaii 96720, USA

Sean P. Keenan, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology,Oklahoma State University, 127 Noble Research Center, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-3033, USA; e-mail: keenansp@comcast.net

Alan L. Knight, Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service,USDA, 5230 Konnowac Pass Rd., Wapato, Washington 98951, USA; e-mail:aknight@yarl.usda.gov

Allen E. Knutson, Texas AdM University and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,Dallas, Texas, USA

Opender Koul, Insect Biopesticide Research Centre, 30 Parkash Nagar, Jalandhar 144003,India; e-mail: koul@jla.vsnl.net.in

James A. Litsinger, 1365 Jacobs Place, Dixon, California 95620, USA; e-mail:jlitsinger@thegrid.net

Andrea Lucchi, Dip. C.D.S.L. Sez. Entomologia Agraria, Università di Pisa, via SanMichele, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy

Contributors xi

Ronald F.L. Mau, University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture andHuman Resources, Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Sciences, 3050 MaileWay, Gilmore 611, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA

Hendrik J. Meyer, USDA-CSREES, National Program Leader for Entomology, 3470Waterfront Center, 800 9th St SW., Washington, DC 20024, USA

Jerry Michels, Texas A&M University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 2301 ExperimentStation Rd., Bushland, Texas 79012-0010, USA

Mustafa Mirik, Texas A&M University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 2301 ExperimentStation Rd., Bushland, Texas 79012-0010, USA

Takuji Noma, Integrated Pest Management Program, Department of Entomology, CIPSBuilding, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

Robert M. Nowierski, USDA-CSREES, National Program Leader for Bio-Based PestManagement, 3443 Waterfront Center, 800 9th St, SW, Washington, DC 20024, USA;e-mail: rnowierski@csrees.usda.gov

David W. Onstad, 278 National Soybean Research Center, MC-634, 1101 West PeabodyDrive, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA

Frank Peairs, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA

Thomas W. Phillips, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma StateUniversity, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA

David Porter, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Plant ScienceResearch Laboratory, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075, USA

Edward B. Radcliffe, Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, 219 HodsonHall, 1980 Folwell Ave., St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA; e-mail: radcl001@umn.edu

David W. Ragsdale, Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, 219 HodsonHall, 1980 Folwell Ave., St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA

A. Rauf, Department of Plant Protection, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, West Java,Indonesia

Carl R. Reed, Department of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Kansas66506, USA

B. Merle Shepard, Department of Entomology, Soils, and Crop Science, Clemson University,Clemson, South Carolina 29634, USA

Robert A. Suranyi, MGK® McLaughlin Gormley King Company, 8810 Tenth Ave. N.,Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427, USA

Albert Sutherland, Oklahoma State University, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering,National Weather Center, 120 David L Boren Boulevard, Suite 2900, Norman, Oklahoma73072-7305, USA

Jon J. Tollefson, Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USAK. Vander Meer, USDA-ARS, Center for Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 1600 SW

23rd Drive, Gainesville, Florida 32608, USARoger I. Vargas, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Pacific Basin

Agricultural Research Center, PO Box 4459, Hilo, Hawaii 96720, USA; e-mail: Roger.Vargas@ars.usda.gov

Gerald R. Wilde, Department of Entomology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas66506, USA

Lyle Wong, Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, PO Box 221659,Honolulu, Hawaii 96823, USA

xii Contributors

PrefacePreface

Preface

The conventional approach to pest management has been to treat a crop or com-modity on an individual management unit basis before an economically damaginginfestation of the pest develops. While there have been many successes at managingpests using the individual management unit approach, especially when an integratedpest management approach is used, it is recognized that management could some-times be more effective if the pest was suppressed over a broad spatial area (largerthan an individual management unit). That is the essence of the areawide pest man-agement (AWPM) approach. AWPM contrasts with conventional pest managementin that management tactics are applied over a broad spatial area, often treating thewhole area simultaneously, to maintain the pest below economic levels or, in somecases, to completely eradicate it.

The number of pest management programmes that can be classified as AWPMhas increased dramatically over the last decade. AWPM has potential advantagesover the conventional approach: suppression across a broad area may result inreduced reinfestation by migration from unmanaged areas into previously treatedareas, and the pest management tactics employed may be more effective – particularlyecologically based tactics – when applied areawide.

The purpose of this book is threefold. The first is to lay out the historical under-pinnings of AWPM and to highlight current activity in the field. In 1993, theUSDA-Agricultural Research Service in concert with a USDA IPM Working Groupdeveloped a partnership framework for a national AWPM initiative that wouldinclude the federal, state and private sectors as partners. The introductory chapter ofthis book is written by Dr Robert Faust, USDA-ARS, who has served as NationalProgram Leader for AWPM programmes since initiation of the national initiativeand who elegantly accomplishes the first objective and lays the groundwork for therest of the book.

The second objective is to delve into concepts that have direct impact on the suc-cessful implementation of AWPM. These include: (i) biological and ecological

xiii

concepts important for understanding the dynamics of populations in spatially heter-ogeneous environments; (ii) the critical role of inter-agency and multidisciplinaryinteractions in the development and implementation of AWPM programmes, whichare often complex inter-agency and intergovernmental endeavours; (iii) the roles ofmodelling, meteorology and databases in AWPM programmes which, by theirnature, are information intensive; and (iv) the importance of economic and socio-logical evaluation in successful AWPM implementation.

The third objective is to compile recent case examples of pest managementprogrammes that have used the AWPM approach. We survey a wide variety ofprogrammes developed for protecting agricultural and natural resource systems andwhich use a wide range of pest management tactics. We hope we have met our objec-tives, and that this book presents the current state of knowledge of AWPM to allthose interested in using ecologically sound AWPM approaches. Furthermore, wehope the book proves useful for helping identify when AWPM is likely to be moreapplicable and successful than conventional pest management.

We received tremendous response and support from the authors and greatlyappreciate their effort in writing very interesting and highly informative chapters.We also thank Sarah Hulbert of CABI for her patience and assistance at variousstages of book preparation.

xiv Preface

General IntroductionR.M. Faust

1 General Introduction toAreawide Pest Management

ROBERT M. FAUSTUSDA-Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland, USA

Welcome to the realm of areawide pest management (AWPM). This book representsone of the first comprehensive ‘treatises’ on the AWPM concept and approach, andshould be of interest and use to many types of readers, from research scientists in gov-ernment, university and industry to pest control advisors and extension personnel,growers, pest control and integrated pest management (IPM) practitioners, students,teachers, natural resource managers and others interested in environmentally soundpest control. There is a range of topics included in the subject area. The book isgrouped into three parts. Chapters 2–8 discuss the foundation of areawide pest man-agement; Chapters 9–20 describe case examples of recent areawide pest manage-ment programmes and projects; and Chapter 21 is a synthesis of the book’s contentsthat integrates the theory and concepts presented in the various chapters into com-mon themes that arise from the case examples. Chapter 21 also contains a discussionon the future potential of the areawide approach and how it augments and expandsupon the traditional IPM strategy.

Historically, the AWPM concept in some form or another has been practisedsince the late 1800s. The overall premise is that a number of serious economic pestscan be effectively managed using an organized and coordinated attack on their popu-lations over large areas rather than by using a field-by-field approach (Knipling,1978, 1979; Rabb, 1978; Knipling and Stadelbacker, 1983; Bellows, 1987; Myerset al., 1998). The entomological literature contains numerous examples of large-scale,highly coordinated programmes that fit into the areawide concept. Chandler andFaust (1998) have given a number of historic examples of AWPM programmes in aprevious publication, and they will be highlighted here only for the purpose of thisintroduction, with a few additional examples added. The reader is referred to thepublication by Chandler and Faust (1998), as well as to the various chapters in thisbook, for more detailed historic information.

Very early programmes targeting a key pest over a wide area are mentioned in thescientific literature. One programme was against the grape phylloxera, Daktulosphairavitifoliae, in Europe during the 1870s and 1880s, using resistant grapevines (Kogan, 1982).

© CAB International 2008. Areawide Pest Management: Theory andImplementation (eds O. Koul, G. Cuperus and N. Elliott) 1

The pest was fully under control by 1890. Classical biological control was used forthe cottony cushion scale, Icerya purchasi, a pest that seriously affected the Californiacitrus industry in the 1880s. Two biological control agents were introduced fromAustralia, the vedalia ladybeetle, Rodolia cardinalis, and the parasitic fly, Cryptochaetumiceryae. The vedalia ladybeetle brought about the complete suppression of this scaleinsect by the end of 1889 (Doutt, 1958), and this has been attributed to an AWPMstrategy that used coordinated efforts and a broad distribution of the two biologicalcontrol agents.

Several eradication programmes have been highly successful using areawideconcepts as an integral part of the programme, with the goal of bringing the popula-tions down to zero: those for the cattle ticks, Boophilus annulatus and Boophilus annulatusvar. microplus, and the screwworm, Cochliomyia hominovorax. The two species of cattletick had been eradicated from most of the USA by the 1950s (Cole and MacKeller,1956) via a cooperative federal and state cattle-dipping protocol commencing in1906 across 15 southern and south-western states. Using a sterile male technique, thescrewworm was eradicated from the USA, Mexico and portions of Central America(Knipling, 1979; Bushland, 1985; Baumhover, 2002). Since 1991, the screwwormalso has been eliminated from Belize (1994), Guatemala (1994), El Salvador (1995)and Honduras (1995) (USDA-APHIS, 1998).

The sterile male tactic has also been used to eradicate the melon fruit fly fromOkinawa and the southern islands of Japan, as well as against the tsetse fly on theisland of Unguja, Zanzibar (Vreysen et al., 2000). The US Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service (APHIS) also uses the sterile male technique to eradicate recur-ring infestations of the Mediterranean fruit fly from the continental USA, in partner-ship with the affected state(s). A number of other AWPM programmes have been inprogress throughout the world and will be summarized briefly later in this introduc-tion. The description of AWPM examples, which makes up Chapters 9–20 of thisbook, provides more detailed information concerning several projects.

There is consensus that the recent interest in AWPM is related to the great suc-cess of the screwworm eradication programme, with Dr Edward F. Knipling, USDepartment of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), havingbeen a strong proponent of the screwworm effort going back to at least 1955. A moredefinitive AWPM concept was published by Dr Knipling (Knipling, 1980), referringto it as ‘regional management’; this probably helped to lay the theoretical foundationfor the concept and the criteria for implementing AWPM projects, and since then thenumerous discussions and planning activities around the concept that will be dis-cussed in this introduction have built upon this foundation. Even as early as 1966,Dr Knipling (Knipling, 1966) envisioned the advantages of ‘areawide management’as opposed to a ‘field-to-field’ approach. However, Knipling recognized that not allpests are good candidates for areawide tactics, necessitating reliance on a field-by-field control approach. Klassen (2003) has published a detailed account of Knipling’sthoughts and activities in areawide and eradication applications, and the reader isreferred to this excellent article for more information.

In September 1992, Knipling and G.G. Rohwer presented a proposal to theNorth American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) entitled ‘Area-wide PestManagement’ (E.F. Knipling, Maryland, 1993, personal communication). Theirvision of the process was that AWPM programmes must be: (i) conducted on large

2 R.M. Faust

geographical areas; (ii) should be coordinated by organizations rather than by individualproducers; (iii) may involve eradication, if practical and advantageous, but shouldfocus on reducing and maintaining a pest population at an acceptably low density;and (iv) must involve a mandatory component to ensure project success within theentire geographic area, because ‘voluntary programs historically have not providedthe desired level of pest management’.

Areawide pest management was defined as the systematic reduction of a targetpest(s), to predetermined levels by uniformly applied mandatory pest mitigation mea-sures over geographical areas clearly defined by biologically based criteria (e.g. pest colo-nization, dispersal potential). ‘Pest’ as used in the definition can include weeds, pathogensof animals and plants, and insects or other organisms (e.g. mites, ticks) that have an eco-nomic impact on the agricultural industry or human health. The stated advantage ofmanaging pests on an areawide basis is that AWPM can offer a long-term solution toagricultural pest problems as opposed to quick-fix solutions on individual crops or smallacreage. Properly implemented, the methodology could prevent major pest outbreaksand provide a more permanent control procedure for pests.

Areawide pest management and IPM were seen as similar, distinct and poten-tially complementary. The two approaches could be complementary in that when akey pest is effectively managed in an areawide programme, the potential to manageother key pests and secondary pests by alternative approaches becomes more readilyachievable. Although AWPM generally targets a key pest or small group of pests, thestrategy should consider other pests (e.g. secondary pests) in the system in a holisticfashion. On the other hand, IPM is often applied to individual farms or cropping sys-tems and is generally voluntary in nature. As the reader will see throughout the vari-ous chapters, the mandatory requirement suggested in the proposal to NAPPO forAWPM programmes has not always been strongly adhered to in some programmesinitiated in recent times, but these have been quite successful without such a require-ment, given a vigorous outreach effort. The boll weevil eradication programme inthe USA is an example of an effective ‘mandatory’ AWPM programme (Dickersonand Haney, 2001). A caveat here is that a federally implemented boll weevil eradica-tion programme was not seen as the desired option, but that state regulatory authority,combined with USDA support and local grower leadership, provided the preferredoption for the programme. Most of the funding support for this programme nowcomes from the cotton producers within each region.

Integrated pest management generally addresses the complex of pests in a pro-duction system and the pest problems associated with multi-commodity productionsystems intercropped or in crop rotation systems. Close to 70 definitions of IPM havebeen proposed (Bajwa and Kogan, 2002), with them all sharing a common theme:IPM is a sustainable, environmentally friendly approach to managing pests by com-bining biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools in a way that minimizes eco-nomic, health and environmental risks. This includes anticipating pest problems andpreventing pests from reaching economically damaging levels. All appropriate tech-niques can be used, such as enhancing natural enemies, planting pest-resistant crops,adapting cultural management and using pesticides judiciously. It relies on a combi-nation of common-sense practices.

As practised, IPM can consist of approaches to integrate two or more controltechniques to manage one or more species of the same single grouping of pests, such

General Introduction 3

as weeds, mites, ticks, insects, nematodes or diseases. It also can consist of approachesto integrate two or more management systems for two or more pest groupings, suchas diseases and insects, or diseases, weeds, insects and nematodes.

Benbrook et al. (1996) view IPM systems as occurring along a continuum, whichhas been categorized into four levels of adoption: (i) no IPM, which corresponds tosystems essentially dependent on pesticides and not using basic IPM practices likeproper calibration, operation and cleaning of spray equipment, scouting for pests,and sanitation and good agronomic practice; (ii) low-level IPM, where farmers use atleast the most basic IPM practices of scouting and application in accord with thresh-olds, avoiding or delaying resistance and secondary pest problems, optimally timingapplications, and some preventive practices, such as short rotations, resistant varietiesand cultivation; (iii) medium-level IPM, i.e. systems in which farmers have adoptedsome preventive measures, coupled with efforts to cut back on broad-spectrum pes-ticide use, protect beneficial organisms and assure that pesticides are applied mostefficiently – includes multi-tactic approaches to limit or remove pest habitat and aug-ment biodiversity, resistant varieties, use of cover crops and longer rotations, enhanc-ing beneficial organisms, use of soil amendments and disease-forecasting models; and(iv) high-level, or multi-strategy biologically intensive IPM, the zone farthest alongthe IPM continuum, where farmers have integrated multiple preventive practicesand, as a result, have become able to control pests without relying routinely onpesticides.

Integrated pest management is site specific in nature, but certain general criteriamust be met for control measures to qualify as IPM practices. At a minimum, eachsite should have in place a management strategy, which includes prevention, avoid-ance, detection and suppression of pest populations, as envisioned by Dr HaroldCoble of North Carolina State University, USA and the USDA IPM committee(Stall, 1999). The more biologically intensive the approach in each of these strategies,the further along the continuum the grower will be. In recent years, AWPM propo-nents in the USA have begun using the term areawide IPM to more accuratelydescribe programmes currently being conducted. Strategies useful to IPM can like-wise be applicable to AWPM as components of its foundation. And, of course, it isdesirable that AWPM programmes be as far along the continuum as possible.

Regardless of whether IPM is being used on a farm-to-farm approach or incor-porated into an areawide approach within the distinct criteria of AWPM the aim isstill to maintain pest populations below damaging levels, based on proper use of thetechnologies available. AWPM (as does IPM) depends on the availability of adopt-able, pest-specific management tools. These tools must control the pest, impact littleelse in the environment and not form residues on the food product, where they couldbe a hazard to the health of the consumer. AWPM strategies do not replace IPMconcepts, but support IPM and embrace its technologies.

Technologies that can be used, depending on the situation, in AWPM approa-ches include:

1. Traditional biological control – the use of parasites, parasitoids, predators,pathogens, competitors and other beneficial organisms to reduce the harmful effectsof pests, which may embody augmentation and conservation biological controltactics.

4 R.M. Faust

2. Biologically based (biorational) control – the use and application of biologicallybased methods (e.g. hormones, antimetabolites, feeding deterrents, repellents,pheromone and allelochemicals (semiochemicals) and other naturally producedchemicals, attracticidal compounds, traps and similar devices, autocidal methods/sterile technology, etc.).3. Host resistance – the use and application of pest-resistant crop cultivars and ani-mal breeds, including genetically engineered plants and animals resistant to pests.4. Cultural practices – the use and application of tactics such as crop rotation,intercropping, tillage approaches, cover crops or mulches, managing irrigation anddrainage, fertilization, removal of crop residues and other field sanitation proce-dures, altering planting and harvesting schedules, and related strategies.5. Physical and mechanical control – the use of physical and mechanical methodol-ogy, thereby exerting economic control or reducing rates of pest contamination anddamage, e.g. vacuum collection, screening, trapping and other exclusion tactics, etc.6. Chemical control – the use of broad-spectrum synthetic organic (non-naturallyoccurring), or analogues of, natural chemicals (e.g. pyrethroids, insect growth regula-tors, etc.) or inorganic chemicals for controlling animal and plant pests, includingfumigation, the use of improved chemical pesticide formulations and improved pesti-cide application technologies (judicious use is desirable).

Models and expert systems, including predictive types and decision supportsystems for pest–plant/animal environmental integration, including vector–diseaseinteraction and control agent(s) interaction are important components when avail-able to use in order to facilitate a systems approach to maximizing plant/animalprotection and environmental compatibility.

Closely related to these technologies will be an understanding and exploitationof information on the movement and dispersal of pest and beneficial species, timingof population suppression measures to coincide with low pest population densities,and optimal conditions for use of environmentally friendly technologies. The eco-nomics of the strategy are vitally important to adoption. It is essential that AWPMprogrammes be interfaced with multi-pest IPM systems and that systematicapproaches are taken in selecting a pest(s) to be targeted for AWPM.

A number of criteria need to be considered as guidelines when implementingAWPM programmes (Kogan, 1995; Chandler and Faust, 1998; Faust and Chandler,1998), a few of which have been mentioned above. The programme should bedefined by some geographic entity that encompasses farms as well as all othernon-farm components of the landscape, and should be conducted over large geo-graphical areas with consideration of pest colonization and movement and dispersalof pest and beneficial species. The area should represent typical production settingswith representative pest problems and consistent populations of the key pest(s). It isimportant to have assurance that the target pest(s) is amenable to control using theareawide concept over a large geographical area that may extend across county, stateand, in some instances, national boundaries. Consider whether there are environ-mental factors that change over the area that could affect the programme. An under-standing of the pest biology, ecology, genetics, behaviour, physiology, interactionswith other organisms and other biological and physical characteristics of the systemis critical. Is the pest genetically different in different parts of the area? What are

General Introduction 5

the natural control factors? Is there a reasonable isolation of the area from othernon-included infested areas such that migration into the target area or region willbe minimized during the programme? What are the geographical barriers? Is therea reasonable representation of the host range (including wild relatives of the cropplant in the case of crop AWPM programmes) so that the effects of residual popula-tions can be evaluated? What other pests exist in the ecosystem that could becomeimportant as the target/key pest(s) is managed? What are the parameters of theproduction system and the inputs? Has the technology been proven in smaller-scaletests?

An AWPM programme should be coordinated by groups of key participants asopposed to by just individual producers or other end-users, and the programmeshould involve federal (as needed), state and local extension, commodity and privategrower groups, communities, agribusinesses and other stakeholders in a true partner-ship. Extension IPM programmes should be in place in the state or region, orplanned to be developed in synchrony with the AWPM programme to ensure thatmultiple pest and secondary pest problems will be managed and the full impact of acombined programme will be realized. Bio-intensive, environmentally sound andeconomical technology must be available to the end-users and, of course, theprogramme should focus on reducing and maintaining a pest population at anacceptably low density, providing positive environmental benefits and food andworker safety, with a high benefit:cost ratio. Implementation of AWPM will requireoverall participation and compliance of growers in the area under the strategy foroptimum success, as well as frequent evaluation to measure effectiveness and toassure that goals are being met. The remainder of this book will dwell in more detailon the various considerations raised here when implementing AWPM programmes.

As mentioned previously, a number of AWPM programmes in recent times havebeen in progress throughout the world. Earlier publications – Chandler and Faust(1998); Faust and Chandler (1998) – of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Servicesummarized many of these programmes, and excerpts from those two publicationswill be included here, along with some additions to update the various activities usingAWPM/IPM strategies. No great detail will be provided in this introduction of thevarious projects, since many that will be mentioned are already described in somedetail later in this book. In any event, the various activities summarized here willserve as an indicator of the current status of AWPM.

Since the 1960s, numerous suppression programmes targeted at the pinkbollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella, have been initiated. An areawide managementprogramme for this pest has been in place in the San Joaquin Valley of California,USA, continuously since 1968 (Henneberry and Phillips, 1996). Most of the currentpink bollworm suppression programmes that are established or under developmentuse sterile insect releases, cotton plant destruction, mating disruption and trappingfor management of the pest. The ongoing cotton boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) erad-ication programme, which was initiated in North Carolina, South Carolina and Vir-ginia, USA, in 1977, is another example of a successful, highly coordinated areawidemanagement programme (Henneberry and Phillips, 1996). Suppression methodsgenerally have included insecticides and cultural measures on in-season and over-wintering populations, use of grandlure pheromone traps to reduce weevil populationsemerging in the spring, and sterile boll weevil releases.

6 R.M. Faust

Cotton farmers in Arkansas, USA, have voluntarily organized bollworm man-agement communities in an attempt to suppress cotton bollworm and tobaccobudworm populations areawide rather than by a field-by-field approach (Henneberryand Phillips, 1996). The aim has been to coordinate control decisions so that allcotton fields in a cotton bollworm management community are treated within a3-day period.

In the USA two other important areawide IPM programmes have been imple-mented and the technologies transferred by the federal government to the affectedstates.

These programmes have been targeted at the gypsy moth and grasshoppers,serious pests of trees and rangeland/crops, respectively. The gypsy moth (Lymantriadispar) was introduced into the USA in 1869 and has defoliated thousands of acres ofhardwood forests across the north-east, from Maine to North Carolina, infesting 19states and Washington, DC. (APHIS, 2003). In 1992, the USDA’s Forest Service(FS) and APHIS, along with the Department of Interior’s National Park Service andeight state and university partners, embarked on a pilot project called ‘Slow theSpread’. The project’s goal was to slow the rate of natural spread of the gypsy mothby using IPM strategies (APHIS, 2003). In 1999, following successful completion ofthe pilot project, the National Gypsy Moth Slow the Spread programme was imple-mented along the entire 1200-mile gypsy moth frontier from North Carolinathrough the upper peninsula of Michigan. The programme area is located ahead ofthe advancing front of the gypsy moth population, and concentrates on early detec-tion and suppression of the low-level populations along this advancing front, disrupt-ing the natural progress of population expansion. Suppression tactics have includedpheromone mating disruption, mass trapping and treatment with the microbial pes-ticide, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt ), diflubenzuron (except in Michigan) or a naturallyoccurring virus (Gypchek). The programme includes a compliance with regulationscovering movement of gypsy moth host materials.

Grasshopper population outbreaks in the Great Plains and Intermountain Westhave occurred for many decades. In response to a grasshopper epidemic in themid-1980s, APHIS initiated a Grasshopper Integrated Pest Management (GHIPM)Project in 1987 to develop and demonstrate new IPM technologies for transfer as apackage to managers of public and private rangelands (USDA-ARS-APHIS-U.WY,2001). APHIS had been given a congressional mandate to manage these pests on fed-eral rangeland. APHIS had the responsibility to direct a coalition of federal agenciesfor the GHIPM Project. Agencies included in this project were the USDA’s Agricul-tural Research Service, Economic Research Service, Forest Service and ExtensionService (now known as the Cooperative State Research, Education and ExtensionService); the US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, US Fishand Wildlife Service and National Park Service; and the US Environmental Protec-tion Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs. Also, state departments of agriculture,land grant colleges, grazing associations and private industry joined the effort. TheGHIPM demonstration project ran from 1987 to 1994 in areas of Idaho and NorthDakota. Products of the programme included a Grasshopper Integrated Pest ManagementUser Handbook and a CD (USDA-ARS-APHIS-U.WY, 2001). In addition to the userhandbook, the CD also contains a field guide to common western grasshoppers; a sec-tion on grasshoppers (Acrididae) of Colorado: identification, biology and management;

General Introduction 7

HOPPER 4.0 and CARMA 3.3 decision support software for rangeland grasshoppermanagement; and additional grasshopper management and GHIPM Projectdescriptions and information. Copies of the Grasshopper IPM User Handbook may beobtained from USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Operational Support Staff at 4700 River Road,Riverdale, Maryland 20737. The CD may be obtained from USDA-ARS NorthernPlains Agricultural Research Laboratory, at 1500 North Central Avenue, Sidney,Montana 59270.

In 1993 USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, in concert with a USDA IPMWorking Group, developed a partnership framework for an AWPM initiative thatwould include the federal, state and private sectors as partners. On 27 September1993, key pest management representatives from the USDA, university research andextension and several state Departments of Agriculture participated in an organiza-tional meeting in Beltsville, Maryland. At this meeting, participants identified keypests and cropping systems for which environmentally sound pest management tech-nologies were available for implementation on an areawide basis (Faust and Chandler,1998). Dr Knipling played a pivotal role in the organizational meeting.

The goals of ARS’s AWPM partnership initiative are: (i) to demonstrate technol-ogies that will suppress key target pests to manageable levels using the AWPM IPMconcept; (ii) increase community involvement in the initiative through educationalprogrammes during the programme; (iii) increase economic benefits to end-users, thecommunity and other stakeholders as a result of the programme; (iv) promote a sus-tainable AWPM suppression programme; and (v) introduce, transfer and promoteadoption of the demonstrated pest suppression technology.

The USDA-ARS funded AWPM programme and the 5-year panel selected pro-jects typically are structured around four key components: (i) operations (the demon-stration sites); (ii) assessment (economic, sociological and environmental impacts); (iii)education (outreach and technology transfer, including training and various commu-nication tools); and (iv) research, the results of which are intended to aid in theimprovement of programme efficacy or to help circumvent obstacles to implementa-tion (Faust and Chandler, 1998). None of the projects contains a mandatory require-ment, but they do have a highly active outreach component. Extension and countyagents sustain the strategies in the out-years.

The first USDA-ARS AWPM demonstration partnership project was imple-mented in 1994, in the north-western USA against the codling moth, Cydia pomonella(Calkins and Faust, 2003). Mating disruption was used to reduce the pest populationwhile reducing the use of organophosphate insecticides. In 1995 a second projectwas initiated for corn rootworms (Diabrotica spp.) in the Midwest by using adultsemiochemical insecticide bait (Chandler and Faust, 1998; Chandler, 2003). Cornrootworm populations were significantly reduced at participating sites, and new baitproducts were developed and evaluated for use in rootworm-infested areas. Productsproduced by several companies have been used in IPM wide area strategies in Hun-gary, Croatia, Italy and Argentina for corn rootworms (L.D. Chandler, Fort Collins,Colorado, 2006, personal communication). The ARS initiated two other AWPMIPM projects in 1996: one project was directed at insects of stored grain in Kansasand Oklahoma (Flinn et al., 2003). The project used two elevator networks, one ineach state, for a total of 28 grain elevators. Stored wheat was followed as it was movedfrom farm to the country elevator and finally to the terminal elevator, thus giving the

8 R.M. Faust

project an areawide perspective. Fumigation using aluminium phosphide pellets, asneeded, along with sampling/monitoring and decision support software, was used inthe demonstration project.

The other project was directed at the leafy spurge weed (Euphorbia esula) and wasinitiated as a partnership between the ARS in Sidney, Montana; the USDA-APHIS;North and South Dakota State Universities; and Montana State University; in co-operation with the Forest Service, Cooperative States Research, Education andExtension Service (CSREES), the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Ser-vice and the state Departments of Agriculture (Anderson et al., 2003). This projectused biological control with emphasis on a beetle herbivore (Apthona sp.) of leafyspurge, and other technologies such as grazing systems, revegetation, decision aids,geographical information systems (GIS) and judicious use of herbicides, as needed.

Between 1999 and 2006, ARS initiated six additional AWPM demonstrationprojects, which are ongoing or just being completed, many of which are detailed inthe case examples of this book. For example, in 1999 an AWPM IPM project in theHawaiian Islands for management of tephritid fruit flies using monitoring, sanita-tion, male annihilation, baits, biological control and sterile male fruit flies was initi-ated (Mau et al., 2007). The target species included Mediterranean (Ceratitus capitata),melon (Bactrocera dorsalis), oriental (B. dorsalis) and Malaysian fruit flies (B. latifrons).The overall goal is to suppress these pests below economic thresholds. Fruit flies,especially the oriental and Mediterranean, continue to show up in the continentalUSA, and the technologies being demonstrated in Hawaii are enhancing suppressionand eradication programmes of these invasive species in the USA and elsewhere.Already, the programme has led to initiation and adoption of the AWPM tactics inPacific Basin Areas such as French Polynesia, Fiji, Vanuatu, Guam, Cook Islandsand the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as in districts in Taiwan and Queensland,Australia.

Besides the ARS partnership demonstration fruit fly project in Hawaii, a num-ber of AWPM programmes are currently being conducted around the world that tar-get fruit flies, largely using sterile insect techniques. These projects are in Argentina,Australia, Costa Rica, Greece, Guatemala, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Por-tugal, Thailand and the continental USA (Hendrichs and Ortiz, 1996). A number ofthese programmes are coordinated mainly by grower associations and governmentagencies, and do prevent major economic damage to numerous fruits and vegetables.

In 2000, a project on fire ants (especially the red imported, Solenopsis invicta,across Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Oklahoma) on pastures wasinitiated using natural enemies (phorid fly parasites), microbial agents andattracticidal compounds (Flores and Core, 2004; Pereira, 2004; Van der Meer et al.,2007).

Then, in 2001, three additional projects were implemented: (i) Russian wheataphid (Diuraphis noxia) and greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) on wheat in the US GreatPlains using customized cultural practices, pest-resistant cultivars, biological controlagents and other biologically based pest control technologies (Keenan et al., 2007); (ii)the Melaleuca weed tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) in Florida using natural enemies andmicrobial biological control (fungus), judicious use of herbicides, mechanical (mow-ing) and physical (fire) control, and combinations of these tactics (Flores, 2004a;Scoles et al., 2006); and (iii) the tarnished plant bug (Lygus lineolaris) on cotton in the

General Introduction 9

delta of Mississippi and Louisiana using host destruction, host-plant resistance andremote-sensing technology, which was an extension of an ongoing ARS project(Weaver-Missick, 1999; Abel et al., 2007).

In 2006, a project targeted at methyl bromide alternatives in Florida and Cali-fornia was initiated to assess, test and transfer an IPM wide area strategy usingmethyl bromide alternatives against soil pathogens, nematodes and weed pests forgrowers who are losing the fumigant (Schneider et al., 2003) because of regulatoryaction. The ARS plans to continue implementing additional AWPM-IPM demon-stration projects in the future as funds are released from ongoing projects being com-pleted. For example, in October 2007 projects targeted at the Asian tiger mosquito,navel orange worm, pests and pathogens of honey bees, and weedy annual grasses ofrangelands were initiated.

There have been other ARS wide area IPM projects not directly funded by theARS AWPM initiative that have been implemented. Since 1992, ARS has led federaland state scientists in a nationally coordinated research effort to develop technologiesfor mitigation of the silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolis) problem in ornamental,vegetable, melon and fibre crops across the southern USA, and in greenhouses (DeQuattro, 1997; Henneberry et al., 2002). This insect has been responsible for overUS$2 billion in crop loss, damage and control measures since its introduction intothe USA in 1986. Areawide and community-based management approaches, cover-ing all affected commodities, have emerged as the best strategy and have beenadopted. Some crop management- and community-oriented farm practices, such aswater-use patterns, proximity of alternate host crops and spatial considerations, havebeen implemented, resulting in whitefly population reduction. An excellent insecti-cide resistance management programme has been implemented to conserve a majorinsect growth regulator (imidocloprid) found effective under the programme. A num-ber of other management tools have been developed and adopted by growers,including crop rotation, host-free periods, crop residue and weed destruction, hostresistance and biological control (fungi, parasites and predators). Overall losses havenot increased in agricultural communities where the silverleaf whitefly is a factor incrop and horticultural production and have declined in a number of cases.

In 1997 USDA-ARS implemented a 5-year wide area project against theblacklegged deer tick (Ixodes scapularis) in the north-east USA (Pound et al., 2000a;McGraw and McBride, 2001). The project uses a device named the ‘four-poster’ asan alternative to eliminating deer populations or applying chemical sprays. The ticktransmits the agent that causes human Lyme disease (Borrelia burgdorferi). The ‘four-poster’ consists of a bin filled with whole-kernel maize and paint rollers attached tothe bin’s four corners. An acaricide (amitraz) is applied to the rollers and theacaricide rubs off and kills ticks on the deer’s head and neck when the animal feedsbetween the rollers. ARS scientists in Kerrville, Texas, developed the technology.The technique is also used in Texas against lone star ticks (Amblyomma americanum)(Pound et al., 2000b; Flores, 2006). In 2003 scientists in Scotland began testing the‘4-poster’ topical applicator in that country (Flores, 2004b).

ARS scientists in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA have recently established anareawide treatment programme (Operation Full Stop) for the Formosan subterra-nean termite, Coptotermes formosanus. The project uses new termite control technolo-gies that include monitoring/baiting technology and non-repellent termiticides

10 R.M. Faust

(Lax and Osbrink, 2003). The AWPM programme was established in a 15-block areaof the New Orleans French Quarter with the homeowners, in the USDA-ARS cam-pus and in southern Mississippi. The programme seems to be successful so far, andwork continues to help provide long-term sustainable population control.

Several other AWPM projects, which will be covered in the case examples,include salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) in the western USA (ARS), rice insects andgrain and vegetable crops in South-east Asia and grape AWPM in Italy. Otherauthors elsewhere have recently described areawide control or eradication efforts(Vreysen et al., 2007), including the red palm weevil of coconut, the mosquito Aedesalbopictus in Italy, mosquito control in Greece, painted apple moth in New Zealand,codling moth in British Columbia, Canada and Brazil, Amblyomma in the Caribbean,fruit fly in Central America, Chile, Tunisia and Sudan, mountain pine beetle inWestern North America, cotton bollworm in China, tsetse fly in South Africa andEthiopia, cactus moth in North America (including Mexico), the false codling mothin South Africa, rice stemborers in China, cotton insects in Tajikistan as well as otherAWPM-related efforts.

Other potential candidate pests have been suggested, particularly during livelydiscussions among USDA agencies and their partners over the past decade or so. Asthe ARS National Program Leader assigned primary responsibility for the agency’sAWPM programme initiative, the author of this introductory chapter has been privyto the many discussions and recommendations. Some of these candidates haveincluded insects such as heliothine moths, soybean aphid, Colorado potato beetle,Asian long-horned beetle, emerald ash borer, pink hibiscus mealy bug, glassy-wingedsharpshooter, European corn borer, diamondback moth, beet armyworm, cabbagelooper, fall armyworm, sugarcane borer, cattle grubs and horn flies; weeds suchas water hyacinth, hydrilla, Eurasian water milfoil, Old World climbing fern,German ivy, tropical and aquatic soda apple, kudzu, giant reed, hawkweeds, purpleloosestrife, witch weed, knapweed, Scotch thistle, yellow star thistle, jointed goatgrass, sickle pod and Salvinia; and pathogens/nematodes such as golden nematode,Chrysanthemum white rust, soybean cyst nematode, citrus bacterial canker, sugar-cane leaf scald disease, cereal rusts, dogwood rust, late blight of potatoes, wheatscab, early blight of tomatoes and Pierce’s disease of grapes (glassy-wingedsharpshooter).

Not all of the pests suggested will necessarily be good candidates for AWPM/total population management, and may not fit well with the AWPM criteria, espe-cially species that appear so sporadically that AWPM would not be justified. Some ofthe potential candidates mentioned are already apparently under some level ofbiocontrol or IPM practices. The list, of course, is probably not all-inclusive by anymeans.

Based on the increasing number of AWPM projects being implemented, therecent resurgence of interest in the AWPM concept and how well current practisingend-users seem to have embraced the idea, the future looks good for its continued,and even accelerated, adoption and use. Organized coordination and cooperationmust continue to be sought, if AWPM programmes of regional and broader geo-graphic scope shall succeed. It is hoped that this book will contribute to the interest inAWPM and its importance to pest managers, as well as to a further understanding ofwhat the concept has to offer.

General Introduction 11

References

Abel, C.A., Snodgrass, G.L. and Gore, J. (2007) A cultural method for the areawide control oftarnished plant bug in cotton. In: Vreysen, M.J., Robinson, A.S. and Hendrichs, J. (eds)Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests: from Research to Field Implementation, Springer, Dordrecht,The Netherlands (in press).

Anderson, G.L. Prosser, C.W., Wendel, L.E., Delfosse, E.S. and Faust, R.M. (2003) The eco-logical areawide management (TEAM) of leafy spurge program of the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service. Pest Management Science 59,609–613.

APHIS (Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service) (2003) Gypsy Moth: Slow the Spread Program.Fact sheet, plant protection and quarantine, April 2003, USDA-APHIS, Riverdale,Maryland, 3 pp.

Bajwa, W.I. and Kogan, M. (2002) Compendium of IPM Definitions (CID) – what is IPM and How isit Defined in the Worldwide Literature? IPPC Publication No. 998, Integrated Plant ProtectionCenter (IPPC), Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 15 pp.

Baumhover, A.H. (2002) A personal account of programs to eradicate the screw worm,Cochliomyia hominivorax, in the United States and Mexico with special emphasis on theFlorida program. Florida Entomologist 85, 669–676.

Bellows, T.S. (1987) Regional management strategies in stochastic systems. Bulletin of the Ento-mological Society of America 33, 151–154.

Benbrook, C.M., Groth, E., Halloran, J.M., Hansen, M.K. and Marquardt, S. (1996) PestManagement at the Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York, 272 pp.

Bushland, R.C. (1985) Eradication program in the southwestern United States. MiscellaneousPublications of the Entomological Society of America 62, 12–15.

Calkins, C.O. and Faust, R.M. (2003) Overview of areawide programs and the program forsuppression of codling moth in the western USA directed by the United States Depart-ment of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service. Pest Management Science 59, 601–604.

Chandler, L.D. (2003) Corn rootworm areawide management program: United StatesDepartment of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service. Pest Management Science 59,605–608.

Chandler, L.D. and Faust, R.M. (1998) Overview of areawide management. Journal of Agricul-tural Entomology 15, 319–325.

Cole, T.W. and MacKeller, W.M. (1956) Cattle tick fever. In: Animal Diseases. US Departmentof Agriculture Yearbook 1956, Washington, DC, pp. 310–313.

De Quattro, J. (1997) The whitefly plan – 5 year update. Agricultural Research 45, 4–12.Dickerson, W.A. and Haney, P.B. (2001) A review and discussion of regulatory issues.

In: Dickerson, W.A., Brashear, A.L., Brumley, J.T., Carter, F.L. and Grefenstette, W.J.(eds) Boll Weevil Eradication in the United States Through 1999. The Cotton FoundationPublisher, Memphis, Tennessee, pp. 137–156.

Doutt, R.L. (1958) Vice, virtue and the vedalia. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 4,119–123.

Faust, R.M. and Chandler, L.D. (1998) Future programs in areawide pest management. Journalof Agricultural Entomology 15, 371–376.

Flinn, P.W., Hagstrum, D.W., Reed, C. and Phillips, T.W. (2003) United States Departmentof Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service stored-grain areawide integrated pestmanagement program. Pest Management Science 59, 614–618.

Flores, A. (2004a) TAMEing Melaleuca with IPM. Agricultural Research 52, 4–8.Flores, A. (2004b) Tick control methods head to Scotland. Agricultural Research 52, 21.Flores, A. (2006) The continuing fight against cattle ticks. Agricultural Research 54, 8–9.

12 R.M. Faust

Flores, A. and Core, J. (2004) Putting out the fire: ARS sets up regional programs to combatimported fire ants. Agricultural Research 52, 12–13.

Hendrichs, J. and Ortiz, G. (1996) Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) area-wide integrated man-agement programmes in progress in the world. Paper #22- 025, abstract in Proceedings XXInternational Congress of Entomology, Florence, Italy. p. 705.

Henneberry, T.J. and Phillips, J.R. (1996) Suppression and management of cotton insect pop-ulations on an areawide basis. In: King, E.G., Phillips, J.R. and Coleman, R.J. (eds) CottonInsects and Mites: Characterization and Management. The Cotton Foundation Publisher, Mem-phis, Tennessee, pp. 601–624.

Henneberry, T.J., Faust, R.M., Jones, W.A. and Perring, T.M. (2002) Silverleaf Whitefly:National Research, Action and Technology Transfer Plan (formerly SweetpotatoWhitefly, Strain B): Fourth Annual Review of the Second 5-year Plan and Final Reportfor 1992–2002, held in San Diego, California, February 10–12, 2002. US Department ofAgriculture, Agricultural Research Service, June 2002, 446 pp.

Keenan, S.P., Giles, K.L., Elliott, N.C., Royer, T.A., Porter, D.R., Burgener, P.A. and Chris-tian, D.A. (2007) Grower perspectives on areawide wheat integrated pest management inthe southern US Great Plains. In: Koul, O. and Cuperus, G.W. (eds) Ecological Based Inte-grated Pest Management. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 289–314.

Klassen, W. (2003) Memorial lecture – Edward F. Knipling: titan and driving force in ecologicallyselective area-wide pest management. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 19,94–103.

Knipling, E.F. (1966) Some basic principles in insect population suppression. Bulletin of the Ento-mological Society of America 12, 7–15.

Knipling, E.F. (1978) Eradication of plant pests – pro-advances in technology for insect popu-lation eradication and suppression. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 24, 44–52.

Knipling, E.F. (1979) The Basic Principles of Insect Population Suppression and Management. USDepartment of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook no. 512, Washington, DC, 659 pp.

Knipling, E.F. (1980) Regional management of the fall armyworm – a realistic approach.Florida Entomologist 63, 468–480.

Knipling, E.F. and Stadelbacker, E.A. (1983) The rationale for areawide management of Helio-this (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) populations. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 29,29–37.

Kogan, M. (1982) Plant resistance in pest management. In: Metcalf, R. and Luckman, H. (eds)Introduction to Insect Pest Management, 2nd edition. Wiley, New York, pp. 93–134.

Kogan, M. (1995) Areawide management of major pests: is the concept applicable to theBemisia complex? In: Gerling, D. and Mayer, R.T. (eds) Bemisia: Taxonomy, Biology, Damage,Control and Management 1995. Intercept, Andover, UK, pp. 643–657.

Lax, A.R. and Osbrink, W. (2003) United States Department of Agriculture – AgricultureResearch Service research on targeted management of the Formosan subterraneantermite Coptotermes formosanus Skiroki (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Pest Management Science59, 788–800.

Mau, R.F., Jang, E.B. and Vargas, R.I. (2007) The Hawaii area-wide fruit fly pest manage-ment programme: influence of partnership and a good education programme. In:Vreysen, M.J., Robinson, A.S. and Hendrichs, J. (eds) Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests: fromResearch to Field Implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (in press).

McGraw, L. and McBride, J. (2001) Tick control device reduces lyme disease. AgriculturalResearch, 49, 5–7.

Myers, J.H., Savoie, A. and Randen, E. (1998) Eradication and pest management. AnnualReviews of Entomology 43, 471–491.

Pereira, R.M. (2004) Area-wide suppression of fire ant populations in pastures: project update.Journal of Agricultural Urban Entomology 20, 123–130.

General Introduction 13

Pound, J.M., Miller, J.A., George, J.E. and Le Meilleur, C.A. (2000a) The ‘4-poster’ passivetopical treatment device to apply acaricide for controlling ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) feedingon white-tailed deer. Journal of Medical Entomology 37, 585–594.

Pound, J.M., Miller, J.A. and George, J.E. (2000b) Efficacy of amitraz applied to white-taileddeer by the ‘4-poster’ topical treatment device in controlling free-living lone star ticks(Acari: Ixodidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 37, 878–884.

Rabb, R.L. (1978) A sharp focus on insect populations and pest management from a wide-areaview. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 24, 55–61.

Schneider, S.M., Rosskodf, E.N., Leesch, J.G., Chellemi, D.O., Bull, C.T. and Mazzola, M.(2003) United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service researchon alternatives to methyl bromide: pre-plant and post-harvest. Pest Management Science 59,814–826.

Scoles, J.C., Pratt, P.D., Silvers, C.S., Langeland, K.A., Meisenburg, M.J., Ferriter, A.P.,Gioeli, K.T. and Gray, C.J. (2006) The Land Manager’s Handbook on Integrated Pest Manage-ment of Melaleuca quinquenervia. USDA-ARS, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 55 pp.

Stall, W.M. (1999) IPM definition. Journal of Vegetable Crop Production, 4, 95–96.USDA-APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture–Animal Plant Health Inspection

Service) (1998) Eradicating screw worms from North America. APHIS Web site (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/OA/Screw worm.html).

USDA-ARS-APHIS-U.WY (United States Department of Agriculture–Agriculture ResearchService–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service–University of Wyoming) (2001)Grasshoppers: their biology, identification and management. In: Branson, D. and Redlin,B. (eds) (CD, June 2001). USDA-ARS, Sidney, Montana.

Van der Meer, R.K., Porter, S.D., Oi, D.H., Valles, S.M. and Pereira, R.M. (2007) Area-widesuppression of invasive fire ant populations. In: Vreysen, M.J., Robinson, A.S. andHendrichs, J. (eds) Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests: from Research to Field Implementation.Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (in press).

Vreysen, M.J.B., Saleh, K.M., Ali, M.Y., Abdulla, A.M., Zhu, Z.R., Juma, K.G., Dyck, A.V.,Msangi, A.R., Mkonyi, P.A. and Feldmann, H.V. (2000) Glossina austeni (Diptera:Glossinidae) eradicated on the island of Unguja, Zanzibar, using the sterile insect technique.Journal of Economic Entomology 93, 123–135.

Vreysen, M.J., Robinson, A.S. and Hendrichs, J. (2007) Area-wide Control of Insect Pests: fromResearch to Field Implementation, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (in press).

Weaver-Missick, T. (1999) Banishing tarnished plant bugs from cotton, Agricultural Research 47,12–14.

14 R.M. Faust

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/OA/Screw worm.htmlhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/OA/Screw worm.html

History and Ecological BasisN.C. Elliott et al.

2 History and Ecological Basisfor Areawide Pest Management

NORMAN C. ELLIOTT,1 DAVID W. ONSTAD2 ANDMICHAEL J. BREWER3

1US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, PlantScience Research Laboratory, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA; 2NationalSoybean Research Center, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA;3Integrated Pest Management Program, Department of Entomology,Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Introduction

The traditional approach to pest management is to treat the crop or commodity in aparticular management unit before an economically significant infestation of the pesthas developed. Determining the need to take corrective action is based on the eco-nomic threshold concept, which forms the basis of most integrated pest managementprogrammes (Metcalf and Luckman, 1975). Areawide pest management (AWPM)can be contrasted with traditional pest management in that pest management tacticsare used over a broad spatial area, often treating the whole area simultaneously tomaintain the pest below economic levels or, in some cases, completely eradicate it.AWPM has potential advantages over the traditional approach. Suppression across abroad area may result in reduced reinfestation by migration from nearby unmanagedareas, and the pest management tactics employed may be more effective, particularlyecologically based tactics, when applied areawide.

A diversity of approaches exists for AWPM. The strategies used in programmesobviously must be based on the particular species that is the target of the manage-ment effort. Detailed understanding of the pest’s biology and ecology, the ecologicalsystem as a whole and the pest management tactic(s) available for deployment willprovide insight into the most promising avenues for effective suppression over abroad spatial area. While virtually any pest of humans or their enterprises, agricul-tural or otherwise, can be a target of AWPM, we will focus on AWPM of insect pestsof agriculture in this chapter. The concepts are applicable to weeds and othernon-insect pests, and to non-agricultural pest problems.

Dr Edward F. Knipling was among the first to formalize the idea that use of preven-tive approaches for managing pests on an areawide basis could be more effective and lessenvironmentally detrimental than curative approaches, which often rely on repeated useof insecticides on individual fields (Klassen, 2003). Preventive approaches fall into two

© CAB International 2008. Areawide Pest Management: Theory andImplementation (eds O. Koul, G. Cuperus and N. Elliott) 15

basic categories: those that make the particular management unit more resistant topest attack and those that reduce the likelihood of attack in the first place. AWPMprogrammes have used both approaches, but usually rely more heavily on the second.

In most cases hosts that can serve as reservoirs for a particular pest exist outsideof the managed ecosystem, from which the pest can colonize it via dispersal or migra-tion. Knipling recognized this and considered lack of control in unmanaged ecosys-tems and lack of synchronous control across ecosystems as the main reasons pestpopulations were not being effectively controlled by management applied on an indi-vidual field basis. Knipling’s (1992) principle formalized that idea when he wrote:‘Uniform suppressive pressure applied against the total population of the pest over aperiod of generations will achieve greater suppression than a higher level of suppres-sion on most, but not all, of the population each generation’. Total population refersto the sum total of individuals of the species in a defined area as opposed to just thoseoccupying a particular crop or other commodity in need of protection. Usually, thearea defined for the total population is one that has the geographic integrity such thatthe population within it is more or less geographically isolated from other popula-tions of the species. Knipling (1992) asserted that, in order for major advances to bemade in managing many important pest problems, strategies and tactics for manag-ing pests would need to change from the curative approaches targeting the pest onthe protected crop to strategies based on suppressive measures targeting the totalpopulation preventively.

Knipling spent most of his career on eradication programmes for pests ratherthan on AWPM per se, but the two approaches have much in common, the majordifference being the ultimate goal – areawide extermination versus suppression andmaintenance at non-economic levels. Both centre on environmentally sound tacticsthat, when applied over a broad geographic area, can eradicate the total pest popula-tion or, in the case of AWPM, maintain it at non-economic levels. The differencebetween the two strategies is that eradication requires an intensive effort over a broadenough geographic area such that there is no possibility for migration by the pest intothe suppression area over a reasonably long time horizon. This means that for eradi-cation to be successful the suppression area must be effectively isolated from areaswhere migrants could enter and that the pest management tactics applied exert mor-tality much greater than the pest’s reproductive capacity. These tactics must beapplied within the suppression area on a frequent enough basis to maintain the popu-lation on a downward trajectory until eradication is eventually achieved. Whether ornot tactics need to be applied synchronously over the entire area for the duration ofthe programme is arguable because some effective programmes, e.g. the boll weevileradication programme, have focused on treating only ‘hot spots’ after an initial,brief phase of synchronous suppression.

A Brief History and the Development of AWPM

Klassen (2000) gives a very interesting account of the history of AWPM, which weshall recount here only briefly. Klassen notes that AWPM approaches are not new,and that early civilizations probably worked cooperatively to control pest invasions,

16 N.C. Elliott et al.

such as those by armyworms and locusts, at scales greater than a single landholding.For example, in China an AWPM programme for the migratory locust, Locustamigratoria maniensis, has evolved as the result of over 3000 years of experience withperiodic outbreaks along the flood plains of some major rivers. The AWPMprogramme for the locust now has a firm scientific basis and uses modern pest fore-casting and management tools, but was initiated long before the advent of the mod-ern scientific method, and based mainly on application of cultural practices andwater management along major waterways that prior experience had shown wereeffective as preventive tactics to control the pest (Metcalf, 1991). Klassen (2000) dis-cusses several additional early examples of use of the AWPM approach that grew outof practical necessity and experience with the particular pest.

Understanding of the biology and ecology of many highly mobile pests of agri-culture is improving, as are the technologies for suppressing pest populations. Themajority of modern-day programmes that can be classified as AWPM rely on a lim-ited number of tactics targeted at distinctive characteristics of the pest insect’s biologyor ecology, most notably the sterile insect technique used in eradication programmesfor the screwworm, fruit flies and other insects. Use of broad-spectrum insecticidesfor broad-scale suppression of mosquitoes and other pests can also be classified as anareawide approach (see Tan, 2000 for more examples). Few tactics specifically foruse in AWPM exist, partially because limited emphasis has been placed on develop-ing the AWPM concept within educational and research institutions. The expenseand lack of funding available for such research has historically been a limiting factor(Linquist, 2000), but many current strategies for deploying existing host plant resis-tance, cultural control and biological control may be adaptable to, and benefit from,a more concerted effort in areawide deployment.

During the last decade, implementation of AWPM in the USA has beenenhanced by the US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service-administered Areawide Pest Management Program (Calkins and Faust, 2003), andexamples of AWPM implementation using a broader array of approaches and tacticsnow exist. A major goal of this book is to overview the AWPM programmes that havebeen implemented recently, to highlight the diversity of pests addressed by theAWPM approach and the various tactics used in the programmes.

One potential drawback to the AWPM approach is the need to coordinate theprogramme with stakeholders, sometimes with diverse interests. Achieving stake-holder buy-in to the potentially highly regimented and expensive programmes usedin AWPM requires the pest not only to be a serious economic detriment tothe commodity, but also to be consistently present at economic levels. Otherwise,the sustained sense of urgency needed to motivate stakeholders to support the pro-gramme will be difficult to achieve. Even then, it may be difficult to maintain supportfor the programme over the long term once the pest becomes non-significant eco-nomically and stakeholders focus on more immediately pressing issues.

For some pests it may not be feasible to undertake eradication, because these cri-teria cannot be met, the cost of the programme exceeds the benefits, the economicresources required are unavailable or the political will needed to initiate such aprogramme cannot be generated and sustained. The policy and institutional issuesinvolved in developing and sustaining AWPM programmes are discussed in detail inlater chapters of this volume. For the remainder of this chapter we will focus on

History and Ecological Basis 17

ecological issues relevant to AWPM. Our objective is to highlight the role that recentadvances in the study and understanding of spatial interactions in biological popula-tions might play in optimizing AWPM approaches for pests.

Ecological Theory and Models Supporting AWPM

Optimizing an AWPM programme to maximize the suppression achieved and mini-mize the cost incurred would enhance the potential for success. One obvious limitationto optimal application of the total population management concept advocated byKnipling for many pests is lack of sufficient knowledge of the biology and ecology toestablish the spatial extent of the total population to be managed. The total populationcould be as large as the geographic range of the species, or as small as a single field.

Even though AWPM was originally based on the concept of synchronous and uni-form control of the total population of a pest, it has been implemented in a wide varietyof ways over space and time. Management strategies may synchronize control overonly part of a region infested by a pest at a time, for example by eradicating it from oneedge to another; or control may be synchronized over patches and subpopulations, andnot the ‘total’ population, when permission cannot be obtained from all public andprivate landholders. Lack of synchrony is exemplified by the boll weevil AWPMprogramme in the southern USA, where the spatial strategies for management wereapplied at various locations and times for a variety of logistical and political reasons.Thus, an ideal AWPM plan may only rarely be implemented in practice.

Recent advances in ecological theory have much to contribute to development ofthe AWPM approach. For example, Levins’ (1969) classic work on metapopulationdynamics, while receiving interest predominantly from conservation biologists, was origi-nally proposed as an explanation of the dynamics of pests existing in spatially structuredpopulations. Since populations of most species, especially pest species, have broad spatialdistributions with some degree of population subdivision, metapopulation theory may beuseful for understanding population dynamics of pest species and designing effectiveAWPM programmes. Recent advances in landscape ecology emphasizing spatial inter-actions among populations (Pickett and Cadenasso, 1995) may also contribute toAWPM. Simulation modelling is obviously an important tool for understanding thedynamics of complex systems, such as populations existing in spatially heterogeneouslandscapes. Next, we will focus on some spatial ecology, modelling and monitoringconcepts as they relate to defining and optimizing AWPM programmes.

Temporal and Spatial Scales in AWPM Strategies

Some ecologists have expressed concern about the lack of consideration of temporal andspatial scales in ecological hypotheses (Levandowsky and White, 1977; Allen, 1989).Often, claims are made and conclusions drawn about the conditions that promote orinhibit the AWPM of arthropods without the operational temporal and spatial scalesbeing specified. Without scales for example, we do not know whether a given conceptpertains to 1 m2 and 1 day or to 1 million km2 and 1 year.

18 N.C. Elliott et al.

If management strategies are to be tested and implemented, we need to strive formore precise concepts that include general temporal and spatial scales for which theconcepts are valid. Onstad (1992) evaluated this problem in epidemiology and pro-posed criteria for identifying appropriate scales and definitions of important terms.Criteria for identifying temporal and spatial scales should be based on consistency ofobservation and ecological validity. Scales must account for behaviour and longevityof the targeted pest. Temporal and spatial units must correspond, for logical reasons.

The minimum time unit for analysis of management is likely to be the genera-tion time for the targeted arthropod. When control is synchronized for AWPM, it islikely to be synchronized by generation and not calendar time. Onstad (1992) dis-cusses the various ways of measuring generation time for arthropods with discrete oroverlapping generations. The minimum spatial unit should be the two- or three-dimensional space that is traversed on average by the targeted arthropod during ageneration. The ecologically proper spatial scale depends upon a species’ biology andbehaviour, and must be large enough to encompass all normal movement by theaverage individual (Weins, 1976; Addicott et al., 1987). For example, Schneider(1989) considered the temporal and spatial scales and experimental designs for fieldexperiments needed to evaluate AWPM. Schneider (1989) concluded that two smallareas could be studied for 6 years, or two larger areas could be evaluated for 2 years,to determine the feasibility of an AWPM approach.

The spatial and temporal context of the AWPM strategy should be declared.The time horizon is the term used to describe the period over which the managementoccurs. Every model, of course, has a time horizon for its analysis. Because of thevariable nature of ecological systems in space and time, the ecological conditions onwhich management depends may not be valid after a certain number of arthropodgenerations, or when a very large number of minimum spatial units are consideredtogether. For eradication, it is clear that the total population must be defined toinclude a geographic area of sufficient extent to preclude recolonization of the eradica-tion zone over a relatively long time horizon. For areawide suppression programmesthere are no similarly obvious guidelines. Obviously, the maximum spatial extentshould not exceed the existing area inhabited by a species, but best estimations areneeded on whether infested fringe areas that are never managed should be includedwithin conceptual spatial boundaries of a suppression zone.

Commonly, practitioners of AWPM define boundaries of a suppression areabased on a mix of biological, economic, political, sociological and other criteria(Klassen, 2000; Linquist, 2000). The ‘what and where’ in regard to the total populationis an elusive question, but certainly should be entertained by AWPM researchers andpractitioners. A metapopulation or landscape perspective may be helpful in definingecologically optimal scales for application of AWPM programmes for particular pests.We will explore those concepts with respect to AWPM in the following sections.

Metapopulation Ecology and AWPM

Metapopulation ecology is one approach to the study of spatially structured popula-tions. The basic assumption of Levins’ (1969) metapopulation dynamics concept and

History and Ecological Basis 19

subsequent refinements is that the environment is heterogeneous. This heterogeneitycan be partitioned into discrete patches suitable for inhabitation by the species that aredistinguishable from everything else that is considered uninhabitable. Thus, suitablehabitat for a species occurs as a network of patches distributed in space and embeddedin a matrix of non-suitable areas (see Fig. 2.1a). The matrix is not explicitly consideredin the metapopulation approach and is assumed to be neutral in terms of its effect onpopulation dynamics, apart from that of separating patches of suitable habitat.

Habitat patches can vary in size and quality and differ in many attributes impor-tant to a particular species. The metapopulation approach also assumes that patchesare small enough that the resident populations are more or less panmictic, but farenough apart that migration between patches is an occasional event (Hanski andGilpin, 1997).

Most insects of pest management concern are highly mobile and migratoryaccording to the definition of Drake and Gatehouse (1994), and it might seem thatthe metapopulation concept would provide limited insight on effective AWPM strat-egies beyond that achieved by considering the total population as a panmictic unit.However, Murphy et al. (1990) argue that the metapopulation approach is particu-larly applicable for small organisms with high population growth rates that havespecialized habitat requirements, traits that are exhibited by many pest species.

Migration in insects usually takes place during a single life stage, and often foronly a short time; during other life stages individuals are more or less restricted to asingle patch of habitat. Thus, migration is a more or less discrete event within a gen-eration for many pest insects. Furthermore, even though agricultural crops aregrown extensively in some areas, they still occur as discrete patches within a hetero-geneous matrix composed of patches that may or may not be suitable for inhabita-tion. Byrne (Chapter 4, this volume) discusses the critical role that migration plays inthe ecology of pests and in determining pest status and limitations to the effectivenessof traditional pest management programmes. Since many, if not most, agriculturaland urban pests and pests of other managed ecosystems are migratory (e.g.bollworms, aphids and leaf rust), conside