bioscience volume 30 issue 10 1980 [doi 10.2307%2f1308461] g. e. allen and j. e. bath -- integrated...

7/23/2019 BioScience Volume 30 Issue 10 1980 [Doi 10.2307%2F1308461] G. E. Allen and J. E. Bath -- Integrated Pest Mana

1/8

The Conceptual and Institutional Aspects of Integrated Pest ManagementAuthor(s): G. E. Allen and J. E. BathSource: BioScience, Vol. 30, No. 10, Integrated Pest Management (Oct., 1980), pp. 658-664Published by: Oxford University Presson behalf of the American Institute of Biological SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1308461.

Accessed: 18/06/2014 17:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University PressandAmerican Institute of Biological Sciencesare collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access toBioScience.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aibshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1308461?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1308461?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aibshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/8

T h e

onceptual

a n d

Institutional

spects

o

Integrated

e s t

Management

G.

E.

Allen

and

J.

E. Bath

Protectingplants

from

pests

is a funda-

mental

aspect

of food

production,

be-

cause

the needs of human

society

are

in

direct

competition

for resources with

pest populations.

Since

time

immemorial

biological

species

such as

insects,

plant

pathogens, nematodes,and weeds have

exploited

energy

resources for theircon-

tinued

survival.

Food

production

sys-

tems for humankind

are

no

different;

they

are

energy-limited

nd

subject

to

all

the laws of natural

ystems.

To

maintain

stability

toward

specific production

goals,

human

society

must

expend

ener-

gy

to exert

control over

other natural

systems.

This is no

trivial

endeavor,

despite

our

technological "sophistication."

Pest

populations

are not inert masses to be

passively

decimated

by

our

arsenal

of

controltechnology.Often,if not

always,

the

consequences

of

our

control

actions

have been

counterproductive.

Heavy

crop

losses

(despite

tremendous

pesti-

cide

utilization),

pesticide resistance,

ad-

verse

environmental

effects,

and

low

success rates

with

biological

control

strongly signal

that we know

very

little

about the

biological

interactions in-

volved in

our food

production

system.

For

example,

approximately

$18.2

bil-

lion or

33%

of

the

crops

produced

n

the

United

States

(35%

on a

worldwide

basis)

are

lost

due to

insect,

pathogen,

nematode,

and

weed

pests (Cramer1967,

Allen is

former

chairman of the

USDA/SEA

IPM

Coordination Team

and

professor

with the

Depart-

ment

of

Entomology

and

Nematology,

University

of

Florida,

Gainesville,

FL

32611;

Bath is chairman

and

professor,

Department

of

Entomology,

Mich-

igan

State

University,

East

Lansing,

MI 48824. This

is

Michigan Agricultural

Experiment

Station

Journal

Article

Number

9531 and Florida

Agricultural

Ex-

periment

Station

Journal Series

Number

2544.

?

1980

American

Institute of

Biological

Sciences. All

rights

reserved.

Pimentel

1979).

This loss continues de-

spite

extensive

pest

control

operations,

including

approximately

40 million

kilo-

grams

of

pesticide

applications annually

(2.25

billion

kg worldwide) (Pimentel

1976),

and

another 10-20% s lost follow-

ingharvest (Vance 1979).

Methods for

controllingpests

(insects,

bacteria,

fungi,

viruses, weeds,

nema-

todes, vertebrates,

and other

organisms)

affectnot

only

agriculture, orestry,

and

natural

ecosystems,

but

ultimately

the

consumersof

these

products

and

the

sta-

bility

of

political

andsocial

systems.

The

widespread

use

of

pesticides

since WWII

has created

public

concern over the envi-

ronment,

human

health,

and

human

safety.

Moreover,

the

agricultural

ector

is

concerned about the

increasing

resis-

tance

of

pests

to

pesticides

and shifts

in

pest complexes

in food

productionsys-

tems.

A

renewed

emphasis

on

devel-

oping

or

improving

alternative

pest

con-

trol

tactics

(biological, genetic,

and

cultural)

has in

recent

years

fostered a

new

philosophy concerning

the

manage-

ment of

pests-integrated pest

manage-

ment

(IPM)-which

is

based on

ecologi-

cal,

sociological,

and economic factors.

CONCEPTS OF

IPM

Current

Concepts

The

emerging

recognition

of the

high

resource costs and

risks due

to

the

insta-

bility

of

monospecificagriculture

has led

to

the

development

of the

science

of IPM

as an

alternative

o

simple

chemical con-

trol.

Since IPM

philosophy

is

in

con-

tinuous

transition,

t is

definable

only

at

specific

times.

The 1977

Secretary's

Memorandum

1929,

"USDA

Policy

on

Management

of

Pest

Problems,"

defines

IPM as

"a

desirable

approach

to

the

selection,

integration,

and use of

meth-

ods on the basis of

their

anticipated

economic,

ecological,

and

sociological

consequences."

An

operational

concept

of IPM

was

developed

for the Science

and

Education

Administration SEA) of the U.S. De-

partment

of

Agriculture

USDA)

in

a

re-

port

to the

director

in

1979

(SEA

IPM

Coordination

Team

1979a).

The

concept

includes

a

classification

of

pest

manage-

ment

programs, ncluding

he

major

ele-

ments of

(a)

basic

research,

(b)

control

components

research,

(c)

IPM

systems

research level

I,

(d)

IPM

systems

re-

search level

II,

(e)

extension

IPM

sys-

tems level

I,

(f)

extension IPM

systems

level

II,

and

(g)

IPM

higher

education.

The

interrelationships

among

these ele-

ments are

illustrated

in

Figure

1;

their

definitionsare as follows:

a.

Basic

research

generates

the

knowledge required

o understand

pests

and

to

develop

control

strategies

or indi-

vidual

pests

and

pest complexes

(e.g.,

research on life

cycles,

population

dy-

namics,

pesticide

mode-of-action,

epide-

miology,

and

ecology).

b. Control

components

research de-

velops

specific

control

techniques

and

related

technologies

(e.g.,

research to

develop pest-resistant

crop

varieties

and

livestock

breeds and

biological,

cultural,

andchemicalmethods).

c. IPM

systems

research

level I uses

research hat

integrates

wo or

morecon-

trol

techniques

to

manage

one

or more

species

of

the same

grouping

such as

weeds

(e.g.,

pigweed, crabgrass, rag-

weed).

Such

programs

are referred o as

integrated

weed

management systems,

integrated

nematode

management sys-

tems,

integrated

disease

management

systems,

and

integrated

insect

manage-

ment

systems.

BioScience

Vol. 30 No.

10

58

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/8

(7)

Higher

Education

PEST

CONTROL

RESEARCH

IPM

SYSTEMS

IPM

SYSTEMS

RESEARCH EXTENSION

FIGURE

.

Interrelationships

among

basic

research,

control

components

research,

IPM

ystems

research levels

I

and

II,

IPM

ystems

extension levels

I

and

II,

and

higher

education in IPM.

Excerpted

from

SEA

IPMCoordination

Team

1979a,

p.10)

d.

IPM

systems

research level

II in-

tegrates

research

rom two or moreman-

agement systems

for two or more

pest

groupings,

such as

disease and

insects or

disease and weeds.

e. Extension level

I

delivers tech-

nology

for

managing

pests

of

one

group-

ing

(e.g.,

insects, weeds, diseases,

or nem-

atodes)

on one

(or

more)

commodity.

f.

Extension level

II

delivers

manage-

ment

systems

for

pests belonging

to

two

or more

groupings

e.g.,

diseases

and

in-

sects,

diseases and

weeds)

on one

(or

more)

commodity.

g. Higher

education

in IPM

develops

curriculaand

integrated

courses to

pro-

vide

interdisciplinary

raining

from the

basics

through

control

component prin-

ciples and technology through the in-

tegrated systems

approach

to both re-

search and extension.

The SEA

concept

emphasizes

the role of

plant protection

disciplines

in

pest

con-

trol

research; however,

it is

essential

that

the

autonomy

of the

science dis-

ciplines

be retained

while

proposing

new

interdisciplinary

nteractions.

There are four

reasons for

using

the

term

ntegrated

in

IPM.

First,

it calls for

a

multidisciplinary

approach,

which

jointly

considers all

classes of

pests

(ar-

thropods,

nematodes,

plant pathogens,

weeds, vertebrates, and other orga-

nisms)

and

their

interrelationships.

Sec-

ond,

it

requires

hat all

available

manage-

ment

tactics

be

coordinated

into a

unified

program

eeking

an

optimal

man-

agement

strategy.

Third,

crop protection

is

treated

as

but one

aspect

of the

total

managementprogram

of the

agroecosys-

tem.

Finally,

IPM

recognizes

the

neces-

sity

of

addressing

economic,

ecological,

and social concerns.

The 1979aSEA

reportemphasizes

the

integrated

aspects

of

plant protection.

The

methodology

that

addresses these

management ystems mustbe capableof

dealing

with

a

complex system

involving

several

interacting

lements.

Such a

sys-

tems

approach

has

been utilized in other

disciplines

such

as

electrical

engineer-

ing, computer science,

economics

(Manetsch

and

Park

1977), population

dynamics,

social

sciences

(Patten

1971,

Watt

1966),

and

agriculture (Dalton

1975).

Because

of the

multidisciplinary

nature of

IPM,

this

approach

is

espe-

cially

suited

to

evaluate the

complex dy-

namic

components

that are

to

be man-

aged by

manipulating

controllable

factors

(Tummala

and

Haynes

1977).

The

framework or such an

analysis

has

been providedby Lee et al. (1976),Koe-

nig

et al.

(1976),

and Tummala et

al.

(1975).

A

logical outgrowth

of

these

pub-

lications

is

the

increaseddemand or

pest

management

programs

hat

are not

only

economically

feasible and

profitable,

but

ecologically

and

sociallycompatible

with

long-termgoals.

As

early

as

1959

(Smith 1962,

Stern et

al.

1959)

he

concept

of IPM

was

clearly

stated as an

approach

that

incorporated

an

optimal

combinationof

chemical,

bio-

logical,

and

cultural

control

techniques

in

a

single

program.

A

decade later

Haynes et al. (1973) and Giese et al.

(1975)

added

the

important

aspect

of

a

changing,

meteorological

condition

that

provided

or

periodic

updating

of control

strategies-"on-line

pest management"

(OLPM)

(Tummala

and

Haynes 1977).

Horizontal and

Vertical

Integration

IPM

research,

extension,

and instruc-

tional

programs,underway

n

every

state

in the

USA, probablyrepresent

the

most

October

1980

ow-

659



4/8

widely recognized

new

agricultural

pro-

gram

thrust

in the

last

10

years.

Yet

the

definition

of

IPM s

extremely pluralistic.

It

is

interdisciplinary

n

nature,

but each

participating

discipline

functions,

under

its

own

definition.

Therefore,

IPM

has

various

meanings.

Some

disciplines

see

pesticides

as the

dominating

control

component

n

IPM;

others

focus

on

natu-

ral

enemies,

cultural

practices,

and host

plantresistance.In these cases, the defi-

nitions

could

legitimately

be

paraphrased

as

integrated

pesticide

management,

n-

tegrated

biological

control

management,

or

integrated

host

plant

resistance

management.

The diversified

definitions

of

IPM

should

not,

however,

be used

as

a crite-

rion

for

denigrating

he

concept.

Instead,

they

should

give

new

insight

nto

the na-

ture

of

the

problem.

IPM is a

concept

that

is

evolving.

It

was not

the

single

creation

of

an

individual

mind or

an idea

of

patentable

quality.

Instead

it

is a

phi-

losophythat, if followed, leads to certain

activities

or conclusions.

From

the out-

set,

the

word

ntegrated

has

generally

re-

ferred to the

use

of two

or

more control

tactics

in a

crop

or

animal

protection

program.

Virtually

all

definitions

of

IPM

preclude

crop

or animal

protection

sys-

tems

that

involve

only

a

single

control

tactic;

IPM forces

multiplicity

n control

strategies.

The IPM

movement

really

aims

to de-

velop

protection

systems

that

are

in-

tegrated

across

disciplines.

Perhaps

there

is

no non-IPM

approach,

only

a

historicalapproach hatprovidesrecom-

mendations

on a

discipline-by-discipline

basis.

In

this classical

approach,

dis-

cipline

recommendations

often

interfere

and conflict

with

another

discipline's

recommendations.

For

example,

one

dis-

cipline

could

develop

a

fungicide

that

controls

a

plant

disease.

Yet,

this

fungi-

cide

might

cross

discipline

lines

and

eliminate

beneficial

fungi,

such

as those

that

parasitize

and check

insect

pest pop-

ulations.

So,

while

controlling

a

plant

disease,

it

is

wiping

out beneficials.

To

ignore

this

problem

is

non-IPM;

to ad-

dress it is IPM. An integratedapproach

would resolve

such

conflicts between

disciplines

and

strategies.

Pest

management

seeks to

integrate

crop protection

and

production

dis-

ciplines

in order

to

present

a

coherent

plant

protection

approach

or an

ecologi-

cally

and

economically

stable

environ-

ment. But

discipline

integration

for

the

purpose

of

developing

IPM

has

major

problems.

Most institutions

have

invest-

ed more

than

100

years

in

developing

Conceptual

Matrix

(43)

Integrated

Pest

Management

Program

Managem

F

Pot

Corn

Pest

Subjects

Insect

Pathogen

Shaded

areas

indicate

Weed

subdivisional

program

examples

strongdiscipline-orientedprogramsand

administrative

units,

which

encourage

and facilitate

truly

interdisciplinary

ro-

gramming,

without

creating

new

units,

buildings,

or institutes.

The

strength

of

any

interdisciplinary

program

is based

on the

strength

of

the

participants'

sub-

ject

areas.

Several

large

universities

are

now

establishing

coordinatorships

for

IPM

to

foster

high

levels

of

interaction

between

subject

areas

and the

need

for

IPM in

research,

extension,

and

instruction.

A

great

deal of time

and

energy

must

be invested in integrating disciplines.

The

challenge

is

not a small

one and

the

answer

is not

obvious;

but we

know

the

old

way

of

doing

business

is inconsistent

with

present

social

and environmental

signals.

We do

not have

to concern

our-

selves

with absolute

success;

just

know-

ing

we

are

on

the

right

trajectory

should

be

sufficient.

We must assure

the

ade-

quacy

of this route

by

having

all dis-

ciplines

develop

a

conceptual

model

based

on

systems

science

that would

in-

clude all of the

necessary

components

n

the

system

to

be studied and

a

clearly

stated object of control (Tummalaand

Haynes

1977).

The

conceptualization

and construction

of a

production

system

model

requires

a

high degree

of inter-

action

between

disciplines.

However,

it

is

possible

to subdividethe

work

by

spe-

cific

components

if each research

group

keeps

in mind how

its results

will be

coupled

in

the final

analysis.

Figure

2

represents

a

conceptual

ma-

trix

of an

IPM

program

involving

four

pest

subjects,

four

management

sites,

IPM

System

Components

and four IPM system components. It is

an

interdisciplinary

hallenge

to

design

a

program

with the

goal

of

understanding

all 64

interacting

components

of this

in-

tegrated

system

as well

as the

overall

system

itself.

Although

the

sum of

the

parts

need not

add

up

to

the

whole

of

a

system,

each

subsystem

must

be under-

stood

in

detail.

Thereare several

ways

to direct

these

activities.

For

example,

a narrow

re-

search

program

might

focus

exclusively

on

weeds

while a broader

objective

would

analyze potatoes

across

four

pest

areasandsystemcomponents(Figure2).

In urban

IPM,

the research

might

focus

on the

delivery

system,

for

the IPM

sys-

tem

components

identified

in

Figure

2

mayalready

exist. The

strength

hat

sys-

tems

science

brings

to this endeavor

is

its orientation

to the

linkages

between

the

system

components

as

well

as to

the

system

itself. The

interdisciplinary

ctiv-

ities

must be directed

toward

fulfilling

systems

objectives

and

minimizing

dupli-

cation

of effort.

The

principles

of

systems

science

will

probably

not be

sufficientlydeveloped

in

practice unless they are systematically

subdivided rom

the

beginning.

Research

projectsdesigned

to

fill

a

particular

void

in

understanding

a

system

component

have

not been

adequately

pursued

n

ag-

riculture.

Although

the

systems

science

approach

has

influenced

the

agricultural

research

picture

only

during

he

last

dec-

ade,

if

properly

applied

t

can reverse

the

trend toward scientific

isolationism

and

retard

the

compartmentalism

of

dis-

cipline

research.

BioScience

Vol. 30

No.

10

FIGURE

.

Conceptual

matrix

of an

integrated

pest

management

program

involving

four

pest

subjects,

four

management

sites,

and

four IPM

system

components.

(Designed

by

Marian

Mahler

Reiter,

Department

of

Entomology,

Michigan

State

University)

660



5/8

There is another

important

obstacle

that thwarts

attempts

to

integrate

re-

search: Most research

programs

that

achieve

any degree

of

integration

do

so

horizontally.

Multidisciplinary

fforts at

a similar

evel

are

coordinated

from

the

top.

There

is, however,

the

need

for

ver-

tical

integration

f

research,

so that stud-

ies

undertaken

by

the academic commu-

nity

can affect the real world.

Figure3 illustratesthe horizontal and

vertical dimensionsof

integrated

activity

necessary

to

move

from

basic research

to modificationof

the

real

world.

There

are

horizontallyorganized

activities

oc-

curring

across each of the six

levels of

research

synthesis:

pest

research,

com-

modity

research,

ecosystem research,

institution

research,

implementation

re-

search,

and real world

systems.

Vertical

organization

within

a level of research

synthesis

is

accomplished

by putting

dis-

ciplines together

in

an

interdisciplinary

activity.

Moving

between levels of

syn-

thesis requires moving into trans-

disciplinaryactivity-a closely

working

discipline

with a

common

systems

phi-

losophy

or model. The

projects

must

be

coordinated

o

equal

something

that

can

be

transferred

o

the

next

higher

level of

research

synthesis.

Horizontal

projects

must

be

designed

with

integration

and

synthesis

in mind at the

outset,

particu-

larly

in

these times

of restricted

funding

for research and

the continual need

to

demonstratea final

product.

Just as hori-

zontally integrated

research

provides

a

check

against

redundancy

and

dupli-

cation, vertical integrationensures that

perceived

progress

at

any

single

level

of

synthesis

is

indeed

progress

when even-

tually

evaluated in

the

context

of

the

largersystem.

Integrating

research within

a

given

level would

greatly

improve

the

rapidity

with

which

system

understanding

and

basic

principles

come forth.

For

ex-

ample,

research at

the

ecosystem

level

could

find a

solution

to

a

pest problem,

but

institutional

barriers

or

constraints

may

inhibit its

implementation.

Thus,

vertical

integration

s

needed to

keep

re-

searchunderstandinglowingtoward m-

plementation,

so that

information

can

move

between the

biological

and

social

systems.

The

transdisciplinary

esearch

component

of

each

synthesis

level

in

Figure

3

synthesizes

within

a

given

level.

Without

his

vertical

ntegration,

hesec-

ond

level,

for

example,

does not

receive

cleardirection or

research

rom

the low-

est

levels;

therefore,

the second

level

floats.

It

conducts

interesting,

but

not

necessarily system-essential, research

for

the

sake

of science

rather than to-

ward

a control

objective.

The need for vertical

synthesis

is

espe-

cially

essential because the

training

and

discipline

orientation

of scientists at

the

various

synthesis

levels is

extremely

di-

verse. The

example depicted

in

Figure

3

reveals an

ecosystem

research level

largely comprised

of

biologists

and

sys-

tems

scientists,

whereas the

economic

research evel is primarilymadeupof ag-

ricultural and

resource

economists.

If,

for

example,

the economists are to

con-

tribute to the overall

research control

objective,

biologists

must

give

them

concisely

defined and

fully

integrated

information.

Figure

3

illustrates that

disciplinary-

A'

DJUSTMENT

OF

CURRENT

TATE

_.

REAL

WORLD

|

SYSTEM

n

Z

IMPLEMENTATION

*

RESEARCH

|

:} .

CA

?

~

-

INTERFACE

ETWEEN

BIOLOGICAL

^/^

:

ng

g

ANALYSIS

D

* I

MANAGEMENT _ ,

* /

/////////////

//////////

RESEARCH IN LIFE

PROCESSES

I

-- ORGANISMRESEARCH

XC

INST

PHYSICAL

PROCESSES

0

..r

SYSTEMS

-RALISM

C/

AN-

ANYSIA

P

SS

:......- PHYSICAL

ROCESSES

based

projects

will be conducted at

each

level of

research

synthesis

(A, B, C,

D,

E, etc.)

and that

integration

will

occur

withineach

level. The

degree

of vertical

integration

within a level

depends

on

available

funding

sources

and

profes-

sional

expertise.

However,

at each level

of

synthesis

at least one

project

must

have as its

goal

the

integration

of all

activities within that

level. The

level

usually takes the form of a modeling

activity

with

heavy emphasis

on

data

management.

The

long-term goal

of

IPM is not

merely

to

refine our

existing agricultural

productionsystem,

but to

modify

exten-

sively

the basic

design

so that less ener-

gy-intensive,

more

environmentally

S

policy

mplementation

social

expectations

policy strategy

valuation

current ocial

needs

addressing

change

in

resource

availability

alternate

roduction

esign

evaluation nd

institutional

limits

economicevaluation f current

productionystems

impact

f

agricultural

roduction

on life

systems

spatial

and

temporal

spects

of

biological

ystems

agroecosystem

ntegrated nalysis

integrated est

management

|V

A

=

INTERDISCIPLINARY

CTIVITY

ZONE

OF CONCEPTUAL

ONFLICT

TRANSITIONAL

RINCIPLES

C")., 'W

BETWEEN

BIOLOGICAL AND

SOCIAL

SYSTEMS

=

TRANSDISCIPLINARY

CTIVITY

** *

.

.

HORIZONTALNTEGRATION

FIGURE 3.

Horizontal

and vertical

integration

of research.

(Developed by

Dean L.

Haynes,

Department

of

Entomology,

Michigan

State

University,

especially

for

this

publication;

adapted

from

visual aids

presented

at the IX

International

Congress

of Plant

Protection,

5-11

August 1979,

Washington,

DC;

designed

by

Marian Mahler

Reiter,

MSU

Department

of

Entomology)

October

1980

71-11

"I

I

661



6/8

compatible

methods can be

used in

pro-

duction

agriculture.

The six

levels of

re-

search

synthesis

are not

needed

to

change only

the rate of

pesticide

appli-

cation or

exchange

one

chemical

for

another.

In

the

past

we have often confined

re-

search

activity

to a

single

level

and

won-

dered

why

the

activity

did

not

modify

real world

production

systems.

Trial-

and-error methods have brought us to

where

we are

today,

but

energy

con-

straintsare a

time-limiting

actor

(see

the

Edens and

Koenig

article in this

issue).

Market

signals

that

reflect our

apparent-

ly

abundant resource

base have

de-

coupled components

of our

agricultural

system.

These

signals

are

again

chang-

ing.

Systems

approaches

such

as

IPM

can

greatly

facilitate

our

understanding

of the

role of

components

in

the

overall

structure;

expanded

efforts

in

this

area

should obviate

the need for

extreme sac-

rificesin the future.

INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF IPM

This

paper

cannot

develop

a

detailed

analysis

of

the

institutional

adjustments

necessary

to

incorporate

PM

into

exist-

ing

agricultural

production

systems.

However,

over

the last

several

years,

some

significant

adjustments

have been

made

at

the

state,

regional,

and national

levels

that will

greatly

enhance

pest

man-

agement

programs.

State

Level

State

programs

often

reflect

unique

needs

(minor

crops)

that

are

not ad-

dressed in

multistate or

regional

pro-

grams;

therefore,

some

state

effort

must

go

into

managing

agricultural

pests

that

often

occur in

limited

areas.

Many

state

cooperative

extension

services

(CESs)

have had

active IPM

projects

since

1972

and

have

a

statewide IPM

steering

com-

mittee

including

interdisciplinary

multi-

organizations

nd

user

group

representa-

tion. In

some

cases,

local

extension

committees with grower representation

carry

out

IPM

programs

at

the

county

level.

The

acknowledged

uccess of

CES

IPM

programs

since

1972 has

been in

part

attributed

to

the

organizational

structures

existing

in

state CESs.

The

futureneeds

for IPM

trained

per-

sonnel

at

all

education

levels

has

been

accented in

numerous

reports

on

IPM.

Recognizing

hese

needs,

42

colleges

and

universities

have

initiated

IPM

or

plant

protection

nstructional

programs.

These

interdisciplinary

rograms

have

focused

primarily

on

the

undergraduate

evels;

however,

13

institutions

have

initiated

programs

at the

master's level.

Ph.D.

programs

elating

o IPM

are

expected

to

remain

discipline-based

but

requiring

a

more

diverse

background

n

related

dis-

ciplines,

ecology,

and

systems

science.

Clearly

the

ultimate

success of IPM

programs

will

depend

on our

ability

to

buildthe philosophy nto state research,

extension,

and

teaching

programs.

Es-

tablishing

strong

interdisciplinary

re-

search

teams that

represent

plant

pro-

tection

disciplines-ecology,

economics,

and

climatology-at

the state

university

level is the

prerequisite

or

building

the

necessary

foundationfor IPM

and

will

serve as the

basis

for

multistate,

regional

IPM

activities.

Regional

Level

In

1979

SEA

established

planning

and

coordinationactivitiesin four regionsto

addresscommon

goals

for

managing

ag-

ricultural

pests

on

a

multistate

level.

IPM

administrative ask

forces,

includ-

ing representatives

rom the

associations

of

the state

AESs,

CESs,

resident

in-

struction,

and

AR/USDA,

have estab-

lished

priorities

or IPM

research,

exten-

sion,

and

teaching

for

the

western,

north-central,

northeast,

and

southern

regions

of the

USA.

Future

priorities

or

IPM

budgeting

or

SEA

are

expected

to

be

generated

via the four

regional

plan-

ning

groups.

Regional

planning

activities

will probably also include representa-

tives of

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency (EPA),

other

USDA

agencies,

industry,

grower

organizations,

and oth-

er

parties.

Agricultural

esearch

(AR),

state

agri-

cultural

experiment

stations

(SAESs),

cooperative

extension

services

(CESs),

and

teaching

interact and

cooperate

at

the

regional

level in

addressing

broad-

based IPM

problems

that

cannot

be

solved

at

the

state

level.

AR's role

in

IPM

programs

has not

been

clearly

de-

fined,

but

its

contribution

to

basic

re-

searchanddevelopmentof resistantcrop

varieties

s of

major

mportance

o

devel-

oping

effective IPM

strategies.

National

Level

Since

1977,

IPM

has

received

consid-

erable

attention

at the

national

level. In

his

Environmental

Message to

Congress

in

1977,

the

President

dentified PM

as a

high-priority

rogram

need

and

instruct-

ed the

Councilon

Environmental

Quality

(CEQ)

"to

recommend

action which

the

federal

government

can

take

to

encour-

age

the

development

and

application"

of

techniques

used

in

IPM.

Subsequently

the

Secretary

of

Agriculture

issued a

"USDA

Policy

on

Management

of

Pest

Problems."

Title XIV of the Food

and

Agriculture

Act of

1977

mandatesthat

research

be

conducted "to find

solutions

to

environmental

problems

caused

by

technologicalchanges in food and agri-

culture

production"

and to

develop

and

implement,

through

research,

"more ef-

ficient,

less

wastefuland

environmental-

ly

sound

methods for

producing

ood."

On 18

January

1979,

the

Secretary

of

Agriculture

and

the EPA

administrator

initiateda

Memorandum

f

Understand-

ing

(MOU)

to

establish

policies

and

ad-

ministrativedevices to

provide

a contin-

uing

working

relationship

between EPA

and

USDA in

common

objectives,

inter-

ests,

and

statutory requirements

and to

avoid

duplicatingprograms

conducted

by other cooperating agencies, depart-

ments,

or

contractors.

The

MOU in-

cludes

the

authority

o

develop

addition-

al

agreements

or

specific

tasks,

such as

IPM

programs.

The Office

of

Technology

Assessment

(OTA)

completed

a

report

n

1979 orthe

Congress

entitled Pest

Management

Strategies

in

Crop

Protection. It

as-

sessed

crop protection

problems,

current

and

emerging

control

technologies,

and

projected

future

developments

over the

next

15

years

for

each of

seven U.S. re-

gional

cropping systems;

evaluatedfed-

eral constraints to improve U.S. pest

management;

and

reviewed the

prob-

lems,

potential,

and

impacts

of

transfer-

ring

North

American

crop

protection

technology

to

the

developing

world. A

key

recommendation n

the

report

as-

signed

USDA

the

responsibility

and

au-

thority

to

coordinate IPM

research

pro-

grams

and

to

implement

an

adequately

staffed

and

coordinated

nformation

de-

livery

system.

A

total of

four

studies on IPM

have

been

conducted

within

the

USDA/SEA

by

the

IPM

Coordination

Team and

two

majorSEA policy committees-the Ex-

periment

Station

Committee on

Organi-

zation and

Policy (ESCOP)

and the

Ex-

tension

Committee

on the

Organization

of

Policy (ECOP).

The

reports

addressed

program tatus,

needs,

and

priorities

and

called

for

large

resource

(personnel

and

operation)

ncreases

in

order to

perpetu-

ate the

expansion

of IPM

programs

n the

next

5-10

years.

In

1979

the

CEQ

report,

Integrated

Pest

Management (Bottrell 1979),

rec-

BioScience

Vol. 30 No.

10

62



7/8

ommended

policy

initiatives

as

well

as

additional

research

and

education

efforts

to

provide

a

sound

basis for

the

advance-

ment of

IPM.

Consequently,

the

Presi-

dent

directed

the

establishment

of

an

in-

teragency

IPM

coordinating

committee.

This

committee

submitted

its

reports

to

the

President on

30

June

1980.

The

report

identified 22

invited

federal

agencies

as

responsible

for

current

or

po-

tential pest control activities in the six

management

systems

(agriculture,

for-

estry,

rangeland,

rights-of-way,

urban

environments,

and

public

health)

with

an

estimated

annual

expenditure

of

$700

million. In

order

to

meet

the

national

goal

for

IPM

the

interagency

committee

recommended

"a

reasonable

balance of

effort

and

accomplishment"

in

research,

technology

transfer,

implementation,

and

assistance. It

made

19

recommenda-

tions,

ranging

from

federal

interagency

coordination

to a

White

House

confer-

ence on

IPM.

Role

of

USDA

and

EPA

USDA and

EPA

are

the

two

major fed-

eral

agencies involved in

agricultural

IPM

programs.

Congress

designated

USDA

as

the

lead

agency

in

the

federal

gov-

ernment

for

the

food and

agriculture

sci-

ences

and

assigned

the

department

specific

missions

in

agricultural

re-

search,

extension,

and

teaching

under

Public

Law

95-113

(Section

1403,

Title

XVI)-the

Food

and

Agriculture

Act

of

1977.

Primary

agencies

within

USDA

concerned with IPM include SEA; For-

est

Service

(FS);

Economics,

Statistics

and

Cooperative

Services

(ESCS);

and

the

Animal

and

Plant

Health

Inspection

Service

(APHIS).

SEA

is

directly

responsible

for

re-

search,

extension,

and

higher

education

in

agricultural

production,

other

than

forestry,

and

consists of

Agricultural

Re-

search

(AR), Cooperative

Research

(CR),

and

Higher

Education

(HE).

The

agency

allocated

approximately

$192

million

for

pest

control

research

in

FY

1977,

which

was

conducted

through

AR

and CR in cooperation with the SAESs

in

the

country.

Of

this,

only

about

$11

million,

or

approximately

6% of

the

re-

sources,

was

directed

toward

IPM

sys-

tems

research

levels

I

and

II,

which

re-

flects

the

current

capabilities

of

inte-

grating

programs.

The

SEA/IPM

Co-

ordination

Team

Report

(5

March

1979)

proposed a

threefold

increase

in

the

integration

phases

in

order

to

cope

with

the

increased

emphasis

on

IPM

programs.

In

cooperation

with

state

CESs,

SEA

extension

allocated

approximately

$11

million

dollars

in

FY

1978

for

ongoing

IPM

programs

and

special

projects

in

47

states.

Currently,

IPM

CES

programs

are

underway

in

all

states,

Puerto

Rico,

and

the

Virgin

Islands.

The

Higher

Edu-

cation

(HE)

unit

of

SEA,

established

in

1977,

cooperates

with

resident

instruc-

tion

programs

of

the

state

colleges

of

ag-

riculture. This unit is projected to play a

major

role

in

training

future

IPM

scientists.

Authorizations

amended

by

the

1978

Federal

Insecticide,

Fungicide

and

Ro-

denticide

Act

(FIFRA)-Public

Law 95-

396

(30

September

1978)-direct

the

EPA

to

conduct

IPM

research

and

imple-

mentation

programs.

Activities

involving

IPM

relate

to

EPA's

responsibility

to

regulate

the

use of

pesticides.

Section 20

of

FIFRA

clearly

states

the

intent

of

the

Congress

to

close

coordination

between

EPA

and

USDA

IPM-related

research

and implementation: "The Administra-

tor

shall

. .

.

conduct

research

into in-

tegrated

pest

management

in

coordina-

tion

with

the

Secretary

of

Agriculture,"

as

well

as

section

28:

The

Administrator

hall

also

coordi-

nate

and

cooperate

with

the

Secretary

of

Agriculture's

research

and

imple-

mentation

programs

to

develop

and

improve

the

safe

use

and

effective-

ness

of

chemical,

biological,

and

al-

ternative

methods

to

combatand

con-

trol

pests....

In

addition,

EPA

responsibilities

regard-

ing control of

nonpoint-source

pollution

of

water,

under

Section

208

of

the

Clean

Water

Act

of

1977

(FWPCA),

involve

IPM

as

well

as

soil,

water,

and

nutrient

management

practices

for

improved

wa-

ter

quality.

In

FY

1980,

EPA

allocated

$4.1

mil-

lion

for

IPM

research

and

implementa-

tion

through

its

Office

of

Research

and

Development

(ORD).

The

agency

cur-

rently

supports

three

major

IPM

pro-

grams:

a

15-university

consortium

for

re-

search

on

apples,

alfalfa,

soybean,

and

cotton;

a

six-university

consortium

con-

cerned with

riceland

mosquitoes;

and

a

five-university

consortium

studying

the

control

of

soil

arthropods

in

corn

pro-

duction

systems.

Other

ORD

research

efforts

include

the

development

of

pest

management

programs

for

onions,

urban

systems,

and

technology

transfer.

Pursuant

to

FIFRA

directives,

USDA/

SEA

and

EPA/ORD

recently

started

an

Interagency

Memorandum

of

Under-

standing

(MOU)

to

"provide

for

the

maximum

utilization

of

programs

in-

tended

to

support

the

development

and

implementation

of

pest

management

strategies,

including

IPM."

Under

the

agreement,

SEA

and

ORD

will

jointly

fund

and

administer

the

15-university

consortium

(above).

The

agreement

also

provided

a

mechanism

for

planning

fu-

ture

multistate

IPM

programs.

CHALLENGE

OR

THE

FUTURE1

Pest

management

practices

closely

re-

late to

the

prevailing

agricultural

tech-

nology,

which in

turn

is

determined

by

the

cost and

availability

of

existing

ener-

gy

inputs.

High

yielding

varieties

of

crops

requiring

high

energy

inputs

for

production

are

often

substituted

for

lower

yielding

varieties

and

the

same

en-

ergy

input

level.

The

changing

resource

environment

may

reverse

this

trend.

However,

at

lower

energy

input

levels

(e.g.,

low

fertilizer

rate),

the

replace-

ment

crop

may

actually

be

superior.

The

overwhelming

dependency

of

North

American

agricultural

production

systems

on

fossil

fuels

is

well-docu-

mented. A

single

American

farmer

may

be able

to

feed

more

than

50

people,

but

this

high

productivity

of

labor

is

possible

only

by

heavy

capitalization

and

volumi-

nous

energy

inputs.

Part

of

the

price

we

have

paid

for

our

highly

mechanized

agricultural

system

must

be

measured in

terms

of

ecological

stability.

The

repeated

use of

land

for

the

same

crops,

monocultural

cropping pat-

terns,

and

the

continual

refinement

of

seed

varieties

have

all

increased

the

en-

ergy price

of

maintaining

the

system's

stability.

Therefore,

the

potential

for

ex-

ogenous

perturbations

to

wreak

havoc

on

the

system

is

enormous.

Agricultural

technology

that

evolved

during

an

era of

declining

real

energy

prices

must

now

be

redirected

to

a

com-

pletely

new

set

of

signals.

The

impact

of

energy-induced

changes

in

agricultural

technology

directly

affects

crop

manage-

ment

and

protection

practices.

For

ex-

ample,

cheap

energy

induced

the

devel-

opment

of

hybrids well-suited for

mechanical

harvesting

in

terms

of

ferti-

lizer

and

pesticide

usage

in

addition

to

large-scale

centralization

with

long

dis-

tribution

linkages.

The

limitations

on

future

energy

sup-

plies

and

costs

are

determined

not

by ag-

gregate

quantities

of

energy

or

by

gross

production

capacities,

but

by

the

frac-

'This

section is

a

contribution

from

Thomas C.

Edens,

excerpted

rom

a

talk

presented

at

the IX In-

ternational

Congress

of

Plant

Protection,

5-11

Au-

gust 1979,

Washington,

D.C.

October

1980

663



8/8

tion of

gross

production

that

can

be

made available for end use at

any given

time-the net

energy gain.

Crucial

to

planning

for the future is the fact

that

the

aggregate energy gain

from

resources

will

continue

to

decline and the real cost

of

energy

resources

will

increase

as the

nation and the

world

move

from

natural

fluid fuels

to

renewable

energy

resources.

For pest management in particular, in-

tegrated

unit

operations

and

increased

regional

diversifications

will

provide

the

future framework for

designing ecologi-

cal control

strategies

that

more

fully

ex-

ploit

balanced

species

communities.

However,

applying

such

control strate-

gies may require

special

transitional

pro-

cedures

to

overcome the

ecological

hys-

teresis

of chemical

controls.

Policies for future food

production

and

agroecosystem

management

in

general

and for

IPM

specifically

must

begin

with

a clear assessment of

the

global,

nation-

al, and regional resource picture. It is not

enough

to

hope

for a

technical

"fix" in

energy production.

Our

agricultural

poli-

cies must

be concerned with

sustaining

levels

of

edible

food

and

nutrition

per

unit

of

land,

energy,

or human

time

in-

vested. We must

assess the entire food

chain from

photosynthesis

to human

consumption-not merely

from the

re-

source

efficiencies

of

the

individual

oper-

ations

within the

chain.

To

embrace

a

systems

perspective

of

the world

we live

in

is

itself

a trans-

disciplinary

task. As

specialists

in

one

or

another area, we tend to overlook the

synergistic

interactions

of

the

system.

But

to understand the

implications

of

changing

resource

availability

for

agri-

cultural

production,

we must

perceive

the

transitional

patterns

that

have

been

in

progress

for

many years

(Figure

3).

The articles

in

this issue

represent

the

thoughts

of

specialists

in

specific

areas.

They

illustrate the need

for the in-

tegration

of

these

disciplines

through

an

agroecosystem

integrated management

(AIM) program.

This effort

represents

a

first

step

in

integrating

the collective

ef-

forts

of

a

diverse

group

of scientists

and

in

moving

ahead to meet the

challenge

of

the '80s and

beyond.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our

sincere thanks to Susan L.

Bat-

tenfield,

Department

of

Entomology,

Michigan

State

University,

and to

Amy

Smith,

Department

of

Entomology

and

Nematology, University

of

Florida,

for

their editorial and

bibliographical

assist-

ance. We

also thank

Battenfield for

pre-

paring

this

paper,

and Marian

Mahler

Reiter,

Department

of

Entomology,

Michigan

State

University,

for her work

on the

graphics

of

Figures

2 and 3.

REFERENCES CITED

Bottrell,

D.

R. 1979.

Integrated

Pest Man-

agement.

Council

on Environmental

Quali-

ty.

U.S. Government

Printing

Office,

Washington,

DC.

Cramer,

H. H. 1967.

Plan Protection and

World

Crop

Production.

Pflanzenschutz

Nachrichten. Farbenfabriken

Bayer Ag.,

Leuerkusen.

Dalton,

G.

E. 1975.

Study

of

Agricultural

ys-

tems.

Applied

Science

Publication,

Lon-

don.

Extension

Committee

on

Organization

and

Policy. February

1979.

Integrated

Pest

Management:A Programof Researchfor

the

State

Cooperative

Extension

Services.

U.S. Government

Printing

Office,Washing-

ton,

DC.

Giese,

R.

L.,

R.

M.

Peart,

and

R. H.

Huber.

1975. Pest

management: pilot

project

ex-

emplifies

new

ways

of

dealing

with

impor-

tant

agriculturalpests.

Science 187: 1045-

52.

Haynes,

D.

L.,

R. K.

Brandenburg,

and

Wouldn t

y o u really

rather

h a v e

n

E E C

*

20

Years

Proven

Reliability

*

Warranty-Service

*

Unique Energy Saving Heating

and

Cooling

*

Design Flexibility

for Standard

or

Special

Units

*

Programmable

Environments

Next

time-go

first class.

Go EGC

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONTROLS

*

Temperature

*

Relative

Humidity

*

High

ntensity ight

r n i

GIJPD

ENVIRONMENTAL

GROWTH CHAMBERS

P.O.

Box 407

Chagrin

Falls

Ohio

44022

(216)

247-5100

Division

of

Integrated Development

and

Manufacturing

CIRCLE NO. 85

ON THE

READER'S

SERVICE

CARD

P. D. Fisher. 1973. Environmental mon-

itoring

network

for

pest managementsys-

tems. Environ.

Entomol.

2(5):

889-99.

Interagency

IPM Coordination Committee.

1980.

Report of

the

Interagency

IPM Coor-

dination Committee. Chaired

by

the Coun-

cil

on Environmental

Quality, Washington,

DC,

30 June

1980.

Intersociety

Consortium

for Plant Protection.

1979.

Integrated

Pest

Management:

A

Pro-

gram of

Research

for

the State

Agricultural

Experiment Stations in the Colleges of

1980.

USDA,

SEA/CR,

Washington,

DC,

I

September

1979.

Koenig,

H.

E.,

D.

L.

Haynes,

and R. L.

Tummala. 1976.

Systems engineering-

prospects

for

technological development

of

an

approach

to

systems

in

biometeorology.

Int. J.

Biometeorol. 20: 73-81.

Lee,

K.

Y.,

R.

0.

Barr,

S.

H.

Gage,

and

A. N.

Kharkar.

1976.

Formulation of a

sys-

tems model

for insect

pest

control-the

ce-

real leaf beetle

program.

J. Theoret. Biol.

59:

33-76.

Manetsch,

T.

J.,

and G. L. Park. 1977.

Sys-

tems

Analysis

and Simulation with

Appli-

cation

to

Economic and Social

Systems.

Parts I &

1,

3rd ed.

Department

of

Electri-

cal

Engineering

and

Systems

Science,

Michigan

State

University,

East

Lansing.

Office of

Technology

Assessment. 1979. Pest

Management Strategies

and

Crop

Pro-

tection.

U.S. Government

Printing

Office,

Washington,

DC.

Patten,

B.

C.,

ed. 1971.

Systems Analysis

and

Simulation in

Ecology,

5

volumes. Aca-

demic

Press,

New York.

Pimentel,

D.

1976.

World food crisis:

energy

and

pests.

Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 22: 20-

26.

.

1979.

Energy

use

in

plant pro-

tection: a

global

assessment.

Proc. IX Int.

Cong. Plant Protection. 5-11 August 1979.

Washington,

DC,

in

press.

SEA IPM Coordination Team. 1979a.

In-

tegrated

Pest

Management Programs.

U.S. Government

Printing

Office,

Washing-

ton, DC,

2

February

1979.

.

1979b. SEA

Integrated

Pest

Manage-

ment

Programs:

1981-1985.

U.S. Govern-

ment

Printing

Office,

Washington,

DC,

5

March 1979.

Smith,

R. F.

1962.

Principles

of

integrated

pest

control.

Symp.:

Biotic factors in the

environment and their

use in

biological

con-

trol.

Proc. N.

Cent.

Br. Entomol.

Soc.

Am.

17: 71-77.

Stern, V. M., R. F. Smith, R. van den Bosch,

and K.

S.

Hagen.

1959.

The

integrated

on-

trol

concept. Hilgardia 29(2):

81-101.

Tummala,

R.

L.,

and

D. L.

Haynes.

1977.

On-line

pest management

systems.

Envi-

ron. Entomol. 6:

338-49.

Tummala,

R.

L.,

W.

G.

Ruesink,

and

D. L.

Haynes.

1975. A discrete

component ap-

proach

to the

management

of

the

cereal

leaf

beetle

ecosystem.

Environ. Entomol.

4(2):

175-86.

Watt,

K. E.

F.,

ed. 1966.

Systems

Analysis

in

Ecology.

Academic

Press,

New

York.

BioScience Vol. 30

No. 1064

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PMAll bj JSTOR T d C di i

bioscience volume 30 issue 10 1980 [doi 10.2307%2f1308461] g. e. allen and j. e. bath -- integrated...

Documents