Integrated pest management

Integrated pest management (IPM), also known as integrated pest control (IPC) combines both non-chemical and chemical practices for economic control of pests, reducing reliance on chemicals while improving productivity and health. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization defines IPM as follows:

First developed for agricultural pest management, IPM programs are also used to deal with diseases, weeds, insects and animal pests IPM is a safer pest control framework than reliance on chemical pesticides, mitigating risks such as insecticide-induced resurgence, pesticide resistance Predictive models are useful tools in the implementation of IPM programs. Programs developed in one region may need to be adapted before they can be successfully adopted in another region, to address differences in biological variation in pest ecosystems, environmental conditions, scale and capacity of response, regulatory environment, and cultural context.

File:Images large ao4c06628 0007.jpg|

File:Key components of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program.jpg|Key components of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program health care facilities, food services and other businesses also require careful and ongoing sanitation practices.

If pests reach an unacceptable level, mechanical control methods can be used, vacuuming, barriers, and traps. Tillage can be detrimental to soil structure, but it is sometimes used in coordination with the life cycles of pests.

Monitoring

Acceptable pest levels—IPM holds that wiping out an entire pest population is often impossible, and the attempt can be expensive and unsafe. Emphasis is placed on control, not eradication. but not at another site. For example, white clover may be acceptable on the sides of a tee box on a golf course, but not in the fairway where it could interfere with play.

Regular observation is critically important for inspection, pest identification and ongoing monitoring. Scouting and sampling techniques such as visual inspection, insect and spore traps, and other methods are used to monitor pest levels. Automated systems using AI are also being developed for monitoring, but face obstacles in terms of their cost, effectiveness, mobility, and scalability to use in the field. as is a thorough knowledge of target pest behavior and reproductive cycles. Insects are cold-blooded, so their physical development is dependent on area temperatures. Many insects have had their development cycles modeled in terms of degree-days. The degree days of an environment determines the optimal time for a specific insect outbreak. Plant pathogens follow similar patterns of response to weather and season. However, these are increasingly disrupted by climate change.

Biological controls

Natural biological processes and materials can be used as biological control agents (BCAs), with acceptable environmental impact, often at low cost. The main approach is to promote beneficial insects or other predators that eat or parasitize target pests.

Augmentative biocontrol involves increasing natural enemies and pathogens such as predators, parasitoids or microbes, so that they can fight pests and diseases in an area on a timely basis.

Conservation biocontrol uses farming practices to better support existing populations of natural enemies already in the environment, such as ladybugs, so that they increase.

Classical biological control or importation biocontrol introduces new populations of natural enemies or pathogens which may not be native to an area.

Genetic pest control introduces genetically modified organisms to reduce pest populations. For example, the sterile insect technique (SIT) releases sterilized males of a given species so that matings will be infertile. By targeting the reproductive capacity of the target pest, population size is reduced to non-critical levels. Other genetic approaches manipulate sex determination genes, increase the occurrence of dominant lethal genes, or skew sex ratios in the population. Genetic control programs' success depends on the dispersal rate, longevity, and mating success of introduced pests. fungicides, and herbicides, have been shown to have a wide range of negative effects on non-target as well as target organisms. Responsible use of pesticides involves using them only as required and often only at specific times in a pest's life cycle.

Applications of pesticides must reach their intended targets and avoid harming nontarget species. The application technique must be matched to the crop, the pest, and the pesticide. For example, the use of low-volume spray equipment can reduce overall pesticide use and operational costs. Taking all recommended precautions is critical.

IPM practices known as resistance management are essential in preventing and slowing the development of resistance to chemical controls, including biological insecticides.

{| class="wikitable"

|Step 1

|Sample for Pests (Inspect and Monitor)

|Is there a real problem?

|Step 2

| Proper Identification

|Is it really the pest you think it is?

|Step 3

|Learn the Pest Biology

|Will it be a long-term problem or will it be gone next week?

|Step 4

|Determine an Action Threshold

|Do you need to act?

|Step 5

|Choose Tactics

|What’s the best treatment?

|Step 6

|Evaluate

|How did it work? horticulture, forestry, human habitations and general pest control, including structural pest management, turf pest management and ornamental pest management.

Residential pest management

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) can be an effective approach for dealing with pests in one's home or yard. Pests such as cockroaches, mice, and rats are harmful to human health. They worsen indoor air quality and can trigger asthma and allergy attacks. Pest problems can be addressed in a sustainable way using information about specific pests, their environment, and safe pest control methods.

In homes, it is essential to understand and control access to food, water, and hiding places, all of which pests need to survive. IPM focuses on prevention, sanitation, and exclusion of pests rather than chemical controls. It involves identifying pests, sealing entry points, and removing food and water sources. IPM prioritizes low-toxicity methods to create a healthy home environment. For example, weeds reproducing from last year's seed can be prevented with mulches and pre-emergent herbicide.

Mistaken identification of a pest may result in ineffective actions. E.g., plant damage due to over-watering could be mistaken for fungal infection, since many fungal and viral infections arise under moist conditions.

Monitoring is followed by the establishment of economic injury levels. Economic Injury level is the pest population level at which crop damage exceeds the cost of treatment of pest. The economic injury levels determine the economic threshold level, the population level at which action should be taken to prevent the pest population from increasing beyond acceptable levels. Action threshold levels can also be established based on outcomes other than economic damage. Economic injury levels are more common in classic agricultural pest management, and action thresholds in structural pest management. Green pest management IPM programs may additionally prioritize goals such as reducing contamination, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and conserving biodiversity in addition to economic goals.

Risk assessment usually includes four issues: 1) characterization of biological control agents, 2) health risks, 3) environmental risks and 4) efficacy.

An example of differing action thresholds based on risk assessment would be that one fly in a barn would be acceptable, but one fly in a hospital operating room would not be acceptable. Once a threshold has been crossed by the pest population action steps need to be taken to reduce and control the pest.

Pest-tolerant crops such as soybeans may not warrant interventions unless the pests are numerous or rapidly increasing. Intervention is warranted if the expected cost of damage by the pest is more than the cost of control. Specific sites may also have varying requirements.

right|thumb|An IPM [[boll weevil trap in a cotton field (Manning, South Carolina)]]

Integrated pest management employs a variety of actions including cultural controls, physical barriers, mechanical interventions, biological controls such as adding and conserving natural predators and enemies of the pest, and finally chemical controls or pesticides.

Cultural controls include keeping an area free of conducive conditions by removing waste or diseased plants, flooding, sanding, and the use of disease-resistant crop varieties. Mechanical/physical controls include picking pests off plants, or using netting or other material to exclude pests such as birds from grapes or rodents from structures. Biological controls are numerous. They include conservation of natural predators, augmentation of natural predators, and sterile insect technique (SIT).

Augmentation, inoculative release and inundate release are different methods of biological control that affect the target pest in different ways. Augmentative control includes the periodic introduction of predators. With inundative release, predators are collected, mass-reared and periodically released in large numbers into the pest area. This is used for an immediate reduction in host populations, generally for annual crops, but is not suitable for long run use.

With inoculative release a limited number of beneficial organisms are introduced at the start of the growing season. This strategy offers long term control as the organism's progeny affect pest populations throughout the season and is common in orchards. With seasonal inoculative release the beneficials are collected, mass-reared and released seasonally to maintain the beneficial population. This is commonly used in greenhouses. The biological controls mentioned above only appropriate in extreme cases, because in the introduction of new species, or supplementation of naturally occurring species can have detrimental ecosystem effects. Biological controls can be used to stop invasive species or pests, but they can become an introduction path for new pests.

Reliance on knowledge, experience, observation and integration of multiple techniques makes IPM appropriate for organic farming (excluding synthetic pesticides).

These may or may not include materials listed on the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) Although the pesticides and particularly insecticides used in organic farming and organic gardening are generally safer than synthetic pesticides, they are not always more safe or environmentally friendly than synthetic pesticides and can cause harm. For conventional farms IPM can reduce human and environmental exposure to hazardous chemicals, and potentially lower overall costs.

Pesticides can be classified by their modes of action. Rotating among materials with diverse modes of action minimizes pest resistance. Prior to World War II, the chemicals that were known and used for pest control were derived from plants and inorganic compounds like cyanide and arsenic. The development of synthetic chemical insecticides was heavily driven by wartime research into both pest control and chemical weapons.

In the United States, the idea that "biological and chemical control are considered as supplementary to one another" was stated as early as 1939, in an influential paper by California entomologists William Muriece Hoskins, Arthur D. Borden, and Abraham E. Michelbacher. The work of early entomologists who advocated for an ecological approach to agricultural pest control influenced a generation of scientists who were key to the development of integrated pest management. They included Ray F. Smith, Harold T. Reynolds, Robert van den Bosch, and Perry Adkisson, among others.

In 1949, Ray F. Smith and Gordon L. Smith reported on a three year project on the northwest side of the San Joaquin Valley in which "supervised control of insects" was used to control pests on alfalfa. Insect control was "supervised" by qualified entomologists based on periodic monitoring of pest and natural-enemy populations.

Supervised control provided a conceptual basis for the concept of "integrated control", articulated by Smith, Michelbacher and others in the 1950s.

The first discussion of the concept of integrated control was presented by R.F. Smith and W.W. Allen in 1954.

In 1956, entomologist Perry Adkisson completed his Ph.D. at Kansas State University and joined the entomology department at the University of Missouri. In 1958 he moved to Texas A&M University in the US Cotton Belt. There he worked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop and implement an effective integrated control program for the pink bollworm. He later developed an integrated approach that prevented the spread of the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) in cotton in the High Plains of Texas, leading to its eradication in almost all parts of the U.S.A. After their first meeting in the 1960s, Adkisson often collaborated with Ray Smith, developing and promoting integrated pest management. They were involved in national projects such as the

Huffaker Project in 1972, in which nearly 300 scientists developed pest management programs for six major crops, and the Adkisson Project, in which scientists at 18 universities focused on apples, alfalfa, cotton, and soybeans. IPM was formulated into national policy in February 1972 as directed by President Richard Nixon. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter established an interagency IPM Coordinating Committee to ensure development and implementation of IPM practices.

Integrated control sought to identify the best mix of chemical and biological controls for a given insect pest. Chemical insecticides were to be used in the manner least disruptive to biological control. The term "integrated" was thus synonymous with "compatible." Chemical controls were to be applied only after regular monitoring indicated that a pest population had reached a level that required treatment (the economic threshold) to prevent the population from reaching a level at which economic losses would exceed the cost of the control measures (the economic injury level).

IPM extended the concept of integrated control to all classes of pests and was expanded to include all tactics. Controls such as pesticides were to be applied as in integrated control, but these now had to be compatible with tactics for all classes of pests. Other tactics, such as host-plant resistance and cultural manipulations, became part of the IPM framework. IPM combined entomologists, plant pathologists, nematologists and weed scientists.

Southeast Asia

The Green Revolution of the 1960s and '70s introduced sturdier plants that could support the heavier grain loads resulting from intensive fertilizer use. Pesticide imports by 11 Southeast Asian countries grew nearly sevenfold in value between 1990 and 2010, according to FAO statistics, with disastrous results. Rice farmers become accustomed to spraying soon after planting, triggered by signs of the leaf folder moth, which appears early in the growing season. It causes only superficial damage and doesn't reduce yields. In 1986, Indonesia banned 57 pesticides and completely stopped subsidizing their use. Progress was reversed in the 2000s, when growing production capacity, particularly in China, reduced prices. Rice production in Asia more than doubled. But it left farmers believing more is better—whether it's seed, fertilizer, or pesticides.

The brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens, the farmers' main target, has become increasingly resistant. Since 2008, outbreaks have devastated rice harvests throughout Asia, but not in the Mekong Delta. Reduced spraying allowed natural predators to neutralize planthoppers in Vietnam. In 2010 and 2011, massive planthopper outbreaks hit 400,000 hectares of Thai rice fields, causing losses of about $64 million. The Thai government is now pushing the "no spray in the first 40 days" approach.