Integrated Pest Management — What’S It All About?

Why Has IPM Become So Appealing Today?

To answer this question we must go back to the early 1940’s to the advent of synthetic organic pesticides. DDT was, at that time, hailed as the miracle substance that would eliminate insect pests once and for all.

DDT’s qualities included long persistence, broad spectrum activity and effectiveness in small quantities. Its success led to widespread use and exclusive reliance on chemical pest control. Soon, whole families of synthetic pesticides came into being. The chlorinated hydrocarbons, of which DDT was one, were joined by the organophosphates, dithiocarbamates, thiazoles, and others. However, the very qualities that made DDT and others so useful soon led to problems.

As early as 1 946, populations of houseflies resistant to DDT had been identified. By 1966, 224 species of insects and/or mites had developed resistance to one or more pesticides (4). Fungal and bacterial pathogens have been equally successful in overcoming pesticide toxicity (3). Resistance to the systemic fungicide benomyl has been reported in many common phytopathogenic fungi including the causal agents of apple scab, powdery mildew, brown rot and Cercospora leaf spot. The short reproductive cycles of many insects and microorganisms mean that resistant individuals can quickly become dominant in a population subjected to frequent pesticide exposure. Efforts to totally eradicate certain pest species resulted in even greater selective pressure favoring the development of resistant forms.

The immediate response to the problem of resistance was to increase application rates and to develop new, more potent pesticide formulations. An enormous proliferation of products took place.

Another problem associated with widespread pesticide use is the unforeseen effects on the environment of pesticide residues. The negative impact on birds of prey has been well documented. Predators are particularly susceptible to the concentrating effect that occurs as residues move through the food chain. In 1962, Rachel Carson, in her book Silent Spring, focused the attention of the world on the threat posed by DDT (1). Residues had by then been found in Antarctic birds and seals remote from any area where the chemical had been used. Today we are still discovering some of the dangers of long-term pesticide exposure.

The related phenomena of release and resurgence have also dampened the enthusiasm for continued reliance on chemical pesticides. Release refers to the generation of secondary pest outbreaks due to pesticide induced disruption of beneficial insects which otherwise serve as natural biological controls. Predatory mites that prey on plant feeding mites and tiny, host specific parasitic wasps that attack aphids, caterpillars and other plant pests have been particularly vulnerable to damage due to widespread use of broad spectrum insecticides.

Resurgence refers to the tendency of pest populations to recover faster than their parasites or predators after spraying. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in the case of Fiorinia scale on hemlock where scale populations on sprayed trees had greater fecundity and a more rapid rate of development than did those on unsprayed controls. One parasite and three predator insects were virtually eliminated from sprayed trees (7).

These problems, plus concern for the direct impact of pesticide use on public health and safety have led many to seek an alternative in IPM.

Components of An IPM Program

Monitoring is an essential part of all IPM programs. There is no substitute for getting out and looking at the plants to keep abreast of pest presence, plant condition, and natural control potential. An IPM scout must be knowledgeable regarding pests and their various life stages and able to recognize beneficial insects also. Plantings should be sampled frequently enough to detect changes in pest levels. Monitoring should not cease if and when control measures are taken as a follow up evaluation of the effectiveness is important.

Written records of all observations are essential as data gathered by IPM scouts are the bases for decision making regarding the need for control measures. Pest populations must be evaluated to determine if thresholds are being reached. Thresholds have been established for many pests of agricultural plants where crop yield in response to pest activity is readily measured. The establishment of thresholds for damage to ornamental plants has been slower as the issue involved is one of aesthetics rather than one that can be measured in pounds or bushels.

Once pest populations reach a level at which action is needed a decision must be made as to the most appropriate means of control. General goals are a high degree of specificity with a minimum impact on other components of the environment. Control measures include biological means such as encouraging or introducing beneficial insects which act as parasites or predators, the use of microbials including Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) or milky spore disease, release of sterile male insects or life cycle disruption through the use of pheromones or juvenile hormones. The use of traps, baits, and physical barriers is another possibility. Hand removal of some types of pests may be the best choice in some cases. Oil sprays, both dormant and growing season applications, and insecticidal soaps are proving very useful to control pest insects with minimal effect on beneficial species (6). Chemical pesticides also have a place in an IPM program. Timing, specificity and the use of spot treatments is encouraged. With limited use, pesticides will pose less of a threat to the environment and retain their effectiveness longer.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1.

Pest population curve showing damage threshold and action threshold. Adapted from Olkowski and Olkowski (8).

IPM is Working

The greatest strides in developing IPM has been in the area of agricultural crops such as cotton, citrus, apples, or alfalfa where successful programs have been in operation for ten years or more (4). Pest control costs are down with no loss of yield or quality. The application of this technology to ornamental plantings has been more recent. Researchers at the John Muir Institute in Berkeley and the University of Maryland have led the way in developing IPM programs for shade trees and ornamentals. The National Park Service implemented an IPM program developed by the John Muir Institute which resulted in a 70% reduction in pesticide use between 1979 and 1983 (2, 8). A 1982 University of Maryland study involving 26 suburban home landscapes resulted in a 94% reduction in pesticide use compared with the standard three cover spray approaches formerly utilized (5). The IPM services in this project involved private arborist firms and resulted in a high degree of customer satisfaction.

Innovative landscape maintenance firms are responding to public concern over pesticide use by offering an IPM option and finding it makes good business sense.