Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

A Need for Urban IPM

J.T. Walker
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) August 1981, 7 (8) 204-207; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1981.7.8.204
J.T. Walker
Department of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Georgia Station, Georgia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Integrated pest management (IPM), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), and other acronyms commonly are heard nowadays by many of us concerned about the welfare of green plants. The subject of IPM requires long study, however I was asked to present some impressions on the subject of urban IPM following a short IPA stay in the Office of Pesticides Program of EPA within view of the Nation’s Capitol.

The IPM concept undoubtedly means different things to different individuals or groups, but it is now maturing to the point where authorities are beginning to consider broad definitions similar to that of Dr. Michael Way — “the balanced use of cultural, biological and chemical measures most appropriate to a particular situation in light of careful study of all factors involved.” Others may have altered viewpoints or slightly different definitions. For instance, Lawrence Apple states IPM is an organized, comprehensive approach to management of the key pests in a crop production system (an agroecosystem). Certainly the intention of IPM in all cases is to provide the most effective tools available for successful system management with the least damage to beneficial organisms, human health, and/or general environmental quality.

I believe early IPM definitions might have been intended to mean strictly biological control without pesticide usage. This is not the impression I had with regard to an urban IPM program as might be promulgated by any agency. It was my impression that urban IPM is the concept of an organized approach to the management of key pests in an urban ecosystem (pests include rodents as well as weeds, insects, diseases, etc.).

Such a system would consist of identifying those pests which cause economic injury in the absence of control, defining a management unit (large or small), developing reliable monitoring systems, establishing economic thresholds, and developing a strategy through multiple tactics for pest management with the least insult on our environment. In some instances the concept would include the development of models for predicting pest behavior as a management tool. Then, and this perhaps is the most difficult, putting the system together in a workable package or delivery system.

Why is EPA interested in developing an urban IPM program? Why should the agency be concerned? When Congress created EPA they issued a mandate to protect our environment and the health and safety of our population. Now 74% of our population resides in urban areas and the intensity of pesticide usage appears to be increasing in urban areas. EPA therefore believes an IPM system should be initiated because of potential health and safety hazards to all who reside in our cities and their suburbs. Incidentally, fewer than 70 of the 435 members in the House of Representatives of the 95th Congress are from agricultural areas. This demonstrates the population shift.

In reporting the results of sampling individuals in 64 cities for the presence of chemicals in human urine1, EPA indicates that the general population is being exposed to chemicals which have originated from certain pesticides. It is estimated that at least 75% of the 2.5 million homes in Florida are treated as many as 4 to 6 times annually for insect control and one-half of the lawns are treated with herbicide (Dr. William Ennis, Agricultural Research Center, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.). Also, according to Dr. Ennis’s figures, there are over 325 golf courses in the 3 most populous southeastern Florida counties, each being treated with insecticides or herbicides 4-6 times annually. According to the National Parks Service (NPS) authorities over 200,000 lbs of all types of pesticides were applied on 21,000 acres of the NPS in 1975. Twenty-two percent of total pesticide use was for trees and shrubs, 18% for public health and visitors comfort, 12% for site protection and restoration, 10% for turf protection, and the remainder for miscellaneous areas and reasons. The largest percentage of total use in nine regional areas, adjusted by acreage, is in the National Capital Parks Region with 65%.

Pesticide expenditures in the U.S. exceeded $2.8 billion in 1978 (Fig. 1). Information on what percentage of this amount is expended for use in strictly urban situations is difficult to ascertain. Nevertheless, when the total acreage ascribed to transportation rights-of-way, parks, mosquito control districts, housing developments, homelawns, recreational facilities, and gardens is considered, I believe we would be amazed at how much area received one or more pesticide applications annually. Naturally, these are dilute sprays but there may be instances where there is superimposition of different materials. Figure 1 illustrates the proportion of various types of pesticide expenditures based on the total in U.S., and expenditures may reflect, with moderate accuracy, an indication of usage.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Estimated U.S. Sales of Pesticide at User’s Level — 1980 (1978 dollars). From: A Look at World Pesticide Markets, Farm Chemicals, Vol. 142:61, September, 1979.

Inasmuch as it is difficult to monitor urbanities (at the present time ways are being tested for agricultural applicators) for pesticide exposure, and there are no re-entry standards for persons entering urban sprayed areas, perhaps the EPA should rightfully be concerned. Furthermore, the same economic restraints which may limit pesticide usage in rural areas do not always limit applications in urban centers. “Perfect” gardens and lawns are neighborhood status symbols. Moreover the likelihood of homeowners to misuse or misapply materials is great. On the other hand, many, if not all, states now require pest control applicators to be licensed to use restricted pesticides. Therefore these materials are not available to unlicensed home applicators! With, first, the loss of pesticide effectiveness through the buildup of resistance by pests (including disease organisms), second, the risk of unknown effects from a variety of toxic substances impinging on our environment, third, the economic consequences resulting from repeative applications, and fourth, the damage which sometimes has resulted from misuse, I believe an unbiased observer might admit that EPA has raised a valid point for urban IPM. If urban IPM programs can benefit the general welfare without imposing undue hardships on any group, then perhaps it is meaningful to pursue that mission.

How would such programs be implemented? In my short period of service, I noted discussions and dialogues between individuals and groups associated with different agencies. Working sessions were held to identify issues and resources, sometimes as a result of branch groups or individuals with common goals. Certainly within the EPA and USDA there is a spirit of cooperation. The USDA, through the Cooperative Extension Service, has started an urban gardening program in 5 states and through 4H programs in 3 other states. The U.S. Forest Service (USDA) through its Urban Forestry program has begun to teach about disease management which eventually should become part of an IPM package.

There is little question, then, that urban IPM is a high priority item within federal and state agencies. The National Academy of Sciences and the Council of Environmental Quality are contributing to assessing the needs. IPM received high priority by the National Agricultural Users Advisory Board.

Although much scientific information on integrated pest management is already available, putting it into use will require time. The process will involve personnel in disciplines not normally thought to be associated with pest management. And more research to find answers to new questions will be needed. Fortunately, a delivery system for this information is already in place — the Land-Grant Institutions and their component Colleges of Agriculture with their Cooperative Extension Service. The research arm of these colleges, that is their agricultural experiment stations, can supply needed answers.

But one group which will and must make a sizeable contribution to developing any IPM program, be it rural or urban, is private enterprise at the local, regional, and national level. Through their research and development efforts, their management and sales capabilities, innovative industry and business can provide impetus. Many corporations will seize the opportunities to sell complete “packages or programs”.

Polarization between the bureaucracy and private industry viewpoints must diminish if IPM programs are to move forward. Dale Wolf of duPont stated: “Industry’s responsibility is to develop and test crop protectants to assure they will not damage the environment or health of users or eventual consumers of products.” There must be less regulation and restriction by government on industry to perform in that context.

In any event, the view of urban IPM from “off the Hill” is that there appears to be a need, that the public is receptive to an environmentally yet economically sound concept and that it may be good management to get on with delivering the information to the consumer. Research and development can help tremendously by identifying needs, developing strategies, and filling data gaps to create dynamic packages for pest management in urban environments. This can be accomplished through cooperation of government, industry and academia.

The attached selected bibliography is not intended to be all-inclusive, but is provided for the reader who seeks more information on the subject of IPM.

Footnotes

  • ↵1 Kutz, F.W., R.S. Murphy, and S.C. Strassman. 1978. Survey of pesticide residues and their metabolities in urine from the general population, pp. 363-369. IN Pentachlorophenol [Ed. K.R. Rao], Plenum Publishing, New York, N.Y.

  • © 1981, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Selected Bibliography of IPM Literature

    1. Abel, M.
    [Chairman], 1979. Pest Management Strategies in Crop Protection. Vol. I, Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, D.C. 20510, 132 pp.
  1. Agricultural Board, National Research Council. 1972. Pest Control Strategies for the Future. National Academy of Science. 2101 Constitution Ave., Washington, D.C. 20418, 376 pp.
    1. Apple, J.L.
    . 1979. Integrated Pest Management Research for the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Colleges of 1890. Intersociety Consortium for Plant Protection, St. Paul, MN 55121 [Chairman]. 190 pp.
    1. Baker, K.F., and
    2. R.J. Cook
    . 1974. Biological control of plant pathogens. Freeman and Co., 660 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94104, 433 pp.
    1. Bethell, R.S. [Ed.]
    . 1978. Pear Pest Management. Agricultural Sciences Publications, University of California, Richmond, CA 94804, 234 pp.
    1. Boethel, D.J.
    [Ed.]. 1979. Pest management program for deciduous trees, fruits, and nuts. Plenum Press, 227 West 17th, New York, NY 10011, 256 pp.
    1. Davis, D.W.
    [Chairman], 1979. Biological Control and Insect Pest Management. Publication 4096. Div. of Agricultural Sciences, University of California, Richmond, CA 94804, 102 pp.
    1. de Jong, P. [Ed.]
    . 1978. Pest management in transition with a regional focus on the interior west. Conference Proceedings — Pest Control Strategies Conference. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver, CO 80203, 141 pp.
  2. Extension Division. 1979. Pest management guide for ornamental plants in the home grounds. Pest Management Guide 7, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24060.
  3. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. 1978. Integrated Pest Management Programs for the State Cooperative Extension Services, USDA SEA/CE, Washington, D.C. 20250, 21 pp.
    1. Frankie, G.W. and
    2. C.S. Koehler, [Eds.]
    . 1978. Perspectives in Urban Entomology. Academic Press, 111 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10003, 417 pp.
    1. Huffaker, C.B. [Ed.]
    . 1980. New Technology of Pest Control. Wiley-lnterscience, 605 3rd Ave., New York, NY 10016, 624 pp.
    1. Huffaker, C.B., and
    2. P.S. Messenger
    . 1977. Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press, 111 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10003, 788 pp.
  4. Interagency IPM Coordinating Committee. 1980. Report to The President. Progress made by Federal Agencies in the Advancement of Integrated Pest Management. Council on Environmental Quality. 722 Jackson Place N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, 92 pp.
  5. IPM Newsletter. P.O. Box 7242, Berkeley, CA 94707. ($10/yr.).
  6. Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences. 1981. Annual Report for 1980 of the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, 37 pp.
    1. Metcalf, R.L.
    1972. Implementing Practical Pest Management Strategies. Proc. Natl. Extension Insect Pest Management Workshop. Purdue University, Lafayette, IN 47907, 206 pp.
    1. Phillips, J.R.
    [Chairman], 1978. Development of Optimum Crop Production Systems for the Mid-south. Special Report 67. Agric. Experiment Station, University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AK 72701, 114 pp.
    1. Pimental, D. [Ed.]
    . 1978. World Food, Pest Losses, and the Environment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO 80309, 209 pp.
    1. Quist, J.A.
    1980. Urban Insect Pest Management for Deciduous Trees, Shrubs and Fruit Pioneer Science Publishers, Greely, CO 80632, 176 pp.
    1. Smith, R.F. and
    2. J.L. Apple
    . 1976. Integrated Pest Management. Plenum Press, 227 West 17th, New York, NY 10011, 200 pp.
    1. Street, J.C.
    1975. Pesticide Selectivity. Marcel Dekker, Inc., 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, 47 pp.
    1. Van Den Bosch, R.
    1978. The Pesticide Conspiracy. Doubleday & Co., 245 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017, 226 PP.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 7, Issue 8
August 1981
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Need for Urban IPM
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
A Need for Urban IPM
J.T. Walker
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Aug 1981, 7 (8) 204-207; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1981.7.8.204

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A Need for Urban IPM
J.T. Walker
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Aug 1981, 7 (8) 204-207; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1981.7.8.204
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • Selected Bibliography of IPM Literature
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire