APMC Summit, June 6, 2006 IPM, 35 Years Later IPM: · PDF fileUniversity of Arizona, APMC Summit June 6, 2006 Ellsworth, IPM: WhatÕs thellsÒIÓ Stand for? 3 2006 APMC Summit WhatÕs

University of Arizona, APMC Summit June 6, 2006

Ellsworth, IPM: What’s the “I” Stand for? 1

IPM: What’s the“I” Stand for?

Peter C. EllsworthIPM Specialist & State IPMCoordinator,

Arizona Pest Management Center /Department of Entomology

University of Arizona

APMC Summit, June 6, 2006

Consistent with Al’s theme of introducing theArizona Pest Management Center and the goals ofthis Summit, I thought it might be important to re-visit, review if you will, what it is we are talkingabout when we say, “Integrated PestManagement”. In so doing, I hope to bringeveryone to the same level playing field ofunderstanding, as this will become important whenwe embark on our prioritization process thisafternoon.



2006 APMC Summit

IPM, 35 Years Later

“IPM is accepted world-wide as the best way toprotect crops…

…, IPM has several weak points with regard toambiguous definitions, as well as difficulties inimplementation.”

Uhm, 1999

IPM has deep roots in Arizona and evendeeper roots in agriculture. And one thinghas become apparent. World-wide, IPM isclearly viewed as not only one way tomanage agricultural pest problems, butthe best way to protect crops. However,despite this universal assertion andwidespread recognition of concept byscientists and practitioners, IPM stillsuffers with respect to ambiguousdefinitions and difficulties inimplementation. While I cannot addressthis latter problem in this presentation, Ido wish to bring some clarity on the topicof what IPM is, specifically, “What’s the‘I’ stand for?!”



2006 APMC Summit

What’s the “I” Stand for?

• Insect

^

But before we jump into what it doesstand for, let’s consider what it does NOTstand for! While I am an entomologist,and clearly my first love is insects, I mustadmit freely and openly that the “I” doesnot stand for “insect.” Weed, pathogen,and vertebrate scientists were historicallyslower in acceptance of the IPM concept,in part, because of its close affinity to“insect” IPM and its genesis as a conceptwith some pioneering economicentomologists. But let’s be clear. IPM issurely much more than “insect” pestmanagement.



2006 APMC Summit


• Insect

• Insecticide

^

At times in our history, the “I” has beenaccused of standing for “insecticide.” IPMis a robust concept that has endured over35 years and over many different eras ofinsect control, including ones whereinsecticides were over-used or over-depended on. However, the “I” does notstand for insecticide. In spite of criticswho believe IPM has gone toomainstream and is not edgy enough anylonger, IPM does in fact make use ofinsecticides and other pesticides asneeded and as appropriate. But thissingular tactic is not what IPM or the “I”is about.



2006 APMC Summit


• Insect

• Insecticide

• Intelligent(usually followed by ‘Pesticide’)

^

•

•

•

The corollary to “insecticide” is“intelligent” pesticide management forIPM. Once again, it is true that we hopefor and plan for the rational use ofpesticides within IPM, but the “I” is notand should not be relegated to thislimited idea of what IPM is.



2006 APMC Summit


• Insect

• Insecticide

• Intelligent(usually followed by ‘Pesticide’)

• Integrated

•

•

•

^

In fact, as we all know, the “I” does standfor “Integrated”. Unlike insect,insecticide, or even intelligent, this wordis a little less obvious in meaning to thelay public, which is unfortunate. Oftentimes, however, it is explained orrepresented by a series of interlockingjigsaw puzzle pieces, each representingsome tactical area of control. However,this representation does not do theconcept full justice.



2006 APMC Summit

From Kogan 1998, 2001

While visually much more complex, Kogan’s reviewof IPM (1998) provided us a model forunderstanding organizational complexities acrossvarious scales: ecological, social/economic, andagricultural, the latter being nothing more than theinteraction of the other two. At its core, we can seethat systems smaller in scale or number aresimpler, while those that are larger are much morecomplex. Integration, therefore, can occur at atleast 3 organizational levels. IPM has beenoperating for decades now and most commonly atLevel I integration, the field. Some effort isextended to Level II, and only rarely do we aspireto develop Level III IPM, where, in essence, we arearchitects of the agroecosystem in which IPMoccurs.



2006 APMC Summit

Levels of Integration inIPM (from Kogan 1998, 2001)

• Level I – “Species / population level integration”– The integration of control methods for single species

• Level II – “Community level integration”– The integration of the impacts of multiple pest

categories on the crop and the methods for their control

• Level III – “Ecosystem level integration”– The integration of multiple pest impacts and the

methods for their control within the context of the wholecropping system or ecosystem

Kogan (1998) appropriately places theemphasis of IPM on “Integration.” AtLevel I, integration of control methods fora single species is common. In Level II,this integration extends to multiple pestcategories and methods for control.However, under Level III integration, weshould expect this all to occur within thecontext of an entire cropping system, orecosystem. This should be our ultimategoal: to have such an understanding ofthe distribution and abundance of pest(and beneficial) organisms within asystem so as to make ecosystem level,strategic decisions considering a widearray of control tactics.



2006 APMC Summit

Integrated Pest Management

• Consideration of:– Multiple tactics including informed inaction

– Multiple pests and pest groups

• Consideration of multiple crops or sites inecosystem

LevelIII

III

So to re-iterate, INTEGRATED PestManagement should, at level I, involveconsideration of multiple tactics,including “informed inaction”. At level II,it should operate on multiple pests andpest groups (e.g., weeds, insects, mites,nematodes). But ultimately, to achievelevel III integration, we should beconsidering multiple crops or sites withinthe ecosystem.

While we’re at it, I guess we should finishoff the alphabet…



2006 APMC Summit


• An organism out of place or time– As determined by humans

The “P” does stand for “pest” and not“pesticide”. Again, IPM makes use ofpesticides as needed, but hopefully all ofus remember from our school days that apest is merely an organism out of place ortime. It is important for our lay audiencesto recognize that this is a human-determined classification, and does notcarry any biological status. Afterall, apretty flower to me in my front yard is apest weed in a farmer’s field. Even a veryrecognizable “good guy” in the lady birdbeetle can be an incredible homeownernuisance when the Asian Lady Beetlemakes it way into houses congregating bythe thousands. So context is important.



2006 APMC Summit


• Directed action or strategy to maintain orlower pest densities or limit damage– Implies tolerance of some level of organisms

Management is a concept that getsmisunderstood sometimes. It doesinvolve directed action or more properly astrategy to maintain or prevent existingpest densities (or damage) frombecoming problematic. But at its core andsomething we need to stress with layaudiences is that “management” impliesthat there are some levels of organisms(or damage) that we are willing totolerate. And in fact, those of us inagriculture know that there are reallymany times when the densities ofpotential pests are below our level ofconcern and “no action” is often thecontrol tactic of choice.



2006 APMC Summit

Federal IPM Roadmap (2004)

• Goal– Increase nationwide

communication

– Identify strategic directions forIPM research, implementation,and measurement for all pests, inall settings

These days, it would seem, everyone hasa “roadmap”. Perhaps it is even a littlecliché at this point. But in fact, our federalpartners have developed an IPMroadmap. Their stated goal is to increasecommunication nationally and to helpidentify strategic directions for IPM in thefuture.

While this sounds a bit bureaucratic andmaybe too abstract, there are somerather important things that haveoccurred in this roadmap.



2006 APMC Summit

Federal IPM Roadmap

• Planning for change– Resistance to pesticides

or cultural practices

– Restrictions or losses ofcertain pesticides

– Pressures frommarketplace

• Environmentalconcerns

• Consumer demands

• Public opinion

And afterall, if we don’t even considerchange, we cannot plan for it. And changeis inevitable. Whether it comes in theform of a new resistance to key pesticidesor some foundation cultural practice; ordue to losses of key pest managementtools; or just general changes andpressures from the marketplace; we needto be prepared.



2006 APMC Summit

IPM, Federal Definition

“Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, is a long-standing, science-based, decision-makingprocess that identifies and reduces risks frompests and pest management relatedstrategies.”

I hate to do this to you, after telling youhow one of our problems is “ambiguousdefinitions.” But in this case, the newfederal definition of IPM is quiteimportant and quite telling. It certainly isnot the longest or most detaileddefinition. Yet, it is quite comprehensiveand quite expansive, relative to pastdefinitions. In fact, the change issignificant enough to constitute a newparadigm…

O.k…



2006 APMC Summit

Paradigm Shift!

• From pesticide reduction

• To risk reduction

O.k. I know when you hear “paradigm shift”,many of you are likely wanting to get up fromyour seat and run screaming from the auditorium.But… this time the feds got it right! This shift isimportant, because it takes emphasis away from“pesticide reduction” and places it squarely on“risk reduction”. Why is this important? Becausepesticides are not the chemical tools of old. Theyare not the broadly toxic, broad spectrum post-World War tools that carried with them a numberof non-target and off-target effects. Pesticideshave, in fact, changed in significant ways, not allof which I have time to explore here. But sufficeit to say that where we were once spraying lbsand gallons per acre of these materials, and oftentimes repeatedly, we now used grams and ouncesvery sparingly throughout most of agriculture.



2006 APMC Summit

Risk Reduction

• Least possible risk to:– People

– Property

– Resources

– Environment

• From pests & pestmanagement practices

Risk reduction can come in many formsand is a universally understood concept.The federal definition of IPM identifies itas a risk reduction strategy that will limitrisks to people, property, resources(economic and otherwise), and theenvironment, from the pests as well asthe full complement of pest managementpractices that might be deployed againstthat pest.

This is a useful and pliable concept thatcan be used very well across all theenvironments in which IPM is deployed.And it is a timely change…



2006 APMC Summit

“While pesticide use information is relativelyeasy to collect, when used alone it is a poorindicator of human health risk, and moreadvanced systems of measurement arerequired.”

• Pesticides are changing

• Emphasis on risk reduction (in all its forms)

• Sustainability

Because, “While pesticide use information…”. Bottomline, pesticide reduction is not a proxy for progressany longer, esp. in most agricultural venues. It mightbe a goal in specific cases: in limiting a particularlyhazardous pesticide or limiting exposure in specificcontexts (e.g., in the home). However, pesticides arechanging. Some have no neuro- or mammalian toxicitywhatsoever. They are strategic tools used against onlyvery specific growth stages or population densities.They are insect growth regulators, soaps, salts,feeding inhibitors, pheromones, behavior modifiers.

Emphasis is therefore appropriately focused on “risk”.And embedded in these concepts is the idea ofdeveloping sustainability. Systems that are durable,less consumptive, and more productive.



2006 APMC Summit

Impact on Us?

• “…federally funded IPM program activityperformance must be evaluated.”

O.k. So what’s the big deal? What’s theimpact here at home of this new roadmap and definition?

Within this roadmap, the feds are tellingus that we need to be accountable if weseek and use federal funding. Ourperformance must be evaluated. It is notenough to say, “we did our IPM; pleasegive us more money.” We now need tomeasure and show how our programshave impacted our end-users, and do soin meaningful, scientific ways.



2006 APMC Summit

IPM

“IPM is a decision support system for theselection and use of pest control tactics, singlyor harmoniously coordinated into amanagement strategy, based on cost/benefitanalyses that take into account the interests ofand impacts on producers, society, and theenvironment.”

Kogan, 1998

So enough of the federal viewpoint. Let’sturn to just one more definition that I likebecause it mentions whose interests weseek to protect and impact, that ofproducers, society, and the environment.If we manage these three things in ourdesign and delivery of IPM, then we areon the mark, no matter how youultimately define IPM.



SouthernIPM Center

North CentralIPM Center

NortheasternIPM Center

WesternIPM Center

Federal IPMCoordinating Committee

USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program

USDA RegionalIPM Centers

Stakeholder Input & Support

SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



And what presentation on the conceptswould be complete without another try atan org chart. I don’t want to dwell on it,except to say that the organization of theAPMC is no accident. It closely parallelsthe organization at the federal level. Thefederal IPM program is guided by aCoordinating Committee and a single IPMCoordinator, Dr. Mike Fitzner, both ofwhich are informed by these regional IPMcenters that you will hear more about.



SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



These four regional centers represent theIPM interests of their member states andterritories.



SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



SouthernIPM Center



WesternIPM Center


USDA IPMCoordinator

Federal IPM Program



AK, AZ, CA,

CO, HI, ID,

MT, NV, NM,

OR, UT,

WA, WY,

Pacific Isl.

In our specific case, the Western IPMCenter is, in part, informed by Arizona’sinterests through the Arizona PestManagement Center. This is whatconnects you to the federal system andgets your needs and priorities to thoseagencies who are seeking to fund IPM inthe regions.



2006 APMC Summit

All Things to All People

• Farmers: reduce costs & protect health.

• “Environmentalists”: replace pesticides in ag.

• Registrants: permit continued use of pesticideswhile reducing risks to people & environment.

• Regulators: as precise prescriptions to replaceschedules.

• Scientists: integrate new knowledge, increasepredictability of pest incidence & reduce risksto environment.

• Politicians: welcome the concept of IPMbecause almost no one opposes it.

Uhm, 1999

I’d like to close by paraphrasing Uhm (1999), who noted,like many others before him, that IPM really is “all thingsto all people”. In my view, it is very main-stream, perhapsto its own detriment. The concept is robust and has stoodthe test of time, but it doesn’t have the flash andedginess of something brand new. Nonetheless, farmersreduce costs and protect the health of their farm-workerswith IPM. Environmentalists, which we all are bydefinition, think IPM is replacing pesticides in ag.Registrants see IPM as helping to continue the use ofpesticides while reducing risks to people and theenvironment. Regulators view IPM as preciseprescriptions that replace schedules of the past.Scientists see IPM as an ecological framework ready forintegration of new knowledge that increases pestpredictability & reduces risks. But lastly, politicianswelcome the concept because almost no one opposes it.



http:http://cals//cals..arizonaarizona..edu/cropsedu/crops

The Arizona Pest Management Center (APMC) aspart of its function maintains a website, the ArizonaCrop Information Site (ACIS), which houses all cropproduction and protection information for our lowdesert crops, including a PDF version of thispresentation for those interested in reviewing itscontent.

Photo credit: J. Silvertooth

Documents

APMC Summit, June 6, 2006 IPM, 35 Years Later IPM: · PDF fileUniversity of Arizona, APMC Summit June 6, 2006 Ellsworth, IPM: WhatÕs thellsÒIÓ Stand for? 3 2006 APMC Summit WhatÕs