The impact of IPM programs on pesticide use in California

Lynn Epstein and Minghua Zhang

In: Integrated Pest Management: Experiences with Implementation, Vol. 4. Springer (In press)

CA Ag Pesticide Use, 1993-2010 Introduction

Use data Methyl bromide and its replacements Overall decrease in compounds of current regulatory

concern Selected issues in replacement materials

Strategies proposed for the reduction of pesticide use or risk IPM

Pesticides Microbial Biocontrol Genetic Engineering

Methyl bromide

Metam sodium

Metam potassium

Chloropicrin

1,3-Dichloropropene

Dazomet

Mass in millions of kg of agricultural fumigants used in California between 1993 and 2010

Compound

Risk

groupsa 2008 – 2010 annual average applications, kg

% change from 1993 - 1995

1,3-Dichloropropene 3.7 X 106 +5120 C, A Metam potassium 2.2 X 106 (new) A Metam sodium 4.4 X 106 -17 R, C, A Methyl bromide 2.3 X 106 -69 R, A

Trends in Fumigants of Regulatory Concern used in Agricultural Fields

aA, listed as a DPR toxic air contaminant; (A) Newly listed as an air contaminant? C, putative carcinogen R, Proposition 65 reproductive toxin

Chloropicrin 2.6 X 106 +130 (A)

Compounda

Risk

groupsa 2008 – 2010 Annual average applications, kg

% change from 1993-1995

(Benomyl) 2.8 X 101 -100 R Captan 1.7 X 105 -40 C, A Chlorothalonil 3.4 X 105 -28 C Iprodione 1.3 X 105 -51 C Mancozeb 2.1 X 105 -20 C, A Maneb 2.9 X 104 -45 C, A Myclobutanil 2.8 X 104 -61 R (Propamocarb

HCl) 4.8 X 104 (new) N Thiophanate methyl 4.2 X 104 -30 R

Trends in Non-Fumigant Fungicides of Regulatory Concern used in Agricultural Fields

aC, putative carcinogen (5) A, listed as a DPR toxic air contaminant (3) R, Proposition 65 reproductive toxin (2) N, organophosphate or carbamate targeted in the US FQPA (1)

Mass in millions kg of the herbicide glyphosate that was applied in California between 1993 and 2010

Glyphosphate

Compound

Risk

groupsb 2008 – 2010 Annual average applications, kg

% change from 1993-1995

2,4-Da 2.6 X 105 -21 A

Acephate 6.0 X 104 -67 N

Atrazine 1.2 X 104 -41 W

Bromacil 2.9 X 104 -56 W

Bromoxynila 3.8 X 104 -34 R

Cacodylic acid 6.9 -100 C

Cyanazine 0 -100 R

Diuron 2.9 X 105 -45 C, W

EPTC 5.4 X 104 -83 R, N

Molinate 3.6 X 103 -99 R, N

Norflurazon 2.2 X 104 -70 W

Oryzalin 2.6 X 105 -15 C

Propyzamide 3.5 X 104 -35 C

Simazine 1.9 X 105 -57 W

Thiobencarb 1.2 X 105 -36 N

Trifluralin 2.5 X 105 -60 A

Trends in Herbicides of Regulatory concern used in Agricultural Fields

aW, DPR groundwater protection list, part a (5); C, Putative carcinogen (4); N, Organophosphate or carbamate targeted in the US FQPA (4); R, Proposition 65 reproductive toxin (4); A, listed as a DPR toxic air contaminant (2) bMight have increased use with GE

Ag Use

Compound

Risk groupsa

2008 - 2010 Annual average applications, kg

% change from 1993-1995

Defoliant s,s,s-Tributyl phosphorotrithioate 6.2 X 103 -99 N, A

Plant growth regulator Ethephon 1.3 X 105 -69 N

Trends in Other Compounds of Regulatory Concern used in Agricultural Fields

aN, Organophosphate or carbamate targeted in the US FQPA A, listed as a DPR toxic air contaminant

Compoundb Risk

groupsb 2008 – 2010 Annual average

applications, kg % Change from 1993-

1995 Bensulide 1.1 X 105 +286 N

Carbaryl 5.6 X 104 -85 R, C, N, A

Chlorpyrifos 5.9 X 105 -57 N

Diazinon 7.9 X 104 -87 N

Dimethoate 1.1 X 105 -61 N

Endosulfan 2.1 X 104 -87 A

Malathion 2.4 X 105 -33 N

Methamidophos 7.8 X 103 -96 N

Methidathion 2.2 X 104 -87 N, A

Methomyl 1.1 X 105 -68 N

Naled 7.7 X 104 -63 N

Oxydemeton-methyl 3.8 X 104 -31 R, N

Phosmet 8.9 X 104 -16 N

Propargite 1.6 X 105 -81 R, C

Aldicarb* 2.6 X 104 -79 N

Carbofuran* 3.9 X 103 -97 N

Oxamyl* 4.0 X 104 +25 N

Trends in Insecticides or Insecticides/Nematicides (*) of Regulatory Concern used in Agricultural Fields

a N, Organophosphate or carbamate targeted in the US FQPA (15) R, Proposition 65 reproductive toxin (3) A, listed as a DPR toxic air contaminant (3) C, putative carcinogen (2)

Mass in 104 kg of neonicotinoids that were applied in the field in California between 1993 and 2010

Imidacloprid

Acetamiprid

IPM

DEFINITION OF IPM (University of California)

Integrated pest management (IPM) is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses

on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of

practices such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural

practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring

indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are

made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest management

materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human

health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment.

Mass in 105 of kg of OPs applied in either almond or stone fruit orchards in California either during the dormant season (thin lines) or during the entire year (thick lines) between 1993 and 2010

ORGANOPHOSPHATES (OPs)

(■) Almond orchards, any time

(●) Stone fruits any time

(o) Stone fruits dormant

(□) Almond, dormant

Bar graphs of the relative amount of planted area in almond and stone fruit orchards that were treated either during the dormant season or at bloom between 1992 and 2000 in the indicated counties. Epstein & Bassein. 2003. Annu Rev Phytopathol 41:351, Supplemental material

Success story of IPM in pears

“In an IPM program, pest management is coordinated with production practices to achieve economical protection from pest damage (injury) while minimizing hazards to crops, human health, and the environment.”

Bajwa, W. I. and M. Kogan. 2002. Compendium of IPM Definitions (CID)- What is IPM and how is it defined in the Worldwide Literature? IPPC Publication No. 998, Integrated Plant Protection Center (IPPC), Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA

DEFINITION OF IPM (University of California) Integrated pest management (IPM) is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of practices such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest management materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment.

GAO. 2001. AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES: Management Improvements Needed to Further Promote Integrated Pest Management. GAO 01-185.

“USDA Estimates That IPM Has Been Implemented on About 70 Percent of Crop Acreage, but USDA Has Not Focused IPM on Meaningful Outcomes”

“Implementation of Biologically-Based IPM Practices Is Limited”

“IPM Has Resulted in Some Environmental and Economic Benefits, but Use of the Riskiest Pesticides Remains Substantial”

“…higher cost of reduced-risk pesticides is a major impediment to IPM adoption.”

“Crop insurance is one way to reduce that perceived or actual risk…”

California Agriculture, 1962

From a presentation by Shennan, Muramoto, Bolda, Koike, Daugovish, Mochizuki, Klonsky, Rosskopf, Burelle, Butler, Fenimore & Samtani. Anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD) for suppressing Verticillium dahliae in CA strawberries.

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Information Critical use exemptions (CUEs) are permitted under Section 604(d) of the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). Under Decision IX/6 of the Protocol “a use of methyl bromide should qualify as ‘critical’ only if the nominating Party determines that: (i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption (emphasis added); and

(ii) there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and public health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.”

http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/title6.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/title6.html

Methyl bromide

Metam sodium

Metam potassium

Chloropicrin

1,3-Dichloropropene

Dazomet

Mass in millions of kg of agricultural fumigants used in California between 1993 and 2010

Mass in 104 kg of the microbial biocontrol agents that were applied in California between 1993 and 2010.

(■) Bacillus thuringiensis

Microbial Biocontrol Agents

Mass in 104 kg of the microbial biocontrol agents other than Bt that were applied in California between 1993 and 2010. Gliocladium virens (Δ), and Trichoderma harzianum (♦).

Microbial Biocontrol Agents except Bt

(□) Myrothecium verrucaria

(●) Bacillus sphaericus

(X) Pseudomonas fluorescens

(*) Bacillus pumilus

(○) Bacillus subtilis

(▲) Agrobacterium radiobacter

Trend in Acquisition of Biocontrol Companies by Larger (Mostly)

Agrichemical Companies A few examples

AgraQuest by Bayer Crop Science (for ca. $500 million)

Becker Underwood by BASF (for ca. $1 billion) Pasteuria Bioscience by Syngenta (for ca. $100

million) Divergence ($75 million) & Beeologics ($125

million) by Monsanto Natural Industries by Novozymes

Epstein & Bassein. 2003. Annu Rev Phytopathol 41:351.

(○) Growers that did not use P. fluorescens

Pear growers’ use of antibiotics

(●) Growers that used P. fluorescens in at least one year

Genetic Engineering: current or near-term traits that can, might, or (probably won’t) impact pesticide use

Herbicide tolerance (HT) - does not decrease herbicide use HT-tolerant 2,4D and bromoxynl will likely increase their use Insect resistance from the Bt toxin Lepidopteran insect resistance Cotton: pink bollworm, beet armyworms, tobacco budworm (Corn: European corn borer) (Soybean) (Rice) (Poplar) (Tomato) Coleopteran insect resistance (Corn: corn rootworm) (Potato: Colorado potato beetle)

Viral disease resistance (Squash: cucumber mosaic virus, zucchini yellow mosaic potyvirus, watermelon mosaic potyvirus 2) (Sweet pepper: cucumber mosaic virus) (Tomato: cucumber mosaic virus); (Potato: potato virus Y) (Bean: golden mosaic virus) (Papaya: ringspot virus) (Plum: plum pox virus)

Conclusions 1. CA has not reduced overall agricultural fumigant use between 1993 & 2010,

largely because growers expect high yields from monocultures in back-to-back plantings.

2. Between 1993 & 2010, CA has reduced use of most older pesticides of regulatory concern, but usage of many compounds still remain relatively high.

3. IPM can reduce pesticide use or risk if use is higher than necessary to achieve economic control, but there are many non-biological factors that contribute to pesticide use & there are fewer IPM success stories than the literature would lead us to believe.

4. Historically, except for B. thuringiensis, new microbial biocontrol products have been tried, but use and experimental data indicate they have generallly not been efficacious.

5. At least in the near-term, it seems unlikely that genetic engineering is going to have a positive impact on reducing pesticide use or risk.

The impact of IPM programs on pesticide use in California��Lynn Epstein and Minghua Zhang �CA Ag Pesticide Use, 1993-2010Slide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10IPMSlide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15GAO. 2001. AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES: Management Improvements Needed to Further Promote Integrated Pest Management. GAO 01-185.Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Trend in Acquisition of Biocontrol Companies by Larger (Mostly) Agrichemical CompaniesSlide Number 25Genetic Engineering: current or near-term traits that can, might, or (probably won’t) impact pesticide useConclusions