Integrated Pesticide Management. Chemical Trespass/Herbicide, 1995

New Search

592 . environmentally. If the controversy never comes, it through the use of nondisruptive and mutually corn- ; will still have been a good idea. patible biological, cultural, and chemical methods." With the steady increase in environmental con- Another basic element of authentic IPM is the cern, it is not really a question of whether or not the setting of economic and damage threshold levels. pesticide controversy will eventually reach your The economic threshold, a fundamental IPM con - community, but only a matter of when. Among the cept, is the point at which the density of the pest proverbs of wise King Solomon is the following: requires a control measure (usually chemical) to "A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, prevent economic loss. The damage threshold is 4 but the simple pass on, and are punished. "' Prepare the lowest pest population density at which damage yourself and your agency now. occurs. ' If the controversy has already intensified in your community and is, to a large or small degree, the motivation for your efforts to implement IPM, it is WHY THE CONFUSION? critical that you understand that your success in Since IPM is so obviously widely and clearly un- doing so will be dependent upon your ability to derstood, why are some confused as to what it divorce program design from the partisan contro- really is, and why would people advocate some- ' versy. To be successful, you must use authentic thing other than authentic IPM? In my own expe- IPM, based firmly upon the historic model. Contro- rience, the reasons are philosophical, political, or versy -driven programs consistently fail to do so. both. On the one hand are those opposed to any and all use of synthetic chemical pesticides. This fac- FAILURE TO UTILIZE AUTHENTIC lion typically tries to influence program design so IPM METHODOLOGY that pesticide use is banned outright, very severely restricted, or so encumbered by process and regu- 'a IPM accurately refers to vegetation and pest con- lation that it is rendered impractical. But such re- ' trol strategies similar to those recommended by strictions are not part of the authentic IPM method - U.S. Department of Agriculture entomologists W. ology already reviewed in this chapter. Tampering D. Hunter and B. R. Coad in 1923, for the control with those proven methods typically results in the of boll weevil infestations on cotton in the U.S. The loss of one or more of the historic benefits of IPM planting of pest - tolerant cotton varieties and crop and, not infrequently, reduces all of them. residue destruction were the r' tm means of con On the other P �y er hand advocates of traditional "cover trol in that program, with insecticides considered spray" programs (blanket applications of pesticide supplementary and to be used only when monitor- made at scheduled intervals according to the calen- ing identified weevil populations /damage above a dar) sometimes try to inaccurately apply the IPM predetermined level. label to their methods, possibly as a way to insulate A well -known organic gardening advocacy or- themselves from change. But such cover spray pro- ' ganization gives the following definition: "Inte- grams typically assume the need to treat, rather grated pest management (IPM) is a strategy for than setting realistic thresholds and basing treat - keeping plant damage within bounds by carefully ment decisions on monitoring by knowledgeable monitoring crops, predicting trouble before it hap- field staff. Such an approach denies its users both pens, and then selecting the appropriate controls — the environmental advantages and financial say- , biological and cultural, or chemical controls as ings of authentic IPM. Putting it bluntly, cover necessary. " sprays often deposit large volumes of pesticide The University of California Statewide Inte- where no real "targets" (the problem pests or veg- grated Pest Management Project fills in the details etation) are present. This is a waste of time and with the following: "Integrated pest management is money in addition to being an unnecessary impact an ecological approach to managing pests that of- on the environment. ten provides economical, long -term protection from pest damage or competition. Factors such as prior SEGREGATION IS pest history, crop growth and development, weather, NOT "INTEGRATED" visual observations, pest monitoring information, and cultural practices are considered before control Another common misconception, or mislabeling, decisions are made. IPM programs emphasize pre- of a methodology that is not truly integrated as IPM vention of weed competition and other types of can be illustrated by a hypothetical agency that pest damage by anticipating these problems when- manages, say, 400 acres. This agency submits a ever possible. Goals include conserving natural vegetation management plan stating that 100 acres enemies and avoiding secondary pest problems will receive no treatment, 100 will be cultivated,