|
593
<br /> 100 will be mowed, and 100 will be sprayed with IPM program. inevitably leads to drastically in-
<br /> herbicide. They declare their chosen strategy "inte- creased costs, an unacceptable deterioration in pro
<br /> grated vegetation management." I submit, rather, gram efficacy or, most commonly, to both. These
<br /> that it is "site- segregated vegetation management," negative effects are unnecessary and, in the long
<br /> the range of control options available at any one term, can lead to pressure to reinstate the former
<br /> t site having been limited to only one. cover spray program.
<br /> In contrast, a truly integrated program would Indeed, some antichemical activist groups, hav-
<br /> first identify the target pest (in this case, problem- ing come to this realization, have replaced advo-
<br /> atical vegetation) and set realistic tolerances for its cacy of bans with calls for the establishment of
<br /> presence, then develop a cultural program designed IPM. Others, however, have not, and continue to
<br /> to encourage desirable vegetation while minimiz- promote the fiction that workable alternatives exist
<br /> ing invasion by target species. Monitoring would for all present uses of pesticide.
<br /> reveal when and where additional control measures I have worked in grounds management for more
<br /> were required. If necessary, control action might than 20 years, seeking workable alternatives to
<br /> involve a combined strategy of spot treatment with chemically dependent techniques throughout that
<br /> herbicide, posttreatment cultivation, and replanting time. Since 1980, I have coordinated the intema-
<br /> with desirable species. Both examples are hypo- tionally recognized IPM program of the City of
<br /> thetical, of course, but the difference in approach is Eugene, and acted as an IPM consultant to numer-
<br /> obvious. ous other agencies. Based on that experience I can
<br /> tell you that, as much as I might wish such pro-
<br /> AUTHENTIC IPM LOWERS COSTS nouncements were true, they simply are not.
<br /> A functional alternative to unworkable "cold
<br /> From its beginnings, a major goal of IPM, in addi- turkey" bans is the technique I call "building- down."
<br /> tion to efficacy, was cost - containment. IPM has Briefly, the build -down approach tackles vegeta-
<br /> been used, especially in agriculture, to achieve this tion and pest control challenges sequentially, one
<br /> same end ever since. Hence, when someone says to (or a few) at a time. Workable alternative methods
<br /> me, "IPM costs too much," I cannot help but be are incorporated gradually, as they are developed,
<br /> skeptical. Upon examination of such claims, I have and chemically dependent techniques are abandoned
<br /> always found that something other than the authen- as they are no longer needed. In this way, efficacy
<br /> tic methodology was being utilized, and incorrectly is never compromised, but the agency moves in-
<br /> labeled IPM. exorably farther and farther away from pesticide
<br /> The substantial environmental advantages of dependency.
<br /> IPM were recognized after its economic value, but In selecting where to begin, consider which of
<br /> they are just as real. Indeed, this is why the meth- your existing management practices result in the
<br /> odology is so well suited for the 1990s, when wide- highest volume of chemical application. For ex-
<br /> spread environmental concern will apparently be ample, calendar -driven broadleaf weed control pro -
<br /> accompanied by tight financial times. Enlisting the grams in turfgrass are high - volume applications.
<br /> ecosystem as an ally instead of an enemy, setting Setting realistic thresholds for broadleaf plants in
<br /> realistic tolerances for pest populations, utilizing various types or classifications of turf, employing
<br /> monitoring instead of assuming the need for treat- cultural measures designed to give the grass the
<br /> ment, and selecting control strategies that will be advantage over weeds, and converting to a thresh -
<br /> the least disruptive to predators and other nontarget old -driven application regimen will produce a sig-
<br /> organisms are obviously environmentally sound nificant reduction in application volume and, by
<br /> approaches. And, it is these same program features extension, nontarget impact, without loss of truly
<br /> that provide the financial savings. Using authentic necessary weed control.
<br /> IPM, you really can have it both ways! We did this in Eugene, fully expecting that her-
<br /> bicide treatments would prove necessary on sports
<br /> DON'T GO "COLD TURKEY" field turf fairly often because of high use levels and
<br /> resultant stress. In practice, it has only been neces-
<br /> Bans and moratoriums are not uncommon reac- sary to make a single herbicide application to parts
<br /> tions to the pesticide controversy by public agen- of three fields in the last 12 years. Cultural mea-
<br /> cies. To administrators removed from in -field effi- sures have held the balance of more than 25 fields
<br /> cacy problems they may seem the bureaucratic in an acceptable or "under threshold" condition.
<br /> course of least resistance, but they are rarely a good A combination of thresholds and the use of
<br /> idea. Banning all use of pesticide, even the conser- water blasting and insecticidal soaps when treat-
<br /> vative N ! µ
<br /> and timely applications that are part of an ment levels are reached has virtually eliminated the
<br /> E "
<br />
|