New Search
city pest control program to IPM methodology. Another pilot program with a commercial <br /> arborist documented a 94% reduction in pesticide use. Further, 78% of customers surveyed <br /> preferred the IPM approach to traditional cover sprays. The Davey Tree Expert Company <br /> achieved a 75-80% reduction in pesticide use with no loss of efficacy or quality of service to <br /> customers in the first year of their 1987 pilot IPM program. <br /> Selling a program that produces those kinds of results should not be difficult. What is <br /> needed is an effective way to convert the historic methodology from a model directed <br /> exclusively at insect control in field crops to one useful for urban park landscape maintenance <br /> or roadside vegetation management without losing the economic and environmental <br /> advantages inherent to the agricultural programs. <br /> To review, the agricultural model is based on a strong cultural foundation, with pest <br /> control treatments made only on a site - specific basis and reserved for those areas where <br /> target pest populations, as determined by knowledgeable monitoring, exceeded the economic <br /> threshold. Retention of the cultural foundation and replacement of purely economic criteria <br /> with a realistic aesthetic or functional threshold enables the methodology to be transferred to <br /> virtually any resources management vegetation or pest - control challenge. An "action level ", <br /> also should be set, far enough below the threshold of unacceptable damage that timely <br /> intervention can prevent compromise of maintenance standards. This action level becomes <br /> the "trigger" for herbicide application and /or other forms of human intervention. These will <br /> now be applied only on a site or target - specific basis as determined by the presence of over - <br /> threshold populations of target pest vegetation. <br /> The level at which you set the thresholds is critical, as it determines all that follows. <br /> Threshold levels should be truly necessary and set realistically, meaning that they are <br /> genuinely achievable within your operational context. Understand that most contentious <br /> professionals will initially tend to set their thresholds lower than is actually necessary to meet <br /> functional or aesthetic needs. For example, it does no good to set your thresholds at levels <br /> you are not presently able to achieve, even if these would be "desirable ". Neither should it be <br /> necessary to compromise truly needed vegetation control. <br /> Give the matter serious thought. The five criteria: 1) Protection of public safety and <br /> health, 2) Potential for irretrievable damage or injury, 3) Potential for the problem to increase <br /> or spread, 4) Potential for Toss of function of the site or asset, and 5) Potential for loss of <br /> investment; are useful guiding principles. Applying them to your sites and target vegetation <br /> will assist you in setting truly necessary and realistic thresholds. <br /> A monitoring component will be necessary. Several approaches are possible, each <br /> with advantages and disadvantages. Which one is right for you will depend on the specifics of <br /> your situation. Monitoring costs should be compensated by savings resulting from the <br /> conversion to IPM. You should continue to modify and adjust your methods until you reach <br /> the situation expressed in the equation: monitoring + target - specific treatments - reduced <br /> application volume & time = lower net operating costs. <br /> With threshold levels established and your monitoring component in place, the next <br /> question is what to do when target vegetation reaches action threshold levels. In deciding the <br /> form of intervention that is appropriate in a given site or situation, we use four criteria: 1) <br /> proven efficacy, meaning that we know the intervention will effectively suppress the target <br /> vegetation; 2) lowest non - target impact of options passing the first criteria; 3) Operationally <br /> feasible, meaning that we have the staff, tools, equipment and knowledge to carry it out; and <br /> 4) cost- effective. (Remember, IPM /IVM was and is a cost - control strategy). <br /> The terms "intervention" or "control" should not be thought of as synonymous with <br /> herbicide application. A wide range of options is available and more non - chemical vegetation <br /> methodologies are coming on the market all the time. However, this also does not mean that <br /> herbicide use is considered undesirable or only as a 'last resort" (a common misconception). <br />