The Conceptual and Institutional Aspects of Integrated Pest Management

Author(s): G. E. Allen and J. E. Bath

Source: BioScience, Vol. 30, No. 10, Integrated Pest Management (Oct., 1980), pp. 658-664
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1308461 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 17:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The

Conceptual and

Institutional Aspects
Integrated

Pest

of

Management

G. E. Allen and J. E. Bath

Protectingplantsfrompests is a fundamental aspect of food production, because the needs of human society are in
direct competition for resources with
pest populations.Since time immemorial
biological species such as insects, plant
pathogens, nematodes, and weeds have
exploited energyresources for their continued survival. Food production systems for humankind are no different;
they are energy-limitedand subjectto all
the laws of naturalsystems. To maintain
stability toward specific production
goals, humansociety must expend energy to exert control over other natural
systems.
This is no trivialendeavor, despite our
technological "sophistication." Pest
populations are not inert masses to be
passively decimated by our arsenal of
controltechnology. Often, if not always,
the consequences of our control actions
have been counterproductive. Heavy
crop losses (despite tremendous pesticide utilization),pesticide resistance, adverse environmental effects, and low
success rates with biological control
strongly signal that we know very little
about the biological interactions involved in our food productionsystem.
For example, approximately$18.2 billion or 33%of the crops producedin the
United States (35% on a worldwide
basis) are lost due to insect, pathogen,
nematode,andweed pests (Cramer1967,

Allen is former chairman of the USDA/SEA IPM

Coordination Team and professor with the Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Bath is chairman
and professor, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. This
is Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Journal
Article Number 9531 and Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series Number 2544. ?
1980 American Institute of Biological Sciences. All
rights reserved.

Pimentel 1979). This loss continues despite extensive pest control operations,
includingapproximately540 millionkilograms of pesticide applicationsannually
(2.25 billion kg worldwide) (Pimentel
1976),and another10-20%is lost following harvest (Vance 1979).
Methods for controllingpests (insects,
bacteria, fungi, viruses, weeds, nematodes, vertebrates,and other organisms)
affect not only agriculture,forestry, and
natural ecosystems, but ultimately the
consumersof these productsand the stability of politicaland social systems. The
widespreaduse of pesticides since WWII
has created publicconcern over the environment, human health, and human
safety. Moreover,the agriculturalsector
is concerned about the increasing resistance of pests to pesticides and shifts in
pest complexes in food production systems. A renewed emphasis on developing or improvingalternativepest control tactics (biological, genetic, and
cultural) has in recent years fostered a
new philosophy concerningthe management of pests-integrated pest management (IPM)-which is based on ecological, sociological, and economic factors.
CONCEPTS OF IPM
Current Concepts

The emerging recognition of the high

resource costs and risks due to the instability of monospecificagriculturehas led
to the developmentof the science of IPM
as an alternativeto simple chemical control. Since IPM philosophy is in continuous transition,it is definable only at
specific times. The 1977 Secretary's
Memorandum#1929, "USDA Policy on
Managementof Pest Problems," defines
IPM as "a desirable approach to the

selection, integration, and use of methods on the basis of their anticipated

economic, ecological, and sociological
consequences."
An operational concept of IPM was
developed for the Science and Education
Administration(SEA) of the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture(USDA) in a report to the director in 1979 (SEA IPM
CoordinationTeam 1979a).The concept
includes a classificationof pest management programs,includingthe majorelements of (a) basic research, (b) control
components research, (c) IPM systems
research level I, (d) IPM systems research level II, (e) extension IPM systems level I, (f) extension IPM systems
level II, and (g) IPM higher education.
The interrelationshipsamong these elements are illustrated in Figure 1; their
definitionsare as follows:
a. Basic

research

generates

the

knowledge requiredto understandpests

andto develop control strategiesfor individual pests and pest complexes (e.g.,
research on life cycles, population dynamics, pesticide mode-of-action,epidemiology, and ecology).
b. Control components research de-

velops specific control techniques and

related technologies (e.g., research to
develop pest-resistantcrop varieties and
livestock breeds and biological, cultural,
and chemical methods).
c. IPM systems research level I uses

researchthat integratestwo or morecontrol techniques to manage one or more

species of the same grouping such as
weeds (e.g., pigweed, crabgrass, ragweed). Such programsare referredto as
integrated weed management systems,
integrated nematode management systems, integrated disease management
systems, and integrated insect management systems.

658

BioScience Vol. 30 No. 10

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(7) Higher Education

ow-

PEST CONTROL
RESEARCH

IPM SYSTEMS
RESEARCH

IPM SYSTEMS
EXTENSION

FIGURE1. Interrelationships among basic research, control components research, IPMsystems research levels I and II,IPMsystems
extension levels I and II,and higher education in IPM.(Excerpted from SEA IPMCoordination Team 1979a, p.10)
d. IPM systems research level II in-

tegratesresearchfrom two or more management systems for two or more pest

groupings,such as disease and insects or
disease and weeds.
e. Extension

level I delivers

tech-

nology for managingpests of one grouping (e.g., insects, weeds, diseases,or nematodes) on one (or more) commodity.
f. Extension level II delivers manage-

ment systems for pests belongingto two

or more groupings(e.g., diseases and insects, diseases and weeds) on one (or
more) commodity.
g. Higher education in IPM develops

curriculaand integratedcourses to provide interdisciplinarytraining from the

basics throughcontrol component principles and technology through the integrated systems approach to both research and extension.
The SEA concept emphasizes the role of
plant protection disciplines in pest control research; however, it is essential
that the autonomy of the science disciplines be retainedwhile proposingnew
interdisciplinaryinteractions.
There are four reasons for using the

termintegrated in IPM. First, it calls for

a multidisciplinary approach, which
jointly considers all classes of pests (arthropods, nematodes, plant pathogens,
weeds, vertebrates, and other organisms) and their interrelationships.Second, it requiresthat all availablemanagement tactics be coordinated into a
unifiedprogramseeking an optimalmanagementstrategy.Third, crop protection
is treated as but one aspect of the total
managementprogramof the agroecosystem. Finally, IPM recognizes the necessity of addressingeconomic, ecological,
and social concerns.
The 1979aSEA reportemphasizes the
integrated aspects of plant protection.
The methodology that addresses these
managementsystems must be capableof
dealingwith a complex system involving
several interactingelements. Such a systems approachhas been utilized in other
disciplines such as electrical engineering, computer science, economics
(Manetsch and Park 1977), population
dynamics, social sciences (Patten 1971,
Watt 1966), and agriculture (Dalton
1975). Because of the multidisciplinary
nature of IPM, this approach is especially suited to evaluate the complex dy-

namic components that are to be managed by manipulating controllable

factors (Tummala and Haynes 1977).
The frameworkfor such an analysis has
been providedby Lee et al. (1976), Koenig et al. (1976), and Tummala et al.
(1975). A logical outgrowthof these publications is the increaseddemandfor pest
managementprogramsthat are not only
economicallyfeasible and profitable,but
ecologically and socially compatiblewith
long-termgoals.
As early as 1959(Smith 1962, Sternet
al. 1959)the concept of IPM was clearly
stated as an approachthat incorporated
an optimalcombinationof chemical, biological, and cultural control techniques
in a single program. A decade later
Haynes et al. (1973) and Giese et al.
(1975) added the importantaspect of a
changing, meteorologicalcondition that
providedfor periodicupdatingof control
strategies-"on-line pest management"
(OLPM)(Tummalaand Haynes 1977).
Horizontal and Vertical Integration

IPM research, extension, and instructionalprograms,underwayin every state

in the USA, probablyrepresentthe most

October 1980

659

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

widely recognized new agriculturalprogramthrust in the last 10 years. Yet the

definitionof IPMis extremelypluralistic.
It is interdisciplinaryin nature, but each
participatingdiscipline functions, under
its own definition. Therefore, IPM has
various meanings. Some disciplines see
pesticides as the dominating control
componentin IPM;others focus on natural enemies, culturalpractices, and host
plantresistance. In these cases, the definitionscould legitimatelybe paraphrased
as integratedpesticide management,integratedbiological control management,
or integrated host plant resistance
management.
The diversified definitions of IPM
should not, however, be used as a criterionfor denigratingthe concept. Instead,
they should give new insight into the nature of the problem. IPM is a concept
that is evolving. It was not the single
creationof an individualmind or an idea
of patentablequality. Instead it is a philosophy that, if followed, leads to certain
activities or conclusions. From the outset, the wordintegratedhas generallyreferredto the use of two or more control
tactics in a crop or animal protection
program.Virtuallyall definitionsof IPM
preclude crop or animal protection systems that involve only a single control
tactic; IPM forces multiplicityin control
strategies.
The IPM movement really aims to develop protection systems that are integrated across disciplines. Perhaps
there is no non-IPM approach, only a
historicalapproachthat provides recommendationson a discipline-by-discipline
basis. In this classical approach, discipline recommendationsoften interfere
and conflict with another discipline's
recommendations.For example, one discipline could develop a fungicide that
controls a plant disease. Yet, this fungicide might cross discipline lines and
eliminate beneficialfungi, such as those
thatparasitizeand check insect pest populations. So, while controlling a plant
disease, it is wiping out beneficials. To
ignore this problem is non-IPM; to address it is IPM. An integratedapproach
would resolve such conflicts between
disciplines and strategies.
Pest management seeks to integrate
crop protection and production disciplines in order to present a coherent
plantprotectionapproachfor an ecologically and economically stable environment. But discipline integrationfor the
purpose of developing IPM has major
problems. Most institutionshave invested more than 100 years in developing

Conceptual Matrix (43)

Integrated Pest Management
Program

IPM System
Components

Managem
F
Pot
Corn

Pest Subjects
Insect
Pathogen
Shaded areas indicate
subdivisional program examples

Weed

FIGURE2. Conceptual matrix of an integrated pest management program involving four

pest subjects, four management sites, and four IPM system components. (Designed
Marian Mahler Reiter, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University)

strong discipline-orientedprogramsand
administrative units, which encourage
and facilitate truly interdisciplinaryprogramming, without creating new units,
buildings, or institutes. The strength of
any interdisciplinaryprogram is based
on the strengthof the participants'subject areas. Several large universities are
now establishing coordinatorships for
IPM to foster high levels of interaction
between subject areas and the need for
IPM in research, extension, and
instruction.
A great deal of time and energy must
be invested in integrating disciplines.
The challenge is not a small one and the
answer is not obvious; but we know the
old way of doingbusiness is inconsistent
with present social and environmental
signals. We do not have to concern ourselves with absolute success; just knowing we are on the right trajectoryshould
be sufficient. We must assure the adequacy of this route by having all disciplines develop a conceptual model
based on systems science that would include all of the necessary components in
the system to be studied and a clearly
stated object of control (Tummala and
Haynes 1977). The conceptualization
and constructionof a productionsystem
model requires a high degree of interaction between disciplines. However, it
is possible to subdividethe work by specific components if each research group
keeps in mind how its results will be
coupled in the final analysis.
Figure 2 represents a conceptual matrix of an IPM program involving four
pest subjects, four management sites,

by

and four IPM system components. It is

an interdisciplinarychallengeto design a
programwith the goal of understanding
all 64 interactingcomponents of this integrated system as well as the overall
system itself. Although the sum of the
parts need not add up to the whole of a
system, each subsystem must be understood in detail.
There are several ways to direct these
activities. For example, a narrow research programmight focus exclusively
on weeds while a broader objective
would analyze potatoes across four pest
areasand system components(Figure2).
In urban IPM, the research might focus
on the delivery system, for the IPM system components identified in Figure 2
may alreadyexist. The strengththat systems science brings to this endeavor is
its orientation to the linkages between
the system componentsas well as to the
system itself. The interdisciplinaryactivities must be directed toward fulfilling
systems objectives and minimizingduplication of effort.
The principlesof systems science will
probablynot be sufficientlydeveloped in
practice unless they are systematically
subdividedfromthe beginning.Research
projects designed to fill a particularvoid
in understandinga system component
have not been adequatelypursuedin agriculture. Although the systems science
approachhas influencedthe agricultural
researchpictureonly duringthe last decade, if properlyappliedit can reverse the
trend toward scientific isolationism and
retard the compartmentalism of discipline research.
BioScience Vol. 30 No. 10

660

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

There is another important obstacle

that thwarts attempts to integrate research: Most research programs that
achieve any degree of integrationdo so
horizontally. Multidisciplinaryefforts at
a similar level are coordinated from the
top. There is, however, the need for vertical integrationof research, so that studies undertakenby the academic community can affect the real world.
Figure 3 illustratesthe horizontal and
verticaldimensionsof integratedactivity
necessary to move from basic research
to modificationof the real world. There
are horizontallyorganized activities occurringacross each of the six levels of
research synthesis: pest research, commodity research, ecosystem research,
institution research, implementationresearch, and real world systems. Vertical
organizationwithin a level of research
synthesis is accomplishedby puttingdisciplines together in an interdisciplinary
activity. Moving between levels of synthesis requires moving into transdisciplinaryactivity-a closely working
discipline with a common systems philosophy or model. The projects must be
coordinatedto equal something that can
be transferredto the next higher level of
research synthesis. Horizontal projects
must be designed with integration and
synthesis in mind at the outset, particularly in these times of restricted funding
for research and the continual need to
demonstratea finalproduct.Just as horizontally integrated research provides a
check against redundancy and duplication, vertical integrationensures that
perceived progress at any single level of
synthesis is indeed progress when eventually evaluated in the context of the
largersystem.
Integrating research within a given
level would greatly improve the rapidity
with which system understandingand
basic principles come forth. For example, research at the ecosystem level
could find a solution to a pest problem,
but institutional barriers or constraints
may inhibit its implementation. Thus,
vertical integrationis needed to keep research understandingflowingtowardimplementation, so that information can
move between the biological and social
systems. The transdisciplinaryresearch
component of each synthesis level in
Figure3 synthesizes withina given level.
Withoutthis verticalintegration,the second level, for example, does not receive
clear directionfor researchfrom the lowest levels; therefore, the second level
floats. It conducts interesting, but not
necessarily system-essential, research

for the sake of science rather than toward a control objective.

The need for vertical synthesis is especially essential because the trainingand
discipline orientationof scientists at the
various synthesis levels is extremely diverse. The example depicted in Figure3
reveals an ecosystem research level
largely comprised of biologists and systems scientists, whereas the economic
researchlevel is primarilymade up of agricultural and resource economists. If,
for example, the economists are to contribute to the overall research control
objective, biologists must give them
concisely defined and fully integrated
information.
Figure 3 illustrates that disciplinary-

A''DJUSTMENT

OF CURRENT TATE

S?

policyimplementation
social expectations

REALWORLD
SYSTEM

_.

based projects will be conducted at each

level of research synthesis (A, B, C, D,
E, etc.) and that integration will occur
within each level. The degree of vertical
integration within a level depends on
available funding sources and professional expertise. However, at each level
of synthesis at least one project must
have as its goal the integration of all
activities within that level. The level
usually takes the form of a modeling
activity with heavy emphasis on data
management.
The long-term goal of IPM is not
merely to refineour existing agricultural
productionsystem, but to modify extensively the basic design so that less energy-intensive, more environmentally

policystrategyevaluation
Z
*

currentsocial needs addressing

change in resourceavailability

IMPLEMENTATION
RESEARCH

:}
|

alternateproductiondesign
evaluationand institutional
limits

CA

economicevaluationof current
productionsystems

INTERFACE
BETWEENBIOLOGICAL ^/^ : 71-11
-I

"I

..r
ng

SYSTEMS
ANALYSIS

0
g

D
impactof agriculturalproduction
on life systems

-RALISM
MANAGEMENT

C/

spatialand temporalaspects
of biologicalsystems

agroecosystemintegratedanalysis
integratedpest management
P
SS
RESEARCH
ANPANYSIA IN LIFEPROCESSES
-- ORGANISMRESEARCH

A=

|V

INTERDISCIPLINARY
ACTIVITY
ZONEOF CONCEPTUAL
CONFLICT

*
XC

/c

/////////////

TRANSITIONAL
PRINCIPLES

//////////
C").,

BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL AND

'W

SOCIALSYSTEMS

:......- INST PHYSICAL

PHYSICALPROCESSES
=

**. . .*

TRANSDISCIPLINARY
ACTIVITY

HORIZONTAL
INTEGRATION

FIGURE 3. Horizontal and vertical integration of research. (Developed by Dean L. Haynes,

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, especially for this publication;
adapted from visual aids presented at the IX International Congress of Plant Protection,
5-11 August 1979, Washington, DC; designed by Marian Mahler Reiter, MSU Department
of Entomology)

October 1980

661

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

compatiblemethods can be used in production agriculture.The six levels of research synthesis are not needed to
change only the rate of pesticide application or exchange one chemical for
another.
In the past we have often confined research activity to a single level and wondered why the activity did not modify
real world production systems. Trialand-error methods have brought us to
where we are today, but energy constraintsare a time-limitingfactor (see the
Edens and Koenig article in this issue).
Marketsignals that reflect our apparently abundant resource base have decoupled components of our agricultural
system. These signals are again changing. Systems approaches such as IPM
can greatly facilitate our understanding
of the role of components in the overall
structure;expanded efforts in this area
shouldobviate the need for extreme sacrifices in the future.

INSTITUTIONALIZATIONOF IPM

This paper cannot develop a detailed

analysis of the institutionaladjustments
necessary to incorporateIPM into existing agricultural production systems.
However, over the last several years,
some significantadjustmentshave been
made at the state, regional, and national
levels that will greatlyenhance pest managementprograms.
State Level

State programs often reflect unique

needs (minor crops) that are not addressed in multistate or regional programs;therefore, some state effort must
go into managingagriculturalpests that
often occur in limited areas. Many state
cooperative extension services (CESs)
have had active IPM projects since 1972
and have a statewide IPM steering committee including interdisciplinarymultiorganizationsand user grouprepresentation. In some cases, local extension
committees with grower representation
carry out IPM programs at the county
level. The acknowledgedsuccess of CES
IPM programs since 1972 has been in
part attributed to the organizational
structuresexisting in state CESs.
The future needs for IPM trainedpersonnel at all education levels has been
accented in numerous reports on IPM.
Recognizingthese needs, 42 colleges and
universities have initiated IPM or plant
protectioninstructionalprograms.These
662

interdisciplinaryprogramshave focused
primarily on the undergraduatelevels;
however, 13 institutions have initiated
programs at the master's level. Ph.D.
programsrelatingto IPM are expected to
remain discipline-basedbut requiringa
more diverse backgroundin related disciplines, ecology, and systems science.
Clearly the ultimate success of IPM
programs will depend on our ability to
build the philosophy into state research,
extension, and teaching programs. Establishing strong interdisciplinary research teams that represent plant protection disciplines-ecology, economics,
and climatology-at the state university
level is the prerequisitefor buildingthe
necessary foundation for IPM and will
serve as the basis for multistate,regional
IPM activities.
Regional Level

In 1979 SEA established planningand

coordinationactivities in four regions to
address common goals for managingagricultural pests on a multistate level.
IPM administrativetask forces, including representativesfrom the associations
of the state AESs, CESs, resident instruction, and AR/USDA, have established prioritiesfor IPM research, extension, and teaching for the western,
north-central, northeast, and southern
regions of the USA. Futureprioritiesfor
IPM budgetingfor SEA are expected to
be generated via the four regional planning groups. Regionalplanningactivities
will probably also include representatives of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), other USDA agencies,
industry,grower organizations,and other parties.
Agriculturalresearch (AR), state agricultural experiment stations (SAESs),
cooperative extension services (CESs),
and teaching interact and cooperate at
the regional level in addressing broadbased IPM problems that cannot be
solved at the state level. AR's role in
IPM programshas not been clearly defined, but its contribution to basic researchand developmentof resistantcrop
varietiesis of majorimportanceto developing effective IPM strategies.

(CEQ) "to recommendaction which the

federal government can take to encourage the developmentand application"of
techniques used in IPM. Subsequently
the Secretary of Agriculture issued a
"USDA Policy on Managementof Pest
Problems." Title XIV of the Food and
AgricultureAct of 1977 mandates that
researchbe conducted "to find solutions
to environmental problems caused by
technological changes in food and agriculture production" and to develop and
implement,throughresearch, "more efficient, less wasteful and environmentally sound methods for producingfood."
On 18 January 1979, the Secretary of
Agricultureand the EPA administrator
initiateda Memorandumof Understanding (MOU) to establish policies and administrativedevices to provide a continuing working relationshipbetween EPA
and USDA in common objectives, interests, and statutory requirementsand to
avoid duplicating programs conducted
by other cooperating agencies, departments, or contractors. The MOU includes the authorityto develop additional agreementsfor specific tasks, such as
IPM programs.
The Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA)completeda reportin 1979for the
Congress entitled Pest Management
Strategies in Crop Protection. It as-

sessed crop protectionproblems, current

and emerging control technologies, and
projected future developments over the
next 15 years for each of seven U.S. regional cropping systems; evaluated federal constraints to improve U.S. pest
management; and reviewed the problems, potential, and impacts of transferring North American crop protection
technology to the developing world. A
key recommendation in the report assigned USDA the responsibility and authority to coordinate IPM research programs and to implement an adequately
staffed and coordinatedinformationdelivery system.
A total of four studies on IPM have
been conducted within the USDA/SEA
by the IPM CoordinationTeam and two
major SEA policy committees-the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) and the Extension Committee on the Organization
of Policy (ECOP).The reportsaddressed
National Level
programstatus, needs, and prioritiesand
Since 1977, IPM has received consid- called for large resource (personnel and
erable attention at the national level. In operation)increases in order to perpetuhis EnvironmentalMessage to Congress ate the expansionof IPMprogramsin the
in 1977,the PresidentidentifiedIPMas a next 5-10 years.
In 1979 the CEQ report, Integrated
high-priorityprogramneed and instructed the Councilon EnvironmentalQuality Pest Management (Bottrell 1979), recBioScience Vol. 30 No. 10

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ommended policy initiatives as well as

In cooperation with state CESs, SEA
additional research and education efforts extension allocated approximately $11
to provide a sound basis for the advance- million dollars in FY 1978 for
ongoing
ment of IPM. Consequently, the Presi- IPM programs and special projects in 47
dent directed the establishment of an in- states. Currently, IPM CES
programs
teragency IPM coordinating committee.
are underway in all states, Puerto Rico,
This committee submitted its reports to and the Virgin Islands. The
Higher Eduthe President on 30 June 1980.
cation (HE) unit of SEA, established in
The report identified 22 invited federal 1977, cooperates with resident instrucagencies as responsible for current or po- tion programs of the state colleges of agtential pest control activities in the six riculture. This unit is projected to play a
management systems (agriculture, for- major role in training future IPM
estry, rangeland, rights-of-way, urban scientists.
environments, and public health) with an
Authorizations amended by the 1978
estimated annual expenditure of $700 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Romillion. In order to meet the national denticide Act (FIFRA)-Public Law 95goal for IPM the interagency committee
396 (30 September 1978)-direct
the
recommended "a reasonable balance of EPA to conduct IPM research and impleeffort and accomplishment" in research, mentation programs. Activities
involving
technology transfer, implementation,
IPM relate to EPA's responsibility to
and assistance. It made 19 recommenda- regulate the use of pesticides. Section 20
tions, ranging from federal interagency of FIFRA clearly states the intent of the
coordination to a White House confer- Congress to close coordination between
ence on IPM.
EPA and USDA IPM-related research
and implementation: "The Administrator shall . . . conduct research into inRole of USDA and EPA
tegrated pest management in coordinaUSDA and EPA are the two major fed- tion with the Secretary of Agriculture,"
eral agencies involved in agricultural IPM as well as section 28:
programs. Congress designated USDA
The Administratorshall also coordias the lead agency in the federal govnate and cooperate with the Secretary
ernment for the food and agriculture sciof Agriculture's research and impleences and assigned the department
mentation programs to develop and
specific missions in agricultural reimprove the safe use and effectiveness of chemical, biological, and alsearch, extension, and teaching under
ternativemethods to combat and conPublic Law 95-113 (Section 1403, Title
trol pests....
XVI)-the Food and Agriculture Act of
1977. Primary agencies within USDA In addition, EPA responsibilities
regardconcerned with IPM include SEA; For- ing control of nonpoint-source pollution
est Service (FS); Economics, Statistics of water, under Section 208 of the Clean
and Cooperative Services (ESCS); and Water Act of 1977 (FWPCA), involve
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
IPM as well as soil, water, and nutrient
Service (APHIS).
management practices for improved waSEA is directly responsible for re- ter quality.
search, extension, and higher education
In FY 1980, EPA allocated $4.1 milin agricultural production, other than lion for IPM research and
implementaforestry, and consists of Agricultural Re- tion through its Office of Research and
search (AR), Cooperative Research
Development (ORD). The agency cur(CR), and Higher Education (HE). The rently supports three major IPM proagency allocated approximately $192 grams: a 15-university consortium for remillion for pest control research in FY search on apples, alfalfa, soybean, and
1977, which was conducted through AR cotton; a six-university consortium conand CR in cooperation with the SAESs cerned with riceland mosquitoes; and a
in the country. Of this, only about $11 five-university consortium
studying the
million, or approximately 6% of the re- control of soil arthropods in corn prosources, was directed toward IPM sys- duction systems. Other ORD research
tems research levels I and II, which re- efforts include the
development of pest
flects the current capabilities of inte- management programs for
onions, urban
grating programs. The SEA/IPM Co- systems, and technology transfer.
ordination Team Report (5 March 1979)
Pursuant to FIFRA directives, USDA/
proposed a threefold increase in the SEA and EPA/ORD
recently started an
integration phases in order to cope
Interagency Memorandum of Underwith the increased emphasis on IPM standing
(MOU) to "provide for the
programs.
maximum utilization of programs in-

tended to support the development and

implementation of pest management
strategies, including IPM." Under the
agreement, SEA and ORD will jointly
fund and administer the 15-university
consortium (above). The agreement also
provided a mechanism for planning future multistate IPM programs.

CHALLENGEFOR THE FUTURE1

Pest management practices closely relate to the prevailing agricultural technology, which in turn is determined by
the cost and availability of existing energy inputs. High yielding varieties of
crops requiring high energy inputs for
production are often substituted for
lower yielding varieties and the same energy input level. The changing resource
environment may reverse this trend.
However, at lower energy input levels
(e.g., low fertilizer rate), the replacement crop may actually be superior.
The overwhelming dependency of
North American agricultural production
systems on fossil fuels is well-documented. A single American farmer may
be able to feed more than 50 people, but
this high productivity of labor is possible
only by heavy capitalization and voluminous energy inputs.
Part of the price we have paid for our
highly mechanized agricultural system
must be measured in terms of ecological
stability. The repeated use of land for the
same crops, monocultural cropping patterns, and the continual refinement of
seed varieties have all increased the energy price of maintaining the system's
stability. Therefore, the potential for exogenous perturbations to wreak havoc
on the system is enormous.
Agricultural technology that evolved
during an era of declining real energy
prices must now be redirected to a completely new set of signals. The impact of
energy-induced changes in agricultural
technology directly affects crop management and protection practices. For example, cheap energy induced the development of hybrids well-suited
for
mechanical harvesting in terms of fertilizer and pesticide usage in addition to
large-scale centralization with long distribution linkages.
The limitations on future energy supplies and costs are determined not by aggregate quantities of energy or by gross
production capacities, but by the frac'This section is a contribution from Thomas C.
Edens, excerptedfroma talk presentedat the IX InternationalCongressof Plant Protection, 5-11 August 1979, Washington,D.C.

October 1980

663

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

They illustrate the need for the integration of these disciplines through an
agroecosystem integrated management
(AIM) program. This effort represents a
first step in integrating the collective efforts of a diverse group of scientists and
in moving ahead to meet the challenge of
the '80s and beyond.

tion of gross production that can be

made available for end use at any given
time-the net energy gain. Crucial to
planning for the future is the fact that the
aggregate energy gain from resources
will continue to decline and the real cost
of energy resources will increase as the
nation and the world move from natural
to renewable
fluid fuels
energy
resources.
For pest management in particular, integrated unit operations and increased
regional diversifications will provide the
future framework for designing ecological control strategies that more fully exploit balanced species communities.
However, applying such control strategies may require special transitional procedures to overcome the ecological hysteresis of chemical controls.
Policies for future food production and
agroecosystem management in general
and for IPM specifically must begin with
a clear assessment of the global, national, and regional resource picture. It is not
enough to hope for a technical "fix" in
energy production. Our agricultural policies must be concerned with sustaining
levels of edible food and nutrition per
unit of land, energy, or human time invested. We must assess the entire food
chain from photosynthesis
to human
consumption-not
merely from the resource efficiencies of the individual operations within the chain.
To embrace a systems perspective of
the world we live in is itself a transdisciplinary task. As specialists in one or
another area, we tend to overlook the
synergistic interactions of the system.
But to understand the implications of
changing resource availability for agricultural production, we must perceive
the transitional patterns that have been
in progress for many years (Figure 3).
The articles in this issue represent the
thoughts of specialists in specific areas.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our sincere thanks to Susan L. Battenfield, Department of Entomology,
Michigan State University, and to Amy
Smith, Department of Entomology and
Nematology, University of Florida, for
their editorial and bibliographical assistance. We also thank Battenfield for preparing this paper, and Marian Mahler
Reiter, Department of Entomology,
Michigan State University, for her work
on the graphics of Figures 2 and 3.

REFERENCES CITED

P. D. Fisher. 1973. Environmental monitoring network for pest managementsystems. Environ. Entomol. 2(5): 889-99.
Interagency IPM Coordination Committee.
1980. Report of the Interagency IPM Coordination Committee. Chaired by the Coun-

cil on EnvironmentalQuality, Washington,

DC, 30 June 1980.
Intersociety Consortium for Plant Protection.
1979. Integrated Pest Management: A Program of Research for the State Agricultural
Experiment Stations in the Colleges of

1980. USDA, SEA/CR, Washington, DC,

I September 1979.
Koenig, H. E., D. L. Haynes, and R. L.
Tummala. 1976. Systems engineeringprospects for technological development of
an approach to systems in biometeorology.
Int. J. Biometeorol. 20: 73-81.

Lee, K. Y., R. 0. Barr, S. H. Gage, and

A. N. Kharkar. 1976. Formulation of a systems model for insect pest control-the cereal leaf beetle program. J. Theoret. Biol.
59: 33-76.
Manetsch, T. J., and G. L. Park. 1977. Systems Analysis and Simulation with Application to Economic and Social Systems.
Parts I & 1, 3rd ed. Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1979. Pest
Management Strategies and Crop Pro-

Bottrell, D. R. 1979. Integrated Pest Management. Councilon EnvironmentalQuality. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington,DC.
tection. U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice,
Cramer, H. H. 1967. Plan Protection and
Washington, DC.
World Crop Production. Pflanzenschutz Patten, B. C., ed. 1971. Systems Analysis and
Nachrichten. FarbenfabrikenBayer Ag.,
Simulation in Ecology, 5 volumes. AcaLeuerkusen.
demic Press, New York.
Dalton, G. E. 1975.Studyof AgriculturalSys- Pimentel, D. 1976. World food crisis: energy
tems. Applied Science Publication, Lonand pests. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 22: 20don.
26.
Extension Committee on Organizationand
. 1979. Energy use in plant proPolicy. February 1979. Integrated Pest
tection: a global assessment. Proc. IX Int.
Management:A Program of Researchfor
Cong. Plant Protection. 5-11 August 1979.
the State CooperativeExtension Services.
Washington, DC, in press.
U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice, WashingSEA IPM Coordination Team. 1979a. Inton, DC.
tegrated Pest Management Programs.
Giese, R. L., R. M. Peart, and R. H. Huber.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing1975. Pest management:a pilot project exton,
DC, 2 February 1979.
emplifies new ways of dealing with impor. 1979b. SEA Integrated Pest Managetant agriculturalpests. Science 187: 1045ment Programs: 1981-1985. U.S. Govern52.
ment Printing Office, Washington, DC, 5
D.
R.
K.
and
Haynes,
L.,
Brandenburg,
March 1979.
Smith, R. F. 1962. Principles of integrated

pest control. Symp.: Biotic factors in the

Wouldn't

you

* 20 Years

Proven

* Unique

Energy

* Design

Flexibility

* Programmable

really

have

rather
Reliability
Saving

an

EEC?

and K. S. Hagen. 1959.The integratedcontrol concept. Hilgardia 29(2): 81-101.

* Warranty-Service

Heating

for Standard

environment and their use in biological control. Proc. N. Cent. Br. Entomol. Soc. Am.
17: 71-77.
Stern, V. M., R. F. Smith, R. van den Bosch,

and Cooling
or Special

Environments

Units

ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROLS
* Temperature
* RelativeHumidity
* HighIntensityLight

rni GIJPD

Next time-go first class. Go EGC!

GROWTH CHAMBERS
ENVIRONMENTAL
Division of Integrated Development and Manufacturing

P.O. Box 407 Chagrin Falls Ohio 44022 (216) 247-5100

CIRCLE NO. 85 ON THE READER'S SERVICE CARD

Tummala, R. L., and D. L. Haynes. 1977.

On-line pest management systems. Environ. Entomol. 6: 338-49.
Tummala, R. L., W. G. Ruesink, and D. L.
Haynes. 1975. A discrete component approach to the management of the cereal leaf
beetle ecosystem. Environ. Entomol. 4(2):
175-86.
Watt, K. E. F., ed. 1966. Systems Analysis in
Ecology. Academic Press, New York.

BioScience Vol. 30 No. 10

664

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:03:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions