• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Biointensive Integrated Pest Management
 

Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

on

  • 1,760 views

Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,760
Views on SlideShare
1,760
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
59
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Document Transcript

    • BIOINTENSIVE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE ATTRA is the national sustainable agriculture information center funded by the USDA’s Rural Business--Cooperative Service.Abstract: This publication provides the rationale for biointensive IntegratedPest Management (IPM), outlines the concepts and tools of biointensive IPM,and suggests steps and provides informational resources for implementing IPM.It is targeted to individuals interested in agriculture at all levels.By Rex DufourNCAT Agriculture SpecialistJuly 2001 Contents “Conventional” and “Biointensive” IPM ......................................................................................................... 2 Why Move to Biointensive IPM? ....................................................................................................................... 4 Components of Biointensive IPM ...................................................................................................................... 5 How to Get Started ......................................................................................................................................... 5 The Pest Manager/Ecosystem Manager ..................................................................................................... 5 Proactive Strategies (Cultural Controls) ...................................................................................................... 6 Biological Controls ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Mechanical and Physical Controls ............................................................................................................. 12 Pest Identification ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Economic Injury & Action Levels ............................................................................................................... 14 Special Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Cosmetic Damage and Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 14 Record-keeping ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Chemical Controls ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Integrated Weed Management Systems ......................................................................................................... 17 Current Status of IPM ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Crops with Developed IPM Programs ...................................................................................................... 19 Government Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 19 The Future of IPM .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Food Quality Protection Act ........................................................................................................................ 20 New Options ................................................................................................................................................. 20 More Weed IPM ............................................................................................................................................ 20 On-farm Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 21 IPM On-line ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 IPM Certification and Marketing .................................................................................................................... 21 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 22 References ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendices: A: IPM Planning Considerations ................................................................................................................ 25 B: Microbial Pesticides ................................................................................................................................ 27 C: Microbial Pesticide Manufacturers and Suppliers ............................................................................. 34 D: Conservation Security Act 2000 ............................................................................................................ 37 E: Pest Management Practices in Major Crops ........................................................................................ 38 F: IPM Information Resources ................................................................................................................... 39 ATTRA is a project of the National Center for Appropriate Technology
    • “Conventional” and “Biointensive” IPM ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Pest management is an ecological matter. The A conception of a managed resource, suchsize of a pest population and the damage it as a cropping system on a farm, as ainflicts is, to a great extent, a reflection of the component of a functioning ecosystem.design and management of a particular agricul- Actions are taken to restore and enhancetural ecosystem. natural balances in the system, not to eliminate species. Regular monitoringWe humans compete with other organisms for makes it possible to evaluate the popula-food and fiber from our crops. We wish to tions of pest and beneficial organisms. Thesecure a maximum amount of the food re- producer can then take steps to enhancesource from a given area with minimum input natural controls (or at least avoid or limitof resources and energy. However, if the the disruption of natural controls) of theagricultural system design and/or manage- target pest(s).ment is faulty—making it easy for pests todevelop and expand their populations or, An understanding that the presence of aconversely, making it difficult for predators pest does not necessarily constitute aand parasites of pests to exist—then we will be problem. Before a potentially disruptiveexpending unnecessary resources for pest control method is employed, appropriatemanagement. Therefore, the first step in sus- decision-making criteria are used to deter-tainable and effective pest management is mine whether or not pest managementlooking at the design of the agricultural ecosys- actions are needed.tem and considering what ecological conceptscan be applied to the design and management A consideration of all possible pest manage-of the system to better manage pests and their ment options before action is taken.parasites and predators. A philosophy that IPM strategies integrateThe design and management of our agricul- a combination of all suitable techniques intural systems need re-examining. We’ve come as compatible a manner as possible; it isto accept routine use of biological poisons in important that one technique not conflictour food systems as normal. But routine use of with another (1).synthetic chemicals represents significantenergy inputs into the agricultural system, and However, IPM has strayed from its ecologicalcarries both obvious and hidden costs to the roots. Critics of what might be termed “con-farmer and society. Attempting to implement ventional” IPM note that it has been imple-an ecology-based discipline like IPM in large mented as Integrated Pesticide Managementmonocultures, which substitute chemical (or even Improved Pesticide Marketing) withinputs for ecological design, can be an exercise an emphasis on using pesticides as a tool ofin futility and inefficiency. first resort. What has been missing from this approach, which is essentially reactive, is anIPM, as it was originally conceived, proposed understanding of the ecological basis of pestto manage pests though an understanding of infestations (see first bullet above). Alsotheir interactions with other organisms and the missing from the conventional approach areenvironment. Most of the 77 definitions for guidelines for ecology-based manipulations of theIPM listed in The Database of IPM Resources farm agroecosystem that address the questions:(DIR) website, <http://www.ipmnet.org/DIR/>, despite some differences in emphasis, Why is the pest there?agree with this idea and have the following How did it arrive?elements in common: Why doesn’t the parasite/predator complex control the pest? //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 2
    • reactive Chemical Controls Applied Biologicals Mechanical & Physical Conrols Monitoring & ID of Pests Monitoring & ID of Pests & Beneficials//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Sanitation, Planting Dates, & Crop Rotation Aboveground Crop Genetic Diversity Beneficial Habitat & Cultivars Appropriate & Healthy Soil to Ecosystem & Pest Pressures proactive Biointensive IPM Conventional IPMPage 3
    • Why Move to Biointensive IPM? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Biointensive IPM incorporates ecological and dominated by farms. Although some pendingeconomic factors into agricultural system design legislation has recognized the costs to farmersand decision making, and addresses public of providing these ecological services (seeconcerns about environmental quality and food Appendix D), it’s clear that farmers andsafety. The benefits of implementing ranchers will be required to manage their landbiointensive IPM can include reduced chemical with greater attention to direct and indirect off-input costs, reduced on-farm and off-farm farm impacts of various farming practices onenvironmental impacts, and more effective water, soil, and wildlife resources. With thisand sustainable pest management. An likely future in mind, reducing dependence onecology-based IPM has the potential of chemical pesticides in favor of ecosystemdecreasing inputs of fuel, machinery, and manipulations is a good strategy for farmers.synthetic chemicals—all of which are energyintensive and increasingly costly in terms of Consumers Union, a group that has carriedfinancial and environmental impact. Such out research and advocacy on variousreductions will benefit the grower and society. pesticide problems for many years, defines biointensive IPM as the highest level of IPM:Over-reliance on the use of synthetic pesticidesin crop protection programs around the world “a systems approach to pest managementhas resulted in disturbances to the environ- based on an understanding of pest ecology.ment, pest resurgence, pest resistance to pesti- It begins with steps to accurately diagnose the nature and source of pest problems,cides, and lethal and sub-lethal effects on non- and then relies on a range of preventivetarget organisms, including humans (3). These tactics and biological controls to keep pestside effects have raised public concern about populations within acceptable limits.the routine use and safety of pesticides. At the Reduced-risk pesticides are used if othersame time, population increases are placing tactics have not been adequately effective,ever-greater demands upon the “ecological as a last resort, and with care to minimizeservices”—that is, provision of clean air, water risks.” (2)and wildlife habitat—of a landscape This “biointensive” approach sounds remark- Prior to the mid-1970s, lygus bugs were ably like the original concept of IPM. Such a considered to be the key pest in California “systems” approach makes sense both intu- cotton. Yet in large-scale studies on insec- itively and in practice. ticidal control of lygus bugs, yields in un- treated plots were not significantly differ- The primary goal of biointensive IPM is to ent from those on treated plots. This was provide guidelines and options for the effective because the insecticides often induced out- management of pests and beneficial organisms breaks of secondary lepidopterous larvae in an ecological context. The flexibility and (i.e., cabbage looper, beet armyworm, and environmental compatibility of a biointensive bollworm) and mite pests which caused ad- IPM strategy make it useful in all types of ditional damage as well as pest resurgence cropping systems. of the lygus bug itself. These results, from an economic point of view, seem paradoxi- Even conventional IPM strategies help to cal, as the lygus bug treatments were costly, prevent pest problems from developing, and yet the treated plots consistently had lower reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals in yields (i.e., it cost farmers money to lose managing problems that do arise. Results of 18 money). This paradox was first pointed out economic evaluations of conventional IPM on by R. van den Bosch, V. Stern, and L. A. cotton showed a decrease in production costs Falcon, who forced a reevaluation of the of 7 percent and an average decrease in pesti- economic basis of Lygus control in Califor- cide use of 15 percent (4). Biointensive IPM nia cotton (5). would likely decrease chemical use and costs even further. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 4
    • Components of Biointensive IPM ○ ○ ○ ○ ○An important difference between conventional When planning a biointensive IPM program,and biointensive IPM is that the emphasis of some considerations include:the latter is on proactive measures to redesign Options for design changes in the agricul-the agricultural ecosystem to the disadvantage tural system (beneficial organism habitat,of a pest and to the advantage of its parasite crop rotations)and predator complex. At the same time, Choice of pest-resistant cultivarsbiointensive IPM shares many of the same Technical information needscomponents as conventional IPM, including Monitoring options, record keeping, equip-monitoring, use of economic thresholds, record ment, etc.keeping, and planning. The table in Appendix A provides more detailsHow To Get Started With IPM about these and other ideas that should be— PLANNING, PLANNING, PLANNING considered when implementing a biointensive IPM program.Good planning must precede implementationof any IPM program, but is particularly impor- The Pest Manager / Ecosystem Managertant in a biointensive program. Planningshould be done before planting because many The pest manager is the most important link inpest strategies require steps or inputs, such as a successful IPM program. The manager mustbeneficial organism habitat management, that know the biology of the pest and the beneficialmust be considered well in advance. Attempt- organisms associated with the pest, and under-ing to jump-start an IPM program in the begin- stand their interactions within the farm envi-ning or middle of a cropping season generally ronment. As a detailed knowledge of the pestdoes not work. is developed, weak links in its life cycle Blocks on the Pesticide Treadmill Resistance: Pesticide use exerts a powerful selection pressure for changing the genetic make-up of a pest population. Naturally resistant individuals in a pest population are able to survive pesti- cide treatments. The survivors pass on the resistance trait to their offspring. The result is a much higher percentage of the pest population resistant to a pesticide. In the last decade, the number of weed species known to be resistant to herbicides rose from 48 to 270, and the number of plant pathogens resistant to fungicides grew from 100 to 150. Resistance to insecticides is so common — more than 500 species — that nobody is really keeping score (2). Resurgence: Pesticides often kill off natural enemies along with the pest. With their natural en- emies eliminated, there is little to prevent recovered pest populations from exploding to higher, more damaging numbers than existed before pesticides were applied. Additional chemical pesti- cide treatments only repeat this cycle. Secondary Pests: Some potential pests that are normally kept under good control by natural en- emies become actual pests after their natural enemies are destroyed by pesticides. Mite outbreaks after pesticide applications are a classic example. Residues: Only a minute portion of any pesticide application contacts the target organism. The remainder may degrade harmlessly, but too often water, wind, and soil will carries pesticides to non-target areas and organisms, affecting the health of human and wildlife populations. Public concerns over residues are deepened by the lack of research and knowledge about possible syner- gistic interactions between pesticide residues and the hundreds of other synthetic chemical resi- dues now found in the environment. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 5
    • become apparent. These weak links are phases The second set of options is more reactive.of the life cycle when the pest is most suscep- This simply means that the grower responds totible to control measures. The manager must a situation, such as an economically damagingintegrate this knowledge with tools and tech- population of pests, with some type of short-niques of biointensive IPM to manage not one, term suppressive action. Reactive methodsbut several pests. A more accurate title for the generally include inundative releases of bio-pest manager is “ecosystem doctor,” for he or logical controls, mechanical and physical controls, and chemical controls.she must pay close attention to the pulse of themanaged ecosystem and stay abreast of devel- Proactive Strategies (Cultural Control)opments in IPM and crop/pest biology andecology. In this way, the ecosystem manager • Healthy, biologically active soils (increasingcan take a proactive approach to managing belowground diversity)pests, developing ideas about system manipu-lations, testing them, and observing the results. • Habitat for beneficial organisms (increasing aboveground diversity)IPM options may be considered proactive orreactive. Proactive options, such as crop • Appropriate plant cultivarsrotations and creation of habitat for beneficialorganisms, permanently lower the carrying Cultural controls are manipulations of thecapacity of the farm for the pest. The carrying agroecosystem that make the cropping systemcapacity is determined by factors like food, less friendly to the establishment and prolifera-shelter, natural enemies complex, and weather, tion of pest populations. Although they are designed to have positive effects on farmwhich affect the reproduction and survival of a ecology and pest management, negative im-species. Cultural controls are generally consid- pacts may also result, due to variations inered to be proactive strategies. weather or changes in crop management. Carrying Capacity of Farm Systems for Pest Populations:In a non-farmscaped system, where pests have fewer natural controls and thus reach higher averagepopulations, they are more likely to approach or exceed the economic threshold level for the crop, makingpesticide treatments likely. In a farmscaped system, greater and more consistent populations of beneficialorganisms put more ecological pressure on the pests, with the result that pest populations are less likely toapproach the economic threshold. In other words, the ecological carrying capacity for a pest will probably be lower ina farmscaped system. For more on farmscaping, see p. 11. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 6
    • Maintaining and increasing biological diversity occur there as well. For example, larvae of oneof the farm system is a primary strategy of species of blister beetle consume about 43cultural control. Decreased biodiversity tends grasshopper eggs before maturing (10). Bothto result in agroecosystems that are unstable are found in the soil. (Unfortunately, althoughand prone to recurrent pest outbreaks and blister beetle larvae can help reduce grasshop-many other problems (5). Systems high in per populations, the adult beetles can be abiodiversity tend to be more “dynamically serious pest for many vegetable growers.)stable”—that is, the variety of organisms Overall, a healthy soil with a diversity ofprovide more checks and balances on each beneficial organisms and high organic matterother, which helps prevent one species (i.e., content helps maintain pest populations belowpest species) from overwhelming the system. their economic thresholds.There are many ways to manage and increase Genetic diversity of a particular crop may bebiodiversity on a farm, both above ground and increased by planting more than one cultivar.in the soil. In fact, For example, adiversity above “When we kill off the natural recent experimentground influences in China (11) enemies of a pest we inheritdiversity below demonstrated that their work”  Carl Huffaker disease-susceptibleground. Research hasshown that up to half rice varietiesof a plant’s photosynthetic production (carbo- planted in mixtures with resistant varieties hadhydrates) is sent to the roots, and half of that 89% greater yield and a 94% lower incidence of(along with various amino acids and other rice blast (a fungus) compared to when theyplant products) leaks out the roots into the were grown in monoculture. The experiment,surrounding soil, providing a food source for which involved five townships in 1998 and tenmicroorganisms. These root exudates vary townships in 1999, was so successful thatfrom plant species to plant species and this fungicidal sprays were no longer applied byvariation influences the type of organisms the end of the two-year program.associated with the root exudates (6). Species diversity of the associated plant andFactors influencing the health and biodiversity animal community can be increased by allow-of soils include the amount of soil organic ing trees and other native plants to grow inmatter; soil pH; nutrient balance; moisture; and fence rows or along water ways, and by inte-parent material of the soil. Healthy soils with a grating livestock into the farm system. Use ofdiverse community of organisms support plant the following cropping schemes are additionalhealth and nutrition better than soils deficient ways to increase species diversity. (Seein organic matter and low in species diversity. ATTRA’s Farmscaping to Enhance BiologicalResearch has shown that excess nutrients (e.g., Control for more information on this topic.)too much nitrogen) as well as relative nutrientbalance (i.e., ratios of nutrientsfor example, Crop rotations radically alter the environmenttwice as much calcium as magnesium, com- both above and below ground, usually to thepared to equal amounts of both) in soils affect disadvantage of pests of the previous crop.insect pest response to plants (7, 8). Imbalances The same crop grown year after year on thein the soil can make a plant more attractive to same field will inevitably build up populationsinsect pests (7, 8), less able to recover from pest of organisms that feed on that plant, or, in thedamage, or more susceptible to secondary case of weeds, have a life cycle similar to thatinfections by plant pathogens (8). Soils rich in of the crop. Add to this the disruptive effect oforganic matter tend to suppress plant patho- pesticides on species diversity, both above andgens (9). In addition, it is estimated that 75% of below ground, and the result is an unstableall insect pests spend part of their life cycle in system in which slight stresses (e.g., new pestthe soil, and many of their natural enemies variety or drought) can devastate the crop. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 7
    • An enforced rotation program in the Imperial Val- direct return per acre than the alternate crop, ley of California has effectively controlled the but may also lower management costs for the sugar beet cyst nematode. Under this program, alternate crop (by reducing weed pressure, for sugar beets may not be grown more than two example, and thus avoiding one tillage or years in a row or more than four years out of ten herbicide application), with a net increase in in clean fields (i.e., non-infested fields). In infested profit. fields, every year of a sugar beet crop must be followed by three years of a non-host crop. Other Other Cropping Structure Options nematode pests commonly controlled with crop rotation methods include the golden nematode Multiple cropping is the sequential production of potato, many root-knot nematodes, and the of more than one crop on the same land in one soybean cyst nematode. year. Depending on the type of cropping sequence used, multiple cropping can be usefulWhen making a decision about crop rotation, as a weed control measure, particularly whenconsider the following questions: Is there an the second crop is interplanted into the first.economically sustainable crop that can berotated into the cropping system? Is it compat- Interplanting is seeding or planting a crop into aible? Important considerations when develop- growing stand, for example overseeding aing a crop rotation are: cover crop into a grain stand. There may be microclimate advantages (e.g., timing, wind• What two (or three or several) crops can protection, and less radical temperature and provide an economic return when considered humidity changes) as well as disadvantages together as a biological and economic system (competition for light, water, nutrients) to this that includes considerations of sustainable soil strategy. By keeping the soil covered, inter- management? planting may also help protect soil against erosion from wind and rain.• What are the impacts of this season’s crop- ping practices on subsequent crops? Intercropping is the practice of growing two or more crops in the same, alternate, or paired• What specialized equipment is necessary for rows in the same area. This technique is the crops? particularly appropriate in vegetable produc- tion. The advantage of intercropping is that• What markets are available for the rotation crops?A corn/soybean rotation is one example ofrotating compatible economic crops. Corn is agrass; soybean is a leguminous broadleaf. Thepest complex of each, including soil organisms,is quite different. Corn rootworm, one of themajor pests of corn, is virtually eliminated byusing this rotation. Both crops generallyprovide a reasonable return. Even rotations,however, create selection pressures that willultimately alter pest genetics. A good exampleis again the corn rootworm: the corn/beanrotation has apparently selected for a smallpopulation that can survive a year of non-corn(i.e., soybean) cropping (12).Management factors should also be considered. Intercropping French beans with cilantroFor example, one crop may provide a lower —a potential control for symphylans. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 8
    • the increased diversity helps “disguise” crops plants from these seeds will have a goodfrom insect pests, and if done well, may allow chance of being better suited to the local envi-for more efficient utilization of limited soil and ronment and of being more resistant to insectswater resources. Disadvantages may relate to and diseases. Since natural systems are dy-ease of managing two different crop species namic rather than static, breeding for resistancewith potentially different nutrient, water, and must be an ongoing process, especially in thelight needs, and differences in harvesting time case of plant disease, as the pathogens them-and methodin close proximity to each other. selves continue to evolve and become resistantFor a detailed discussion, request the ATTRA to control measures (13).publication, Intercropping: Principles and Produc-tion Practices. Sanitation involves removing and destroying the overwintering or breeding sites of the pestStrip cropping is the practice of growing two or as well as preventing a new pest from establish-more crops in different strips across a field ing on the farm (e.g., not allowing off-farm soilwide enough for independent cultivation (e.g., from farm equipment to spread nematodes oralternating six-row blocks of soybeans and corn plant pathogens to your land). This strategyor alternating strips of alfalfa and cotton or has been particularly useful in horticultural andalfalfa and corn). It is commonly practiced to tree-fruit crop situations involving twig andhelp reduce soil erosion in hilly areas. Like branch pests. If, however, sanitation involvesintercropping, strip cropping increases the removal of crop residues from the soil surface,diversity of a cropping area, which in turn may the soil is left exposed to erosion by wind andhelp “disguise” the crops from pests. Another water. As with so many decisions in farming,advantage to this system is that one of the crops both the short- and long-term benefits of eachmay act as a reservoir and/or food source for action should be considered when tradeoffs likebeneficial organisms. However, much more this are involved.research is needed on the complex interactionsbetween various paired crops and their pest/ Spacing of plants heavily influences the devel-predator complexes. opment of plant diseases and weed problems. The distance between plants and rows, theThe options described above can be integrated shape of beds, and the height of plants influ-with no-till cultivation schemes and all its ence air flow across the crop, which in turnvariations (strip till, ridge till, etc.) as well as determines how long the leaves remain dampwith hedgerows and intercrops designed for from rain and morning dew. Generally speak-beneficial organism habitat. With all the ing, better air flow will decrease the incidencecropping and tillage options available, it is of plant disease. However, increased air flowpossible, with creative and informed manage- through wider spacing will also allow morement, to evolve a biologically diverse, pest- sunlight to the ground, which may increasesuppressive farming system appropriate to the weed problems. This is another instance inunique environment of each farm. which detailed knowledge of the crop ecology is necessary to determine the best pest manage-Other Cultural Management Options ment strategies. How will the crop react to increased spacing between rows and betweenDisease-free seed and plants are available from plants? Will yields drop because of reducedmost commercial sources, and are certified as crop density? Can this be offset by reducedsuch. Use of disease-free seed and nursery pest management costs or fewer losses fromstock is important in preventing the introduc- disease?tion of disease. Altered planting dates can at times be used toResistant varieties are continually being bred by avoid specific insects, weeds, or diseases. Forresearchers. Growers can also do their own example, squash bug infestations on cucurbitsplant breeding simply by collecting non-hybrid can be decreased by the delayed plantingseed from healthy plants in the field. The strategy, i.e., waiting to establish the cucurbit //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 9
    • crop until overwintering adult squash bugs to vegetables by insect pests when hay or strawhave died. To assist with disease management was used as mulch. The difference was due todecisions, the Cooperative Extension Service spiders, which find mulch more habitable than(CES) will often issue warnings of “infection bare ground (15). Other researchers haveperiods” for certain diseases, based upon the found that living mulches of various cloversweather. reduce insect pest damage to vegetables and orchard crops (16). Again, this reduction is dueIn some cases, the CES also keeps track of to natural predators and parasites provided“degree days” needed for certain important habitat by the clovers. Vetch has been used asinsect pests to develop. Insects, being cold- both a nitrogen source and as a weed suppres-blooded, will not develop below or above sive mulch in tomatoes in Maryland (17).certain threshold temperatures. Calculating Growers must be aware that mulching mayaccumulated degree days, that is, the number also provide a more friendly environment forof days above the threshold development slugs and snails, which can be particularlytemperature for an insect pest, makes the damaging at the seedling stage.prediction of certain events, such as egg hatch,possible. University of California has an excel- Mulching helps to minimize the spread of soil-lent website that uses weather station data from borne plant pathogens by preventing theiraround the state to help California growers transmission through soil splash. Mulch, ifpredict pest emergence: <http:// heavy enough, prevents the germination ofwww.ipm.ucdavis.edu/WEATHER/ many annual weed seeds. Winged aphids areddretrieve.html>. repelled by silver- or aluminum-colored mulches (18). Recent springtime field tests atSome growers gauge the emergence of insect the Agricultural Research Service in Florence,pests by the flowering of certain non-crop plant South Carolina, have indicated that red plasticspecies native to the farm. This method usesthe “natural degree days” accumulated by mulch suppresses root-knot nematode damageplants. For example, a grower might time in tomatoes by diverting resources away fromcabbage planting for three weeks after the the roots (and nematodes) and into foliage andAmelanchier species (also known as saskatoon, fruit (19).shadbush, or serviceberry) on their farm are inbloom. This will enable the grower to avoid Biotech Crops. Gene transfer technology is beingpeak egg-laying time of the cabbage maggot fly, used by several companies to develop cultivarsas the egg hatch occurs about the time resistant to insects, diseases, and herbicides.Amelanchier species are flowering (14). Using An example is the incorporation of geneticthis information, cabbage maggot management material from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), aefforts could be concentrated during a known naturally occurring bacterium, into cotton,time frame when the early instars (the most corn, and potatoes, to make the plant tissueseasily managed stage) are active. toxic to bollworm, earworm, and potato beetle larvae, respectively.Optimum growing conditions are always impor-tant. Plants that grow quickly and are healthy Whether or not this technology should becan compete with and resist pests better than adopted is the subject of much debate. Oppo-slow-growing, weak plants. Too often, plants nents are concerned that by introducing Btgrown outside their natural ecosystem range genes into plants, selection pressure for resis-must rely on pesticides to overcome conditions tance to the Bt toxin will intensify and a valu-and pests to which they are not adapted. able biological control tool will be lost. There are also concerns about possible impacts ofMulches, living or non-living, are useful for genetically-modified plant products (i.e., rootsuppression of weeds, insect pests, and some exudates) on non-target organisms as well asplant diseases. Hay and straw, for example, fears of altered genes being transferred to weedprovide habitat for spiders. Research in Ten- relatives of crop plants. Whether there is anessee showed a 70% reduction in damage market for gene-altered crops is also a //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 10
    • consideration for farmers and processors. example, focuses on the establishment ofProponents of this technology argue that use of flowering annual or perennial plants thatsuch crops decreases the need to use toxic provide pollen and nectar needed duringchemical pesticides. certain parts of the insect life cycle. Other habitat features provided by farmscapingBiological Control include water, alternative prey, perching sites, overwintering sites, and wind protection.Biological control is the use of living organisms Beneficial insects and other beneficial organ-—parasites, predators, or pathogens—to main- isms should be viewed as mini-livestock, withtain pest populations below economically specific habitat and food needs to be includeddamaging levels, and may be either natural or in farm planning.applied. A first step in setting up a biointensiveIPM program is to assess the populations of The success of such efforts depends on knowl-beneficials and their interactions within the edge of the pests and beneficial organismslocal ecosystem. This will within the croppinghelp to determine the system. Where dopotential role of natural the pests and bene-enemies in the managed ficials overwinter?agricultural ecosystem. It What plants are hostsshould be noted that some and non-hosts?groups of beneficials (e.g., When this kind ofspiders, ground beetles, knowledge informsbats) may be absent or planning, the eco-scarce on some farms logical balance canbecause of lack of habitat. be manipulated inThese organisms might favor of beneficialsmake significant contri- and against thebutions to pest manage- Beneficial organisms should be viewed as pests.ment if provided with mini-livestock, with specific habitat andadequate habitat. food needs to be included in farm planning. It should be kept in mind that ecosystemNatural biological control results when naturally manipulation is a two-edged sword. Someoccurring enemies maintain pests at a lower plant pests (such as the tarnished plant buglevel than would occur without them, and is and lygus bug) are attracted to the same plantsgenerally characteristic of biodiverse systems. that attract beneficials. The development ofMammals, birds, bats, insects, fungi, bacteria, beneficial habitats with a mix of plants thatand viruses all have a role to play as predators flower throughout the year can help preventand parasites in an agricultural system. By such pests from migrating en masse fromtheir very nature, pesticides decrease the farmscaped plants to crop plants.biodiversity of a system, creating the potentialfor instability and future problems. Pesticides, See ATTRA’s Farmscaping to Enhance Biologicalwhether synthetically or botanically derived, Control for a detailed treatment of this subject.are powerful tools and should be used withcaution. Applied biological control, also known as aug- mentative biocontrol, involves supplementa-Creation of habitat to enhance the chances for tion of beneficial organism populations, forsurvival and reproduction of beneficial organ- example through periodic releases of parasites,isms is a concept included in the definition of predators, or pathogens. This can be effectivenatural biocontrol. Farmscaping is a term coined in many situations—well-timed inundativeto describe such efforts on farms. releases of Trichogramma egg wasps for co-Habitat enhancement for beneficial insects, for dling moth control, for instance. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 11
    • Most of the beneficial organisms used in ap- from a greenhouse and are forced to concen-plied biological control today are insect para- trate predation/parasitism on the pest(s) atsites and predators. They control a wide range hand.of pests from caterpillars to mites. Some spe-cies of biocontrol organisms, such as An increasing number of commercially avail-Eretmocerus californicus, a parasitic wasp, are able biocontrol products are made up of micro-specific to one host—in this case the organisms, including fungi, bacteria, nema-sweetpotato whitefly. Others, such as green todes, and viruses. Appendix B, Microbiallacewings, are generalists and will attack many Pesticides, lists some of the formulations avail-species of aphids and whiteflies. able. Appendix C, Microbial Pesticide Manufac- turers and Suppliers, provides addresses ofInformation about rates and timing of release manufacturers and suppliers.are available from suppliers of beneficialorganisms. It is important to remember that Mechanical and Physical Controlsreleased insects are mobile; they are likely toleave a site if the habitat is not conducive to Methods included in this category utilize sometheir survival. Food, nectar, and pollen sources physical component of the environment, suchcan be “farmscaped” to provide suitable habi- as temperature, humidity, or light, to thetat. detriment of the pest. Common examples are tillage, flaming, flooding, soil solarization, andThe quality of commercially available applied plastic mulches to kill weeds or to preventbiocontrols is another important consideration. weed seed germination.For example, if the organisms are not properlylabeled on the outside packaging, they may be Heat or steam sterilization of soil is commonlymishandled during transport, resulting in the used in greenhouse operations for control ofdeath of the organisms. A recent study by soil-borne pests. Floating row covers overRutgers University (20) noted that only two of vegetable crops exclude flea beetles, cucumbersix suppliers of beneficial nematodes sent the beetles, and adults of the onion, carrot, cab-expected numbers of organisms, and only one bage, and seed corn root maggots. Insectsupplier out of the six provided information on screens are used in greenhouses to preventhow to assess product viability. aphids, thrips, mites, and other pests from entering ventilation ducts. Large, multi-rowWhile augmentative biocontrols can be applied vacuum machines have been used for pestwith relative ease on small farms and in gar- management in strawberries and vegetabledens, applying some types of biocontrols crops. Cold storage reduces post-harvestevenly over large farms has been problematic. disease problems on produce.New mechanized methods that may improvethe economics and practicality of large-scale Although generally used in small or localizedaugmentative biocontrol include ground situations, some methods of mechanical/application with “biosprayers” and aerial physical control are finding wider acceptancedelivery using small-scale (radio-controlled) or because they are generally more friendly to theconventional aircraft (21). environment.Inundative releases of beneficials into green- Pest Identificationhouses can be particularly effective. In thecontrolled environment of a greenhouse, pest A crucial step in any IPM program is to identifyinfestations can be devastating; there are no the pest. The effectiveness of both proactivenatural controls in place to suppress pest and reactive pest management measurespopulations once an infestation begins. For this depend on correct identification. Misidentific-reason, monitoring is very important. If an ation of the pest may be worse than useless; itinfestation occurs, it can spread quickly if not may actually be harmful and cost time anddetected early and managed. Once introduced, money. Help with positive identification ofbiological control agents cannot escape pests may be obtained from university person- //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 12
    • nel, private consultants, the Cooperative Exten- Monitoringsion Service, and books and websites listedunder Useful Resources at the end of this Monitoring involves systematically checkingpublication. crop fields for pests and beneficials, at regular intervals and at critical times, to gather infor-After a pest is identified, appropriate and mation about the crop, pests, and naturaleffective management depends on knowing enemies. Sweep nets, sticky traps, and phero- mone traps can be used to collect insects foranswers to a number of questions. These may both identification and population densityinclude: information. Leaf counts are one method for recording plant growth stages. Square-foot or• What plants are hosts and non-hosts of this larger grids laid out in a field can provide a pest? basis for comparative weed counts. Records of rainfall and temperature are sometimes used to• When does the pest emerge or first appear? predict the likelihood of disease infections.• Where does it lay its eggs? In the case of Specific scouting methods have been developed weeds, where is the seed source? For plant for many crops. The Cooperative Extension pathogens, where is the source(s) of Service can provide a list of IPM manuals inoculum? available in each state. Many resources are now available via Internet (see Appendix F for• Where, how, and in what form does the pest IPM-related websites). overwinter? The more often a crop is monitored, the more information the grower has about what is• How might the cropping system be altered happening in the fields. Monitoring activity to make life more difficult for the pest and should be balanced against its costs. Frequency easier for its natural controls? may vary with temperature, crop, growth phase of the crop, and pest populations. If aMonitoring (field scouting) and economic pest population is approaching economicallyinjury and action levels are used to help answer damaging levels, the grower will want tothese and additional questions (22). monitor more frequently.yellow stickymonitoring card Monitoring for squash pests (aphids and whiteflies). //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 13
    • Economic Injury and Action Levels cutworm can do more damage to an emerging cotton plant than to a plant that is six weeksThe economic injury level (EIL) is the pest old. Clearly, this pest’s EIL will change as thepopulation that inflicts crop damage greater cotton crop develops.than the cost of control measures. Becausegrowers will generally want to act before a ETLs are intimately related to the value of thepopulation reaches EIL, IPM programs use the crop and the part of the crop being attacked.concept of an economic threshold level (ETL or For example, a pest that attacks the fruit orET), also known as an action threshold. The vegetable will have a much lower ETL (that is,ETL is closely related to the EIL, and is the the pest must be controlled at lower popula-point at which suppression tactics should be tions) than a pest that attacks a non-saleableapplied in order to prevent pest populations part of the plant. The exception to this rule isfrom increasing to injurious levels. an insect or nematode pest that is also a disease vector. Depending on the severity of theIn practice, many crops have no established disease, the grower may face a situation whereEILs or ETLs, or the EILs that have been devel- the ETL for a particular pest is zero, i.e., theoped may be static over the course of a season crop cannot tolerate the presence of a singleand thus not reflect the changing nature of the pest of that particular species because theagricultural ecosystem. For example, a single disease it transmits is so destructive.Special Considerations ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Cosmetic Damage and Aesthetics Time and ResourcesConsumer attitudes toward how produce looks A successful biointensive IPM program takesis often a major factor when determining a time, money, patience, short- and long-termcrop’s sale price. Cosmetic damage is an planning, flexibility, and commitment. Theimportant factor when calculating the EIL, pest manager must spend time on self-educa-since pest damage, however superficial, lowers tion and on making contacts with Extensiona crop’s market value. Growers selling to a and research personnel. Be aware that somemarket that is informed about IPM or about IPM strategies, such as increasing beneficialorganically grown produce may be able to insect habitat, may take more than a year totolerate higher levels of cosmetic damage to show results.their produce. A well-run biointensive IPM system mayRecord-keeping: “Past is prologue” require a larger initial outlay in terms of time and money than a conventional IPM program.Monitoring goes hand-in-hand with record- In the long run, however, a good biointensivekeeping, which forms the collective “memory” IPM program should pay for itself. Directof the farm. Records should not only provide pesticide application costs are saved andinformation about when and where pest equipment wear and tear may be reduced.problems have occurred, but should alsoincorporate information about cultural prac- Chemical Controlstices (irrigation, cultivation, fertilization,mowing, etc.) and their effect on pest and Included in this category are both syntheticbeneficial populations. The effects of non- pesticides and botanical pesticides.biotic factors, especially weather, on pest andbeneficial populations should also be noted. Synthetic pesticides comprise a wide range ofRecord-keeping is simply a systematic ap- man-made chemicals used to controlproach to learning from experience. A variety insects, mites, weeds, nematodes, plant dis-of software programs are now available to help eases, and vertebrate and invertebrate pests.growers keep track of—and access—data on These powerful chemicals are fast acting andtheir farm’s inputs and outputs. relatively inexpensive to purchase. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 14
    • Pesticides are the option of last resort in IPM Biorational pesticides. Although use of this termprograms because of their potential negative is relatively common, there is no legally ac-impacts on the environment, which result from cepted definition (24). Biorational pesticidesthe manufacturing process as well as from their are generally considered to be derived fromapplication on the farm. Pesticides should be naturally occurring compounds or are formula-used only when other measures, such as bio- tions of microorganisms. Biorationals have alogical or cultural controls, have failed to keep narrow target range and are environmentallypest populations from approaching economi- benign. Formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis,cally damaging levels. commonly known as Bt, are perhaps the best- known biorational pesticide. Other examples include silica aerogels, insect growth regula- tors, and particle film barriers. Particle film barriers. A relatively new technol- ogy, particle film barriers are currently avail- able under the tradename Surround WP Crop Protectant. The active ingredient is kaolin clay, an edible mineral long used as an anti-caking agent in processed foods, and in such products as toothpaste and Kaopectactate. There ap- pears to be no mammalian toxicity or any danger to the environment posed by the use of kaolin in pest control. The kaolin in Surround is processed to a specific particle size range, and combined with a sticker-spreader. Non- processed kaolin clay may be phytotoxic. Surround is sprayed on as a liquid, which evaporates, leaving a protective powdery film on the surfaces of leaves, stems, and fruit. Conventional spray equipment can be used and full coverage is important. The film works to deter insects in several ways. Tiny particles of the clay attach to the insects when they contact the plant, agitating and repelling them. Even if particles don’t attach to their bodies, the insectsThe pesticide Agrophos used in a new planting. The redcolor code denotes the most hazardous class of chemical. may find the coated plant or fruit unsuitable forIn this instance, the farmer had applied the product in feeding and egg-laying. In addition, the highlythe bag (a granular systemic insecticide) by hand. reflective white coating makes the plant less recognizable as a host. For more informationIf chemical pesticides must be used, it is to the about kaolin clay as a pest management tool,grower’s advantage to choose the least-toxic see ATTRA’s publications Kaolin Clay for Man-pesticide that will control the pest but not harm agement of Glassy-winged Sharpshooter in Grapesnon-target organisms such as birds, fish, and and Insect IPM in Apples: Kaolin Clay.mammals. Pesticides that are short-lived or acton one or a few specific organisms are in this Sugar Esters. Throughout four years of tests,class. Examples include insecticidal soaps, sugar esters have performed as well as or betterhorticultural oils, copper compounds (e.g., than conventional insecticides against mitesbordeaux mix), sulfur, boric acid, and sugar and aphids in apple orchards; psylla in pearesters (23). orchards; whiteflies, thrips, and mites on //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 15
    • vegetables; and whiteflies on cotton. How- Compost teas are most commonly used for foliarever, sugar esters are not effective against disease control and applied as foliar nutrientinsect eggs. Insecticidal properties of sugar sprays. The idea underlying the use of com-esters were first investigated a decade ago post teas is that a solution of beneficial mi-when a scientist noticed that tobacco leaf hairs crobes and some nutrients is created, thenexuded sugar esters for defense against some applied to plants to increase the diversity ofsoft-bodied insect pests. Similar to insecticidal organisms on leaf surfaces. This diversitysoap in their action, these chemicals act as competes with pathogenic organisms, makingcontact insecticides and degrade into environ- it more difficult for them to become establishedmentally benign sugars and fatty acids after and infect the plant.application. AVA Chemical Ventures of Ports-mouth, NH hopes to have a product based on An important consideration when usingsucrose octanoate commercially available by compost teas is that high-quality, well-agedthe end of 2001. Contact: Gary J. Puterka, ARS compost be used, to avoid contamination ofAppalachian Fruit Research Station, plant parts by animal pathogens found inKearneysville, WV, (304) 725-3451 ext. 361, fax manures that may be a component of the(304) 728-2340, e-mail compost. There are different techniques for<gputerka@afrs.ars.usda.gov>. creating compost tea. The compost can be immersed in the water, or the water can beBecause pest resistance to chemical controls circulated through the compost. An efforthas become so common, susceptibility to should be made to maintain an aerobic envi-pesticides is increasingly being viewed by ronment in the compost/water mixture.growers as a trait worth preserving. One ATTRA has more information about compostexample of the economic impact of resistance teas, available on request.to insecticides has been documented in Michi-gan, where insecticide resistance in Colorado Pesticide application techniquespotato beetle was first reported in 1984 andcaused severe economic problems beginningin 1991. In 1991 and following years, control As monetary and environmental costs ofcosts were as high as $412/hectare in districts chemical pesticides escalate, it makes sense tomost seriously affected, in contrast to $35−74/ increase the efficiency of chemical applications.hectare in areas where resistance was not a Correct nozzle placement, nozzle type, and nozzleproblem (25). The less a product is applied, pressure are very important considerations.the longer a pest population will remain Misdirected sprays, inappropriate nozzle size,susceptible to that product. Routine use of any or worn nozzles will ultimately cost the growerpesticide is a problematic strategy. money and increase the risk of environmental damage.Botanical pesticides are prepared in variousways. They can be as simple as pureed plant If the monitoring program indicates that theleaves, extracts of plant parts, or chemicals pest outbreak is isolated to a particular loca-purified from plants. Pyrethrum, neem formu- tion, spot treatment of only the infested area willlations, and rotenone are examples of botani- not only save time and money, but will con-cals. Some botanicals are broad-spectrum serve natural enemies located in other parts ofpesticides. Others, like ryania, are very spe- the field. The grower should also time treat-cific. Botanicals are generally less harmful in ments to be least disruptive of other organisms.the environment than synthetic pesticides This is yet another example where knowledgebecause they degrade quickly, but they can be about the agroecosystem is important.just as deadly to beneficials as synthetic pesti-cides. However, they are less hazardous to With the increasing popularity of no-till andtransport and in some cases can be formulated related conservation tillage practices, herbicideon-farm. The manufacture of botanicals use has increased. One way to increase appli-generally results in fewer toxic by-products. cation efficiency and decrease costs of //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 16
    • herbicide use is through band application. This Integrated Weed Managementputs the herbicide only where it is needed, Systemsusually in soil disturbed by tillage or seedplanting, where weeds are most likely tosprout. Weeds as competitors in crops present a number of unique challenges that need to beBaits and microencapsulation of pesticides are recognized when developing managementpromising technologies. For example, Slam strategies. The intensity of weed problemsis an insecticide-bait mixture for control of during a growing season will be influenced bycorn rootworm. It is a formulation of a bait, weed population levels in previous years. Thecurcubitacin B, and carbaryl (Sevin) in axiom “one year’s seeding equals seven years’microspheres. It is selective, and reduces the weeding” is apt.amount of carbaryl needed to control therootworm by up to 90%. (Remember that crop Weed control costs cannot necessarily berotation will generally eliminate the need for calculated against the current year’s cropany corn rootworm chemical control.) production costs. Weeds present a physical problem for harvesting. Noxious weed seedAnother example of bait-insecticide technol- mixed with grain reduces the price paid toogy is the boll weevil bait tube. It lures the growers. If the seed is sold for crop produc-boll weevil using a synthetic sex pheromone. tion the weed can be spread to new areas. ForEach tube contains about 20 grams of example, the perennial pepperweed, thoughtmalathion, which kills the boll weevil. This to have been introduced to California in sugartechnique reduces the pesticide used in cotton beet seed, now infests thousands of acres infields by up to 80% and conserves beneficials. the state. In addition, weed economic thresh-It is most effective in managing low, early- olds must take into account multiple speciesseason populations of the boll weevil. and variable competetive ability of different crops. For example, 12.7 cocklebur plants in Sustainable Agriculture and IPM Sustainable agriculture is a system of agriculture that is ecologically, economically, and socially viable, in the short as well as long term. Rather than standing for a specific set of farming practices, a sustainable agriculture represents the goal of developing a food production system that: yields plentiful, affordable, high-quality food and other agricultural products does not deplete or damage natural resources (such as soil, water, wildlife, fossil fuels, or the germplasm base) promotes the health of the environment supports a broad base and diversity of farms and the health of rural communities depends on energy from the sun and on natural biological processes for fertility and pest management can last indefinitely IPM and sustainable agriculture share the goal of developing agricultural systems that are ecologically and economically sound. IPM may be considered a key component of a sustainable agriculture system. A premise common to IPM and sustainable agriculture is that a healthy agroecosystem depends on healthy soils and managed diversity. One of the reasons modern agriculture has evolved into a system of large mo- nocultures is to decrease the range of variables to be managed. However, a system with few species, much like a table with too few legs, is unstable. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 17
    • 10 sq. meters of corn cause a 10% yield loss. • Surface residue management — As men-Only 2 cockleburs in the same area planted to tioned earlier, a thick mulch may shade thesoybeans will cause the same 10% crop loss soil enough to keep weed seeds from(12). germinating. In addition, some plant residues are allelopathic, releasing com- “Rotation crops, when accompanied by care in pounds that naturally suppress seed germi- the use of pure seed, is the most effective means nation. yet devised for keeping land free of weeds. No • Altered plant spacing or row width — An other method of weed control, mechanical, chemi- example is narrow-row (7–18" between cal, or biological, is so economical or so easily prac- rows compared to conventional 36–39" ticed as a well-arranged sequence of tillage and between rows) soybean plantings. The cropping.” faster the leaves shade the ground, the less Source: Leighty, Clyde E. 1938. Crop Rotation. p. 406-429. weeds will be a problem. In: Soils and Men, 1938 Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Govt. • Herbivores — Cattle, geese, goats, and Print. Office, Washington, DC. insects can be used to reduce populations of specific weeds in special situations.Tactics that can be integrated into weed man- Cattle, for example, relish Johnson grass.agement systems include: Weeder geese were commonly used in cotton fields before the advent of herbi-• Prevention — The backbone of any success- cides. Musk thistle populations can be ful weed management strategy is preven- satisfactorily reduced by crown- and seed- tion. It is important to prevent the intro- eating weevils. Goats may be used for duction of seeds into the field through sources like irrigation water or manure. large stands of various noxious weeds. • Adjusting herbicide use to situation —• Crop rotation —A practical and effective Herbicide selection and rate can be ad- method of weed management (discussed in justed depending upon weed size, weed previous sections). species, and soil moisture. Young weeds are more susceptible to chemicals than• Cultivation — Steel in the Field: A Farmer’s older weeds. Guide to Weed Management Tools shows how today’s implements and techniques can By integrating a variety of tactics, farmers can handle weeds while reducing or eliminat- reduce or eliminate herbicide use. For more ing herbicides (26). information about weed management options see ATTRA’s publication, Principles of Sustain-• Flame weeding — good for control of small able Weed Management for Croplands. weeds.• Delayed planting — Early-germinating WEED PREVENTION weeds can be destroyed by tillage. And with warmer weather, the subsequently • Have a long, diverse rotation planted crop (depending on the crop, of • Sow clean seed course) will grow more quickly, thus com- • Prevent weed seed formation peting better with weeds. • Avoid imported feeds or manures • Compost all manure thoroughly• Staggered planting schedule — This will • Control weeds in field borders allow more time for mechanical weed • Delay planting the crop (for faster crop control, if needed. This also lessens the growth and quicker ground coverage) weather risks and spaces out the work load • Maintain good soil quality at harvest time. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 18
    • Current Status of IPM ○ ○ ○ ○ ○Crops with Developed IPM Programs for measurement have been criticized for not distinguishing between practices that areIn the last twenty years or so, IPM programs related to “treatment” and those that are “pre-have been developed for important pests in ventive,” that is, based on altering the biologi-corn, soybeans, cotton, citrus, apples, grapes, cal and ecological interactions between crops,walnuts, strawberries, alfalfa, pecans, and most pests, and beneficial organisms. Practices thatother major crops. These programs are con- constitute “treatment” with or contribute to thestantly being revised or fine-tuned, and occa- efficiency of pesticides are considered as “in-sionally undergo a significant overhaul as the dicative of an IPM approach” by USDA’sintroduction of a new technology or new pest criteria, as are practices that draw upon and aremakes the present IPM program obsolete. most compatible with biological relationships on the farm (29).The best source of information on conventionalIPM is the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) A 1998 USDA-funded survey of pest manage-associated with the land-grant university in ment practices was published in August 1999each state. Booklets and fact sheets describing and is available at <http://www.reeusda.IPM programs and control measures for a wide gov/ipm/publications.htm>. Highlights ofrange of crops and livestock are available free this report are excerpted in Appendix E, Pestor for a small charge. For the address of a state Management Practices: 1998 USDA SurveyIPM coordinator, refer to the Directory of State Summary Highlights.Extension Integrated Pest Management Coordina-tors. A free copy can be obtained from the The primary goal of biointensive IPM is toCooperative State Research, Education, and provide guidelines and options for the effectiveExtension Service (27), or through the world management of pests and beneficial organismswide web at <http://www.reeusda.gov/ipm/ in an ecological context. This requires a some-ipmdirectory.pdf>. (Adobe Acrobat Reader what different set of knowledge from thatmust be loaded on your computer in order to which supports conventional IPM, which inaccess this page.) turn requires a shift in research focus and approach. Recommended actions to betterGovernment Policy facilitate the transition to biointensive IPM are:In 1993, leaders from USDA, EPA, and FDA • Build the knowledge/information infra-announced a goal of placing 75% of U.S. crop structure by making changes in researchacreage under IPM by the year 2000. The IPM and education priorities in order to empha-Initiative described three phases: size ecology-based pest management1. Create teams of researchers, Extension • Redesign government programs to promote personnel, and growers to propose projects biointensive IPM, not “Integrated Pesticide to achieve the 75% goal. Management”2. Fund the best of those projects. • Offer consumers more choices in the mar- ketplace3. Facilitate privatization of IPM practices developed in the process. • Use the market clout of government and large corporationsAlthough some progress is evident, the Initia-tive has not received full funding from Con- • Use regulation more consciously, intelli-gress (28). In addition, the USDA’s criteria gently, and efficiently //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 19
    • The Future of IPM ○ ○ ○ ○As this publication has highlighted, IPM in the helped open the market for a new generation offuture will emphasize biological and ecological microbial pesticides. For more information aboutknowledge in managing pests. Beyond that, microbial and “biopesticides”, see Appendix B,specific areas are described here that will Microbial Pesticides, and Appendix C, Microbialimpact research and implementation of IPM in Pesticide Manufacturers and Suppliers, and visitthe future. EPA’s biopesticides website at: <http:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/>.Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (Please note that this website will be discontin- ued sometime in 2001.)The FQPA, the amended Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Research is proceeding on natural endophytes —requires the EPA to review all federally regis- fungi or bacteria that have a symbiotic (mutu-tered pesticides in the next 10 years and to use ally beneficial) relationship with their hosta more comprehensive health standard when plant—and their effects on plant pests. Thisallowing re-registra- research mighttion. The ultimate yield productsimpact is unknown, that could be “A convergence of technical, environmental andbut FQPA will most used to inocu- social forces is moving agriculture towards morelikely result in stricter late plants non-pesticide pest management alternatives likeregulations concern- against certain biological control, host plant resistance anding pesticide residues pests. cultural management.”in food, particularly —Michael Fitzner, National IPM Program Leader,with respect to Synthetic USDA Extension Serviceorganochlorines, beneficialorganophosphates, attractants suchand carbamates. Some of the most toxic pesti- as Predfeed IPM and L-tryptophan may helpcides have already been “de-registered” with increase the efficacy of natural controls byrespect to some of their former uses. These attracting beneficials to a crop in greater num-regulations may provide incentive for more bers than usual.widespread adoption of IPM. More informa-tion, including implementation status (from an More Weed IPMAugust 1999 Progress Report) can be found atthe FQPA homepage: <http://www.epa.gov/ Weeds are the major deterrent to the develop-opppsps1/fqpa/>. ment of more sustainable agricultural systems, particularly in agronomic crops. ProblemsNew Options associated with soil erosion and water quality are generally the result of weed control mea-Pest control methods are evolving and diversi- sures like tillage, herbicides, cultivation, plant-fying in response to public awareness of ing date and pattern, etc. (30). In the future,environmental and health impacts of synthetic research will focus not on symptoms, such aschemical pesticides and resulting legislation. soil erosion, but on basic problems such as howThe strong growth of the organic foods mar- to sustainably manage soils. Weeds, as anket—20% annual expansion for the past several important facet of sustainable soil manage-years—may also be a factor in the accelerated ment, will consequently receive more emphasisdevelopment of organic pest management in IPM or Integrated Crop Management (ICM)methods. programs.Agricultural pests are developing resistance tomany synthetic agrichemicals, and new syn-thetic chemicals are being registered at aslower rate than in the past. This situation has //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 20
    • On-farm Resources selves with the Internet. See Appendix F for a thorough listing of IPM resources available onAs farm management strategies become in- the Internet.creasingly fine-tuned to preserve a profitablebottom line, the conservation, utilization, and IPM Certification and Marketingdevelopment of on-farm resources will take onadded importance. In the context of Certification of crops raisedIPM, this will mean greater empha- according to IPM or somesis on soil management as well as other ecology-based standardson conserving beneficial organisms, may give growers a marketingretaining and developing beneficial advantage as public concernshabitats, and perhaps developing about health and environmen-on-farm insectaries for rearing tal safety increase. For ex-beneficial insects. ample, since 1995, Wegmans has sold IPM-labeled fresh-IPM On-line market sweet corn in its Corning, Geneva, Ithaca,There is an increasing body of infor- Syracuse, and Rochester, Newmation about production, market- York stores. Wegmans hasing, and recordkeeping available to alsogrowers via the Internet. The added IPM-labeled corn,Internet is also a good source of in- beets, and beans to its shelvesformation about IPM, beneficial insects, prod- of canned vegetables. One goal of the program,ucts, and pest control options for individual in addition to being a marketing vehicle, is tocrops. IPM specialists are generating high- educate consumers about agriculture and thequality websites as a modern educational deliv- food system. Another goal is to keep all grow-ery tool, and many Extension Service leaflets ers moving along the “IPM Continuum.”are now being made available in electronic for- Growers must have an 80% “score” on the IPMmat only. This trend will only accelerate as program elements within three years, or facemore and more agriculturists familiarize them- losing Wegmans as a buyer. One Generic Model for Ecolabel/IPM Certification Standards* //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 21
    • These “ecolabels,” as they’re known, are There has been an IPM labeling programbecoming more popular, with over a dozen casualty in 2000. Massachusetts’s “Partnersbrands now in existence. They may provide with Nature” marketing program closed itsfor a more certain market and perhaps a price doors after losing funding support from thepremium to help growers offset any costs Massachusetts Department of Food and Agri-associated with implementing sustainable culture. The program, which included IPMfarming practices. A possible downside to production guidelines, had operated sinceimplementing such programs is that they 1994, with 51 growers participating in 1999.require additional paperwork, development ofstandards and guidelines, and inspections. A bibliography of IPM Certification, Labeling,There is concern from some quarters that IPM and Marketing can be found at: <http://labeling will cause consumers to raise more www.ipminstitute.org/ipm_bibliography.htm>.questions about pesticide use and the safety ofconventional produce. Some advocates of Summary ○ ○ ○ ○organic farming worry about consumer confu-sion over the relationship of the ecolabel to the IPM can be a flexible and valuable tool when“Certified Organic” label. used as a concept with which to approach pest management. IPM is not a cookbook recipe forMothers & Others for a Livable Planet, a pest control, but a flexible approach for dealingnational, non-profit, consumer advocacy and with agriculture’s ever-changing financial,environmental education organization, has regulatory, and physical environment.partnered with apple farmers in the Northeastregion to create a supportive market environ- The key to effective IPM is the farmer’s under-ment for farm products that are locally grown standing of its concepts. In 1916, Liberty Hydeand ecologically responsible. The result is the Bailey wrote a small book, entitled The Prin-Core Values eco-label: ciples of Fruit Growing, as part of a Rural Science Series published by MacMillan Co. The text is a marvelous mix of scientific theory and prac- tice. Bailey ended with the following note:A CORE Values Northeast apple is locally “We have now completed the fruit book,grown in the Northeast (New York and New having surveyed the field. It is a field ofEngland) by farmers who are striving to pro- great variety, demanding many qualities onvide apples of superior taste and quality while the part of the successful grower. Themaintaining healthy, ecologically balanced grower should first apprehend the prin-growing environments. Growers whose apples ciples and the underlying reasons, and tobear the CORE Values Northeast seal are teach this is the prime purpose of the book.accredited in knowledge-based biointensive If the grower knows why, he will teachIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) production himself how” (31).methods. For more information about thisprogram, visit: <http://www.corevalues.org/cvn/home.html>. FeedbackThe ecolabel to the right is a result of a Help us better help farmers. If youcollaboration between the World Wild- have suggestions for improvement oflife Fund (WWF), the Wisconsin this publi-cation, areas about whichPotato and Vegetable Growers you’d like more information or detail,Association (WPVGA), and the ideas, case studies, or sources of goodUniversity of Wisconsin. Raising IPM information (articles or websites),consumer demand for biology-based- please call Rex Dufour at 530-756-8518 ext. 39, or e-mail at <rexd@ncat.org>.IPM farm products is the goal of the program. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 22
    • References: 13) Elwell, Henry and Anita Maas. 1995. Natural Pest and Disease Control. Natural Farming1) Flint, M.L. and van den Bosch, R. 1977. A Source Network. Harare, Zimbabwe. 128 p. Book on Integrated Pest Management. p. 173-174. Limited distribution. Supported by grant 14) Couch, G.J. 1994. The use of growing degree #G007500907 to UC International Center for days and plant phenology in scheduling pest Integrated and Biological Control. management activities. Yankee Nursery Quar- terly. Fall. p. 12-17.2) Benbrook, Charles M. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY. 15) Reichert, Susan E. and Leslie Bishop. 1989. Prey 272 p. control by an assemblage of generalist predators: Spiders in garden test systems. Ecology. Fall.3) Prakash, Anand and Jagadiswari Rao. 1997. p. 1441-1450. Botanical Pesticides in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 461 p. 16) Bugg, Robert L., Sharad C. Phatak, and James D. Dutcher. 1990. Insects associated with cool-4) Norton, G.W. and J. Mullen. 1994. Economic season cover crops in southern Georgia: Implica- Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management tions for pest control in truck-farm and pecan Programs: A Literature Review. Virginia Coop- agroecosystems. Biological Agriculture and erative Extension Publication 448-120. Horticulture. p. 17-45. 112 p. 17) Abdul-Baki, Aref A., and John Teasdale. 1997.5) Altieri, Miguel A. 1994. Biodiversity and Pest Sustainable Production of Fresh Market Toma- Management in Agroecosystems. The Haworth toes and Other Summer Vegetables with Organic Press, Binghamton, NY. 185 p. Mulches. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 2279. USDA- Agriculture Research Service, Washington, D.C.6) Marschner, H. 1998. Soil-Root Interface: Biologi- 23 p. <http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/ cal and Biochemical Processes. p. 191-232. In: Soil tomatoes.html>. Chemistry and Ecosystem Health. P.M. Huang (ed.). Soil Science Society of America, Inc., 18) Anon. 1999. Green Peach Aphid And Other Madison, WI. Early Season Aphids. Webpage, Statewide IPM Project, University of California, Division of7) Phelan, L. 1997. Soil-management history and the Agriculture and Natural Resources. <http:// role of plant mineral balance as a determinant of axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r783300711.html>. maize susceptibility to the European Corn Borer. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture. Vol. 15. 19) Adams, Sean. 1997. Seein’ red: colored mulch (1-4). p. 25-34. starves nematodes. Agricultural Research. October. p. 18.8) Daane, K.M. et al. 1995. Excess nitrogen raises nectarine susceptibility to disease and insects. 20) Zien, S.M. 2001. B.U.G.S. Flyer. March. p. 1-3. California Agriculture. July-August. p. 13-18. 21) Marh, S. 2000. Mechanized delivery of beneficial9) Schneider, R.W. 1982. Suppressive Soils and insects. The IPM Practitioner. April. p. 1-5. Plant Disease. The American Phytopathological Society. St. Paul, MN. 88 p. 22) Adams, Roger G. and Jennifer C. Clark (ed.). 1995. Northeast Sweet Corn Production and10) Metcalf, Robert L. 1993. Destructive and Useful Integrated Pest Management Manual. Univ. of Insects: Their Habits and Control, 5th ed. Connecticut Coop. Ext. Service. 120 p. McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY. 23) McBride, J. 2000. Environmentally friendly11) Zhu, Y., H. et al. 2000. Genetic diversity and insecticides are sugar-coated—For real. desease control in rice. Nature. 17 August. ARS News and Information. March 10. <http:// p. 718-722. www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000310.htm>.12) Leslie, Anne R. and Gerritt Cuperus. 1993. 24) Williamson, R. C. 1999. Biorational pesticides: Successful Implementation of Integrated Pest What are they anyway? Golf Course Manage Management for Agricultural Crops. CRC Press, ment website. <http://www.gcsaa.org/gcm/ Boca Raton, FL. 193 p. 1999/oct99/10biorational.html>. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 23
    • 25) Grafius, E. 1997. Economic impact of insecticide resistance in the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on the Michigan potato industry. Journal of Economic Entomology. October. p. 1144.26) Bowman, Greg (ed.). 1997. Steel in the Field. USDA Sustainable Agriculture Network. Burlington, VT. 128 p.27) Directory of State Extension Pest Management Coordinators Wendy Leight/Michael Fitzner Ag Box 2220 Coop State Research, Education, & Extension Service, USDA Washington, D.C. 20250-2220 http://www.reeusda.gov/nipmn/28) Green, Thomas A. 1997. The USDA IPM Initia- tive: What has been accomplished? IPM Solu- tions, Gempler’s Inc., Mt. Horeb, WI. November 4 p.29) Hoppin, Polly J. 1996. Reducing pesticide reliance and risk through adoption of IPM: An environ- mental and agricultural win-win. Third National IPM Forum. February. 9 p.30) Wyse, Donald. 1994. New Technologies and Approaches for Weed Management in Sustainable Agriculture Systems. Weed Technology, Vol. 8. p. 403-407.31) Steiner, P.W. 1994. IPM: What it is, what it isn’t.. IPMnet NEWS. October. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 24
    • APPENDIX A: IPM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 25
    • //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 26
    • APPENDIX B: MICROBIAL PESTICIDES Manufacturers and Country Beneficial Organism Trade Name Suppliers Pests Controlled Type of Action Registered Agrobacterium radiobacter Norbac 84-C™ New BioProducts Crown gall caused by A. Antagonist U.S. (Norbac and Nogall™ New BioProducts tumefaciens Nogall) Galltrol-A™ AgBioChem Ampelomyces quisqualis AQ-10™ Ecogen Powdery mildew Hyperparasite U.S. Bacillus popilliae Doom ™ Fairfax Biological Larvae of Japanese beetles, Stomach poison Japademic™ Laboratory Oriental beetles, chafers, some May & June beetles Epic™ Gustafson, Inc. Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Alternaria, & Biological fungicide/ U.S. Bacillus subtilis Aspergillus, that cause root rots & antagonist, applied directly Kodiak™ Gustafson, Inc. MBI 60 Gustafson, Inc seedling diseases. May also be to seed. It will grow with Seranade (QST713) AgraQuest Inc effective against some foliar root system. System3 (+metalaxyl +PCNB) Helena Chemical Co. diseases. Companion (EPA Growth Products Experimental Use Permit) HiStick N/T (a Rhizobium and MicroBio Group//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management B. subtilis mix) Subtilex MicroBio Group Rhizo-Plus, KFZB Biotechnik For management of Rhizoctonia Bacillus subtilis FZB24 solani, Fusarium spp., Alternaria Rhizo-Plus Konz spp., Sclerotinia, Verticillium, Streptomyces scabies on field (potatoes, corn), vegetables, and ornamental plants XenTari DF™ Abbott Lepidotera in vegetables and corn Stomach poison Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai Agree™ (Turex outside US) Thermo Trilogy Design™ (discontinued in Thermo Trilogy 2000) Mattch™ Ecogen Gnatrol™ Abbott Larvae of mosquitoes, black flies & Stomach poison Bacillus thuringiensis var. midges israelensis VectoBac™ Abbott Bactimos™ Abbott Skeetal™ Abbott Aquabac™ Becker Microbial Bacticide™ Biotech Int’l Vectocide Nu-Gro GroupPage 27 Teknar™ Thermo Trilogy
    • Manufacturers and Country Beneficial Organism Trade Name Suppliers Pests Controlled Type of Action Registered Dipel™ Abbott Most lepidoptera larvae with high Stomach poison Bacillus thruingiensis var. Biobit XL FC™ Abbott gut pH, some formulations active kurstaki Biobit HP WP™ Abbott against leaf beetles (i.e. Raven™) Foray 48B™ Abbott Foray 68B™ Abbott Foray™ Abbott BMP 123™ BeckerMicrobial Biolep™ Biotech Int’l Condor™ Ecogen Cutlass™ Ecogen Crymax™ Ecogen Foil BFC™ Ecogen Lepinox™ Ecogen M-Peril™ Ecogen MVP II™ Ecogen Raven™ Ecogen Forwabit™ Forward Int’l Bactosid K™ Nu-Gro Group Turibel™ Probelte, S.A. Agrobac™ Tecomag SRL, Able™ Thermo Trilogy Deliver (is replacing CoStar) Thermo Trilogy//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management JavelinWG™ (Delfin™ Thermo Trilogy outside US) Thuricide™ Thermo Trilogy Larvo-BT™ Troy Biosciences Troy-BT™ Troy Biosciences Halt™ Wockhardt Ltd Bacillus thuringiensis var. Novodor™ Abbott (dist. by Valent Colorado potato beetle and some Stomach poison U.S. Tenebrionis/san diego Biosciences) other leaf beetles Beauveria bassiana Naturalis-L™ Troy Biosciences Mole cricket, chiggers, white grubs, Insect specific fungus U.S., Europe Naturalis-H&G™ Troy Biosciences fire ants, ants, flea beetle, boll (Home&Garden) weevil, whiteflies, plant bug, Naturalis-T&O™ Troy Biosciences grasshoppers, thrips, aphids, mites, (Turf&Ornamentals) and many others Ostrinil™ Natural Plant Protection (NPP) Mycotrol ™ Mycotech Mycotrol-O* Mycotech *(OK’d by OMRI) Botanigard22WP™ MycotechPage 28
    • Manufacturers and Country Beneficial Organism Trade Name Suppliers Pests Controlled Type of Action Registered Burkholderia cepacia Deny™ Stine Microbial Soil pathogens — Fusarium, Seed treatment or U.S. (formerly Pseudomonas Products Pythium, Fusarium, and disease seedling drench cepacia) (distributed by caused by lesion, spiral, lance, and Market VI LLC) sting nematodes on alfalfa, barley, beans, clover, cotton, peas, grain sorghum, vegetable crops, and wheat Candida oleophila Aspire™ Ecogen postharvest pathogens — Botrytis, Colonizes fruit surface, U.S., Israel Penicillium especially wounded tissues, thereby inhibiting other microbial colonization Coniothyrium minitans Contans Prophyta Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and S. Germany KONI BIOVED, Ltd minor on canola, sunflower, peanut, soybean, and vegetables (lettuce, bean, tomato) Fusarium oxysporum Biofox C SIAPA Fusarium oxysporum, Fusarium seed treatment or soil Italy nonpathogenic Fusaclean Natural Plant moniliforme on basil, carnation, incorporation France Protection cyclamen, tomato//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Gliocladium catenulatum Primastop Kemira Agro Oy For management of Pythium spp., Rhizoctonia solani spp., Botrytis spp., and Didymella spp. on greenhouse crops Gliocladium spp. GlioMix™ Kemira Agro Oy Soil pathogens Finland Gliocladium virens Soil Guard12G™ Thermo Trilogy Soil pathogens that cause damping Antagonist U.S. off and root rot, esp. Rhizoctonia solani & Pythium spp. Granulosis virus Capex™ Andermatt Leafroller Disease-causing virus Switzerland Granulosis virus Cyd-X™ (discontinued) Thermo Trilogy Codling moth Disease-causing virus Heterorhabditis Cruiser™ Ecogen Many types of lepidopteran larvae, Insect eating nematode U.S. bacteriophora (also marketed by Hydro-Gardens turf grubs (including Japanese species name of (over a dozen beetle) and other soil insect pests nematode) manufacturers and 2 dozen distributors in the US)Page 29
    • Manufacturers and Country Beneficial Organism Trade Name Suppliers Pests Controlled Type of Action Registered Heterorhabditis megidis. Larvanem™ Koppert Biological Black vine weevil Insect eating nematode U.S. Systems Metharizium anisopliae Bay Bio 1020™ Bayer AG Soil-inhabiting beetle, termites, Disease-causing fungus Bio-Blast™ EcoScience cockroaches (Bio-Path) Bio-Path™ EcoScience Nuclear polyhedrosis VFN80™ Thermo Trilogy Alfalfa looper (Autographica Causes disease in larvae U.S., Central virus (NPV) for (discontinued) californica) America Autographa californica NPV for Anagrapha To be introduced in 2001 Thermo Trilogy Disease-causing virus falcifera NPV for Helicoverpa zea Gemstar LC™ Thermo Trilogy American bollworm, cotton Disease-causing virus Heliothus virescens bollworm= tobacco budworm (Helicoverpa virescens), corn earworm=tomato fruitworm (Helicoverpa zea) NPV for Spodoptera Spod-X LC Thermo Trilogy beet armyworm (Spodoptera Disease-causing virus exigua exigua), lesser armyworm, pig//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management weed caterpillar, small mottled willow moth Paecilomyces PFR97™ Thermo Trilogy Whiteflys, aphids, and thrips in fumosoroseus (marketed through greenhouses Olympic Hort. Products) Paecilomyces lilacinus Paecil (also known as Technological For managing various nematode Australia Bioact) Innovation Corporation spp. on banana, tomatoes, sugar cane, pineapple, citrus, wheat, potatoes, and others Phelbia gigantea Rotstop™ Kemira Summer control of rust caused by Biofungicide Britain, Sweden, Heterobasidion annosum on pine Norway, Switzerland, and spruce trees Finland, but not U.S. Phytophthora palmivora DeVine™ Abbott Lab. Strangler vine (Morenia odorato) Initiates root infection Florida only Soil pathogens: Rizoctonia, Pseudomonas cepacia Intercept™ Soil Technologies Fusarium, Phythium U.S. Pseudomonas Cedomon BioAgri AB Leaf stripe, net blotch, Fusarium Seed treatment Sweden chlororaphis spp., spot blotch, leaf spot, and others on barley and oatsPage 30
    • Manufacturers and Country Beneficial Organism Trade Name Suppliers Pests Controlled Type of Action Registered Pseudomonas flourescens Conquer™ Mauri Foods P. tolasii on mushrooms Europe, Australia Sylvan Spawn Psuedomonas flourescens Blight Ban A506™ Plant Health Erwinia amylovora on apple, cherry, U.S. Technologies almond, peach, pear, potato, strawberry, tomato Pseudomonas PSSOL™ Natural Plant P. solanacearum in vegetables France solanacearum Protection Pseudomonas syringae Bio-Save 100, 110, 1000™ EcoScience Postharvest pathogens on apples, Antagonist/competitor U.S. pears (Biosave 100) and citrus (Biosave 1000) Pseudomonas sp. plus BioJet™ Eco-Soil Soil pathogens that cause brown Antagonist/competitor Azospirillum patch, & dollar spot Pythium oligandrum Polyversum Plant Production Management of Pythium spp., Seed treatment or soil Czech Republic (formerly Polygandron) Institute Fusarium spp., Botrytis spp., incorporation Phytophthora spp., Aphanomyces spp., Alternaria spp., Tilletia caries, Pseudocercosporella//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management herpotrichoides, Gaeumannomyces graminis, Rhizoctonia solani, Sclerotium cepivoru in various crops including vegetables (tomatoes, potatoes, pepper, cucumbers, Brassicaceae vegetables), fruits (grapes, strawberries, citrus), legumes, cereals, canola, forest nurseries and ornamental plants Phythium ultimum in sugar beets Syngrapha falcifera Celery looper virus Thermo Trilogy Lepidoptera Causes disease in larvae U.S. Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus (NPV) Spodoptera exigua NPV Otienem-S™ Ecogen Beet armyworm (Spodoptera Causes disease in larvae Spod-X™ Thermo Trilogy exigua)Page 31
    • Manufacturers and Country Beneficial Organism Trade Name Suppliers Pests Controlled Type of Action Registered Bio-Safe-N™ Thermo Trilogy Black vine weevil, strawberry root Insect eating nematode U.S. Steinernema carpocapsae Biovector 25™ Thermo Trilogy weevil, cranberry girdler, and many U.S. Ecomask™ Biologic other larval insects Scanmask™ ARBICO Guardian™ Harmony Farm IPM Labs. Praxis Hydro Gardens Steinernema feltiae Nemasys™ MicroBio Larvae of vine weevils and fungus Insect eating nematode Nemasys M™ Ecogen gnats Otienem-S™ Biobest Entonem™ Koppert X-Gnat Thermo Trilogy Steinernema riobravis Biovector 355™ Thermo Trilogy For management of citrus weevils U.S. on citrus Streptomyces griseoviridis Mycostop™ Planet Natural Soil pathogens — Fusarium, Competition/antagonism U.S., Finland (formerly Bozeman Alternaria, Rhizoctonia, Phomopsis, Biotech) Phythium, Phytopthora, Pythium, Kemira Agro Oy Botrytis — that cause wilt, seed,//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (AgBio Dev. is US root, & stem rots distributor for Kemira) Rincon Vitova Talaromyces flavus, isolate Protus WG Prophyta For management of Verticillium Germany V117b Biolgischer dahliae, V. albo-atrum, and Pflanzenschutz Rhizoctonia solani in tomato, cucumber, strawberry, rape oilseed Trichoderma harzianum RootShield™ BioWorks, Soil pathogens — Pythium, Parasite, competitor U.S. , Europe BioTrek 22G™ Wilbur-Ellis, Rhicozoktonia, Verticillium, Supresivit™ Borregaard Sclerotium, and others T-22G™ T-22HB™ Trichoderma harzianum Trichodex™ Makhteshim Botritis cinerea and others Mycoparasite living on Israel other fungi Trichoderma harzianum & Binab™ Bio-Innovation Tree-wound pathogens Mycoparasite U.K., Sweden T. polysporumPage 32
    • Manufacturers and Country Beneficial Organism Trade Name Suppliers Pests Controlled Type of Action Registered Trichoderma harzianum Trichopel™ Agrimm Technologies Armillaria, Botryoshaeria, and others New Zealand & T. viride Trichojet™ Trichodowels™ Trichoseal™ Trichoderma spp. Promot™ J.H. Biotech Growth promoter, Rhizoctonia solani, U.S. Trichoderma 2000 Mycontrol, Ltd. Sclerotium rolfsii, Pythium spp., U.S. Biofungus De Ceuster Fusarium spp. on nursery and field Belgium crops Trichoderma viride Trieco Ecosense Labs For management of Rhizoctonia India spp., Pythium spp., Fusarium spp., root rot, seedling rot, collar rot, red rot, damping-off, Fusarium wilt on wide variety of crops Verticillium lecanii Vertalec™ Koppert Aphid species, except Insect eating fungus Europe Chrysanthemum aphid, (VERTALEC requires a temp. of Macrosiphoniella sanborni 18-28 degrees Celsius and a minimum relative humidity of 80% for 10-12 hours a day for several days after application.)//Biointensive Integrated Pest ManagementPage 33
    • APPENDIX C MICROBIAL PESTICIDE MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERSAbbott Laboratories ARBICO Environmentals Biopreparaty Ltd.See Valent entry below. P.O. Box 4247 Tylisovska 1, 160 00 Tucson, AZ 85738-1247 Prague 6, Czech RepublicAgBio 520-825-9785 (4202) 311 42 989915 Raleigh Street 800-827-2847 (4202) 3332 12 17 FaxWestminster, CO 80030 520-825-2038 Fax E-mail:303-469-9221 http://www.arbico.com/ biopreparaty@mbox.vol.c303-469-9598 Fax Bactec Corp. BIOVED, Ltd.AgBioChem, Inc. 2020 Holmes Rd. Ady Endre u. 10Richard Bahme Houston, TX 77045 2310 Szigetszentmiklos,3 Fleetwood Ct. 713-797-0406 HungaryOrinda, CA 94563 713-795-4665 Fax 36-24-441-554925-254-0789 E-mail: boh8457@helka.iif.hu Bayer AGAgraQuest, Inc. Business Group Crop Protection BioWorks, Inc. (formerly TGT,1530 Drew Avenue Development/Regulatory Inc.)Davis, CA 95616 Affairs 122 North Genesee St.530-750-0150 Agrochemical Center Monheim Geneva, NY 14456530-750-0153 Fax D-51368 Leverkusen, Germany 315-781-1703http://www.agraquest.com 49-2173-38-3280 315-781-1793 FaxE-mail: 49-2173-38-3564 Faxagraquest@agraquest.com http://www.bayer.com Bozeman Biotech See listing for Planet NaturalAgricola del Sol Becker Microbial Products, Inc.30 calle 11-42, zona 12, 01012 9464 NW 11th St. Borregaard BioplantCiudad de Guatemala, Plantation, FL 33322 Helsingforsgade 27 BGuatemala, Centro America 305-474-7590 DK 8200 Aarhus N502-2 760496 Telefax 305-474-2463 Fax DenmarkE-mail: restrada@guate.net E-mail: tcouch@icanect.net 45-8-678-6988 45-8-678-6922Agimm Technologies, Ltd. Biobest N. V., Biological SystemsP.O. Box 13-245 Ilse Velder 18 Caffaro, S.p.A.Christchurch, New Zealand Westerlo B-2260 Belgium Via Fruili, 5564-13-366-8671 32-14-231701 20031 Cesano Maderno, Italy64-13-365-1859 Fax 32-14-231831 Fax 39-362-51-4266Andermatt Biocontrol AG 39-362-51-4405 FaxUnterdorf, CH-6146 Bio-Care Technology Pty. Ltd.Grossdietwil, Switzerland RMB 1084, Pacific Highway Calliope S.A. (commercial export062-927-28-40 Somersby, NSW 2250, Autralia office)062-927-21-23 Fax 16 Rue Antonin Raynaud Bio-Innovation AB 92300 Levallois Perret, FranceAmerican Cyanamid Co. Bredholmen 33-1-47-58-4745(See BASF) Box 56, S-545 02 33-1-47-58-4339 Fax800-327-4645 ALGARAS, Sweden 46-506-42005 Certis USAAmycel Spawn Mate 46-506-42072 Fax 9145 Guilford Road, Suite 175P.O. Box 560 Columbia, MD 21046Avondale, PA 19311 BioLogic Co. 1-800-847-5620800-795-1657 P.O. Box 177 Formerly Thermo Trilogy.610-869-8456 Fax Willow Hill, PA 17271U.S. Distributor of MicroBio’s 717-349-2789/2922 Ciba-Geigy Corp.Nemasys M. 717-349-2789 Fax See Novartis entry below. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 34
    • Ecogen, Inc. Helena Chemical Co. Makhteshim–Agan of N.America2000 W. Cabot Blvd. #170 6075 Poplar Avenue Suite 500 551 5th Ave., Suite 1000Langhorne, PA 19047-1811 Memphis, TN 38119-0101 New York, NY 10175215-757-1595 901-761-0050 212-661-9800215-757-2956 Fax 901-683-2960 Fax 221-661-9038/9043 Faxhttp://www.ecogeninc.com http:// http://www.makhteshim.co.il/ www.helenachemical.com html/mcw.htmlEcoScience Corp.17 Christopher Way Hydro-Gardens, Inc. Market VI LLCEatontown, NJ 07724-3325 P.O. Box 25845 Contact: Vern Illum732-676-3000 Colorado Springs, CO 80936 6613 Naskins732-676-3031 Fax 800-634-6362 Shawnee KS 66216http://www.ecosci.com Illiumv@aol.com 719-495-2266 913-268-7504 719-495-2267 FaxEcosense Labs (I) Pvt. Ltd. 816-805-0120 Mobile E-mail: hgi@usa.net54 Yogendra Bhavan http://www.hydro- Mauri FoodsJ.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) gardens.com 67 Epping Rd.Mumbai–400 059 India North Ryde, Australia834-9136/830-0967 IPM Laboratories, Inc.(91-22) 822-8016 Fax P.O. Box 300 MicroBio Group Ltd.E-mail: ecosense.mamoo Locke, NY 13092-0300 17 High Street, Whittlesford@gems.vsnl.net.in 315-497-2063 Cambridge, CB2 4LT. UK 315-497-3129 Fax 44 (0)1223 830860Eco Soil Systems, Inc. http://www.imptech.com 44 (0)1223 830861 Fax10740 Thornmint Road http://San Diego, CA 92127 J.H. Biotech www.microbiogroup.com/619-675-1660 4951 Olivas Park Drive See website for listing of U.S. distributors.800-331-8773 Ventura, CA 93003619-675-1662 Fax 805-650-8933 MicroBio (USA) Ltd.http://www.ecosoil.com/ 805-650-8942 Fax 104-A W. Dozier St. E-mail: biotech@rain.org Marion SC 29571Grondortsmettingen DeCuester http://www.jhbiotech.com 843-423-2036Fortsesteenweg 30 Kemira Agro Oy 843-423-2044 FaxB-2860 St.-Katelijne-waver, Porkkalankatu 3Belgium P.O. Box 330 Mycogen Corp.32-15-31-22-57 FIN-00101 (an affiliate of Dow32-15-36-15 Fax Helsinki, Finland AgroSciences) 358-0-10-861-511 9330 Zionsville RdGrowth Products 358-0-10-862-1126 Fax Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054P.O. Box 1259 http://www.kemira-agro.com/ 800-MYCOGENWhite Plains, NY 10602 http://www.mycogen.com800-648-7626 Ki-Hara Chemicals Ltdhttp:// Lifford Hall Mycontrol, Ltd.www.growthproducts.com Lifford Lane Alon Hagalil M.P. Kings Norton Nazereth Elit 17920,Gustafson, Inc. Israel Birmingham1400 Preston Road, Suite 400 972-4-9861827 ph./Fax 0121-693-5900Plano, TX 75093-5160 E-mail: 0121-693-5901 Fax972-985-8877 mycontro@netvision.net.il972-985-1696 Fax Koppert B.V.http://www.gustafson.com MycoTech Corporation Veilingweg 17 P.O. Box 4109 P.O. Box 155 Butte, MT 59702-4109Harmony Farm Supply 2650 AD Berkel en Rodenrijs3244 Hwy 116 North Carla Elias, Customer Service The Netherlands RepresentativeSebastopol, CA 95472 31-010-514-04444 celias@mycotech.com707-823-9125 31-010-511-5203 Fax 406-782-2386707823-1734 Fax http://www.koppert.nl/ 406-782-9912 Faxhttp://www.harmonyfarm.com english/index.html http://www.mycotech.com/ //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 35
    • Natural Plant Protection Sandoz Agro, Inc Technological InnovationB.P. 80 Sandoz merged with Ciba Geigy in Corporation Pty. Ltd.Route D’Artix 1996 to form a new company, Innovation House64150 Noguères, France Novartis 124 Gymnasium Dr.33-59-84-1045 http://www.novartis.com Macquarie University33-59-84-8955 Fax Sydney NSW, 2109 Australia Sanex, Inc. (see Nu-Gro Group) 61 2 9850 8216New BioProducts, Inc. 61 2 9884 7290 Fax2166 NW Fritz Pl San Jacinto Environmental http://www.ticorp.com.auCorvallis, OR 97330 Supplies541-752-2045 2221-A West 34th Street Tecomag SRL541-754-3968 Fax Houston, TX 77018-6004 Via Quattro Passi 108http://www.newbioproducts.com 713-957-0909 Formigine (Modena) Italy 41043 800-444-1290 39-59-573745Novo Nordisk BioChem 713-957-707 Fax 39-59-572170 FaxNorth America, Inc. http://sanjacorganic.com http://www.tecomag.com77 Perry Chapel Road E-mail: sjes@aol.com E-mail: inc@tecomag.comBox 576Franklinton, NC 27525 S.I.A.P.A. Thermo Trilogy919-494-3000 Via Vitorio Veneto See Certis entry above.919-494-3450 Fax 1 Galliera, 40010 Bologna, Italy Troy BioSciencesNu-Gro Professional 39-051-815508 113 S. 47th Ave& Consumer Group 39-051-812069 Fax Phoenix, AZ 850432270 Speers Rd 602-233-9047Oakville Ontario Soil Technologies Corp. http://Canada L6L 2X8 2103 185th St. www.troybiosciences.com800-461-6471 Fairfield, IA 52556 515-472-3963 Uniroyal Chemical B.V.Planet Natural http://www.soiltechcorp.com Ankerweg 18(formerly Bozeman Biotech) 1041 AT, Amsterdam1612 Gold Ave. Stine Microbial Products The NetherlandsBozeman, MT 59715 2225 Laredo Trail 31-20-587-1871800-289-6656 Adel, IA 50003 31-20-587-1700 Fax406-587-5891 Contact: Vern Illum of: http://www.uniroyalchem.comE-mail: ecostore@ycsi.net Market VI LLChttp://www.planetnatural.com/ (exclusive marketers of Deny) Valent Biosciencesplantdiseasecontrol.html 913-268-7504 870 Technology Way http://www.stine.com/ Libertyville, IL 60048Plant Health Technologies 800-323-9597Steve Kelly, Biological Products Sun Moon Chemical Co., Ltd. http://www.valent.com7525 Postma Rd K.W.T.C. Bought Abbott Laboratories in 2001.Moxee City, WA 98936 P.O. Box 7509-452-7265 Seoul, Korea Vyskumny ustav rastlinnej 82-2-565-1653 (Plant Production Institute)Praxis 82-2-565-1654 Fax Bratislavsk cesta 1222723 116th Ave http://www.kwtc.com 921 68 PiestanyAllegan, MI 49010 Slovak Republic616-673-2793 Sylvan Spawn Laboratory 838-223 11-12http://www.praxis-ibc.com West Hills Industrial Park Bldg 223 26-27E-mail: praxis@allegan.net 838 263 06 Fax #1 Kittanning, PA 16201Rincon-Vitova Wilbur-Ellis 724-543-2242P.O. Box 1555 Agricultural Services Corp. Office http://www.sylvaninc.comVentura, CA 93002-1555 191 W. Shaw Ave., Suite 107800-248-2847 Fresno, CA 93704805-643-5407 559-226-1934http://www.rinconvitova.com http://www.wilburellis.com/ //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 36
    • APPENDIX D New Legislation that’s being considered in the 2002 Farm Bill, with components that support implementation of IPM Conservation Security Act 2000Summary: The Conservation Security Act tices suitable for individual farms. In certain(CSA) of 2000 provides financial assistance to instances, the plan may include an on-farmhelp farmers and ranchers find viable solutions research or demonstration component.to agricultural, environmental, and economicconcerns. The CSA helps agriculture respond Tiers: Participants have the choice of enrollingto site-specific environmental challenges on a in one of three tiers:voluntary basis with a flexible program de-signed to address these challenges in a cost- • Tier I participants address priority resourceeffective and results-oriented fashion. The concerns on all or part of their farms/ranches.CSA rewards producers for good stewardship Practices may include soil and residue manage-in appreciation of the many nonmarket envi- ment, nutrient management, pest management,ronmental and social benefits that these prac- irrigation management, grazing management,tices provide society. The Act balances federal wildlife habitat management, contour farming,funding for conservation on working lands strip cropping, cover cropping, and relatedwith existing funding for land retirement, practices.providing farmers access to payments for • Tier II participants address priority resourcewhole-farm resource planning. concerns on the whole farm/ranch and meet applicable resource management systemConservation Purposes: The Conservation criteria. Tier II practices entail adoption ofSecurity Program (CSP) created by the CSA land use adjustment practices such as resource-addresses the full range of conservation con- conserving crop rotations, rotational grazing,cerns related to agriculture, including: conversion to soil-conserving practices, install-conservation of soil, water, energy, and other ing conservation buffer practices, restoration ofrelated resources; soil, water, and air quality wildlife habitats, prairies, and/or wetlands,protection and improvement; on-farm conser- and other related practices.vation and regeneration of plant germplasm; • Tier III participants satisfy the requirementswetland and wildlife habitat restoration, of tiers I and II, while integrating land useconservation, and enhancement; greenhouse practices into a whole-farm, total-resourcegas emissions reduction and carbon sequestra- approach that fosters long-term sustainabilitytion; and other similar conservation goals. of the resource base.Participation: Participation in the program Payment and Eligibility: Payments are basedstipulates that land practices must achieve on the natural resource and environmentalresource and environmental benefits, but does benefits expected from plan implementation,not require the removal of land from produc- the number and timing of management prac-tion. In addition, practices do not need to be tices established, income forgone due to landnewly introduced to the farm/ranch; produc- use adjustments, costs related to on-farmers can be rewarded for good stewardship research, and several other factors. Bonusespractices implemented prior to enrollment in are also offered for beginning farmers, jointthe CSP. Participants are responsible for participation by operators within a smalldeveloping conservation security plans that watershed, and plans that optimize carbonidentify targeted resources, practices, and sequestration and minimize greenhouse gasimplementation schedules. Participants are emissions. Payments may not exceed $20,000,granted maximum flexibility for choosing land $35,000, and $50,000 for Tier I, II, and III con-management, vegetative, and structural prac- tracts, respectively. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 37
    • APPENDIX E Pest Management Practices: 1998 USDA Survey Summary HighlightsBarley: The leading pest management practice was Other Hay: Twelve percent of the U.S. producers ofrotating crops. Sixty-three percent of the farms used hay other than alfalfa utilized tillage practices tothis practice on 71 percent of the acres across the manage pests. Five percent or more of the hayU.S. The following practices were used on over 40 producers used the following practices on theirpercent of the barley acres across the nation: using farms: cleaning implements after fieldwork, rotatingtillage practices to manage pests, cleaning imple- crops to control pests, and scouting for pests.ments after fieldwork, rotating crops to controlpests, scouting, and alternating the use of pesticides. Fruits and Nuts: The most widely used pest man- agement practice was scouting for pests, whichCorn: Rotating crops to control pests was the occurred on 82 percent of the U.S. fruit and nutleading pest management practice, used on 77 acres. Using tillage to manage pests was the secondpercent of the nation’s corn acres. It was also the most common practice, used on 79 percent of themost widely used practice in terms of number of acres. Alternating pesticides and keeping records tofarms, at 67 percent. Scouting for pests was reported track pest problems were used on 72 and 62 percenton 52 percent of the corn acres. Alternating pesti- of the acres, respectively.cides and using tillage practices to manage pestswere also common, each being reported on nearly Vegetables: Eighty percent of the U.S. vegetablehalf of the corn acres. acres were scouted for pests, making it the most common pest management practice for vegetableCotton: Almost three-fourths of the U.S. cotton acres crops. Rotating crops was reported on 78 percent ofwere scouted for pests, on 65 percent of the cotton the acres, while using tillage to manage pests wasfarms. Prevention practices, such as using tillage used on 74 percent of the acres.practices to manage pests, removing or plowingdown the crop residue, and cleaning implements All other Crops and Cropland Pasture: This groupafter fieldwork were also widely used practices, includes crops that were not specifically targetedbeing used on more than half of the cotton acres. during the survey such as sorghum, oats, rice,Other practices reported on 50 percent or more of peanuts, etc. The most widely used pest manage-the acres: alternating pesticides, using records to ment practice was rotating crops to control pests, at 52keep track of pests, and using pheromones to percent of the acres. Using tillage to manage pests,monitor pests. scouting for pests, and cleaning implements after field- work were each utilized on more than 40 percent of theSoybeans: The most common pest management acres.practice was rotating crops to control pests, whichwas done on 78 percent of the U.S. soybean acres Genetically modified crop varieties: The practicesand on 76 percent of the soybean farms. Other showing the most change from the 1997 crop year topractices used on 40 percent or more of the acreswere: using tillage to manage pests, scouting for the 1998 crop year were the use of varieties thatpests, using seed varieties that were genetically were genetically modified to be resistant to insectsmodified to be resistant to specific herbicides, and or to specific herbicides.alternating pesticides. For corn, there was an increase from 5 percent of the acres in 1997 to 20 percent of the acres in 1998 thatAll Wheat: The leading pest management practice were planted to varieties that were modifiedwas rotating crops to control pests, which was used through genetic engineering or conventional breed-on 58 percent of the acres and by 53 percent of the ing to be resistant to insects.farms. Cleaning implements after fieldwork was the For cotton, there was an increase of 9 percentagesecond most widely used practice, with 49 percent points, from 13 percent of the acres in 1997 to 22of the acres and 33 percent of the farms. Using percent in 1998.tillage to manage pests and scouting for pests were The use of crop varieties resistant to specificeach reported on 40 percent or more of the acres. herbicides on corn increased from 2 percent in 1997 to 11 percent of the acres in 1998. The use of theseAlfalfa Hay: Rotating crops to control pests was the varieties for cotton and soybeans showed a greatermost widely used pest management practice on the increase. For cotton: an increase from 5 percent inU.S. alfalfa acreage, at 33 percent. Scouting for pests 1997 to 34 percent in 1998. The proportion ofand using tillage to control pests were used on 26 soybean varieties used: 10 percent in 1997 and 48percent and 23 percent of the acres, respectively. percent in 1998. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 38
    • APPENDIX F: IPM INFORMATION RESOURCESATTRA Resources related to IPM ATTRA Resources in print onlyFarmscaping to Enhance Biological Control Call 800-346-9140http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/farmscape.html • Colorado Potato Beetle: Organic Control Options • Corn Earworm: Organic Control OptionsSustainable Management of Soil-borne Plant • Downy Mildew Control in CucurbitsDiseases • Flea Beetle: Organic Control Optionshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/ • Organic Control of Squash Bugsoildiseases.pdf • Organic Control of Squash Vine Borer • Powdery Mildew Control in CucurbitsAlternative Nematode Controlhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/nematode.htmlCompost Teas for Plant Disease Control General IPM Reference Materialshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/comptea.html Contacts/CoordinatorsDisease Suppressive Potting Mixeshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/dspotmix.html State IPM Coordinators & Web Sites http://www.reeusda.gov/agsys/ipm/Use of Baking Soda as a Fungicide coordinators.htmhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/baksoda.html Resource CentersAlternative Controls for Late Blight in Potatoeshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/lateblight.html IPM Access: Integrated Pest Management Information ServiceManagement Alternatives for Thrips on Vegetable http://www.efn.org/~ipmpa/index.shtmland Flower Crops in the Fieldhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/thrips.html Pest Management Resource Center http://www.pestmanagement.co.ukPhenology Web Links: Sequence of Bloom, FloralCalendars, What’s in Bloom StudyWeb | Science| Integrated Pest Managementhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/phenology.html http://www.studyweb.com/links/2509.htmlGrasshopper Management StudyWeb | Science| Pest Managementhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/grasshopper.html http://www.studyweb.com/links/2510.htmlFire Ant Management IPM Guideshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/fireant.html There are numerous books, manuals and websites thatIntegrated Pest Management for Greenhouse address insect and disease pests of vegetable crops.Cropshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-ipm.html APS Press American Phytopathological SocietyGreenhouse IPM: Sustainable Thrips Control 3340 Pilot Knob Roadhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-thrips.html St. Paul, MN 55121-2097 651-454-7250Greenhouse IPM: Sustainable Aphid Control 651-454-0766 Faxhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-aphids.html aps@scisoc.org http://www.scisoc.org/Greenhouse IPM: Sustainable Whitefly Controlhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-whitefly.html • Diseases of Vegetables CD-ROM • Advances in Potato Pest Biology and Management • Compendium of Bean Diseases • Compendium of Beet Diseases • Compendium of Corn Diseases, 3rd Edition • Compendium of Cucurbit Diseases //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 39
    • • Compendium of Lettuce Diseases The Florida Cooperative Extension Publications• Compendium of Pea Diseases Resource• Compendium of Tomato Diseases http://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/ EDIS—The Florida Cooperative Extension PublicationsBio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Resource—has a wealth of information on a wide variety of topics of interest to IPM practitioners. Brief overviewsBIRC publishes The IPM Practitioner and are provided for all topics, and more detailed informationCommon Sense Pest Quarterly as well as an is accessible if you have Adobe Acrobat Reader.annual Directory of IPM Products and Benefi-cial Insects. BIRC also produces booklets and Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Concepts andreprints on least-toxic controls for selected Definitionspests. The IPM Practitioner is published ten http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/IPM.htmtimes per year. Must be a member of the BioIntegral Resource Center (BIRC) to receive The IPMnet NEWS ArchivesIPM Practioner. Memberships: $50/yr. for http://www.IPMnet.org/IPMnet_NEWSinstitutions; $25/yr. for individuals; $18/yr. for /archives.htmlstudents. Dual memberships available if you IPMnet News is published monthly andwish to receive the Common Sense Pest Control provides information about new research,Quarterly. articles, resources, and activities of interest to IPM practitioners. IPMnet NEWS is accessibleBio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) through FTP, TELNET, and FINGER and alsoP.O. Box 7414 via e-mail using FTPMAIL. For more informa-Berkeley, CA 94707 tion send e-mail to: deutscha@bcc.orst.edu510-524-2567 Fax: 01-503-737-3080, Phone: 01-503-737-510-524-1758 Fax 6275birc@igc.apc.orghttp://www.igc.org/birc/ IPM Solutions Gempler’s IPM AlmanacCommon Sense Pest Control. 1991. Olkowski, W., S. http://www.ipmalmanac.com/solutions/archive.aspDaar and H. Olkowski. The Tauton Press, Newton, CT. This site’s IPM section is an excellent resource for folks715 p. working on-the-ground in IPM. It has a wide variety ofA good reference and resource book for IPM of a wide tools, hardware, traps, etc. that are useful to the IPMrange of pests. professional.Complete Guide to Pest Control With and Without Pest Management & Crop Development BulletinChemicals, 3rd Edition. 1996. By George Ware. Thomp- University of Illinois Extensionson Publishing Co., California. 350 p. http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/cespubs/pest/Entomological Society of America Pests of the Garden and Small Farm:9301 Annapolis Road A Grower’s Guide to Using Less Pesticide. 1991. ByLanham, MD 20706-3115 Mary Louise Flint. University of California, Statewide301-731-4535 Integrated Pest Management Project, Division of Agricul-301-731-4538 Fax ture and Natural Resources, Publication 3339. 257 p.esa@entsoc.orghttp://www.entsoc.org/catalog/ Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook http://ipmworld.umn.edu/• Complete Guide to Pest Control With and Without Chemicals, 3rd Edition UC Pest Management Guidelines• Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard, 8th Edition http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/• Integrated Pest Management for Onions (Cornell) crops-agriculture.html• Manual on Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests (Cornell) University of California Statewide Integrated• Pests of the West, Revised• Farmscape Ecology of Stink Bugs in Northern Pest Management Project California http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/• Numerous standard reference books: IPM, biological control, ecology, and behavior //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 40
    • UC Statewide IPM Project Integrated Crop and Pest Management Guidelines forUniversity of California Commercial Vegetable ProductionOne Shields Avenue Cornell Cooperative ExtensionDavis, CA 95616-8620 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/recommends/530-752-7691http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/ IPM — Fruits & Vegetables at University of Illinois http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~ipm/fruits/fruits.htmlFor-Sale Publications:• IPM for Tomatoes IPM in New York State Vegetables• IPM for Cole Crops and Lettuce http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/vegetables/• IPM for Potatoes• Managing Insects and Mites with Spray Oils USDA/OPMP Crop Profiles Database• Natural Enemies Are Your Allies! (poster) USDA Office of Pesticide Management Programs,• Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide to (OPMP) & Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP) Biological Pest Control http://cipm.ncsu.edu/CropProfiles/• Pests of the Garden and Small Farm: A Grower’s A great place to find out what the standard pest controls Guide to Using Less Pesticide, 2nd edition are for vegetable crops.• UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines• IPM in Practice: Principles and Methods of Inte- VegEdge — Vegetable IPM for the Midwest grated Pest Management http://www3.extension.umn.edu/vegipm/• IPM for Floriculture and Nurseries• Pierce’s Disease Vegetable Production and Pest Control Guides from• Grape Pest Management Land-Grant Universities• IPM for Apples & Pears, 2nd Edition Oregon State University http://www.orst.edu/Dept/• Organic Apple Production Manual NWREC/veglink.html• Aquatic Pest Control• Turfgrass Pests VegNet• IPM for Citrus Ohio State University http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~vegnet/index.htmlOn-Line Publications:• UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines Newsletters/Alerts Vegetable Guidebooks The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/ entomology/pestnewsletter/newsarchive.htmlCrop Knowledge Master: VegetablesUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa Integrated Crop Management Newsletterhttp://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/ Iowa State Universitycrops/vegetabl.htm http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Resourceson Potato IPM Pest Alerthttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/potato.htm Colorado State University http://www.colostate.edu/programs/pestalert/Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet IPM index.htmlResources on Tomatohttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/tomato.htm Pest & Crop Newsletter Purdue University http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomol-Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Re- ogy/ext/sources on Vegetable Pest Management targets/newslett.htmhttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/Vegetable/veg.htmInternet Resources on Vegetable Pest Management is a Vegetable Newsletterssub-category of DIR that provides links to materials oninsect and disease problems associated with vegetable The Illinois Fruit and Vegetable Newsproduction. A great starting point! http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/news/ fvnews.html //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 41
    • Pay Dirt—Newsletter for Vegetable Growers Entomology Index of Internet Resources: A DirectoryNorth Carolina State University and Search Engine of Insect-Related Resources on thehttp://henderson.ces.state.nc.us/newsletters/ Internetveg/ Iowa State University http://www.ent.iastate.edu/list/Plant & Pest Advisory, Vegetable EditionRutgers University, New Jersey Entomology on World-Wide Webhttp://www.rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/ Colorado State Universityplantandpestadvisory/index.html http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology /www_sites.htmlSouth Carolina Pumpkin Newshttp://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/vegprog.htm Featured Creatures: The Good, The Bad, and The PrettyVegetable Crop Advisory Team (CAT) Alert University of Florida Department of Entomology andMichigan State University Nematologyhttp://www.msue.msu.edu/ipm/vegCAT.htm http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~insect/index.htm This University of Florida website is a great first-stepVegetable Crops Hotline IPM site to find quick, essential knowledge about pestPurdue University http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomol- insects: Introduction - Hosts - Distribution - Descriptionogy/ext/targets/newslett.htm - Life Cycle - Damage - Economic Injury Level - Man- agement - Selected References.The Vegetable GazetteThe Pennsylvania State University Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard, 8th Edition.http://www.ento.psu.edu/vegetable/veggaz 1987. By R. Davidson & W. Lyon. John Wiley & Sons,/veggazette.htm New York. 640 p.Vegetable IPM Message Insects on WWWUniversity of Massachussetts Virginia Techhttp://www.umass.edu/umext/programs/agro/ http://www.isis.vt.edu/~fanjun/text/Links.htmlvegsmfr/Articles/Newsletters/Newsletters.htm Land Grant University Entomological ResourcesVegetable Newletter University of Florida jump siteNova Scotia Department of Agriculture http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~pest/vector/http://agri.gov.ns.ca/pt/hort/newslets/vegetable/ link_sub.htm#Landindex.htm Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. 1975. Jeppson,VegNet Newsletter L.R., HH Keifer and E.W. Baker. U C Press. Berkeley,Ohio State University CA. 679 p.http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~vegnet/news/newslist.htm Rodale’s Color Handbook of Garden Insects. Carr, Anna. 1979. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA. 241 p.VegNews An identification guide. Over 300 color photographs ofUniversity of Arizona insects in the egg, larval, pupal, and adult stages.http://ag.arizona.edu/hypermail/vegnews/index.html Descriptions include range, life cycle, host plants, feeding habits, natural controls.Insect Lifecycles and Management Vegetable Insect Fact Sheets University of Kentucky — Department of EntomologyDestructive and Useful Insects. 1993. Metcalf, R.L. & http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Entomology/entfacts/R.A. Metcalf. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York, NY. efveg.htmA good reference for lifecycle information for agricul-tural pests and beneficials. Vegetable Insect Management: With Emphasis on the Midwest. 1995. By Rick Foster and Brian Flood (eds.) Meister Publishing Co., Willoughby, OH. 206 p. A comprehensive 206-page manual produced by the Purdue Research Foundation, published by Meister Publishing Company. This is one of the best pest management guides on vegetables compiled by the Extension Service. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 42
    • Vegetable IPM Insect NotesNorth Carolina State University Organic Pest Controlhttp://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/notes/Vegetables/vegetable_contents.html Organic Pest Control Guide for Insect and Disease Control Diseases University of Georgia http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/entomology/pest99/Commercial Biocontrol Products For Use Against hort/organic/organic.htmSoilborne Crop DiseasesUSDA-ARS Organic Vegetable IPM Guidehttp://www.barc.usda.gov/psi/bpdl/bpdlprod/ Mississippi State Universitybioprod.html http://ext.msstate.edu/pubs/pub2036.htmDisease Management for Vegetables and Herbs in Praxis WebsiteGreenhouses Using Low Input http://www.praxis-ibc.com/id88.htmSustainable Methods For Vegetable Crops & Fruit Production—Directed toNorth Carolina State University growers who want to eliminate pesticides, herbicides, andhttp://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/pp/notes/oldnotes/vg2.htm fungicides from their production systems. Offers consul- tation about growing alternatives for vegetable, grain,Minimizing Vegetable Disease and fruit crops. Consultation includes biological controlCornell University of major and minor crop pests, and reduction of non-pointhttp://plantclinic.cornell.edu/vegetable/minimizevege/ pollution and groundwater contaminationminimizevege.htm Cultural ControlsAn Online Guide to Plant Disease ControlOregon State University Generalhttp://plant-disease.orst.edu/index.htmThis site, hosted by Oregon State University, provides Cultural Controlpictures as well as fact sheets about a range of plant Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbookpathogens found in the Pacific Northwest. This site is a http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/ferro.htmvery good reference for the control and managementtactics for important plant diseases in the Pacific North- Cultural Control for Management of Vegetable Pestswest. in Florida University of FloridaPlant Pathology Internet Guide Book http://www.imok.ufl.edu/LIV/groups/cultural/pests/http://www.ifgb.uni-hannover.de/extern/ppigb/ insects.htmppigb.htmTexas Plant Disease Handbook Crop Rotationshttp://cygnus.tamu.edu/Texlab/tpdh.html Conservation Crop Rotation: Effects on Soil QualityTraditional Practices for Plant Disease Management in NRCS Soil Quality Institute, Agronomy Technical NoteTraditional Farming Systems No. 2.H. David Thurston, Cornell University http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/pdf/http://www.tropag-fieldtrip.cornell.edu/ agronomy2.pdfThurston_TA/default.html Crop Rotation: The Future of the Potato Industry in ndVegetable Diseases and their Control, 2 Edition. Atlantic Canada1986. By Arden F. Sherf and Alan A. MacNab. John Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation CentreWiley & Sons, New York. 728 p. http://www.cuslm.ca/ccse-swcc/publications/english/ rotation.pdfVegetable MD OnlineCornell University Vegetable Disease Web Page Crop Rotations in Direct Seedinghttp://ppathw3.cals.cornell.edu/Extension/ Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural DevelopmentVegetableDiseases/Home.htm http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/agdex/500/ 519-28.html //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 43
    • Having Problems Controlling Vegetable Crop Diseases Biological Control of Insect and Mite Pests- Try Rotation University of Nebraska Cooperative ExtensionUniversity of Connecticut, IPM Program http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/insects/g1251.htmhttp://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/veg/htms/rotate.htm Biological Control of Insect Pests of Cabbage and Other Crucifers. 1993. By Susan E. Rice Mahr, Daniel L. Rice, Biological Control and Jeffrey A. Wyman. North Central Region Publication No. 471. Cooperative Extension Service, University ofApproaches to Biological Control of Insect Pests Wisconsin. 55 p. To place an order, see:Department of Entomology, Connecticut Agricultural http://www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/Experiment Stationhttp://www.state.ct.us./caes/fsen0004f.htm Biological Control: Predators and Parasitoids University of Minnesota, Center for Urban Ecology andArizona Biological Control Inc Sustainabilityhttp://www.arbico.com/ http://www.ent.agri.umn.edu/cues/dx/pred-par.htmThis site, run by Arizona Biological Control Inc.(ARBICO), has a wide range of tools available for the Biological Control of Insects and Mites: An Introduc-IPM practitioner, provides basic information about tion to Beneficial Natural Enemies and their Use inbeneficials and application rates. Pest Management. 1993. By Daniel L. Mahr and Nino M. Ridgeway. North Central Region Publication No. 481.Association of Natural Bio-Control Producers — Cooperative Extension Service, University of WisconsinNatural Enemy Fact Sheets 91 p. To review contents and place an order, see:http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/biocontrol/anbp/ http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/Factsheets.html regpubs/ncr481.htmBeneficial Insects and Mites Biological Control NewsUniversity of Florida University of Wisconsinhttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN078 http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/mbcn.htmlBeneficial Insects Sheet 1 Field Guide to Predators, Parasites, and PathogensUniversity of Florida Attacking Insect and Mite Pests of Cotton. Knutson,http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in002 Allen and John Ruberson. 1996. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A & M University System,Beneficial Insects Sheet 2 Bryan, TX. 125 p.University of Florida Applicable to many other crops where same “good bugs”http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in003 are present. Excellent color photos and written descrip- tions.Beneficial Insects Sheet 3University of Florida Identification and Management of Major Pestshttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in012 & Beneficial Insects in Potato Oregon State UniversityBeneficial Insects Sheet 4 http://ippc2.orst.edu/potato/University of Floridahttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in013 Integrated Pest Management for Greenhouse Crops ATTRABiological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies in http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-ipm.htmlNorth America Appendix II: Beneficial OrganismsCornell Universityhttp://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/ Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide toThis site provides photos and descriptions of over 100 Biological Pest Control. Publication 3386B4. Univer-biological control (or biocontrol) agents of insect, sity of California, Statewide Integrated Pest Managementdisease, and weed pests in North America. It is also a Project. 164 p. To review contents and place an order,tutorial on the concept and practice of biological control see:and integrated pest management (IPM). Excellent photos http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/GENERAL/and lifecycle descriptions supplemented with diagrams. naturalenemiesflyer.html //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 44
    • Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests. 1993. By Phenology Web Links: Sequence of Bloom, FloralMichael P. Hoffman and Anne A. Frodsham. Cornell Calendars, What’s in BloomCooperative Extension Service, Ithaca, New York. 63 p. ATTRAThe complete manual can also be found on the web at: http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/phenology.htmlBiological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies inNorth America http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/ A Total System Approach to Sustainable Pest Manage-biocontrol/ ment —The Image Biological Control as a Component of SustainablePraxis Website Agriculture, USDA-ARShttp://www.praxis-ibc.com/id88.htm http://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/lewis/ecolsyst.gifSee p. 43 for description. A Total System Approach to Sustainable Pest Manage-Predatory Insects in Fruit Orchards ment —The StoryPublication 208, Ontario Ministry of Food and Agricul- Biological Control as a Component of Sustainableture. 32 pages. Agriculture, USDA-ARSPredatory Insects in Fruit Orchards identifies over 100 http://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/lewis/lewis1.pdfbeneficial insects that work in the orchard. It features This is a classic biointensive IPM article from thedetailed color pictures and life cycle descriptions for each November 1997 issue of Proceedings of the Nationalinsect. Though this particular bulletin is geared to fruit Academy of Science. It is accompanied by the diagram-orchards, much of the information is universally appli- matic illustration that shows an unstable pyramid on thecable to horticulture crops. To review contents and place left (Pesticide Treadmill) transitioning through boxes inan order, see: the middle (Therapeutics) + (Ecosystem Manipulation) tohttp://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/ get to a stable pyramid on the right (Total System Man-/products/newpubs.html#insects agement).Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms in North America. Biological Control: Beneficial NematodesHunter, Charles D. 1997. California EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Sacramento, CA. 32 p. Beneficial Nematodes: Suppliers andFor a free copy, write to: Pesticide Compatibility,California Environmental Protection Agency Nematology Pointer No. 45Department of Pesticide Regulation University of FloridaEnvironmental Monitoring and Pest http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in096Management Branch1020 N Street, Room 161 Insect Parasitic NematodesSacramento, CA 95814-5624 http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/nematodes/Ph: (916) 324-4100 Ohio State U., UC Davis, U. Florida, Rutgers U., EPA,A web-based version can be found at: Society of Invertebrate Pathology, Dodge Foundation,http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dprdocs/goodbug/ OceanSpray, Cranberry Institute, and Thermo Triologybenefic.htm support this website. This site has much useful informa- tion about the use of insect parasitic nematodes: the Biological Control: Systems Approaches biology and ecology of nematodes, how to use nematodes, a list of suppliers, and more! An extremely useful sectionFarmscaping to Enhance Biological Control. 2000. provides full citation for research papers according toDufour, R. ATTRA, Fayetteville, AR. 25 p. author, title, or abstract. Research papers can also behttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/farmscape.html searched for according to Order and Family of targetThe on-line ATTRA publication that summarizes insect. To get to this section, click on: Searchhabitat manipulation as a means to create insect PublicationsÞKeyword Search Page (just underneath therefugia and attract beneficial insects to the farm, thus “author, title, abstract” search engine)ÞInsects. Thenenhancing natural biological control. It provides an you may choose the Order and Family of your choice.introduction to farmscaping, practical examples ofhabitat manipulation employed by farmers, and Insect Parasitic Nematodespointers to useful print and web resources. Ohio State University http://www2.oardc.ohio-state.edu/Naturalize Your Farming System: A Whole-Farm nematodes/Approach to Managing PestsSustainable Agriculture Network, USDA-SAREhttp://www.sare.org/farmpest/index.htmhttp://www.sare.org/farmpest/farmpest.pdf //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 45
    • Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms in North America Alternatives in Insect Pest Management: Biologi-California Environmental Protection Agency cal & Biorational Approaches. 1991. By Rickhttp://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/ipminov/ Weinzierl and Tess Henn. North Central Regionalbensuppl.htm Extension Publication 401. http://spectre.ag.uiuc.edu/%7Evista/abstracts// Biological Control: Nematodes aaltinsec.htmlAlternative Nematode Control Alternatives in Insect Pest Management: Biologi-ATTRA cal & Biorational Approacheshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/nematode.html North Central Region Extension Publication 401 http://spectre.ag.uiuc.edu/%7Evista/abstractsNematode Suppressive Crops aaltinsec.htmlAuburn Universityhttp://www.aces.edu/department/extcomm/ Commercial Biocontrol Products For Use Againstpublications/anr/anr-856/anr-856.htm Soilborne Crop Diseases USDA-ARSSoil Organic Matter, Green Manures and Cover http://www.barc.usda.gov/psi/bpdl/bpdlprod/Crops For Nematode Management bioprod.htmlEntomology and Nematology Department, Univer-sity of Florida Hydrated Lime as an Insect Repellenthttp://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/txt/fairs/vh/ University of Connecticut Integrated Pest Manage-17728.html ment Program http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/veg/htms/ Pesticides hydlime.htm Pesticide Registration Insect Management: Botanicals Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production inKelly Pesticide Registration Systems the South, Dr. Mary Peet, NCSUhttp://www.kellysolutions.com/ http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/IPM/Some states provide free access to pesticide registra- insects/botan.htmltion databases. Use them to identify pest controlproducts for target pests. Integrated Pest Management ATTRA Alternatives to Pesticides http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/ipm.html Appendix A: Microbial PesticidesMethyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter Appendix B: Microbial Pesticide Manufactur-USDA ers and Suppliershttp://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/mebrhp.htm Integrated Pest Management for Greenhouse CropsMethyl Bromide Phase Out Web Site ATTRAEPA http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-ipm.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ Appendix III: Biorational Pesticides Least Toxic Materials for Managing Insect Pests Biorational Pesticides IPM Access - An Integrated Pest Management Online Service http://www.efn.org/~ipmpa/leastox.htmlBiorational pesticides, also known as least-toxic pesti-cides, are those that are pest-specific and cause the least Use of Baking Soda as a Fungicideamount of harm to beneficial organisms or the environ- ATTRAment. Examples include microbial insecticides, insecti- http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/bakingsoda.htmlcidal soaps, horticultural oils, insect growth regulators,sorptive dusts like diatomaceous earth, pheromones, and What are Biorational Pesticides?to some extent, botanical plant extracts. University of Minnesota, Center for Urban Ecology and Sustainability http://www.ent.agri.umn.edu/cues/dx/bugs/ bio1.htm //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 46
    • What are Biopesticides Principles of Integrated Weed ManagementEPA Office of Pesticide Programs: Biopesticides Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Publication 75http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/ http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/what_are_biopesticides.htm facts/IWM.htmThe EPA Classifies biopesticides into three majorcategories: Weed Control Practices (1) Microbial pesticides contain a microorganism Oregon State University (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as the http://www.orst.edu/dept/hort/weeds/ active ingredient. For example, there are fungi that weedcontrol.htm control weeds, and bacteria that control plant diseases. Weed Prevention (2) Plant-pesticides are pesticidal substances that Alberta Practical Crop Protection plants produce from genetic material that has been http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/agdex/000/ added to the plant. For example, the gene for the Bt pp6063s1.html pesticidal protein has been introduced into corn. (3) Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring Weeds in Agroecosystems substances that control pests by non-toxic mecha- Dalhousie University, Canada nisms. Conventional pesticides, by contrast, are http://is.dal.ca/~dp/reports/mcpheest.htm synthetic materials that usually kill or inactivate the pest. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such A Whole-Farm Approach to Weed Control: A as pheromones, that interfere with growth or mating Strategy for Weed-Free Onions of the pest. Anne & Eric Nordell, Sharing the Lessons of Organic Farming Conference, January 30–31, 1998, Univer- Weed Control sity of Guelph http://gks.com/library/OrgConf/1998d.html Weed Identification An online conference paper that summarizes the methods Anne & Eric Nordell use to control weeds in onion fields.New Jersey Weed GalleryRutgers, The State University of New Jersey A Whole-Farm Approach to Weed Control: Ahttp://www.rce.rutgers.edu/weeds/index.html Strategy for Weed-Free Onions (Video) Anne & Eric NordellUC IPM Weed Photo Gallery The Nordells work with horses to raise a 6-acre marketUniversity of California Statewide IPM Project garden in Pennsylvania, growing dried flowers, herbs,http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/ lettuce, potatoes, onions, and other vegetables. They use aweeds_common.html combination of cover crops, fallowing, tillage, and hand weeding for weed control. To provide a visual image of General how they integrate different components of their farm into a whole, the Nordells videotaped a slide presentation theyControlling Weeds with Fewer Chemicals. use at organic farming workshops. The 52-minute tape isCramer, Craig (ed.). 1991. Rodale Institute, available for $10 postpaid from:Emmaus, PA. 138 p. Anne and Eric Nordell RDI Box 205Integrated Pest Management Plan for Lower Trout Run, PA 17771Klamath and Tule Lake NWRs — WeedsNational Center for Appropriate Technology 1988 REAP: Guide to Economical Weed Controlhttp://refuges.fws.gov/NWRSFiles/HabitatMgmt/ Roger Samson, Canada-REAPKBasin/Weeds.html http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/ Spring%2089%20D.htmIntegrated Weed Management in Vegetable CropsUniversity of Illinois Extension Servicehttp://www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/fruits/iwm/iwm.html //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 47
    • Biological Control Vegetable Farmers and Their Weed-Control MachinesBiological Control of Weeds Handbook. 1993. A 75-minute educational video on cultivation and flaming equipment produced in 1996 by Vern Grubinger,Watson, Alan K. (ed.) Weed Science Society of UVM Extension System and Mary Jane Else, UMassAmerica, Champaign, IL. 202 p. Extension with funding from USDA-SARE. Cost isIncluded are introduced natural enemies, native or $12.00 from:naturalized insects and nematodes, plant pathogens, and The Center for Sustainable Agriculturevertebrate herbivores specifically managed to control University of Vermont & State Agricultural Collegeweeds. 590 Main Street Burlington, Vermont 05405-0059 802-656-0233 Cultivation 802-656-8874 Fax http://moose.uvm.edu/~susagctr/index.htmlCultivation Basics for Weed Control in Corn. 1997. Cover CropsBy Jane Mt. Pleasant. Cornell University. Publica-tion 125IB241. 10 p. Contribution of Cover Crop Mulches to WeedCultivation is discussed as an alternative to herbicides, as Managementwell as in combination with herbicides through a mixed University of Connecticut, IPM Programweed control approach. A description of six inter-row http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/weeds/and in-row tools is provided, accompanied by color htms/photos. Research on mechanical weed control field trials cvrcrps.htmat Cornell is summarized. Cover Crops For Weed Control In LettuceInnovative Cultivating Tools New Alchemy Quarterly, No. 40University of Connecticut, IPM Program Mark Schonbeck, Judy Browne and Ralphhttp://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/weeds/ DeGregoriohtms/ http://www.fuzzylu.com/greencenter/q40/culttools.htm weed9009.htmPhoto Gallery & Glossary of Cultivators and Cover-Cropping with Rye and Bellbeans inImplements Used in Physical Weed Control California Vegetable ProductionEuropean Weed Research Society Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Foodhttp://www.ewrs.org/physical-control/ Systems, UC Santa Cruzglossary.htm http://www.agroecology.org/cases/ rbcovercrop.htmRotary hoe, flexible chain harrow, spring tine harrow,Lilliston rolling cultivator, horizontal-axis brush hoe, Mechanisms of Weed Suppression By Squashvertical-axis brush hoe, finger weeder, torsion weeder Intercropped in Corn Phillip Thomas Fujiyoshi, UC Santa CruzSteel in the Field: A Farmer’s Guide to Weed http://www.agroecology.org/people/phillip/Management Tools. 1997. By Greg Bowman (ed.). dissertation.htmSustainable Agriculture Network, Handbook SeriesNo. 2. Sustainable Agriculture Publications, Univer- Watermelon Cover Cropping with Wheat andsity of Vermont. 128 p. Barley in Niigata, Japan Center for Agroecology and Sustainable FoodCultivation techniques and the tools used in association Systems, UC Santa Cruzwith mechanical weed control are less familiar to farmers http://www.agroecology.org/cases/after several decades of widespread chemical weed control. watermeloncover.htmSteel in the Field, a handbook in the Sustainable Agricul-ture Network series, provides illustrations, descriptions, Organic/Non-chemicaland practical examples of 37 specialized tools used tocontrol weeds. It features profiles of farmers using Integrating Non-Chemical Methods to Enhancereduced- or non-chemical weed control strategies, and Weed Managementcontains a listing of suppliers of these specialized tools. Horticultural Sciences Department University of Florida http://www.imok.ufl.edu/LIV/groups/ cultural/pests/weed_man.htm //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 48
    • Non-Chemical Weed Control Information ServicesRay BaumlOptions in Agriculture: Exploring Organic Alterna- Agricultural Weather.comtives, Saskatoon, February 8–10, 1998. http://www.agriculturalweather.comhttp://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/hhaidn/conference98/page29a.htm Agricultural Weather Information Service (AWIS) http://www.awis.comNonchemical Weed Management StrategiesUniversity of Illinois Extension Service The Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET)http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/fruits/ http://Ag.Arizona.Edu/azmet/nonchem.html DTN Kavouras Weather ServicesOrganic Field Crop Handbook — Weed Manage- http://www.dtn.com/weather/mentCanadian Organic Growers, COG NEWA, The Northeast Weather Associationhttp://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/COG/ http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/COGHandbook/COGHandbook_1_7.htm program_news/newa/newa99.htmlA Review of Non-Chemical Weed Control Tech-niques Oklahoma MesonetS. Parish http://okmesonet.ocs.ou.edu/body.htmlBiological Agriculture and Horticulture, Vol. 7.http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/BAH/ PAWS Weather Data (Pennsylvania)BAH%205.htm http://frost.prosser.wsu.eduSustainable Weed Management in Organic Herb SkyBit, Agricultural Weather Information Service& Vegetable Production http://www.skybit.comUniversity of New England, NSW (Australia)http://www.une.edu.au/agronomy/weeds/ Texas A&M Meteorologyorganic/organic.html http://www.met.tamu.edu/personnel/students/ weather/current.htmlWeed Control Beyond Herbicides. Willis, Harold.Midwestern Bio-Ag, Blue Mounds, WI. 24 p. WeatherSites: Jump Site from University ofPresents weed control in terms of working with and Michiganunderstanding natural processes. http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/servers.htmlWeed Management Strategies in Organic Farming WI–MN Cooperative Extension AgriculturalSystems WeatherDavid Oien http://bob.soils.wisc.edu/wimnext/1997 Direct Seeding Conference, Saskatchewan SoilConservtion Association UK Agricultural Weather Centerhttp://ssca.usask.ca/97-Proceed/Oien.htm University of Kentucky http://wwwagwx.ca.uky.edu/ http://wwwagwx.ca.uky.edu/Agwx.html WeatherWeather — especially temperature & humidity — Pest Forecastersplays a crucial role in insect and disease develop-ment. A modern feature of IPM is the use of California PestCast: Disease Model Databaseweather monitoring to predict periods of heavy http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/DISEASE/infestation. The following weather sites on the DATABASE/diseasemodeldatabase.htmlInternet specialize in agricultural data; in mostinstances these sites focus on IPM at the regional Cucurbit Downy Mildew Forecastslevel. North Carolina State UniversityHere you can find data on degree days to predict http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/pp/cucurbit/insect emergence, frost prediction, and pest specificdata such as blight forecasts (onions, tomatoes, IPM Weather Data and Degree-Days: For Pestpotatoes); maggot emergence (onions); European Management Decision Making in the Pacific North-corn borer forecasts and trap catches (sweet corn); westphenology; etc. http://www.orst.edu/Dept/IPPC/wea/ //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 49
    • Leaf Wetness Observations Massachusetts IPM Guidelines: CommodityUniversity of Florida http://www.imok.ufl.edu/ Specific Definitionsweather/archives/ http://www.umass.edu/umext/programs/agro/2000/Leaf%20Wetness/leafwetness2000.htm ipm/ipm_guidelines/ The Massachusetts IPM Guidelines have been used toMELCAST verify IPM use by the USDA Farm Service Agency inhttp://www.hort.purdue.edu/hort/ext/veg/ Massachusetts since 1990, and by the Partners withmelcast.html Nature IPM certification program since 1993. For certification in the Partners with Nature program, a cropTOMCAST must be grown using a minimum of 70% of the Adjustedhttp://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/%7Evegnet/ Total Practice Points. Qualified growers are licensed totomcats/ use the Partners with Nature logo and are provided withtomfrm.htm marketing assistance including posters, leaflets, bro- chures and documentation of their certification.The Vegetable Crops Planner—WeatherOhio State University Elements of New York State IPMhttp://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~vegnet/ Cornell Universityplanner.htm http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/ vegetables/Weather Data / Precipitation Totals elements/index.htmlConnecticut Agricultural Experiment Station New York state growers can market vegetables under thehttp://www.state.ct.us/caes/Weather/wxdata.htm Cornell IPM logo if they follow these IPM guidelines and meet at least 80% of the recommended practices. The Food AllianceIPM Certification and Labeling http://www.thefoodalliance.org The Food Alliance is a non-profit organization in theIPM guidelines, or best management practices, have Pacific Northwest that offers a brand label to farmsbeen established by several state and private transitioning to sustainable agriculture. Farms that bearorganizations. IPM guidelines are being used: (1) the Food Alliance label meet or exceed standards in threeAs a checklist for farmers to evaluate their on-farm areas: (1) Conserving soil and water; (2) Pest and diseasepest management programs and identify areas management; and (3) Human resources.where management can be improved; (2) To verifyand document that IPM is practiced on the farm; CORE Values Northeastand (3) As an educational tool that describes the http://www.corevalues.org/cvn/consumers/scope and complexity of IPM to farmers, govern- olabel.htmlment officials, community groups, and the general CORE Values is a northeastern apple label based on bio-public. intensive growing methods.In addition to pest management education, IPM Bibliography of IPM Certification, Labeling andlabeling has emerged as a green marketing strategy Marketingparallel to organic food channels. http://www.ipminstitute.org/ ipm_bibliography.htmSome food processing companies—for example An online bibliography listing over 70 in-print andWegman’s in the Northeastern U.S.—now display online articles associated with the topic of IPMan IPM logo on canned or frozen vegetable labels, certification,labeling, and marketing.with accompanying text that touts the environmen-tal benefits of IPM. Eco-Spuds: Prince Edward Island Farmers Work with WWF to Reduce Pesticide UseThe IPM Institute of North America Spudman Magazinehttp://www.ipminstitute.org/links.htm http://www.spudman.com/pages/This site has information about IPM labeling issue00vol6_eco_spuds.html(“ecolabeling”) programs around the country,standards, certification and links to many organiza-tions sponsoring ecolabeling programs with IPMcomponents. Also has information about IPM inschools. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 50
    • IPMlit —The Database of Current IPM LiteratureIPM Databases & Search Engines http://ippc.orst.edu/IPMlit/index.htmlIPM is knowledge intensive, so easy access to IPM An online searchable database that focuses on currentmaterials and information is a big help. The Internet has research and technical papers focused on Integrated Pestturned into a premier source of information on IPM. Management (IPM) and related topics. Titles areHere, dozens of university programs and IPM specialists selected from a wide array of technical and professionalmake their materials available online, for free. journals. IPMlit broadly groups listed papers by pest or tactic categories, e.g., Biocontrol, Entomology, Nematol-A few websites are designed to organize all this informa- ogy, Plant Pathology, Vertebrate Management, andtion and make it available through databases and directo- General.ries. Powerful search engines allow visitors to findinformation by typing in keywords. National IPM Network http://www.reeusda.gov/nipmn/ National IPM Network, which has IPM documents,Database of IPM Resources (DIR) decision aids, farmland-use-planning software and otherhttp://www.ipmnet.org/DIR/ interesting crop production information (weather, crophttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/Index.htm prices, futures, etc). A search engine allows searches byDatabase of IPM Resources (DIR) is an information commodity, pest, state/region, and tactics. The systemretrieval system that searches through a compendium of includes graphics and hyperlinks to most of the IPMdirectories containing IPM information resources on the information currently on the World Wide Web, includingInternet. This site has hundreds of links to other IPM- literature from Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Purduerelated sites as well as a powerful search engine with University, University of Colorado, Cornell University,which one can search by keyword. Various resource Michigan State University, University of Florida, USDA,pages are arranged by a useful variety of topic areas. and many more. For more information, contact Ron Stinner, NIPMN Steering Committee Chairman at <cipm@ncsu.edu>.Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Re-sources on Vegetable Pest Management National IPM Network Search Engine (North Centralhttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/Vegetable/veg.htm Region)Internet Resources on Vegetable Pest Management is a http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/ncrsearch/sub-category of DIR that provides links to materials on A search engine for IPM materials published by landinsect and disease problems associated with vegetable grant institutions of the North Central Region.production. A great starting point! Canadian IPM Information System (IPMIS)Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Resources IPM Information System (IPMIS) is an electronicon Potato IPM library of IPM information. It is now available tohttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/potato.htm the public on the Internet. IPMIS contains informa- tion on pest management with particular emphasisDatabase of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet IPM on British Columbia. The focus is primarily on IPMResources on Tomato and least-toxic and alternative pesticides. Underhttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/tomato.htm continuing development by the Pesticide Manage- ment Section of BC Environment, the project is supported by funding from the Canada-British Columbia Green Plan for Agriculture, Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-foods Canada. The IPMIS database is available through Free-nets or other service providers carrying access to British Columbia World Wide Web servers. Access to the database is also available through the use of Mosaic for SLIP, PPP or other TCP/IP connections at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ This Appendix was compiled by NCAT Agriculture Specialist Steve Diver. It is adapted from his Sustainable Vegetable Production Resource List. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 51
    • The electronic version of Biointensive Integrated Pest Management is located at: HTML http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/ipm.html PDF http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/ipm.pdf by Rex Dufour NCAT Agriculture Specialist July 2001The ATTRA Project is operated by the National Center for Appropriate Technology under agrant from the Rural Busines—Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Theseorganizations do not recommend or endorse products, companies, or individuals. ATTRA islocated in the Ozark Mountains at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville at P.O. Box3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702. ATTRA staff members prefer to receive requests for informationabout sustainable agriculture via the toll-free number 800-346-9140. //Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 52