Integrated pest management: a global reality?

Abstract

The expression "Integrated Pest Management" (IPM or MIP in Portuguese) is completing 28 years since it first appeared in press. Since then integrated pest management or integrated pest control has become the paradigm of choice for activities that aim at attenuating the impact of all pests - plant diseases, weeds, and invertebrate or vertebrate animals - in agricultural production, in human and animal health, and in urban or rural structures. Despite the nearly universal acceptance of the concept, its practical application still is rather restricted, varying considerably among geopolitical regions, the nature of the crop, and, mainly, with the commitment and support of responsible governmental entities for programs dedicated to promote adoption of IPM. An objective assessment of the successful incorporation of IPM in agricultural practices is difficult because: a) lack of rigorous criteria to distinguish an IPM program from other traditional pest control activities, b) absence of a broadly based consensus on a definition of IPM, and c) paucity of reliable quantitative surveys of the agricultural area under IPM. Some have used the percentage of pesticide use reduction as a measure of the success of IPM. This measure, however, in the absence of other criteria, may not be appropriate for in some parts of the world introduction of IPM may lead to an increase in pesticide use, not a reduction. In our search to assess the expansion of IPM programs in the world, we concluded that it is essential to first achieve a consensus on the criteria to measure the nature of the program. In general these criteria depend on the level of IPM integration, the nature of the pests, the value of the crop, the availability of alternative control technologies, and the associated economic, environmental, and social risks. In view of the small volume of available data and in the absence of objective measurements of performance criteria, we opted to use as title for this paper an assertion to be questioned: is indeed IPM a global reality?

Evaluation of the benefits of an insecticide resistance management programme in Punjab in India

“…The use of ETLs by the farmers to take pesticide use decisions will reduce pesticide use in cotton. Entomologists consider ETL as the basic requirement for transition to level one IPM (Kogan and Bajwa 1999). Other schools of thought (Zadoks 1985;Bentley and Andrews 1996;van de Fliert 1998) have questioned the applicability of ETL at the farmers' level but under Punjab conditions, and especially in cotton, it is one of the most viable IPM methods, provided the ETLs are valid.…”

“…1% 1974-1975, 4.6% 1979-1980, 11.9% 1984-1985, 15.5% 1989-1990, and then decreased to 13% 1994-1995(Dhaliwal and Arora 2001. In 1997In -1998In , productivity decreased to 220 kg ha 71 , and in 1998In -1999 reached an all time low of 179 kg ha 71 . At the same time, the percentage cost of insecticide increased to 21.21 in 1998-1999(Sen and Bhatia 2004, reaching an all time high (50%) in the 'pesticide hotspots' of Punjab (Bhathinda district) (Shetty 2004).…”

“…In 1997In -1998In , productivity decreased to 220 kg ha 71 , and in 1998In -1999 reached an all time low of 179 kg ha 71 . At the same time, the percentage cost of insecticide increased to 21.21 in 1998-1999(Sen and Bhatia 2004, reaching an all time high (50%) in the 'pesticide hotspots' of Punjab (Bhathinda district) (Shetty 2004). The development of pest resistance to insecticides resulted in crop failures, with the cost of insecticides exceeding the other costs of production in 1998-1999.…”

Nitrogen and water inputs to tomato plant do not trigger bottom‐up effects on a leafminer parasitoid through host and non‐host exposures

“…Integrated pest management (IPM) is a truly promising model for the integration of multiple control tactics, with the aim of achieving sustainable crop production. 1,2 However, invasive species are one of the most serious biotic factors that can adversely affect biogeographic regions and lead to tremendous economic losses, by causing imbalance in an ecosystem and threatening biodiversity. [3][4][5] An absence of natural controls (top-down forces) is the main reason for the rapid spread and domination of new habitats by exotic pests.…”

Obstacles to integrated pest management adoption in developing countries

“…Since the 1960s, integrated pest management (IPM) has become the dominant crop protection paradigm, being endorsed globally by scientists, policymakers, and international development agencies (2,(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). The definitions of IPM are numerous, but all involve the coordinated integration of multiple complementary methods to suppress pests in a safe, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly manner (9,11).…”