Environmental Pest Management E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 991

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

A wide-ranging, interdisciplinary exploration of key topics that interrelate pest management, public health and the environment

This book takes a unique, multidimensional approach to addressing the complex issues surrounding pest management activities and their impacts on the environment and human health, and environmental effects on plant protection practices.

It features contributions by a distinguished group of authors from ten countries, representing an array of disciplines. They include plant protection scientists and officers, economists, agronomists, ecologists, environmental and public health scientists and government policymakers. Over the course of eighteen chapters, those experts share their insights into and analyses of an array of issues of vital concern to everyone with a professional interest in this important subject.

The adverse effects of pest control have become a subject of great concern worldwide, and researchers and enlightened policymakers have at last begun to appreciate the impact of environmental factors on our ability to manage pest populations. Moreover, while issues such as pesticide toxicity have dominated the global conversation about pest management, economic and societal considerations have been largely neglected. Environmental Pest Management: Challenges for Agronomists, Ecologists, Economists and Policymakers is the first work to provide in-depth coverage of all of these pressing issues between the covers of one book.

• Offers a unique multi-dimensional perspective on the complex issues surrounding pest management activities and their effect on the environment and human health
• Addresses growing concerns about specific pest management strategies, including the use of transgenic crops and biological controls
• Analyses the influence of global processes, such as climate change, biological invasions and shifts in consumer demand, and ecosystem services and disservices on pest suppression efforts
• Explores public health concerns regarding biodiversity, pesticide use and food safety
• Identifies key economic drivers of pest suppression research, strategies and technologies
• Proposes new regulatory approaches to create sustainable and viable crop protection systems in the framework of agro-environmental schemes

Offering a timely and comprehensively-unique treatment of pest management and its environmental impacts in a single, inter-disciplinary volume, this book is a valuable resource for scientists in an array of disciplines, as well as government officials and policymakers. Also, teachers of undergraduate and graduate level courses in a variety of fields are sure to find it a highly useful teaching resource. 

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

List of Contributors

Preface

1 Environmental Pest Management

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Modern Developments in Pest Control

1.3 The Disillusionment with Integrated Pest Management

1.4 A Call for Environmental Pest Management

Acknowledgements

References

Part I: General Background

2 Approaches in Plant Protection

2.1 Introduction

2.2 History of Plant Protection Approaches

2.3 Integrated Pest Management: What Does it Take?

2.4 Transforming Agriculture Systems for IPM

Acknowledgements

References

3 The Economics of Alternative Pest Management Strategies

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Economic Decisions at Farm Level Based on Threshold Models Assuming Use of a Given Pest Control Technique and Certainty

3.3 Uncertainties and Economic Decisions at Farm Level About Pest Control: Assumes a Given Pest Control Technique and Applies the Threshold Approach

3.4 Choice of Alternative Pest Control Techniques at Farm Level Assuming Certainty

3.5 The Economics of the Timing of Pest Control and the Optimal Choice of Techniques Given Uncertainty

3.6 A Note on Biological Pest Control

3.7 Discussion of the Modelling of the Economics of Pest Management at the Farm Level

3.8 Concluding Comments

References

Part II: Impact of Pest Management Practices on the Environment

4 Effects of Chemical Control on the Environment

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Pesticides in Agriculture

4.3 Impacts of Pesticides on the Environment

4.4 Concluding Remarks

References

5 Environmental Impacts of Arthropod Biological Control

5.1 Introduction

5.2 The ‘Invasion’ Process of Establishing Non‐native Biocontrol Agents

5.3 Ecological Processes Underlying the Environmental Impact of Biocontrol

5.4 Ecological Impact Assessment and Cost–benefit Analysis

5.5 Case Study I: Biocontrol of Emerald Ash Borer (

Agrilus planipennis

)

5.6 Case Study II: Biocontrol of Tamarisk (

Tamarix

spp.)

5.7 Concluding Remarks

Acknowledgements

References

6 Effects of Transgenic Crops on the Environment

6.1 Range and Scope of Transgenic Crops

6.2 Conceptual Framework

6.3 Primary Effects

6.4 Secondary Effects

6.5 Tertiary Effects: Broader Spatial and Temporal Scales

6.6 Quantifying Risks and Benefits of Transgenic Traits

6.7 Variation Among Countries in Risk Assessment and Management

6.8 Conclusions

References

Part III: Influence of Unmanaged Habitats on Pest Management

7 Ecosystem Services Provided by Unmanaged Habitats in Agricultural Landscapes

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Global Importance of Arthropod Natural Enemies in Pest Management

7.3 Importance of Multitrophic Interactions to Biological Pest Control

7.4 Importance of Unmanaged Vegetation for Biological Control

7.5 Landscape Use to Maximize Biological Control

7.6 Conclusions

References

8 The Role of Ecosystem Disservices in Pest Management

8.1 Introduction

8.2 EDS and Unmanaged Habitats

8.3 Landscape Context and the EDS from Unmanaged Habitats

8.4 Managing for EDS from Unmanaged Habitats

8.5 Conclusions and Future Research

References

Part IV: Effects of Global Changes on Pest Management

9 Effect of Climate Change on Insect Pest Management

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Observed Climate Changes Influencing Agro‐Ecosystems

9.3 Insect Responses to Climate Change

9.4 Overview of Insect Pests in Agro‐Ecosystems and Climate Change

9.5 How Climate Change and Insect Responses May Affect Various Ecological Processes Important for Plant Protection

9.6 Climate Change and IPM Approaches

9.7 Directions for Future Research

Acknowledgements

References

10 Effects of Biological Invasions on Pest Management

10.1 Invasion Science

10.2 Invasions – A Natural Process?

10.3 Perception and Value of Introduced and Invasive Alien Species

10.4 When to Act, and Why?

10.5 How Best to Control Invasive Species?

10.6 Case Studies

10.7 Conclusions

Acknowledgements

References

Part V: Pest Control and Public Health

11 Pesticides and Human Health

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Human Exposure to Pesticides

11.3 Acute Toxicity

11.4 Chronic Human Health Effects

11.5 Conclusions

References

12 Human Health Concerns Related to the Consumption of Foods from Genetically Modified Crops

12.1 History of GM Foods and Associated Food Safety Concerns

12.2 Status and Commercial Traits Regarding Genetically Modified Organisms

12.3 The Bases for Unintended Health Risks

12.4 Guidelines and Approaches Used for Risk Assessment of GM Foods

12.5 Recent Research on

in vivo

Evaluation of GM Foods Consumption

12.6 Shortcomings and Research Needs in the Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Foods

12.7 Conclusion

References

Part VI: Policies Related to Environmental Pest Management

13 Effectiveness of Pesticide Policies

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Denmark – a Pioneer in Pesticide Policies

13.3 Effects

13.4 Comparing Denmark to the EU and Internationally

13.5 Conclusion

References

14 Impacts of Exotic Biological Control Agents on Non‐target Species and Biodiversity

14.1 Environmental Safety of Biological Control

14.2 Legislation and Regulation of Biological Control

14.3 Risk Assessment

14.4 Postrelease Validation of Predicted Outcomes

14.5 Implications of Biological Control Regulation Policy: What has it Meant for Biological Control Practice?

14.6 The Future for Biological Control Regulation

Acknowledgements

References

15 Pesticides in Food Safety

versus

Food Security

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Use of Plant Protection Products in Farming Systems

15.3 Food Security in a Changing World

15.4 Food Safety and Pesticides in a Global Market

15.5 Towards Sustainability

15.6 Conclusion

References

16 External Costs of Food Production

16.1 Introduction: Pesticide Externalities

16.2 Background: The Impact of Pesticide Use

16.3 The Challenge in Estimating Externalities from Pesticide Use

16.4 Externality Estimation Methods

16.5 Overview of Existing Studies on Externalities of Pesticides

16.6 Integrated Pest Management

16.7 The Role of Information

16.8 Conclusion

References

17 The Role of Pest Management in Driving Agri‐environment Schemes in Switzerland

17.1 Introduction

17.2 Policy Context of the Swiss Agricultural Sector

17.3 Ecological Focus Areas for Biodiversity Protection

17.4 Ecosystem Service Provision as a New Paradigm

17.5 Conclusion

References

Part VII: Concluding Remarks, Take‐Home Messages and a Call for Action

18 Environmental Pest Management

18.1 The Prevalence of a Pest‐centric, Bottom‐up Approach to Pest Control

18.2 The Main Messages Presented in this Volume

18.3 The Role of Governments in Pest Management

18.4 Characteristics of Top‐down, Environmental Pest Management

Acknowledgements

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 01

Table 1.1 Selected definitions of Integrated Pest Management proposed or used by prominent authorities, arranged in chronological order (based in part on Bajwa and Kogan 2002).

Chapter 02

Table 2.1 Changes in pest‐related challenges and crop protection approaches over the last century, as illustrated by strawberry production on the central coast of California, USA.

Chapter 08

Table 8.1 The components of unmanaged habitat and the possible ecosystem services and disservices that they generate. The lists here are not exhaustive and the extent of their occurrence will depend on a range of factors including the plant and animal species composition of the unmanaged habitat, the scale under consideration and the background landscape context.

Chapter 10

Table 10.1 Mechanisms and pathways of dispersal proposed by Hulme

et al

. (2008). Mechanisms involving commodities and transportation are associated with human activities.

Chapter 11

Table 11.1 Online pesticide information resources.

Table 11.2 Pesticides evaluated for carcinogenicity by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) as of December 2015.

Chapter 12

Table 12.1 Introduced commercial traits through genetic modification of plants. Data taken from ISAAA (2015).

Table 12.2 Number of approved genetically modified events in different countries (alphabetical order). Data taken from ISAAA (2015).

Table 12.3 Genetically modified plant species with approved events (alphabetical order). Data taken from ISAAA (2015).

Table 12.4 Key studies on health risk evaluation of GM foods consumption.

Chapter 13

Table 13.1 Danish pesticide tax 1996–2013 (% of retail price, excluding VAT and other taxes).

Table 13.2 Important policy instruments directed towards farmers in Danish pesticide action plans (1986–2015).

Table 13.3 Pesticide sales 1999–2008 in Europe, tonnes of active ingredient (index: year 2000 =100). Countries are listed in alphabetical order.

Table 13.4 Treatment frequency index (TFI) in wheat and yield in wheat (2006–2007) (Jørgensen and Jensen 2011).

Chapter 14

Table 14.1 Summary of international organizations that regulate or advise on the release of biocontrol agents. Source: Adapted from van Lenteren

et al

. (2006a).

Chapter 16

Table 16.1 Sample studies of pest control externality costs.

Chapter 17

Table 17.1 Management regulations and quality criteria for major types of Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) in Switzerland in 2016 (Bundesrat 2016), ordered according to their popularity with farmers, i.e. extensively used and low‐input hay meadows make up the highest share of EFA (FOAG 2015). Q I: Quality level I, which means that basic rules for EFA management are respected (management‐oriented approach); Q II: Quality level II, which means that certain indicators for ecological quality are actually present on the EFA (result‐oriented approach; has not been defined for all types of EFA).

Table 17.2 Seed mixtures (adapted to the prevailing site conditions) recommended for Ecological Focus Areas on arable land in Switzerland. Plant species are listed in alphabetical order.

Table 17.3 Seed mixtures tested for functional EFA types on arable land. Plant species are listed in alphabetical order.

List of Illustrations

Chapter 01

Figure 1.1 The history of pest management and changes in agro‐ecosystem sustainability. Historic data are based on Abrol and Shankar (2012) and https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/ipm444/lec‐notes/extra/ipm‐history.html.

Chapter 02

Figure 2.1 Strawberry production on the Central Coast of California, USA, in 2014 showing strip cropping of alfalfa for control of the mirid bug

Lygus hesperus

via suction removal from alfalfa trap crop with tractor‐mounted vacuums (a, b), hedgerows with native perennials that provide shelter and food resources for natural enemies of strawberry pests (c), comparison of plants protected with anaerobic soil disinfection (d) and growers’ standard pre‐plant practice (e) in an organic field infested with

Macrophomina

spp. and

Fusarium oxysporum

fungal diseases, and plastic mulch for weed control (f).

Figure 2.2 Trend in (a) kg of insecticides and miticides active ingredients (AI) per ha per year applied to strawberry on the Central Coast of California 2004–2013, (b) average environment impact quotient (EIQ) rating times (kg AI per ha per year), and (c) average persistence of the same materials as determined by their half‐life (persistence in days).

Chapter 03

Figure 3.1 A typical representation of the threshold economic model for deciding whether or not it is economic to control a pest. The curve OAB represents the loss in value of crop production experienced by a farmer as a function of pest density and line EH represents the cost of eliminating the pest. See text for additional explanations.

Figure 3.2 Illustration of the relationship for the price received per unit yield of some crops as a function of the level of pest infestation. See text for additional explanations.

Figure 3.3 Illustration of a case in which two pest control thresholds exist. In this case, it does not pay to control the pest if its density is less than

x

1

or greater than

x

2

.

Figure 3.4 A case in which the benefit function of pest control is uncertain. In the case shown, it is believed that the benefit function may be as low as shown by the relationship OCD, V

1

(

x

), or as high as OAB, V

2

(

x

), and that it may assume any value in between. See text for additional explanations.

Figure 3.5 Diagram to illustrate influences on decisions to undertake pest control if there is uncertainty about the level of a pest infestation when pest control is undertaken.

Figure 3.6 A case in which two optimal techniques of applying a control agent depend on the size of the area to be treated.

Figure 3.7 A diagram to illustrate the economics of choosing between a GM herbicide‐resistant crop and one that is not.

Figure 3.8 An illustration of the economics at farm level of choosing between Bt seeds and conventional seeds when a pest is to be managed. Planting of Bt seeds involves inescapable upfront costs once it is decided to plant it whereas the option of controlling the pest remains open if conventional seeds are planted. See text for additional explanations.

Chapter 04

Figure 4.1 Impact of pesticides on organisms and ecosystems. Application of agricultural chemicals affects all animals and plants in and around the crop, including soil biota. Aquatic organisms may also be affected by residues in run‐off and ground water.

Figure 4.2 Effects of various types of pesticides on organisms. (a) Direct effects. (b) Indirect effects. Different grey tones refer to different groups of organisms.

Chapter 05

Figure 5.1 Conceptual model of the classic biocontrol methodology. The process begins with foreign exploration for suitable natural enemies in the home range of the target invasive pest, followed by non‐target organism (NTO) testing to assess the risk to native species from the selected biocontrol agents at the target area. If the biocontrol agents are judged to pose little to no risk, they are released, before ideally establishing, dispersing and suppressing pest populations.

Figure 5.2 Larvae and adults of the parasitoid wasp

Tetrastichus planipennisi

(Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) emerging from a gallery of their host, the emerald ash borer larva,

Agrilus planipennis

Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae).

Figure 5.3 Tamarisk beetle,

Diorhabda elongate

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae).

Chapter 06

Figure 6.1 Modes of interaction with transgenic crops.

Figure 6.2 Example of the effects of an agricultural management practice (cover cropping, CC) on a suite of indicators of ecosystem services, with higher numbers indicating increased ecosystem service benefit.

Chapter 07

Figure 7.1 Interactions between farm management, landscape features and agricultural ecosystem services (ES) and disservices (EDS). The underlined services are primarily provided by insects.

Figure 7.2 Number of scientific articles that report on investigations of the relationship between landscape features and crop protection found in the ISI Web of Science database in December 2015.

Chapter 08

Figure 8.1 A schematic example of the possible pathways of ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (EDS) flowing from an area of unmanaged habitat to a simple agricultural food web. Dotted arrows indicate links between components of the food web (

black boxes

), the white solid arrows represent ES and the black solid arrows represent EDS flowing from components of the non‐crop habitat.

Figure 8.2 Examples of the differing scales of unmanaged habitat. The ES and EDS flowing from a number of small patches of unmanaged habitat in a relatively complex landscape (a) are likely to differ widely from those flowing from a large patch of unmanaged habitat in a simple landscape (b). Consideration of landscape context is therefore essential when managing for ES and EDS.

Chapter 09

Figure 9.1 Summary of publications from the literature in different groupings ranked in decreasing order per class. (a) Publication type: lab expt = experiments conducted indoors; glasshouse = experiments conducted in closed spaces exposed to solar radiation; pot expt = experiments outside but in a constrained substrate. (b) Region of world where data were collected from. (c) Insect order assessed (including nematodes; ‘na’ indicates order not identified). (d) Trait measured in the manuscript to assess climate change impacts. Papers having multiple groupings (e.g. two orders were assessed or four traits were measured) were counted in each of the appropriate groups.

Figure 9.2 Network analysis exhibiting regions (source interaction node = shaded box), order (interaction type = dotted line) and publication type (target interaction node). Region name abbreviations: Aust = Australasia/Pacific; C Amer = Central America; M‐East = Middle East; sc‐Asia = subcontinental Asia; N‐Amer = North America; S‐Amer = South America; nd = region not defined. Publication type abbreviations: f‐survey = field survey; desk = desktop analysis; l‐expt = lab experiment; f‐expt = field experiment; glass = glasshouse experiment; p‐expt = pot experiment. To increase clarity of network, insect orders (

dotted line

) and number of publications per order are not labelled; see text for more detail. Distances between regions and publication type are to maximize spatial clarity of interactions. More centralized nodes have a more diverse range of interactions.

Figure 9.3 Network analysis exhibiting regions (source interaction node = shaded box), publication type (interaction type = dotted line) and climate change measure (target interaction node). Region name abbreviations: Aust = Australasia/Pacific; C Amer = Central America; M‐East = Middle East; sc‐Asia = subcontinental Asia; N‐Am = North America; S‐Am = South America; not‐def = region not defined. Climate change measure abbreviations: gene = genetics; uv‐b = ultraviolet radiation b; prec = precipitation; temp = temperature; CO

2

 = carbon dioxide; ENSO = El Niño southern oscillation; ag‐int = agricultural intensity; l‐cover = landcover; na = climate change mechanisms not identified. To increase clarity of network, publication type (

dotted line

) and associated numbers are not labelled; see text for more detail. Distances between regions and measures are to maximize spatial clarity of interactions. More centralized nodes have a more diverse range of interactions.

Figure 9.4 Network analysis exhibiting publication type (source interaction node = shaded box), measure (interaction type = dotted line) and climate change mechanism (target interaction node). Publication type abbreviations: f‐surv = field survey; desk = desktop analysis; l‐exp = lab experiment; f‐exp = field experiment; glass = glasshouse experiment; p‐exp = pot experiment. Climate change mechanism abbreviations: gene = genetics; uv‐b = ultraviolet radiation b; prec = precipitation; temp = temperature; CO

2

 = carbon dioxide; ENSO = El Niño southern oscillation; ag‐int = agricultural intensity; seas = season; salt = salinity; cover = landcover; na = climate change mechanisms not identified. To increase clarity of network, measure (

dotted line

) and associated numbers are not labelled; see text for more detail. Distances between regions and measures are to maximize spatial clarity of interactions. More centralized nodes have a more diverse range of interactions.

Chapter 10

Figure 10.1 The invasion process and associated management strategies at each stage (after Agriculture Victoria 2015; Harvey and Mazzotti 2014; Kolar and Lodge 2001; Sakai

et al

. 2001; Simberloff

et al

. 2013). Management efficiency transitions to greater cost with time and area affected as management options become limited.

Figure 10.2 Effect of propagule pressure on probability of establishment. A constant marginal benefit response (

middle curve

) suggests that the probability of establishment will continue to increase with additional propagules. A delayed marginal benefit (

lower curve

) might result from Allee effects or other factors, in which the probability of establishment increases with propagule numbers only greater than a particular population size (see text). The redundant past threshold model shows that after some level of propagule pressure, the probability of establishment no longer increases at the same rate.

Chapter 11

Figure 11.1 Pesticide classification hierarchy. This figure illustrates the relationship between functional group and chemical class for some commonly used and historical pesticides. Information is provided with the pesticide registration year along with WHO Acute Toxicity Hazard Classification (WHO ‐ www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard/en/). The figure does not include all pesticides or all classes of chemicals, but rather a subset of pesticides. DBCP, dibromochloropropane; DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.

Figure 11.2 Background on the United States Agricultural Health Study, the largest and longest prospective study of farmers and their spouses focusing on the human health effects of pesticides.

Chapter 13

Figure 13.1 Treatment frequency index (TFI) for Denmark 1985–2014. The TFI is a standard indicator for pesticide use, calculated as the number of pesticide applications on cultivated areas per calendar year in conventional farming, assuming the use of a fixed standard dose and based on sales numbers (Danish Environmental Protection Agency 2012). The figure for 1985 is an average of the years 1981–1985 (Danish Environmental Protection Agency 1998). For the years 1997–2013, the numbers reflect the Danish Environmental Protection Agency’s so‐called ‘new method’ for calculating TFI. The change in calculation methods in the late 1990s meant that the TFI figure calculated was a bit higher (in the interval 0.07–0.27) compared to when the old method was used (Pedersen

et al

. 2015).

Figure 13.2 Pesticide load indicator (PLI), based on sales (

solid line

) or on use (

dashed line

) for Denmark, 2007–2014. The PLI consists of three main categories of load: (1) human health (measures the degree of exposure to pesticides of the spray operator), (2) environmental fate (a measure of the degradation time of the pesticides in soil and their potential for accumulation in food chains and for transport from soil to ground water), (3) environmental toxicity (a measure of the toxicity of the pesticide to non‐target organisms in the field and surrounding nature) (Danish Environmental Protection Agency 2012). The sales figures in the table are based on sales data from the companies and estimated by Copenhagen University in December 2015 (Ørum 2015). These data are more up to date than the data in official statistics from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Data on PLI based on use are not available before 2011.

Figure 13.3 Organic farmland in Denmark, 1995–2014. The figure shows amount of farmland which is fully organic.

Chapter 17

Figure 17.1 Schematic view of the role of cross‐compliance mechanism, agri‐environment schemes (AES) and label programmes in relation to laws and regulations.

Figure 17.2 Agricultural production regions of Switzerland. Arable farming is mostly concentrated in the lowlands (

light grey

), which also include hilly parts. The mountain regions (

dark grey

) comprise the areas with permanent settlement and mostly grassland‐based agriculture. The summer grazing areas (

medium grey

) are only seasonally used.

Figure 17.3 Development of the total surface of ecological focus areas in hectares within the Swiss utilized agricultural area (UAA) (without trees). Total UAA in 2014 was 1 051 183 ha. An additional 2 400 000 high‐stem trees are also managed under the scheme. With an assumed average density of 100 trees ha

−1

, this corresponds to another 24 000 hectares EFA. Lowland (

black

) and mountain regions (

grey

) are shown on Figure 17.2.

Figure 17.4 Evolution of the area of EFA in arable regions in Switzerland. Total EFA types for arable area – open squares; wildflower strip – closed squares; rotational fallow – open triangles; conservation headland – closed circles; improved field margin – open circles.

Chapter 18

Figure 18.1 Primary players in pest control schemes over time. (a)1940s to early 1960s. (b) Mid‐1960s to late 1980s. (c) Early 1990s to mid‐2010s. (d) Proposed environmental pest management scheme: (1) pesticide regulation, (2) funding of invited research, (3) support for extension and farmers’ participatory programmes, (4) policies to influence farmers’ practices, (5) research outputs used to fine‐tune governmental policies. Arrows indicate flow direction of inputs. Shade intensity of player’s box and arrow width indicate relative importance of player’s input.

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

iii

iv

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

297

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

405

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

Environmental Pest Management

Challenges for Agronomists, Ecologists, Economists and Policymakers

Edited by

Moshe Coll

Department of EntomologyThe Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and EnvironmentThe Hebrew University of JerusalemRehovot, Israel

Eric Wajnberg

INRA, Sophia AntipolisFrance

This edition first published 2017© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Moshe Coll and Eric Wajnberg to be identified as the authors of this editorial material has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office(s)John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley and Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Office9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication data applied for

ISBN: 9781119255550

Cover Design: WileyCover Image: Courtesy of Dr Yael Mandelik

List of Contributors

David AdamsonThe Centre for Global Food and ResourcesUniversity of AdelaideSAAustralia

Nigel R. AndrewCentre of Excellence for Behavioural andPhysiological Ecology, Natural History MuseumUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleNSWAustralia

Bruce AuldSchool of Agricultural and Wine SciencesCharles Sturt UniversityOrangeNSWAustralia

Barbara I.P. BarrattAgResearchInvermay Agricultural CentrePrivate BagMosgielNew Zealand

Nir BeckerDepartment of Economics and ManagementTel‐Hai CollegeIsrael

Ana Maria Calderón de la BarcaCentro de Investigación en Alimentación y DesarrolloHermosilloMéxico

Stefano ColazzaDepartment of Agricultural and Forest SciencesUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Moshe CollDepartment of EntomologyThe Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture,Food and EnvironmentThe Hebrew University of JerusalemRehovotIsrael

Antonino CusumanoLaboratory of EntomologyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Antonio DiTommasoSoil and Crop Sciences SectionSchool of Integrative Plant ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaNYUSA

Jian J. DuanUSDA‐ARSBeneficial Insects IntroductionResearch UnitNewarkDEUSA

Clark A.C. EhlersEnvironmental Protection AuthorityPrivate BagWellingtonNew Zealand

Margaret I. FitzSimmonsDepartment of Environmental StudiesUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzCAUSA

Peter A. FollettUSDA‐ARSUS Pacific Basin Agricultural Research CenterNowelo St.HiloUSA

Mark A.K. GillespieDepartment of Engineering and Natural SciencesWestern Norway University of Applied ScienceSogndalNorway

Felix HerzogAgroscopeZürichSwitzerland

Sarah J. HillCentre of Excellence for Behavioural andPhysiological EcologyNatural History MuseumUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleNSWAustralia

Jane A. HoppinNorth Carolina State UniversityDepartment of Biological SciencesCenter for Human Health and the EnvironmentRaleighNCUSA

Katja JacotAgroscopeZürichSwitzerland

David E. JenningsDepartment of EntomologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkMDUSA

Catherine E. LePrevostNorth Carolina State UniversityDepartment of Applied EcologyCenter for Human Health and the EnvironmentRaleighNCUSA

Deborah K. LetourneauDepartment of Environmental StudiesUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzCAUSA

John LoseyDepartment of EntomologyCornell UniversityIthacaNYUSA

Javier Magaña‐GómezUniversidad Autónoma de SinaloaCuliacánMéxico

Maria NavajasInstitut National de la RechercheAgronomique, INRAUMR CBGPMontferrier‐sur‐LezFrance

Helle Ørsted NielsenAarhus UniversityDepartment of Environmental ScienceRoskildeDenmark

Diego J. NietoDepartment of Environmental StudiesUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzCAUSA

Anders Branth PedersenAarhus UniversityDepartment of Environmental ScienceRoskildeDenmark

Ezio PeriDepartment of Agricultural and Forest SciencesUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

George K. RoderickDepartment of Environmental Science,Policy and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyCAUSA

Matthew RyanSoil and Crop Sciences SectionSchool of Integrative Plant ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaNYUSA

Francisco Sánchez‐BayoSchool of Life & Environmental SciencesThe University of SydneyEveleighNSWAustralia

Morgan W. ShieldsBio‐Protection Research CentreLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand

Pieter SpanogheGhent UniversityDepartment of Crop ProtectionLaboratory of Crop Protection ChemistryGhentBelgium

Janice ThiesSoil and Crop Sciences SectionSchool of Integrative Plant ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaNYUSA

Clement A. TisdellSchool of EconomicsUniversity of QueenslandBrisbane St LuciaQLDAustralia

Matthias TschumiLund UniversityLundSweden

Eric WajnbergINRASophia AntipolisFrance

Thomas WalterAgroscopeZürichSwitzerland

Peter B. WoodburySoil and Crop Sciences SectionSchool of Integrative Plant ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaNYUSA

Steve D. WrattenBio‐Protection Research CentreLincoln UniversityCanterburyNew Zealand

Preface

With the rapid growth of awareness and concern regarding adverse effects of pest management activities on human and environmental health, researchers and, to a lesser extent, policymakers have recently begun to appreciate these impacts as well as the influence of environmental factors on our ability to manage pest populations. In this respect, we were surprised to find that no single volume has as yet been devoted to these complex interactions. In addition, economic and societal considerations have been largely neglected while other topics, such as pesticide toxicity, have been the focus of much attention.

This volume is aimed at filling these gaps by addressing these pressing issues. It is designed to help develop and improve environmental pest management policies and agro‐environmental schemes so that they encompass all major elements operating between pest management practices and the environment. It provides up‐to‐date fundamental information as well as recent research findings and current thinking on each topic so that complex issues are made available to readers across disciplines. It overviews major agronomic, ecological and human health aspects of pest management–environment interactions, discusses economic tools and caveats, and assesses shortcomings of various agro‐environmental policies. Finally, taken together, it proposes a new framework for the development of effective, sustainable and environmentally compatible pest management programmes.

We believe that this timely treatment of the topic in a single, interdisciplinary volume will be of interest to an unusually wide readership. The book should be valuable for everyone interested in agriculture, ecology, entomology, pest control, public health, environmental economics and ecotoxicology, as well as policymakers worldwide. It will also be useful as a versatile teaching resource. Teachers of undergraduate and graduate courses in related fields will find the book useful as both a reference and background reading ahead of group discussions on controversial issues. Finally, we hope the book will promote interdisciplinary discussion and co‐ordination between pest management stakeholders, conservation ecologists and environmentalist groups.

After a short introductory chapter (Chapter 1), the first part of the book provides general background to Integrated Pest Management (Chapter 2) and to pest management economics (Chapter 3). The second part addresses environmental concerns surrounding various pest management tactics, such as pesticide use (Chapter 4), biological control (Chapter 5) and the use of transgenic crops (Chapter 6). The third section discusses positive and negative ecosystem services provided by natural areas to influence pest management (Chapters 7 and 8, respectively). Then, the fourth section addresses effects of global processes such as climate change (Chapter 9) and biological invasions (Chapter 10) on pest suppression. The fifth section covers the influence of pesticide use and the consumption of genetically modified foods on public health (Chapters 11 and 12, respectively). The sixth section then discusses policies related to pesticide use (Chapter 13), importation of biological control agents (Chapter 14), food safety (Chapter 15), externalizing economic drivers (Chapter 16) and agro‐environmental schemes (Chapter 17). In the concluding chapter (Chapter 18), we summarize take‐home messages and propose a new framework for future research, extension and legislative work.

We thank the following referees for their critical comments on the book’s chapters: Nir Becker, Dale G. Bottrell, Ephraim Cohen, Antonio Cusumano, Georges de Sousa, Roy van Driesche, Peter Follett, Fred Gould, Isaac Ishaaya, Hagai Levine, Philippe Nicot, Yvan Rahbé, Helen Roy, Clement Tisdell, Linda Thomson, and Steve Wratten. However, all information, results, views and discussions are the sole responsibility of the respective authors. Finally, we express our sincere thanks to the people at Wiley for their efficient help and support in the production of this book.

November 2016

Moshe Coll

Eric Wajnberg

1Environmental Pest Management: A Call to Shift from a Pest‐Centric to a System‐Centric Approach

Moshe Coll and Eric Wajnberg

1.1 Introduction

According to a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimate, about 795 million people suffered from chronic undernourishment in 2015 (FAO, IFAD and WFP 2015), indicating that one in nine people is deficient in calories, protein, iron, iodine or vitamin A, B, C or D, or any combination thereof (Sommer and West 1996). Such high levels of global food insecurity make many human societies vulnerable to health problems, reduced productivity and geopolitical unrest. A crop loss due to pest activity is a major contributor to food insecurity: 30–40% of potential world crop production is destroyed by pests (Natural Resources Institute 1992; Oerke et al. 1994). Of all pests, insects cause an estimated 14% of crop losses, plant pathogens 13% and weeds 13% (Pimentel 2007). An additional 30% of the crop is destroyed by postharvest insect pests and diseases, particularly in the developing world (Kumar 1984).

Humans have probably struggled with pestiferous insects, mites, nematodes, plant pathogens, weeds and vertebrates since the dawn of agriculture some 10 000 years ago (Figure 1.1). The earliest approaches employed were probably hand removal of pests and weeds, scaring away seed‐consuming birds and trapping of granivorous rodents. Crop rotation, intercropping and selection of pest‐resistant cultivars soon followed. The earliest recorded use of chemical pesticides dates back to 2500 BC, when the Sumerians used sulphur compounds as insecticides (see Figure 1.1). The use of botanical compounds, such as nicotine and pyrethrum, was later reported. However, pesticide application became common practice only in the 19th century, with increased agricultural mechanization.

Figure 1.1 The history of pest management and changes in agro‐ecosystem sustainability. Historic data are based on Abrol and Shankar (2012) and https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/ipm444/lec‐notes/extra/ipm‐history.html.

1.2 Modern Developments in Pest Control

In the 20th century, the discovery of synthetic compounds with insecticidal and herbicidal properties, such as DDT and 2,4‐D in 1939 and 1940, respectively, quickly made chemical control the predominant method of pest control. In most cropping systems, this has remained the case to this day, in spite of growing awareness of the negative impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment. In fact, many of our current serious pest problems have been brought about by intensification of cropping systems, mechanization, selection for high yielding but pest‐susceptible crop genotypes, fertilization and irrigation inputs, and frequent application of pesticides (Thomas 1999; Waage 1993). Therefore, since the middle of the 20th century, most pest control measures have targeted specific pests on particular crops within single fields. Although reliance on a single tactic, usually the application of chemical pesticides, provides only a short‐term solution (Thomas 1999), such a bottom‐up approach has remained dominant is spite of widespread promotion of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (Ehler 2006).

Integrated Pest Management has been accepted worldwide as the strategy of choice for pest population management. Since the United Nations Conference on the Environment in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, it has been the global policy in agriculture, natural resource management and trade. As a result, most of the world’s population now lives in countries with IPM‐guided policies for the production of most of the world’s staple foods (Vreysen et al. 2007). Nonetheless, the definition of IPM has remained vague and highly inconsistent for more than 55 years (Table 1.1) (Bajwa and Kogan 2002). Van den Bosch and Stern (1962) stated that ‘it is the entire ecosystem and its components that are of primary concern and not a particular pest’. Yet only 24% (16 of 67) of IPM definitions surveyed by Bajwa and Kogan (2002) included the term ‘system’ as the implementable programme or ecological unit. Furthermore, none of the surveyed definitions presented the term ‘integrated’ (in IPM) to indicate the integration of different measures employed simultaneously against several taxa across pest types (plant pathogens, insects, mites, nematodes, weeds, etc.). Since IPM is not legislatively defined, its definitions seem to reflect the respective interests and points of view of different individuals and organizations. Therefore, IPM is not a distinct, well‐defined crop production strategy.

Table 1.1 Selected definitions of Integrated Pest Management proposed or used by prominent authorities, arranged in chronological order (based in part on Bajwa and Kogan 2002).

Year

Definition

Source

1959

Applied pest control which combines and integrates biological and chemical control. Chemical control is used as necessary and in a manner which is least disruptive to biological control. Integrated control may make use of naturally occurring biological control as well as biological control affected by manipulated or induced biotic agents.

Stern

et al

. (1959)

1966

A pest population management system that utilizes all suitable techniques in a compatible manner to reduce pest populations and maintain them at levels below those causing economic injury.

Smith and Reynolds (1966)

1967

A pest management system that, in the context of the associated environment and the population dynamics of the pest species, utilizes all suitable techniques and methods in as compatible a manner as possible and maintains the pest populations at levels below those causing economic injury.

FAO (1967)

1969

Utilization of all suitable techniques to reduce and maintain pest populations at levels below those causing injury of economic importance to agriculture and forestry, or bringing two or more methods of control into a harmonized system designed to maintain pest levels below those at which they cause harm – a system that must rest on firm ecological principles and approaches.

National Academy of Science (1969)

1972

An approach that employs a combination of techniques to control the wide variety of potential pests that may threaten crops. It involves maximum reliance on natural pest population controls, along with a combination of techniques that may contribute to suppression – cultural methods, pest‐specific diseases, resistant crop varieties, sterile insects, attractants, augmentation of parasites or predators, or chemical pesticides as needed.

Council on Environmental Quality (1972)

1978

A multidisciplinary, ecological approach to the management of pest populations, which utilizes a variety of control tactics compatibly in a single co‐ordinated pest management system.

Smith (1978)

1979

The selection, integration and implementation of pest control based on predicted economic, ecological and sociological consequences.

Bottrell (1979)

1979

The optimization of pest control in an economically and ecologically sound manner, accomplished by the co‐ordinated use of multiple tactics to assure stable crop production and to maintain pest damage below the economic injury level while minimizing hazards to humans, animals, plants and the environment.

Office of Technology Assessment (1979)

1980

An interdisciplinary approach incorporating the judicious application of the most efficient methods of maintaining pest populations at tolerable levels. Recognition of the problems associated with widespread pesticide application has encouraged the development and utilization of alternative pest control techniques. Rather than employing a single control tactic, attention is being directed to the co‐ordinated use of multiple tactics, an approach known as integrated pest management.

FAO (1980)

1981

An ecologically based pest control strategy that relies heavily on natural mortality factors, such as natural enemies and weather, and seeks out control tactics that disrupt these factors as little as possible. IPM uses pesticides, but only after systematic monitoring of pest populations and natural control factors indicate a need. Ideally, an integrated pest management programme considers all available pest control actions, including no action, and evaluates the potential interaction among various control tactics, cultural practices, weather, other pests, and the crop to be protected.

Flint and van den Bosch (1981)

1982

The use of two or more tactics in a compatible manner to maintain the population of one or more pests at acceptable levels in the production of food and fiber while providing protection against hazards to humans, domestic animals, plants and the environment.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1982)

1984

A strategy for keeping plant damage within bounds by carefully monitoring crops, predicting trouble before it happens, and then selecting the appropriate controls – biological, cultural or chemical control as necessary.

Yepsen (1984)

1987

A pest population management system that anticipates and prevents pests from reaching damaging levels by using all suitable techniques, such as natural enemies, pest‐resistant plants, cultural management and judicious use of pesticides.

National Coalition on Integrated Pest Management (1987)

1989

An ecologically based pest control strategy that relies on natural mortality factors such as natural enemies, weather and crop management and seeks control tactics that disrupt these factors as little as possible.

National Academy of Science, Board of Agriculture (1989)

1989

A pest control strategy based on the determination of an economic threshold that indicates when pest population is approaching the level at which control measures are necessary to prevent a decline in net returns. In principle, IPM is an ecologically based strategy that relies on natural mortality factors and seeks control tactics that disrupt these factors as little as possible.

National Research Council, Board of Agriculture (1989)

1989

A comprehensive approach to pest control that uses combined means to reduce the status of pests to tolerable levels while maintaining a quality environment.

Pedigo (1989)

1990

A systematic approach to crop protection that uses increased information and improved decision‐making paradigms to reduce purchased inputs and improve economic, social and environmental conditions on the farm and in society. Moreover, the concept emphasizes the integration of pest suppression technologies that include biological, chemical, legal and cultural controls.

Allen and Rajotte (1990)

1991

An approach to pest control that utilizes regular monitoring to determine if and when treatments are needed and employs physical, mechanical, cultural, biological and educational tactics to keep pest numbers low enough to prevent intolerable damage or annoyance. Least‐toxic chemical controls are used as a last resort.

Olkowski and Daar (1991)

1992

The co‐ordinated use of pest and environmental information along with available pest control methods, including cultural, biological, genetic and chemical methods, to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to people, property and the environment.

Sorensen (1992)

1992

An ecologically based pest control strategy which is part of the overall crop production system. ‘Integrated’ because all appropriate methods from multiple scientific disciplines are combined into a systematic approach for optimizing pest control. ‘Management’ implies acceptance of pests as inevitable components, at some population level of agricultural system.

Zalom

et al

. (1992)

1993

A management approach that encourages natural control of pest populations by anticipating pest problems and preventing pests from reaching economically damaging levels. All appropriate techniques are used such as enhancing natural enemies, planting pest‐resistant crops, adapting cultural management and using pesticides judiciously.

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (1993)

1993

Management activities that are carried out by farmers that result in potential pest populations being maintained below densities at which they become pests, without endangering the productivity and profitability of the farming system as a whole, the health of the family and its livestock, and the quality of the adjacent and downstream environments.

Wightman (1993)

1994

The use of all economically, ecologically and toxicologically justifiable means to keep pests below the economic threshold, with the emphasis on the deliberate use of natural forms of control and preventive measures.

Dehne and Schonbeck (1994)

1994

Integrated Pest Management is the use of a variety of pest control methods designed to protect public health and the environment, and to produce high‐quality crops and other commodities with the most judicious use of pesticides.

Co‐operative Extension System, University of Connecticut (1994)

1994

An effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common‐sense practices. IPM programmes use current, comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interactions with the environment. This information, in combination with available pest control methods, is used to manage pest damage by the most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to people, property and the environment. IPM takes advantage of all pest management options possible, including, but not limited to, the judicious use of pesticides.

Leslie (1994)

1994

A control strategy in which a variety of biological, chemical and cultural control practices are combined to give stable long‐term pest control.

Ramalho (1994)

1995

A pest management system that, in the socioeconomic context of farming systems, the associated environment and the population dynamics of the pest species, utilizes all suitable techniques in as compatible a manner as possible and maintains the pest population levels below those causing economic injury.

Dent (1995)

1996

A sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks.

Food Quality Protection Act (1996)

1996

A crop protection system which is based on rational and unbiased information leading to a balance of non‐chemical and chemical components moving pesticide use levels away from their present political optimum to a social optimum defined in the context of welfare economics.

Waibel and Zadoks (1996)

1997

An ecosystem‐based strategy that focuses on long‐term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices and use of resistance varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only target organisms. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and non‐target organisms and the environment.

University of California (1997)

1998

A decision support system for the selection and use of pest control tactics, singly or harmoniously co‐ordinated into a management strategy, based on cost/benefit analyses that take into account the interests of and impacts on producers, society and the environment.

Kogan (1998)

2000

An approach to the management of pests in public facilities that combines biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks.

Children’s Health Act (2000)

2002

A broad ecological approach to pest management utilizing a variety of pest control techniques targeting the entire complex of a crop ecosystem. This approach promises to ensure high‐quality agricultural production in a sustainable, environmentally safe and economically sound manner.

Bajwa and Kogan (2002)

2009

The rational application of a combination of biological, biotechnical, chemical, cultural or plant‐breeding measures, whereby the use of plant protection products is limited to the strict minimum necessary to maintain the pest population at levels below those causing economically unacceptable damage or loss.

European Union, Directive 91/414/EEC (2009)

2013

A science‐based, decision‐making process that identifies and reduces risks from pests and pest management‐related strategies. IPM co‐ordinates the use of pest biology, environmental information and available technology to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the most economical means, while minimizing risk to people, property, resources and the environment. IPM provides an effective strategy for managing pests in all arenas from developed agricultural, residential and public lands to natural and wilderness areas. IPM provides an effective, all‐encompassing, low‐risk approach to protect resources and people from pests.

USDA national road map for integrated pest management (2013)

2015

A system based on three main principles: (1) the use and integration of measures that discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms (prevention), (2) the careful consideration of all available plant protection methods, and (3) their use to levels that are economically and ecologically justified.

Lefebvre

et al

. (2015)

2016

A sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agricultural ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.

Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, UK (2016)

2016

Socially acceptable, environmentally responsible and economically practical crop protection.

IPM Centers (2016)

2016

Management of agricultural and horticultural pests that minimizes the use of chemicals and emphasizes natural and low‐toxicity methods (as the use of crop rotation and beneficial predatory insects).

Merriam‐Webster Dictionary (2016)

2016

An ecosystem approach to crop production and protection that combines different management strategies and practices to grow healthy crops and minimize the use of pesticides.

UN‐FAO (2016)

2016

The implementation of diverse methods of pest controls, paired with monitoring to reduce unnecessary pesticide applications.

US Department of Agriculture (2016)

2016

An environmentally friendly, common‐sense approach to controlling pests that is focused on pest prevention, the use of pesticides only as needed, the integration of multiple control methods based on site information obtained through inspection, monitoring, and reports.

US Environmental Protection Agency (2016)

In spite of the original intent, IPM, as practised today, cannot be considered a holistic, system‐wide approach. As pointed out by Ehler and Bottrell (2000) in the online periodical of the US National Academy of Sciences, ‘despite three decades of research, there is very little “I” in IPM’. Instead, the vast majority of ‘IPM’ programmes are dominated by single technologies, a few of them by biological control, host plant resistance or biopesticides that are used as replacements for synthetic chemicals. All other programmes rely primarily on pesticides to suppress pest populations. Furthermore, these so‐called IPM programmes rarely integrate different technologies. Their compatibility and the potential for interactive effects among control measures are not being explored. Therefore, the vast majority of IPM systems are not currently based upon the truly integrated, ecosystem‐based strategy envisioned by, for example, researches and extension officers at the University of California (UC‐IPM 2008). Furthermore, surveys completed between 2003 and 2006 (USDA NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project 2016) found that multiple IPM tactics are employed in only about 6% of cropland in the Mid‐Western United States.

1.3 The Disillusionment with Integrated Pest Management

Much like the situation throughout the history of pest control, IPM programmes have generally focused on single pest species rather than on whole agro‐ecosystems (Ehler 2006). Moreover, reduction in pesticide use is not indicated as a goal even in the ‘true’ ecosystem‐based IPM approach (UC‐IPM 2008), and pesticide reduction is not mentioned as a defining component of successful IPM (Kogan 1998). Therefore, it is not surprising that ‘IPM’ has had only a limited impact in reducing overall use of pesticides. Actually, pesticide use increased between 1970 and 2015 (see Chapter 2). It is disturbing that after decades of research, extension and legislation promoting true IPM programmes, the vast majority of current so‐called ‘IPM programmes’ are ‘nothing more than a reinvention of the supervised control of 50 [now 55] years ago’ (Ehler and Bottrell 2000). The ‘supervised control’ approach, developed shortly after World War II, merely promoted the idea that decisions concerning insecticide application should be based on routine pest monitoring rather than on calendar‐based treatments (Smith and Smith 1949). For the most part, this is the current situation: efforts are largely limited to pesticide management (Ehler 2006), in line with a World Bank (2005) report that concluded that IPM adoption level is low with no indication of change in pesticide use.

1.3.1 Causes for IPM Failure

Why, then, did the IPM approach largely fail to provide growers, and society at large, with effective, safe and sustainable pest management systems? It was clear from the outset that successful IPM is ‘knowledge intensive’: it requires in‐depth ecological understanding of the structure and function of agro‐ecosystems, particularly the food webs and species associations and interactions through which energy flows in the system (Barfield and Swisher 1994; Wood 2002). IPM also requires a good grasp of economic, public health and consumer concerns, as well as an appreciation of environmental conservation. These complexities, and the multidisciplinary nature of IPM in the field, are evidently unsuited to the bottom‐up manner in which IPM has evolved. Furthermore, the idiosyncratic behaviour of many agro‐ecosystems, as well as the site‐specific nature of most pest problems, often makes predetermined thresholds operationally intractable (Ehler and Bottrell 2000). Moreover, a field‐by‐field IPM approach is often insufficient, particularly when pests are mobile. Finally, the cost of generating ecological information needed for development and implementation of functional IPM systems for local situations is prohibitive (Morse and Buhler 1997).

The use of multiple pest control tactics, a fundamental paradigm underlying IPM, presents additional levels of complications, especially when multiple pest types, such as plant pathogens, insects, mites and nematodes, are targeted. This is particularly important because simply combining different management tactics is not sufficient for the implementation of true IPM programmes (Ehler and Bottrell 2000). Control measures often interact in their effects on various organisms in the field. Furthermore, reliance on a single control tactic rarely yields satisfactory results and often causes environmental degradation, food contamination and resistance development in both target and non‐target species, seriously impairing agro‐ecosystem sustainability (Abrol and Shankar 2012). In general, the use of multiple pest control tactics provides more reliable, efficient and cost‐effective solutions. However, mixing control measures employed against one pest without determining their compatibility or effects on other organisms in the system may actually aggravate pest problems or bring about unintended results. Clearly, integrating tactics across different groups of pests – insects, plant pathogens, weeds, etc. – presents even greater challenges than integrating several tactics against a single pest. Combining harmonious – and not antagonistic – tactics to achieve the best long‐term control of individual pests or groups of different pests, while ensuring compatibility with the local ecological community, requires considerable research. This integrated study on different pest classes may be discouraged by the organizational structure of research institutions, as departments are often arranged by pest disciplines (Ehler 2006). As a result, perhaps, only a few field‐tested examples exist to show how two tactics can be optimally integrated to suppress a single pest in large‐scale cropping systems, and studies of the combination of a wider array of tactics are even rarer (Thomas 1999).

The spatial scale to be considered imposes additional constraints on the development of holistic IPM programmes. First, it is unclear what defines the IPM boundary in the farming landscape. Properties of the focal and neighbouring crop fields and their distribution pattern in the landscape, dispersal capacity of the pests, climatic and topographic considerations and many other factors will together determine the distance at which a particular operational IPM system is effective. Second, successful management of some pests may require collective action by neighbouring farmers, especially when the farm holdings are small and close together and pests are mobile. An IPM programme involving migrant pests that function as metapopulations may have to extend over a huge expanse of land. Such area‐wide control of agricultural pests would require a centrally managed top‐down approach with a regulatory component to ensure full participation and compliance of stakeholders within the region (Vreysen et al. 2007). This stands in sharp contrast to the bottom‐up approach that has been the operational mode for IPM at the farm and community levels for years.