Pest Management Strategies in Crop Protection

Pest Management Strategies in CropProtection

October 1979

NTIS order #PB80-120017

..

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 79-600176

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-003-00708-8

FOREWORD

This report assesses the array of tactics used to control pests of agriculturalcrops in the United States.

The assessment was requested by Senator Herman E. Talmadge, Chairmanof the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

The Office of Technology Assessment was assisted by an advisory panel ofscientists, farmers, consumers, and representatives of industry and public inter-est groups, Nine working groups were commissioned to carry out the major objec-tives of the assessment. The work was supplemented by a 2-day public participa-tion meeting in which the assessment panel members and the public exchangedviews and concerns regarding present crop protection methods. In addition,critical reviews of the draft reports were provided by Federal officials, and awide spectrum of interested individuals. To all of these people OTA offers sincerethanks.

This report is in two volumes. Volume I is the summary report and is based onthe OTA-commissioned studies conducted by each of the nine working groups,panel discussions including the 2-day public meeting, extensive staff work, andoutside reviewers’ comments. Volume II is the collection of indepth studies fromwhich volume I was prepared, and is intended to be used as background andreference material for those who need additional details. The transcript of the 2-day public meeting is also included in volume II.

John H. GibbonsDirector

.111

OTA Food Advisory CommitteeMartin E. Abel, Chairman

Senior Vice President, Schnittker Associates

Johanna Dwyer, Co-ChairmanDirector, Frances Stern Nutrition Center

David Call Richard L. Hall Kathleen O’ReillyDean, College of Agricultural Vice President, Science and Director

and Life Sciences Technology Consumer Federation of AmericaCornell University McCormick & Company, Inc. R. Dennis RouseCy Carpenter Laura Heuser Dean, School of AgriculturePresident Member, Board of Directors Auburn UniversityMinnesota Farmers Union Agricultural Council of America Lauren SethEliot Coleman Arnold Mayer Agricultural ConsultantDirector Legislative Representative Thomas SporlederCoolidge Center for the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Professor of Agricultural

Study of Agriculture Butcher Workmen of North EconomicsAlmeta Edwards Fleming America Texas A&M UniversitySocial Program Coordinator Max Milner Sylvan WittwerFlorence County, S.C. Executive Director Director and Assistant DeanLorne Greene American Institute of Nutrition College of Agriculture andChairman of the Board Robert O. Nesheim Natural ResourcesAmerican Freedom From Vice President, Science and Michigan State University

Hunger Foundation TechnologyThe Quaker Oats Company

Advisory GroupR. Dennis Rouse, Chairman

Dean, School of Agriculture; Director, Agricultural Experiment Station; Auburn University

Perry AdkissonVice PresidentDepartment of AgricultureTexas A&M University

Phillip AlampiSecretary of AgricultureState of New JerseyJ. Lawrence AppleProfessor of Plant PathologyAssistant Director, Agricultural

Experiment StationNorth Carolina State University

O. C. BurnsideAgricultural Experiment StationUniversity of NebraskaBrian CroftEntomology DepartmentMichigan State UniversityJohn C. DaviesDepartment of Epidemiology and

Public HealthSchool of MedicineUniversity of Miami

i v

Boysie E. DayAgricultural Experiment StationUniversity of California, Berkeley

W, E. FryDepartment of Plant PathologyCornell UniversityMaureen HinkleEnvironmental Defense FundPaul HochDirectorRichmond Research CenterStauffer Chemical Company

Donald M. Hube~Department of Botany and Plant

PathologyPurdue University

Marion MosesEnvironmental Sciences

LaboratoryMount Sinai School of Medicine

John ReeseAmerican Farm Bureau

Ray F. SmithDepartment of Entomological

SciencesUniversity of California, BerkeleyPeter SullivanNational Wildlife Federation

John ThomasDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

H. David ThurstonDepartment of Plant PathologyCornell UniversitySamuel TurnipseedDepartment of Entomology and

Economic ZoologyEdisto Experiment StationClemson University

OTA Health and Life Sciences Division

Joyce C. Lashof, Assistant DirectorOgechee Koffler

Food and Renewable Resources Program Staff

J. B. Cordaro, Program Manager*Walter Parham, Program Manager

Ann Woodbridge Phyllis BalanElizabeth Galloway Yvonne Noe’

ContractorsE, H. Glass, Principal Investigator**

Erene Pecan, Editorial ConsultantBradford Gentry, Research Associate

J. B. Cordaro Unlimited, Inc.

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, publishing Officer

Kathie S. Boss Joanne Heming

*Resigned June 16, 197’9, and continued to serve under contract to assessment completion,* *on leave from New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Geneva, N. Y., professor and

Head, Department of Entomology.

Work Group on National Constraints

Edward H. Glass, ChairmanHead, Department of Entomology

New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell

Don Anderson Blanche HaningPresident Department of Plant PathologvTexas Pest Management Association Interdepartment al Pest Management

Edwin A. CrosbySenior Vice PresidentNational Food Processors AssociationLynn DavisAssistant to the DirectorCooperative Extension ServiceUniversitv of GeorgiaRobert E. HammanManager. Government RelationsCIBA-GEIGY Corporation

ProgramNorth Carolina State UnivrsityBruce HawleyAssistant Director, National AffairsAmerican Farm Bureau FederationMaureen HinkleEnvironmental Defense FundEllery KnakeProfessor” of Weed ScienceDepartrnent of AgronomvUnivirsitity of Illinois

University

L. D, NewsomDepartment of EntomologyLouisiana Staff UniversityEarle S. RaunPresidentPest Pest Management ConsultantsJohn SiddallVice President, Scientific AffairsZoecon CorporationJerry WeekmanSpecialist in ChargeEntomologv ExtensionNorth Carolina State University

Regional Work Group on the Great Plains Wheat Belt

O. C, Burnside, ChairmanProfessor, Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska

William Baxter, Ben Schole Jimmy Hatchet Elmer G. Heyne

Game and Parks Commission” Entomolist”, ISDA Department of AgronomyLincoln, Nebr. Department of Entomology” Kansas State University

Charles R. FensterKansas State University John B, Rowel]

Crop Production Specialist Glenn Helmers Research LeaderUniversity of Nebraska

Regional Work Group on Soybeans in the Southeast

Samuel Turnipseed, ChoirmanProfessor. Department of Entomology and Economic Zoology

IMisto Experiment Station, Clemson University

Regional Work Group on Northern Deciduous Tree-Fruits

Brian Croft, ChuirmanProfessor, Entornologv Department, Michigan State University

Regional Work Group on Northeastern Potatoes

W. E. Fry, (2-ioirmanAssociate Professor

H, D. Thurston, Co-ChairmanProfessor, Department of Plant Pathology, Cornell University

Karen C:] t he~ Tom I,yons Dwavne Smith.Norl h[; rn Xl; i in(: R[;gion:l 1 Pl:IIIn inx lln~ironmcnt ill hl:~n{]~(:mcnl 13urc; lu Exl(;nsion Economist”

( :omn] iss ion N(;w }’ork Slate Of fic(? of P:]rks :in(i (Iooper:lt i~’(? Extension S[?rvi(’[?Fred I lolbrook Rccre{] t ion Pr[?squ(? Isic, hl:iineNew En,ql:in(i Pl;Int, Soil, :]n(i L1’atcr Joe B. Sieczka Robert Sweer

i,;]t)(]ral(~r\ Vegetable Crops Department Vegetable Crops Department[ lni~[?rsi t~ of \l;lin(; Cornell University Cornell University

vii

Regional Work Group on California Vegetables

Boysie E. Day,, (%airrnonProfessor, A~ricultural Experiment Station, Department of Plant Pathology

University of California, Berkeley

Lyn HawkinsEconomic EntomologistIPhf IJni t(l~liforni{l Dep;]rtmt?nt of F’ood

:]nd Agri(:ul t urc

W, Harry Lange Gordon RoweDepart ment of Ent (JmologV” (Ji;innini F’t)undnl ion of Agricultural[Jniv[?rsitv of California, Davis EconomicsOscar A. Lorenz LJniv[?rsit v of C:+lifornia, BerkeleyCh{~irmnn, Il?part ment of \r(:~etable Lari Sheehan

(~rops Intcrjurisdict iona] 14iaison Officer[Jniversit ~’ of C;]]i fornia, Davis Inte~ratwl Pl:]nnin~ Office

Countv of San Di[?go, California

Regional Work Group on Cotton and Sorghum Pests in Texas

John G, Thomas, ChairmanExtension Entomologist, Department of Entomology, Texas A&M Universit y

Luther S. Birdprofessor,” []1:]11 t Pi] t ll(Jl[)~VI)ep:lrtm[?nt of Pl[]nt S~’it?n[[?s‘1’exas A&Xl ( !niv(?rsil vJames R. CateAssist;int Prof[?ssor,” (;(]t ton Ins[?(tsI)epartrn(?nt of En tomolog~r‘1’(?tiIs A&Ll [ Jniv(:rsit \Guy L. CurrvAss(wi:\ t [: Proft?ssor.” Biosi’st ems

An:) I\sisI)(?p[~rtm[?nt of In(iust ri:ll h:nsin[x?ring‘1’ex:)s A&N! (Jniv[?rsi t JRichard A. 1+’rwieriksonProfessor.” Plan! P{]t ht)lo~vI)cpartm[?nt of Pl:]nt S(’i(?n(x?s“1’ex; ]s A&hl [Jniversi tlRaymond E. Frisbiellx tension Entomologist, P[?st

hlanagement ImaderI)epartm[?nt of EntomoloHv‘1’[?xas A&Nl IJniversit\Albert W. Hart stackAgricultur:]l Engin[?t?rCot ton Pest Cent rol [III(I hlet hods

Resear(’h (~roup[J. S. I)eptI rtment of A~ri(ultur(;‘1’ex~is A&3f [Jniversit yMarvin HeilmanSoil Sci(?nt ist[J. S. D[?part ment of A~ricul turt?ll~eslaco. ‘1’cx.

Jol~n A, Jackmanli~ t cnsion Survey Ent oml)lo~ist”l) f?p; ]rtment of Entomology\’‘1’(;x:~s A&Nf IJnivcrsil vRonald D. LacewellAss(x’ia te Prof[?ss[)r, Resour(w

I;conom” ics‘1’ex:]s A&h! IJniversitvStuart D. LydaProf(?ssor,” Soil hli(’robiolo~v”I)[?partmt?nt of Pli]nt Scienc[?s‘1’cx[]s A&hl IJniversit\’Robert B. Metzer( k)tt{)n Sp(?(:ialistl)[~]x]rtm[?nt of %)il and Crop Sci[?nces‘1’ex:ls A&hl [Jniv[?rsittrG. Alvie NilesProf[?ssor,” Pl:]nt Breeding. CottonD(?p[lrt ment of Soil and Crop %iences‘1’~x{Is A&hl UniversityRupert D. PalmerWeed Specialist, Weed ControlI)cpnrt mfmt of Soil :]nd Crop Sciences‘1’t?xas A&L! UniversityDan Pust ejovskyBl[~(:kland Farm Service CompanVFlillshoro, Tex.Don R. RummelAssociate ProfessorTexas Agricultural Experiment

Station‘I”exas A&Ll University

Win field 1,. SterlingAss(wi[i t[; Professor, ” (;ot ton insertsD[?p;] rt rn[?nt of ~ntomo]()~~,”‘1’(?x{is A&hl IJniv[; rsltiC. Robert T:lylorAssist; ]nt Prof(?ssor”R[?sour(ws :lnd E1lvirO1lm[;lltI)(?p:]rt ment of Agri[u]t ur{ll

Econom” i(s‘1’[?x:Is A&hl [}niv(;rsitiGeorge L. Teet esAssocia t c Professor”Grain :~nd I-’orage Ins[?~,tsD[?p:irtment of Entomology‘rex~)s A&hl [Jniversit\J. Knox WalkerAssocia t [? Professorcot ton Insect s

Depart ment of Ent ornologyTexas A&hl Univ[?rsityAllen F. WieseProfessor, W[?ecj Cent rolTexas A&hl IJniversit \Lambert H, WilkesProfessor, Power and hlachiner~,Department of Agricultural

EngineeringTexas A&hi Universit V

Vlll

Public Meeting on Pest Management Strategies in Food Production

Chairman, J

November 16-17, 1978

ParticipantsB. Cordaro, Office of Technology Assessment

* 1)() 11(‘11~ I

ix

* P(I 11(’11s1

Contents

Chapter Page

I.

II.

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Present Pest Control Tactics andProblems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fifteen-Year Projection for CropProtection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Integrated Pest Management . . . . . .Present State of Implementation

of IPM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Transfer of IPM Technology to the

Developing World . . . . . . . . . . . . .Major Findings and Conclusions. . . . . .Congressional Options . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Option I: Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . .Option 2: Accelerate the Shift to

Integrated Pest Management . . . .

Historical Perspective on CropProtection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Present Status of Crop Protection . . . .Wheat in the Great Plains. . . . . . . . . . .

Pests of Wheat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemical Pesticide Use . . . . . . . . . . .Cultural Pest Control. . . . ....0....Plant Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Organic Farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Control practices. . . . . . . . . . .Current Use of Pest Management

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Corn in the Corn Belt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pests of Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemical Pest Control. . . . . . . . . . . .Cultural Pest Control. . . . . . . . . . . . .Plant Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Organic Farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Control Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . .Current Use of Pest Management

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Present Problems and Concerns in

Crop Protection on Corn . . . . . . . .Soybean in the Southeast . . . . . . . . . . .

Pests of Soybean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemical Pesticide Use. . . . . . . . . . .Cultural Pest Control. . . . . . . . . . . . .Plant Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Current Use of Pest Management


Crop Protection on Soybeans. . . . .

334

4

45

5

6677

7

11

192021212121232323

232525262628282829

29

29313132343435

35

36

Chapter PageApple in the North. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pests of Apple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemical Pesticide Use . . . . . . . . . . .Cultural Pest Control. . . . . . . . . . . . .Plant Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Control Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . .Current Use of Pest Management


Crop Protection on Apple. . . . . . . .Potato in the Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pests of Potato in the Northeast . . . .Chemical Pesticide Use . . . . . . . . . . .Cultural Pest Control. . . . . . . . . . . . .Plant Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Organic Farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Control Practices. . . . . . . . . . .Current Use of Pest Management


Crop Protection on Potatoes . . . . .California Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pests of California Vegetables . . . . .Chemical Pesticide Use . . . . . . . . . . .Cultural Pest Control. . . . . . . . . . . . .Plant Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Organic Farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Control Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . .Current Use of Pest Management


Crop Protection on CaliforniaVegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cotton and Sorghum in Texas . . . . . . . .Pests of Cotton and Sorghum. . . . . . .Chemical Pesticide Use . . . . . . . . . . .Cultural Pest Control. . . . . . . . . . . . .Plant Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Control Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . .Current Use of Pest Management


Crop Protection on Cotton andSorghum in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. Fifteen-Year Projection of Agriculturalpest Control in the Un ited States . . .

IV. Present Problems, Concerns, and MostPromising Approaches . . . . . . . . . . .

36373738383939

39

414242434444444444

44

454546474950505051

51

5151515254555555

56

56

59

71

x l

Con*ents-continuedChapter Page

Specific Areas of Crop Protection. . . . .Cultural Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Host-Plant Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . .Biological Controls. , . . . , . . . . . . . . .Quarantine . . . . . . . ... , ... , . . . . .Eradication ... , . . . ... , ... , . . . . .Pesticides. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Problems and Concerns. . . . . .Pest-Caused Losses , , . . . . . . . . ...,Instability of Pests and Pest Control

Tactics. ., . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . .Inadequate Information to Develop

and Implement Effective PestManagement Systems , . . . . . . . . .

Lack of Manpower. . . . . . . . . . , , ., ,Lack of Alternatives to Chemical

Pesticides, ..., . . . . . . . ..., . . . .Most Promising Approaches.. . . . . . . .

V. Obstacles to the Development andAdoption of Improved Pest ControlTactics and Pest ManagementStrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technological Obstacles, ..., ,.., . . .Inadequate Knowledge Base,. . . . . .Narrow Range of Control Tactics. . .Lack of Adequate Delivery Systems .Lack of an Environmental Monitoring

System , , ., ., . . . ..., . . . . . . . . .Lack of Pest Management Training

Programs and Trained ManpowerGrower Skepticism ., . . . . . . . . . . . .

Administrative Obstacles . . . . . . . . . . .Lack of Cooperation and

Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Within the Federal Government . .Between the Federal Government

and the States. . , . . . . . . . . , , . .Within the Land-Grant

Universities ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cosmetic (Esthetic) Standards. . . . . .

VI. Actions Needed to Improve CropProtection in the United States. . . . .

Expand the Knowledge Base for PestManagement , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Funds for Disciplinary andInterdisciplinary Research .,.,.,

Long-Term Support for PestManagement Research . . . . . . . . .

Reallocation of Funds FromUnfeasible Eradication Programs.

Peer Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Increase the Range of Available

Control Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

717172737474757777

78

7879

7980

8585858689

91

929393

9396

96

9797

101

102

102

103

103103

103

ChapterIncreased Support for and

Reorganization of BiologicalControl Efforts, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Increased Support for Host-PlantResistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Increased Flexibility in Pesticide UseIncentives for the Development of

Low-Sales-Volume, SelectivePesticides, . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .

Development of a Uniform NationalCancer Policy., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Develop Efficient Pest ManagementDelivery Systems ..., ,.., . . . . . .

Support of Public Delivery Systems .Foster Private Sector Delivery

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . .Develop a Nationally Coordinated

Monitoring Program . . . . . . . . . . . . .Provide Trained Manpower and

Training Programs, . . . . . . . . . . . .Support for Pest Management

Training Programs. ., . . . . . . . . . .Competitive Study Leave Grants .,..Reducing Manpower Requirements .Establish Regional Pest Management

Study Centers.. , ..., . . . . . . . . . .Overcome Grower Skepticism. , . . . . . .

Education. . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Providing Incentives ..., . . . . . . . . .Regulating Grower Involvement . . . .

Improve Cooperation and CoordinationMechanisms to Coordinate Efforts of

Federal Agencies. ., ..., . . . , . . .Cooperation and Coordination

Between Federal andStateAgencies. , . . . . . ..., ..., ..., . .

Coordination and CooperationWithin the Land-GrantUniversities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Establish Regional Pest ManagementStudy Centers. . . . . . . , ..., . . . . .

Competitive Study Leave Grants.. . .Review Impacts of Cosmetic (Esthetic)

Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII. Transfer of North American CropProtection Technology to theDeveloping World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Present Level of Pest ControlTechnology in the Developing World

Obstacles to Pest Management Systemsin Developing Countries, . . , . , . , . . .

Problems Associated With TechnologyTransfer to Developing Countries ,,.

Page

104

104104

105

106

107107

107

108

109

109110110

111111111111111111

112

1 1 3

113

114114

114

119

120

120

121

x i i

Contents-continuedChapter Page

Potential Impact of Pest ControlTechnology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Strategies in the Adaption of ImprovedPest Management Programs in theDeveloping World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

U . S , P r o g r a m s . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , , . 1 2 4Options for Congress to Improve Crop

Protection in the DevelopingWorld, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Support Education and Training ofLDC Crop Protection Scientists . . . 125

Agromedical Training for In-CountryPersonnel, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Integrated Pest ManagementWorkshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Provide the Less-DevelopedCountries With Pest ManagementInformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Establish Research Projects andDevelop Pest ManagementSystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Provide Support for Crop Protectionin the Title XII Program. . . . . . . . . 126

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page1. Principal Control Tactics Used Against

Major Pests of the Seven RegionalCropping Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2, Control Tactics Now Employed AgainstMajor Pests of Wheat in the GreatPlains ....,.....,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3. Control Tactics Now Employed AgainstMajor Pests of Corn in the Corn Belt . . . . . 27

4, Control Tactics Now Employed AgainstMajor Pests of Soybean in theSoutheast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5. Control Tactics Now Employed AgainstMajor Pests of Apple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

6. Control Tactics Now Employed AgainstMajor Pests of Potatoes in theNortheast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

7, Control Tactics Now Employed AgainstMajor Pests of Lettuce in California . . . . . 47

8. Control Tactics Now Employed AgainstMajor Pests of Melons in California . . . . . 48

9. Control Tactics Now Employed AgainstMajor Pests of Potatoes in California . . . . 48

10. Control Tactics Now Employed AgainstMajor Pests of Strawberries inCalifornia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table No. Page11. Control Tactics Now Employed Against

Major Pests of Tomatoes in California . . . 4912. Control Tactics Now Employed Against

Major Pests of Cole Crops in California . . 5013. Control Tactics Now Employed Against

Major Pests of Cotton in Texas . . . . . . . . . 5314, Control Tactics Now Employed Against

Major Pests of Sorghum inTexas . . . . . . . 54

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No, Page1. Diagrammatic Concept of an

Agroecosystem, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152. Volume of Pesticides Used on

U.S. Farms..,.....,,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193, Number of Pesticides introduced Each

Year From 1930, ...,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194. Schematic Projections for Three Crop

Protection Scenarios for Wheat in theGreatPlains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Corn in theCorn Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Soybeans inthe Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

7. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Apples in theNorth . . ., . ., .,....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

8. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Potatoes in theNortheast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

9, Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Lettuce inCalifornia. ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

10. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Melons inCalifornia. ......,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

11. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Potatoes inCalifornia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

12. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Strawberriesin California. .,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

13. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Tomatoes inCalifornia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

14. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Cole Crops inCalifornia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

15, Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Cotton inTexas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

16. Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Sorghum inTexas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

.,.X111

Contents

Volume II—Working Papers

(Note: Volume 11 is the collection of in depth studies from which volume I was prepared.The contents are listed here as an aid to those who need additional details. It is avail-able from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Wash-ington, D,C. 20402, GPO stock no. 052-003 -00709-6.)

National Constraints

The Great Plains Wheat Belt

The Central Corn Belt

Soybeans in the Southeast

Northern Deciduous Tree-Fruits

Northeastern Potatoes

California Vegetables

Cotton and Sorghum Pests in Texas

Transfer of North American Crop Protection Technology to the Third World

Appendixes

A. Transcript of Proceedings —Public Participation Meeting on Pest ManagementStrategies in Crop Protection, November 16-17, 1978

B. Public Participation in OTA’s Pest Management Assessment—J.B. Cordaro

C. European Parasite Laboratory

D. Comments on Perceived Issues of the Public Hearing on Pest ManagementStrategies— Virgil H. Freed

E. Statement of Paul Merrell to the Office of Technology Assessment PublicParticipation Meeting

x i v

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, total losses from all pests are generally estimated to beone-third of total potential production before harvest, and nearly 10 percent afterharvest. Losses are believed to be considerably greater in the tropics. Thus, atleast one-third of the world’s potential food harvest is lost to pests. Thevulnerability of crops to pests makes pest control one of the major managementcomponents of the total crop production system. This vulnerability has becomemore prominent as the trend toward high productivity of only a few select cropshas increased. This trend dominates U.S. agriculture. During the past centuryU.S. agriculture has changed from relatively small, labor-intensive, diversifiedunits to large, highly specialized, and mechanized operations. Today, modernagriculture is a complex system in which a series of interlocking physical,biological, and management functions all interact to determine the yield andquality of a cultivated crop.

In the past three decades, U.S. agriculture has increasingly depended onchemical pesticides to control the pests that damage crops. Heightened concernover the environmental effects of pesticides, coupled with increased pest resist-ance and secondary pest outbreaks, severely limits the effective pesticides avail-able to farmers. While these trends are most fully developed in the industrializednations, especially in the United States, the problem is worldwide. If farmers areto meet the growing demand for food, new strategies for reducing pest damagemust be found.

This pest management strategies assessment was requested by Senator Her-man Talmadge, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, andForestry. Its primary focus is on agricultural crop protection. The study sought to:

1. assess crop protection problems, current and emerging control technol-ogies, and projected future developments over the next 15 years for eachof seven regional cropping systems in the United States,

2. evaluate Federal constraints to improved pest management in the UnitedStates, and

3. review the problems, potentials, and impacts of the transfer of NorthAmerican crop protection technology to the developing world.

These objectives were addressed by nine study groups: one each for the sevencropping systems in 1 and one each for 2 and 3. The crops and regions selectedwere: wheat in the Great Plains States, corn in the Corn Belt, cotton and sorghumin Texas, deciduous tree-fruits (especially apple] in the northern half of the coun-try, potatoes in the Northeastern States, soybean in the Southeastern sector, andselected vegetables in California. These crops are representative of more than 90percent of U.S. agricultural production.

3

4 ● Pest Management strategies

DISCUSSION

Present Pest Control Tacticsand Problems

Agricultural producers have coped withthe changing nature of pest problems byusing one or more of several control tactics.None of these practices is entirely satisfac-tory or universally applicable. Moreover, allpractices used to control any one pest com-plex impact on nontarget organisms and cancreate other problems. Control tactics mostcommonly used on U.S. farms are:

Chemical: herbicides, insecticides, fun-gicides, nematicides, etc.;Cultural: cultivation, crop rotation,strategic planting and harvesting dates,sanitation;Plant resistance: plant varieties geneti-cally resistant or tolerant to pests; andBiological: predators, parasites, micro-b i a l .

Table 1 shows the principal control tacticsused against major pests of the several cropsin this report,

The major problems associated with pres-ent controls stem primarily from the extreme-ly limited number of effective control tactics.

Table l.— Principal Control Tactics UsedAgainst Major Pests of the Seven Regional

Cropping Systems.-

Ma~orpests ‘-— — .Nema- P a t h o - - Verte -

Insects todes gens W e e d s brates

Wheat (Grea-t Plalns) 2,1,3 2 3;2 T, 2 2Corn (Cornbelt) 1,2,3 – 3,2,1 1,2 –Soybeans (Southeast) 1 1,3.2 1,2 1,2 –Apples (North) 1 1 2 1,3,2 1,2 1,2Potatoes (Northeast) 1,2 2,1,3 2,1 1.2 –C o t t o n ( T e x a s ) 1,23 3 3,2,1 1,2 –Melons (Callfornla). 1 1 2,3 1,2 4Cole (Callfornla) 1 1 2 1,2 4Letluce (Callfornta) 1,2 1,3 2,1,3 1,2 4Tomatoes (Callfornla) 1,2 1,3 3,2 1,2 4Strawberries (Cahforma) 1 – 2 1 4

Control IachcsI Chemical (Insectfcldes nemaftcldes fungicides herbicides I2 Cullural [culflvat(on crop rolahon planhnq ddles samla!lon 13 Plant resstance (plant ~arletles genetically reslstdnl 10 Dests I4 B(ologlcal I predaiors pdraslles ml CrObld~S I

These problems are expected to increase aspests, through evolutionary adaptation,become resistant to existing controls. For ex-ample, disease-resistant wheat eventuallyloses its effectiveness as strains of diseasepathogens evolve that are capable of over-coming such resistance, late planting of acrop to avoid an insect pest becomes futile asother pest strains are encountered that areadapted to late planting, and the continualexposure of pests to chemical pesticides pro-motes the evolution of pests resistant to thesechemicals. Moreover, some pest controlmeasures have secondary effects that areoften as serious as the problems for which thecontrols originally were used. For example,some chemical pesticides eliminate beneficialpredators and parasites and other nontargetorganisms along with the targeted pests andproduce secondary pest outbreaks, In othercases the removal of a primary weed pestmay result in secondary pest outbreaks, andtillage for pest control increases soil erosionand water loss. Moreover, it often takes yearsto understand fully the secondary conse-quences. In addition. a de-emphasis in re-search programs in genetic plant resistanceto pests is one factor that has led to a reduc-tion in the acreage of certain pest-resistantcrops. In Kansas and Nebraska alone, theacreage of Hessian-fly-resistant wheats hasdecreased from about 66 percent in 1973 toabout 42 percent in 1977. Finally, the healthand safety of agricultural workers and by-standers are of widespread concern as manyof the chemicals in use today pose known andunknown risks to humans.

These are major problems that are raisingserious concerns about both the present andfuture availability of suitable control meas-ures and alternative means of control.

Fifteen-Year Prelection forCrop Protection

No revolutionary new pest control tacticsare expected to be implemented over the next

Executive Summary ● 5

15 years. This projection assumes that suchcontrol technologies must already be in atleast the early stages of development, Al-though the total use of pesticides is not ex-pected to increase appreciably, the use ofherbicides is expected to accelerate consider-ably. Several new tactics in crop protection,such as the use of hormones, antihormones,allelopathy, and molecular genetic manipula-tion will probably be of limited use during thenext 15 years, although they have great po-tential for the future. One exception may bethe use of pheromones (sex attractants) tocontrol insects, a technique that could be-come widely adopted if technological prob-lems can be solved.

However, there is a promising approach,integrated pest management (1PM), that isslowly evolving within U.S. agriculture, Thisapproach offers promise of more stable cropprotection and production with the leasthazard to man and the environment. 1PM willbe used more widely as efficient, economical-ly sound systems become available. Theseshould provide more stable management ofmany pests than now exists and should re-duce pesticide use to the minimum effectivelevel required to allow continued growth inagricultural production.

Integrated Pest Management

Because of the continually changing natureof pests, their environment, and the economicimpact of pest combinations, coupled with amounting public concern regarding humanhealth and environmental problems associ-ated with the use of chemical pesticides, aconcerted effort is required to develop pro-grams that contain pest damage while provid-ing protection against hazards to humans,animals, plants, and the environment, 1PMviews pest control within a whole-systemscontext of crop production and is defined asfollows:

Integrated pest management (1PM) is theoptimization of pest control in an economical-ly and ecologically sound manner, accom-

plished by the coordinated use of multipletactics to assure stable crop production andto maintain pest damage below the economicinjury level while minimizing hazards to hu-mans, animals, plants, and the environment.

In its broadest form, an 1PM program en-compasses all significant components of theagroecosystem-soil, crops, water and air,insects, pathogens, weeds, nematodes, andother organisms— which in terac t amongthemselves and with other components of thesystem, Present 1PM programs, however, aremost commonly limited to single-pest classes.

Present State of implementationof IPM

The full potential of IPM has not been real-ized in any of the seven cropping systems ex-amined in this report. However, there aremany situations in which multiple-control tac-tics are being used. Although these are rela-tively simple systems, they can be expandedin the future.

Where multiple tactics are used for anyone crop, they are usually directed againstspecific pests or classes of pests rather thanall pests. The tactics most commonly em-ployed involve cultural controls and resistantplants combined with minimum effectiverates of chemical pesticides. The combineduse of herbicides and limited cultivation, toreplace cultivation alone, for weed controlhas significantly reduced soil erosion, but hascreated other problems.

Short-term models developed from the dataof some pest-monitoring programs are suc-ceeding in predicting some pest outbreaks.These tools allow growers to apply pesticidesonly as needed or to substitute other appro-priate tactics, Broad monitoring programsand predictive models are among the mostpromising components of 1PM, but are limitedat present by a lack of organizational struc-ture; a lack of adequate weather monitoringat the local, regional, and national levels; andinsufficient bionomic data.

6 ● Pest Management Strategies

Transfer of IPM Technology tothe Developing World

The concept of 1PM is widely accepted in-ternationally and the transfer of its basicphilosophy to the developing world throughseveral national and international assistanceprograms has progressed. However, systemsmust be developed that are adapted to theagricultural conditions in the developingcountries and are compatible with socialcustoms, political structures, and economicsystems as well,

Traditional subsistence agriculture of thedeveloping tropical world must deal with anarray of crops and associated pests generally

1,

2.

3,

4.

K

MAJOR FINDINGS

The limited variety and effectiveness ofpresent pest control tactics seriouslylimit farmers’ ability to reduce currentcrop losses;

1PM appears to be the most promisingcrop protection strategy for the next 15years;

OTA estimates that 1PM programs formajor U.S. crops can reduce pesticideuse up to 75 percent, reduce preharvestpest-caused losses by 50 percent, andreduce total pest control costs by a sig-nificant amount;

International implementation of 1PM re-quires systems that are adapted to localagricultural conditions and are compati-ble with social customs, political struc-tures, and economic systems;

0. Technological and administrative obsta-cles that-impede the development andimplementation of 1PM must be removedto achieve a more effective crop protec-tion system in the United States.

The technological obstacles lie pri-marily in the areas of basic knowledge,delivery systems, and personnel. An in-adequate base of knowledge in the basicbiology, bionomics, and interactions of

not found in temperate countries. Pest man-agement systems developed for the intensivehigh-energy agriculture of the temperateworld are often inappropriate. Agromedicaltraining, pest management workshops, ade-quate libraries, onsite demonstration proj-ects, and crop protection research and exten-sion under the title XII amendment to theForeign Assistance Act and others will be re-quired to develop the necessary knowledgebank and to implement vigorous, effective1PM programs. It is estimated that 50 percentof the extremely high pest-caused losses inthe developing world may be preventedthrough application of appropriate 1PMsystems,

AND CONCLUSIONS

crop pests seriously limits the range ofcontrol tactics available for integratingpest management into a total crop pro-duction system.

At the same time, the lack of an ade-quate delivery system impedes the dis-semination of data necessary to supporteffective pest-management decisions.Along with this is a shortage of properlytrained personnel to conduct needed re-search, to develop 1PM programs, and toprovide information delivery systems.The extension pilot 1PM programs wereinitiated with Federal funding but didnot provide adequate means to increasethe knowledge and trained manpowerbase with which to support 1PM. A lackof practical, demonstrated interdisci-plinary programs has resulted in growerskepticism and uncertainty regardingthe economic benefits of 1PM.

The administrative obstacles stemfrom the lack of cooperation and coor-dination between Federal and Stateagencies which impede programs ofbasic and applied research in 1PM. Aclear focus of intent concerning future1PM activities must be conveyed by thevarious agencies involved in the funding

Executive Summary ● 7

of research and extension activities, theregulation of pesticide use, and in themarketing of farm products.

CONGRESSIONAL

The basic option that Congress faces iswhether to make a policy judgment to committhe additional resources required to acceler-ate the present slow evolutionary trendtoward the adoption of 1PM crop protectionsystems, Thus, Congress faces a choice be-tween: 1) the status quo for U.S. pest controlmethods, which, although including 1PM, con-tinues to rely heavily on chemicals or 2)developing a strategy to accelerate the pres-ent slow evolutionary shift to 1PM as a whole-systems approach to U.S. crop protection.

Option 1: Status Quo

Pros: T h e c o n t r o l t a c t i c s presentlyavailable for crop protection are relativelysimple, readily available, and economicallyattractive. They are used primarily in re-sponse to single-pest outbreaks. Their prin-cipal advantage is that their effects areknown, they work, and they have gained theconfidence of growers.

Cons: Chemical pesticides are the most fre-quently used tactic at present. Effects ofsome chemical control measures include theinduction of secondary pest outbreaks, ad-verse effects on beneficial species and onnontarget organisms, development of pesti-cide-resistant pests, and environmental andhealth hazards. There is serious concernabout the future availability of suitable con-trol tactics, since the already-limited range oftactics will be reduced even further as morepests develop resistance to some chemicalpesticides and as Government regulationsremove other pesticides essential to pest con-trol. Alternative control tactics are limitedand often are not feasible to use or are notadequately effective. The evolutionary shiftto 1PM is too slow to have a significant impactexcept in a few situations.

6. Congressional action or inaction will af-fect the future form of U.S. crop protec-tion strategy.

OPTI0NS

Option 2: Accelerate the Shift toIntegrated Pest Management

Pros: Under IPM, pest management is ac-complished through a whole-systems ap-proach that considers all components of theagroecosystem that interact among them-selves and with other components of the sys-tem. Problems posed by resistant pests, de-struction of beneficial organisms, and sec-ondary pest outbreaks would decline; greatermanagement flexibility and ecosystem stabili-ty would be provided while greater precisionin taking control action may reduce the needfor pesticides which, in turn, could reducethe onset of pesticide resistance and healthand environmental hazards.

Cons: A substantially greater investment ofmoney, personnel, and time in research, edu-cation, and implementation will be needed toincrease the speed of adoption of 1PM. In-cluded is the high cost of educating growers,agents, consultants, and others as well asthat of maintaining monitoring and deliverysystems. Congress could provide either mod-erate or major support toward acceleratingthe adoption of 1PM.

A moderate increase in commitment wouldaugment the present teaching, research, andextension programs. With this increased sup-port, 1PM could eventually replace most uni-lateral pest control programs over the next20 to 30 years.

A major effort over the next few years toremove the obstacles to the implementation of1PM would enable much of the potential of1PM to be realized within 15 years. Under1PM U.S. agriculture could achieve an in-creased production while at the same timeproviding maximum protection to man, hiscrops, and the environment.

8 . Pest Management Strategies

To remove the obstacles to 1PM, the follow-ing actions are all required:

●

●

●

●

provide increased funds and longer timesupport for disciplinary and interdisci-plinary research in the basic biology,bionomics, and interactions of crop ●

pests:

provide increased support for biological●

control and host-plant resistance efforts,along with increased flexibility in pesti-cide use and incentives for the develop-

●

ment of low-sales-volume, selective pes-ticides;

create a federally coordinated pest andweather-monitoring program, supportpublic information delivery systems, of-fer incentives for the formation of pri-vate information delivery systems, and

increase support for State plant healthclinics;provide direct Federal support for pestmanagement training programs and es-tablish regional pest management studycenters;provide the means to make available in-creased education, extension, and prac-tical 1PM demonstration programs:review the relationship between existingfood quality standards and pesticideuse; andestablish a clear focus of Federal intentand assign to the U.S. Department of Ag-riculture, the lead Agency, the responsi-bility, authority, and necessary fundingto coordinate 1PM research programsand to implement an adequately staffedand coordinated information deliverysystem,

Chapter I

Historical Perspective onCrop Protection

Chapter I

Historical Perspective onCrop Protection

Since recorded history, the impact of pests on food crops has been impor-tant. Many practices of “traditional” and “modern” agriculture have evolvedbecause of pest problems. Without doubt, pests of food crops influenced thecourse of civilizations-for example, the ancient Greeks and Remans knew ofand used pesticides in the Mediterranean Basin. Crop losses from pests duringthose times were probably even more severe in the humid tropics, just as theyare today.

Over the 10,000 or more years that man has cultivated crops, he graduallyevolved production systems that ensured an adequate food supply for the familyor tribal unit from one harvest until the next. Seeds were selected from plantsthat survived the rigors of weather and pest infestations; cultivation, plantingtime, and other production practices were adopted that ensured consistentrather than high but variable yields. At best, however, such ancient practiceswere based on trial and error without the benefit of modern genetics, chemistry,and cultural capabilities; they were only moderately effective and resulted inrelatively low and unstable production levels. Furthermore, effective means didnot exist to deal with disasters such as locust plagues and blight.

During the last century agriculture in in-dustrial countries has changed from relative-ly small, labor-intensive, diversified familyunits to large, highly mechanized operations.As production became concentrated in favor-able areas and as monoculture, high fertility,irrigation, and other components of modernagriculture were widely adopted, pest prob-lems frequently became more severe. Insects,disease organisms, and nematode problemswere magnified, particularly on fruits andvegetables, and weed problems became moreacute as those species most suited for thenew cropping systems proliferated. This situ-ation was further exacerbated by the move-ment of pest species from one continent toanother. Many of the most serious pests in theUnited States were introduced from othercentinents.

As a result of the increasing need for meth-ods to prevent losses due to pests, an impres-

sive array of crop protection technologies hasevolved. Included are pest-resistant plants,cultural controls, biological controls, pesti-cides, behavior-modifying substances, quar-antine laws, and pest eradication programs.Some cultural controls are not adaptable tohigh-production agriculture: some pesticideshave declined in effectiveness: other controlsare used successfully to manage only a lim-ited number of pests: none are entirely satis-factory or universally applicable, Recently,the increasing dependence on chemical pesti-cides has raised concern regarding risks tohuman health and the environment.

Pest-resistant plants were recognized inthe 19th century, but only in the 20th centuryhas breeding for pest resistance become anactive area of research. Numerous cultivars(varieties) resistant to one or more diseaseswere developed, and varieties of apples,grapes, and wheat were known to be resist-

11


ant to woolly aphid, phylloxera, and Hessianfly, respectively. During the last 30 years thedevelopment of cultivars resistant to majordisease organisms and nematodes has accel-erated. The development of insect-resistantcrops has received less emphasis partly be-cause of the easy availability of economicaland effective insecticides. Breeding for weedresistance has focused on the ability to com-pete but otherwise has been given little atten-tion. Recently, allelopathy (the ability of oneplant to suppress another by producing toxicsubstances) has received attention as a weedcontrol tactic.

Cultural control methods are as old asagriculture and are used primarily for weed,nematode, and disease control. These meth-ods include sanitation, destruction of alter-nate hosts and volunteer plants, crop rota-tion, tillage, trap crops, time of planting,water and fertilizer management, and use ofpest-free seed and planting stock. Althoughcultural methods alone are not likely to en-sure adequate controls, they often can reducepest population pressures and enhance othercontrol tactics. The availability of economicalherbicides, fungicides, and insecticides hasreduced emphasis on cultural controls; theintegrated pest management (1PM) approachto crop protection has brought renewed at-tention to these old cultural methods,

Biological control is the regulation of pestorganisms by their natural enemies and is im-portant in pest management. Primarily, in-sects and mites are controlled by this method,but it may play an important role in the reg-ulation of some disease organisms, weeds,and vertebrates. Natural enemies are macro-bial (vertebrates, insects, and mites) or mi-crobial (fungi, bacteria, viruses), and may beindigenous or introduced from other areas.

The earliest known use of biological controlwas by the Chinese who used ants to controlinsect pests in citrus orchards. Other betterknown cases were the introduction of theVedalia beetle into California citrus groves in1890 to control the introduced cottony cush-ion scale and the control of prickly pear cac-

tus in Australia through the introduction of alepidopterous insect in 1925.

The importance of biological control wasnot realized for many situations until certaininsecticides that affected a broad range oforganisms were used on crops such as cottonand apple. This resulted in the removal of thenatural enemies for some secondary or evenpreviously unknown pests that then becamemajor damaging pests, The earliest planned1PM control efforts were made in 1940 on ap-ples in Nova Scotia in an attempt to use insec-ticides and fungicides that would not inter-fere with biological control of insects andmites.

Pesticides have been used for more than2,000 years but, until the last century, only toa limited extent. During the late 1800’s andearly 1900’s, the first widespread use of in-secticides was initiated, Arsenical wereused on potatoes, cotton, apples, and a fewother crops, Bordeaux mixture and liquidlime sulfur were used on grapes, potatoes,and fruits to prevent severe losses by diseaseorganisms. By 1903 crude but practical gaso-line-powered spraying and dusting equipmentwas in use: by 1915 the use of chemical insec-ticides and fungicides on most crops had be-come standard practice, The inorganic pre-dominated until the 1940’s when DDT, BHC,the dithiocarbamate fungicides, and 2,4-Dbecame the forerunners of a revolutionarynew class of chemicals, the synthetic organiccompounds. During the last 30 years the totaluse of pesticides has increased twelvefold inthe United States alone; increases in thedeveloping countries have been much moregradual, The latest figures show the rate ofincrease slowing for fungicides and insec-ticides, while herbicide use continues to ex-pand until now its use far exceeds that of anyother group of pesticides. In 1977, 7 percentof pesticide sales in the United States werefor fungicides, 35 percent were for insec-ticides, and 58 percent were for herbicides.

Although microbial pesticides have beenexplored, only one bacterium, Bacillus thur-ingiensis, is in extensive commercial use at

Ch. /— Historical Perspective on Crop Protect/on ● 13

present for control of agricultural pests. oneinsect virus is registered for full use andseveral others have experimental-use permitsfor field tests as the first step toward fullregistration. It is noteworthy that commer-cially produced Microbials are considered. bylaw, to be pesticides. but the regulation ofpests by their ‘‘natural’” enemies, which in-clude microbial agents, is biological control.

Behavior-modifying substances such as in-sect pheromones are a recent developmentand their ultimate role in crop protection isunknown. The pheromone Gossyplure is reg-istered for control of the pink bollworm oncot ton. They, and other attractants, are nowwidely used to monitor insect activity.

Quarantine regulations originated in thelate 19th and early 20th centuries. Germanyinstituted regulatory measures in 1873 to pro-hibit entry of products that might spreadgrape phylloxera. During the next 10 yearsvarious States enacted the first quarantinelaws in the United States. In 1905 the FederalInsect Pest Act was enacted, and in 1912 theFederal Plant Quarantine Act was passed byCongress. These regulations were based onthe concept that the spread of pests throughhuman activity can be prevented, especiallyif a geographic barrier. such as an ocean ormountain range, exists between the place oforigin and the area to be protected. Today.the extent and rate of world travel and tradehas led to a reexamination of these proce-dures in an attempt to adapt to changing con-ditions. In 1974 Congress passed the NoxiousWeed Act which was not funded until 1978.and then only modestly.

Eradication is the complete exterminationof a pest from an area and is permanentunless the pest is reintroduced. It may be theideal method of dealing with a newly intro-duced species. Eradication programs are po-litically attractive because of their visibilityand because they offer short-term relief fromattacks of the pest involved, but permanentsuccess is difficult, if not impossible, to attainfor most pests with present technology. Eradi-cation of the screw worm in the Southeastand, on several occasions, of the Mediterra-

nean fruit fly in Florida are successful ex-amples, but attempts to eradicate the com-mon barberry, field bindweed. witchweed,gypsy moth. golden nematode, and fire anthave failed. Also the potential hazards tohuman health and the environment must beconsidered. Much concern exists that fundsand manpower so badly needed for othercrop protection efforts will be wasted onfutile eradication projects.

Integrated pest management (1PM) is aconcept of crop production incorporating ef-fective, stable, long-lasting crop protectioncomponents that minimize the negative sideeffects of current pest control actions. Asmentioned above, none of the current controltactics are entirely satisfactory or universal-ly applicable even though U.S. farmers haveachieved a high degree of dominance overmany plant pests during the last century.

organic pesticides were first acclaimed asthe ultimate solution to crop protection prob-lems, but experience over time has shownthat, for all their advantages with respect tohuman heaIth and conservation of food andfiber, they have many limitations. On cottonand a few other crops in some areas, pest re-sistance to insecticides and secondary in-duced pests have resulted in disastrouslosses. Biological, cultural, host-plant resist-ance, and other tactics are all effectiveagainst specific pests but have Iimitationsthat restrict their general usefulness in cropproduction. These developments have led to ageneral recognition o v e r t h e p a s t t w odecades of the need for improved crop protec-tion systems. The 1PM concept developed inresponse to this need.

*’Integrated pest management”’ is a termthat has different meanings to different peo-ple. Definition problems have plagued the1PM effort since its inception. It is an all-inclusive concept that should be applicable toall pests (weeds, plant pathogens, nematodes,vertebrates, insects, etc. ) However, terminol-ogy, control tactics, and strategies varyamong disciplinary groups so that it is dif-ficult to arrive at a definition completely ap-propriate to all interests. The term “inte-


grated pest management,*’ as used through-out this report, is defined as follows:

Integrated pest management (1PM) is theoptimization of pest control in an economical-ly and ecologically sound manner, accom-plished by the coordinated use of multipletactics to assure stable crop production andto maintain pest damage below the economicinjury level while minimizing hazards to hu-mans, animals, plants, and the environment.

In the above definition, 1PM is synonymouswith “’integrated pest control, ” a term gener-ally used outside the United States. “Inte-grated pest management” and “pest manage-ment” are used interchangeably in this re-port.

The current definitions of some commonterms used in crop protection are:

Pest—Formerly restricted in common useto insects and certain rodents, now applies toall noxious and damaging organisms includ-ing insects. mites, nematodes, plant patho-gens, weeds, and vertebrates.

Pesticides—Includes insecticides, miti-cides, nematicides, herbicides, fungicides,etc.

Strategies— Pest control strategies are thegeneral approaches or systems used to man-age a pest or pests. 1PM is the strategy ofusing applicable multiple tactics to preventpest losses.

Tactics—These are the specific methodsused to achieve pest control. These includepesticides, pest-resistant varieties, culturalpractices, biological control, and others.

1PM in its broadest form considers all ma-jor pests in an agroecosystem and is inte-grated as one component of the total crop pro-duction system, However, integrated controltactics for individual or groups of similarpests can be implemented without waiting forthe “perfect”’ total program to be developed,These tactics can be modified, improved, andintegrated with control tactics for other pestsas new information becomes available,

Pest management is not a primary goal;rather, it is one component of the total cropproduction system which is a series of in-terlocking physical, biological, and manage-ment functions all interacting to determinethe yield of a cultivated crop (see figure I).Crop pests are important elements of the sys-tem that interact among themselves and withother components of the system; they aremanaged not as a primary objective but onlyas they reduce productivity of the system byan amount greater than the cost of control.

As an organized, comprehensive approachto the management of crop pests, 1PM pro-ceeds through a series of steps in planningpest management programs. These steps andtheir underlying principles, presented in theorder of their priority in developing pro-grams, are:

1. Identify the pests to be managed in thecrop production system (agroecosys-tem). An organism should not be classedas a pest until it is proven to be so. A spe-cies may be a pest in some situations andnot in others. Pest identification shouldbe coupled with the establishment ofeconomic thresholds. (See no, 4 below. )

2. Define the management unit—the agro-ecosystem. The limits of the agroeco-system should be determined by thecharacteristics of the local cropping sys-tem and the patterns of movement of thekey pests involved. Multiple-speciesmanagement requires a “best compro-mise” solution to the overall pest prob-lems within the capabilities of the in-volved farmers.

3. Development of the pest management

4

strategy. The fundamental strategy ofpest management is the coordinated useof multiple control tactics in a single in-tegrated system. The goal is to hold pestnumbers and crop damage to tolerablelevels. It is generally a containmentstrategy rather than an eradicationstrategy.Establish economic injury thresholds.The economic injury threshold is the pestpopulation level that causes a loss to the

Ch. l—Historical Perspective on Crop Protection ● 15

Figure 1 .— Diagrammatic Concept of an Agroecosystem

Populationof a

CultivatedCrop Variety

SOURCE J L APrle Impact of Plant Dtsease on World Food Product Ion pp 39.49 In D Plmentel ed Wor/d Food Pesf /.osses and the ErivIronmen f (Boulder Colo Westv(ew Press 1978 I

crop greater than the cost of carrying 5. Develop reliable monitoring techniques.out a pest control action. Obviously, the Monitoring information on some pestseconomic threshold values (pest popula- provides the basis for decisions on imme-tion levels) vary for a given crop depend- diate suppressive pest managment ac-ing on the value of the crop, the state of tions, whereas for other pests such in-its development, and environmental con- formation is useful only for managementditions (both biological and physical). decisions concerning future cropping

—

16 ● pest Management Strategies

seasons. This involves the measurement knowledge gaps that must be filled toof pest populations (numbers of spores, understand the system, and in predictinginsects, nematodes, weeds, etc. ) or over time the behavior of the crop pro-amount of disease. duction system and its pest components.

This is a desired goal in the development6. Develop descriptive and predictive of sophisticated systems but is not an ab-

models. Modeling is a very useful tool in solute requirement for all 1PM pro-organizing r e s e a r c h , i n identifying grams,

Chapter II

Present. Status ofCrop Protection

Chapter 11

Present Status ofCrop Protection

In 1966 U.S. farmers used approximately300 million lbs of pesticides for crop protec-tion; by 1976 pesticide use had doubled tomore than 600 million lbs. This escalationreflects the dramatic increase in herbicideuse over the 10-year period, while insecticideand fungicide use has increased only slightly(figure 2). In contrast, the number of newpesticides introduced each year has declinedsteadily from a high of about 30 in 1967 toless than 10 in 1975 (figure 3). Although thereare more than 1,200 chemicals labeled forpesticide use and thousands of registeredpesticide formulations, farmers currently usea relatively small number of major pesticides:17 herbicides, 20 insecticides, and 6 fungi-cides account for more than 80 percent of allpesticides used.

Figure 2.—Volume of Pesticides Usedon U.S. Farms

Mil. Ibs. (active ingredients)

400

300

200

100

0

- Herbicides- InsecticidesD Fungicides

1966 1971 1976

SOURCE Adapted from 1978 Handbook of Agr/cu/tura/ Charts, USDA Agrlculture Handbook #551

Figure 3.— Number of Pesticides Introduced EachYear From 1930

1925 ’35 ’45 ’55 ’65 1975

SOURCE C A I Goring 1977 The Costs of Cornrnerc/a//z/ng Pest/c/ales P P

1 33 In D L Watson and A W A Brown (eds ) Pest{c/de Managerrren( and /nsecf/c/de Res/sfance (New York Academic Press)

A recent review of crop protection methodsindicates that pesticides are contributing topest and environmental problems; other re-views focus on the millions of lives saved, in-creased crop productivity, and preservationof food and fiber afforded by proper use ofmodern pesticides. Some claim that, in gen-eral, pesticides are not necessary and thatadequate alternative tactics for crop protec-tion are available, while others believe thatpesticides are essential in modern agricul-ture and that massive economic dislocationsand further deterioration of an alreadyprecarious food balance would result from aloss of pesticides. What is the true situation?

19

51-788 r - “9 - 3


What would happen if effective pesticideswere not available for use? What alternativecontrol tactics and strategies are available?Could they prevent predicted severe disrup-tions and dislocations of food production? Ifalternative crop protection technology isavailable but unused, how can it be imple-mented? If there were to be adverse conse-quences, would the benefits derived justifythe costs? What must be done to reduce pest-caused losses of food with a minimum of in-sult to the environment and without endan-gering human health? These are the ques-tions addressed in this report.

Most broad discussions of the status ofcrop protection deal in generalities based onaveraged data. To avoid this limitation thecrop protection problems, technology, strat-egies, economics, obstacles to improvement,and needs were examined in detail for sevencropping systems in the United States. Foreach system, teams of crop protection scien-tists, economists, agronomists, farmers, envi-ronmentalists, and consumer representativeswere commissioned to prepare reports on thefollowing subjects: 1) general nature of thecropping system in their region, 2) major pestof the crop(s), 3) present control strategiesand tactics, 4) present and predicted prob-lems with current practices, 5) predictablechanges in pest control over the next 10 to 15years, 6) projected impacts of available ap-

proaches to pest control, 7) obstacles to im-plementation of pest management strategiesand tactics, and 8) requirements for a viable,privately operated pest management deliverysystem.

The crops and regions selected were:wheat in the Great Plains States, corn in theCorn Belt, cotton and associated sorghumproblems in Texas, deciduous tree-fruits(especially apple) in the northern half of thecountry, potatoes in the Northeastern States,soybeans in the Southeastern sector, andselected vegetables in California. These cropsare representatives of more than 90 percentof agricultural production in the UnitedStates. They also span the range of econom-ic returns per unit area, the quality stand-ards as they relate to pest damage, and theamounts of pesticides used totally or on a per-acre basis. Pests associated with these cropsinclude insects, diseases, weeds, nematodes,and vertebrates such as rodents and birds.Hence a study of crop protection on theseseven cropping systems provides a realisticappraisal of the present status and short-term future prospects of crop pest manage-ment in the United States.

The complete detailed reports of each ofthe seven cropping systems are in volume II.This volume is based on those reports.

WHEAT IN THE GREAT PLAINS

Wheat, which originated in the Near East,was introduced in the United States in col-onial times. It ranks as one of the most impor-tant food crops in the United States and theworld. The Great Plains States (Colorado,Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico,North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma,Texas, and Wyoming) produce 54 percent ofU.S. wheat on 64 percent (45 million acres) ofthe harvested wheat acreage. Productiongenerally is on large farms where it is the ma-jor agricultural enterprise. Wheat farming ishighly mechanized and one person can man-

age 1,500 to 2,000 acres annually in a wheat-fallow rotation.

Wheat production in the Great Plains isrisky because of variabil i ty in moisture,weeds, diseases, insects, and hail. Moistureis the greatest limitation to consistent wheatproduction and a stable agriculture. Wheatproduction in the Great Plains has tradi-tionally relied on a mix of pest controlmethods. In contrast to other U.S. agricul-tural regions, wheat producers have de-pended less on chemical control of pests

—

Ch. 11—Present Status of Crop Protection ● 21

because of the extensiveness of wheat pro-duction, the marginal economic return, andthe effectiveness of some nonchemical con-trol methods on pests.

pests of wheat

Wheat in the Great Plains is attacked bymore than 30 arthropods, 20 plant pathogens,16 vertebrates, and 20 weeds which causetotal annual production losses of approxi-mately 28 percent. Weeds are the major eco-nomic pest, while vertebrates are of minorimportance. In addition to biological pests,there are environmental hazards of soil ero-sion, hail storms, and problems associatedwith the depletion of soil organic matter. Theprincipal control tactics used against the top10 pests in each of four categories are listedin table 2.

Chemical Pesticide Use

In 1971, approximately 47 percent of thewheat acreage was treated with pesticideswith a total expenditure over $20 million. In1977 pesticide costs for wheat were $1.23,$1.11, and $0.65 per acre in the southern,northern, and central Great Plains regions,respectively.

Insecticide use on wheat is low comparedto other field crops. About 8 percent of theU.S. wheat acreage annually receives an in-secticide application, most of which is used tocontrol greenbug, cutworms, armyworms.and grasshoppers. Fourteen insecticides areregistered for use on wheat; nine are organo-phosphates and five are organochlorines.

Because of uncertain economic benefits,less than 1 percent of the wheat acreage inthe Great Plains is treated with fungicides forfoliar disease control. Fungicidal seed treat-ment is increasing for the control of commonbunt and seedling blight. No vertebratespecies is considered a major nuisance in theGreat Plains.

More than 90 percent of the pesticidesused on wheat are herbicides. About 20 per-cent of the winter wheat acreage in 1977 was

treated with herbicides, while 95 percent ofthe spring wheat acreage was treated. Suchdata emphas ize the grea ter weed com-petitiveness of winter wheat compared withspring wheats. The six major herbicides usedon wheat are 2,4-D, MCPA, dicamba, bromox-ynil, triallate, and barban. Triallate is usedpreemergence a n d t h e o t h e r s a r e u s e dpostemergence.

Cultural Pest Control

Cultural practices play a major role in re-ducing the incidence of many pest problems,but other pest problems may be aggravatedby such practices. Delayed seeding of wheatmay control certain insects and diseases, butlater emerging pests then become a problem.Plowing, burning, or crop rotation destroyssome diseases present on wheat residues, butplowing or burning exposes soil to moistureloss and erosion. Cultural control methods forvertebrates include time of planting to dis-courage migration, planting trap crops of pre-ferred foods, and the use of mechanical scaredevices. Production practices that stimulategrowth of wheat plants are generally used toprovide maximum competition to weeds. Afew examples of this include selection of thewheat cultivar, seedbed preparation, methodof seeding, seeding rates and dates, row spac-ing, fertilization, irrigation or water manage-ment, erosion control, managed grazing ofwheat growth, and sanitation.

Plant Resistance

Plant resistance to insects is the most ef-fective component of management for theHessian fly and wheat stem sawfly, two of themajor insects of wheat in the Great Plains.Greenbug-resistant wheat should be avail-able to growers in 4 to 5 years.

The major approach in controlling wheatdiseases is through the use of resistant va-rieties. For example, stem rust caused majorlosses in spring wheat from 1918 through1955, but no significant loss has occurredsince then when cultivars with stackedresistances to this disease came into wide-spread use. Cultivars with specific resist-


Table 2.—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Wheat in the Great Plains

Introduced (1) Pred & Mlcro-Major pests

- - p a r a . .WeedsWild oats I 1Mustards I 1Winter annual bromes I 1Foxtail I 1F i e l d b i n d w e e d ,1 1T h i s t l e s 1 1Wild buckwheat ... : I 1Quack grass . I 1Jointed goatgrass I 1Field penny cress. ., I 1

Arthrop~ds! essian fly I 1Greenbug. I 1Wheat stem sawfly N 1Army worms . . N 1Cutworms . . . N 1A p h i d s . , .,N 1Grasshoppers N 1Wheat stem maggot N 1False wireworm N 1True wireworm N 1

DiseasesS t e m r u s t N 1Leaf rust : N 1Tan spot N 1Septoria leaf blotch. N 1Root foot rots N 1Wheat streak mosaic N 1Barley yellow dwarf N 1SoIl borne mosaic. N 1Powdery mildew N 1Bacterial leaf blight. N 1

Vertebrates13-llned ground squirrel N 1Franklin ground squirrel N 1Spotted ground squirrel N 1Richardson ground

squirrel N 1Norway rat I 1House mouse I 1Deer mouse I 1C o t t o n r a t N 1Meadow vole N 1Prairie vole N 1

Key 1 = hlfle or no use2 = some use3 = malor use

blal

1111111111

1111111111

1111111111

111

1111111

resist- Samta- natlng Crop Plantlng Clean Water FertW

1111111111

3121111111

3322212222

111

1111111

2222222222

2111111111

111

1221211

1111111111

2221111111

2111121111

111

1111111

2222222222

1111111122

1122221211

222

2222222

ances are also used to control several otherdiseases.

L i t t l e d i rec ted e f for t has been madethrough breeding to improve the ability ofwheat cultivars to compete with weeds. How-

2222222222

2111212111

2211332211

111

1111111

—

2322232223

1111111111

1123211111

111

1111111

1111111111

1111111111

1111211111

111

1111111

2222222222

1211111111

2211211121

111

1111111

2133222222

2121211222

1132221112

222

2122222

2111211211

2111112122

1111111111

111

1111111

1111111111

1111111111

1111211111

111

1111111

2311333113

1313333111

1222112111

111

1111111

1111111111

3222212122

3311122211

111

1111111

2111111111

1112211111

2211122111

111

1111111

ever, wheat breeders have selected largeseed and fast-emerging, vigorous seedlingsthat have improved weed competitiveness.Use of short-stemmed wheats ‘that betterresist lodging has increased weed controlproblems.

Ch. //—Present Status of Crop Protection ● 23

Biological Control

Efforts to develop or manipulate specificbiological control methods for wheat pestshave not succeeded. However, a number ofnatural enemies of wheat pests are operativeand of some importance in the control of cer-tain pests. Their natural manipulation wouldbe possible if the necessary research person-nel were available to develop specific tactics.

Organic Farming

Intensive organic farming methods are notpractical for the extensive culture of wheaton low-value marginal land of the GreatPlains.

Other Control Practices

Specific control methods of limited use onwheat pests include electrical dischargemethods, ultrahigh radio waves, laser beams,pheromones, and various mechanical meansof removing weeds remaining after other con-trol methods have been used. Soil fumigantshave possible application for the destructionof soil fungi and bacteria, nematodes, ar-thropods, and weed propagules.

Current Use of Pest ManagementSystems

Wheat growers in the Great Plains havepracticed insect management for years. Be-cause wheat is a relatively low-value crop,prevention of damage is emphasized ratherthan heavy reliance on insecticides after thecrop is infested. Those cultural control meth-ods and plant resistance that add little or noextra cost to growers are incorporated intowheat management practices to obtain inte-grated control of single insects or insect com-plexes. However, when no alternative meth-ods to chemical control are available, propertiming and minimum rates of insecticides arerecommended.

Wheat stem rust, a disease with great po-tential for widespread wheat destruction, iscontrolled in the United States by a combina-tion of measures that comprise an integrated

pest management (1PM) system. Measuresemployed are cultural practices, alternatehost eradication, quarantine, resistant culti-vars, and disease monitoring. Chemical con-trol has no role in the current managementprogram against stem rust. For the past 23years this disease has not affected produc-tion in the highly vulnerable spring wheatarea where susceptible cultivars in trap plotsare severely infested in 2 out of 3 years.

Accurate short-term models exist for pre-dicting the development of leaf and stem rustand would be useful for predicting outbreaks.These models are in limited use, however, be-cause the required organizational structureis lacking for their application throughout theGreat Plains.

Wheat farmers use weed pest manage-ment, knowingly or unknowingly, to protecttheir crops by cultural, mechanical, biolog-ical, chemical, and preventive control meth-ods. The introduction of the ecofarming sys-tem of producing wheat is an example ofweed management being introduced into theGreat Plains. Ecofarming is a system of con-trolling weeds and managing plant residuesthroughout a cropping sequence with a mini-mum use of tillage. This system reduces soilerosion and crop production costs while in-creasing weed control, water infiltration,moisture conservation, and crop yields. Eco-farming was introduced in Nebraska in 1973on 200 acres and by 1978 was used on nearly100,000 acres.

Insects.—Government regulations thatrestrict or ban the use of certain insecticideshave reduced their availability and have in-creased control costs for some wheat pests.For example, two organochlorines (endrinand toxaphene) are the only effective mate-rials presently available for cutworm and ar-myworm control. Further restrictions on theuse of organochlorines will leave wheat vul-nerable to these and other soil insects.

Although insecticide resistance is not a ma-jor problem in wheat pests, there is evidencethat the greenbug has developed tolerance toorganophosphates, which are the only insecti-


cides registered for use against greenbug onwheat. Thus there is a pressing need for newinsecticides and alternate control methodsfor this pest.

Acreage of Hessian-fly-resistant wheats inKansas and Nebraska has decreased fromabout 66 percent of the acreage in 1973 toabout 42 percent of the acreage in 1977.Along with this decrease there has been acorresponding increase in Hessian fly infesta-tions in the previously resistant acreage.Also, a serious outbreak of Hessian fly oc-curred on 50,000 acres of spring wheat inSouth Dakota in 1978. Both winter and springwheats are becoming highly vulnerable tooutbreaks of Hessian fly,

There is only limited effort to continue de-veloping wheat-stem-sawfly-resistant culti-vars. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s(USDA) Science and Education Administra-tion (SEA) terminated research on wheatstem sawfly in 1972. In the absence of this re-search effort, the resistant cultivars present-ly grown are expected to be replaced withsusceptible cultivars that have other im-proved agronomic characteristics. Thus, in-festations of wheat stem sawfly are expectedto increase.

An increase in ecofarming as a system forwheat production may result in the emer-gence of vertebrate pests. This system willprovide suitable habitat for several mam-malian and avian species that can affectstand establishment and grain production,

Diseases.—Zinc ion-maneb complex andzineb fungicides currently are undergoing re-buttable presumption against registration(RPAR) by the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) . I f reg i s t ra t ion o f thesefungicides is not approved, no alternativebroad spectrum fungicide of comparable ef-fectiveness is available for control of foliardiseases in wheat.

Use of minimal tillage with continuouscropping in the eastern Great Plains has in-creased the potential threat from diseasesthat develop from pathogens surviving on in-fested debris. The extent of this threat will in-

crease with the acceptance of ecofarmingtechniques.

Vulnerability of wheat to leaf rust in theGreat Plains is high and the diversity of re-sistance to this disease is inadequate. Viru-lence exists in the leaf rust population of theUnited States for all useful resistant culti-vars. Therefore, a major epidemic could oc-cur any year.

Weeds.—Weeds infesting spring wheatare mostly early-maturing summer annuals.The winter wheats are infested most severelyby winter annual weeds or weeds that germi-nate in early spring. Grass weeds are becom-ing an increasing problem because controlmethods are generally unavailable. Specificcultural methods such as stubble-mulch farm-ing have controlled tap-rooted weeds whileallowing shallow, fibrous-rooted weeds to in-crease. Field bindweed continues to be asevere problem especially in the western partof the Great Plains. Ecofarming and otherminimum tillage wheat production systemsdecrease most annual weeds while perennialweeds increase.

Wild oat continues as the major summerannual weed in the spring wheat area. Also,it has recently become an increasing weedspecies acting as a winter annual in Texasand Oklahoma. The spread of this speciesshould be stopped before it infests the entirewinter wheat belt in the Great Plains.

Other weeds are spreading in both winterand spring wheat areas and are not ade-quately controlled.

Soil erosion by wind and water continuesto be a problem when tillage is utilized. Themain reason for tillage is weed control. Ifwheat residues are left on the soil surface,weed control is more difficult and requiresadditional cultivations that reduce residuesneeded to prevent soil erosion. Weeds areheavy users of moisture which is the limitingfactor in crop production in the Great Plains.However, tillage reduces soil moisture by ex-posing soil to the air. Tillage controls weedsby burial of the weeds, desiccation of theweeds by cutting the roots, or drying out the

Ch. /l—Present Status of Crop Protection ● 25

surface soil sufficiently to prevent weed seed For a detailed report of crop protection ongermination, Herbicide use could be a trade- wheat in the Great Plains, see volume II.off to tillage for weed control and would re-sult in reduced soil erosion and moisture loss.

The Corn Belt agroecosystem is one of theworld’s most intensive farming centers. It in-cludes a lo-State geographical area in theNorth-Central United States characterized bynear optimum environment, resources, andsupporting services for corn production. Itproduces 83 percent of the Nation’s corn, 68percent of the soybeans, 30 percent of thewheat, and 30 percent of the grain sorghum.More than 46 percent of the cropped acreageof the United States is in the Corn Belt.

Corn and soybean are the major crops andthe major cropping system in much of theCorn Belt. Wheat and grain sorghum are im-portant rotational crops in some States, butdouble cropping of wheat followed by soy-bean in the same year is restricted to south-ern portions of the Corn Belt where the cli-mate is favorable to this practice. Most CornBelt farmers rotate the major crops, but mon-ocropping is practiced in areas heavily com-mitted to the production of livestock andwhere the climate restricts soybean harvestto a short period each fall. Irrigation has ex-panded the western boundary for corn pro-duction where rainfall or soil types werepreviously considered too dry; sorghum andwinter wheat, rather than soybean, are themore common rota tional crops in these areas.Corn Belt farms are highly mechanized andefficient, and the cropping system must beconsidered when developing pest manage-ment programs for corn.

Pests of Corn

Of the 30 annual and perennial weeds, 30species of insects, and 50 disease pathogensthat are potential pests of corn in the region,only 19 weeds, 6 insects, 9 disease pathogens,and 8 nematodes are major and consistentpests. Another dozen or so are major but

sporadic pests of corn. Although the severityof pest problems varies by area and season.catastrophic outbreaks have not occurred be-cause of generally restrictive environmentalconditions and reasonably effective controltactics. Realistic estimates of annual croplosses in yield and quality caused by pests aredifficult to develop, but losses would beastronomical without pest control.

Major weeds include annual and perennialgrasses as well as annual and perennialbroad leaf species. Four weed species infest70 to 100 percent of the area. The otherspecies are not as ubiquitous but have thepotential of reducing yields markedly on 10 to40 percent of the acreage. Whether repro-duced through seeds or by vegetative parts,the potential always exists for disastrouslosses from weeds unless controlled. ManyCorn Belt farmers consider weed controltheir most important production problem.

Soil-borne pathogens as a group inflict thegreatest consistent losses from diseases inthe Corn Belt. The root- and stalk-rot patho-gens alone cause estimated crop losses of 10to 14 percent annually; viral , bacterial ,fungal, and other pathogens attack foliage,stalks, and grain causing severe loss whenplants are stressed by environmental condi-tions, weed competit ion, or managementpractices. New diseases occur periodicallythrough biotic changes in virulence or adapt-ability of the pathogen and through the in-troduction of exotic diseases. Changes in cul-tural practices, the genetic makeup of hy-brids, and weather variations induce dra-matic changes in pest species. Further, newproblems have been identified, such as nema-todes on corn; virtually every agricultural soilcontains several genera of these p lantparasitic organisms.


A variety of insects reduces yields everyyear in the Corn Belt and many are capable ofcausing catastrophic damage. Several insectsannually infest millions of acres and signif-icantly reduce yields. Major and consistentinsect pests such as corn rootworm, Euro-pean corn borer, fall armyworm, and theblack cutworm generally monopolize the con-cern of growers. Major but sporadic pestssuch as the corn leaf aphid have the potentialof causing widespread damage, although ser-ious losses may not occur each year. Most ofthe major corn insect pests are widely distrib-uted or dispersed throughout corn-growingareas. The rootworm complex is only damag-ing where corn follows corn in the rotation.The western corn rootworm is a relativelynew pest in the central Corn Belt and is cur-rently migrating throughout the MidwesternUnited States. The indirect damage caused bya weed as an alternate host for pathogens orinsects, or by an insect or nematode as a vec-tor of disease, may be greater than eitherpest infl icts independently, thus an in-tegrated approach is required for effectivepest control.

As new strains of pests develop or as newexotic pest imports increase in severity, man-agement practices to control them are mod-ified. These changes, in turn, may favor otherpest problems. Emphasis on a specific controltactic for one pest may permit greater flex-ibility or impose greater problems in the con-trol of other pests.

Pest control tactics are designed to disruptthe favorable combination of biotic and envi-ronmental factors necessary for pest develop-ment. Pest control is an essential part of thecrop protection system. Generally, pest con-trol strategies emphasize prevention when-ever possible because many corn pests can-not be effectively controlled if they becomeestablished during the cropping season. Acombination of tactics is available to reducethe variety of pest threats in the Corn Belt.The principal control tactics used against ma-jor pests are shown in table 3,

Chemical Pest Control

Pesticides are primarily applied to soil andseed to provide effective, dependable, andsometimes the only control for some pests orpest complexes. The largest quantities of pes-ticides used on corn in the Corn Belt are ap-plied to the soil, pre- or post-emergence, forweed and insect control. In 1977, approxi-mately 46 percent of the corn acreage re-ce ived insec t i c ides and 80 percent wastreated with a small quantity of fungicide asa seed protestant. The greatest potential fordisastrous yield losses from weeds is re-flected in the use of herbicides on practicallyall corn acreage. Current control tactics arebased principally on chemicals and culturalcontrols for weeds and insects and on cultur-al controls and genetically resistant plantsfor diseases.

A shift to reduced tillage for erosion con-trol, moisture retention, and labor and energyefficiency has increased the need for and reli-ance on pesticides. Zero-tillage systems mayalso require fungicides, rodenticides, andhigher dosages of pesticides because contem-porary herbicides and insecticides are not aseffective in controlling annual weeds or in-sects when large quantities of crop residueremain on the soil surface.


Cultural practices are an integral part ofmost pest control strategies and are most ef-fective in combination with other pest controlmeasures. Cultural practices are the only tac-tic available for many of the soil-borne dis-eases . Spec i f i c cu l tura l prac t i ces usedthroughout the Corn Belt to reduce survival,germination, development, or spread of pestsinclude the use of clean disease-free seed, ad-justed planting or harvesting dates, tillage,drainage, crop sequence, crop rotation, plantnutrition (fertilization), and sanitation (table3). Cultural practices are combined with her-bicides for more effective weed control. Datacollected over 10 years shows that one or twocultivations with an herbicide result in higher

Ch. I/—Present Status of Crop Protection ● 27

Table 3.—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Corn in the Corn Belt

—

‘ r

-——Natwe (N I - “Oq’c~t.-‘ “ T - T

CulturalH o s t - - – – - – – – – – – - - - — — - - — - - – – —- - - 1 = = = = 1 = ~ ~ - -

1 plant E l mIntroduced (1) Pred & Micro- resist- Sanlta- natlng Crop Plantlng Clean Water Fertlllty I

Major pests I para btal ~ ance 1 tton Tll[age LSotl Seed

Weeds ‘- ” - ‘ -

‘Foxtail spp, ., NPlgweed IQuack grass ILambsquarler IV e l v e t l e a fF a l l p a n l c u mBarnyard grass ICrabgrassYellow nutsedge IS m a r t w e e d

ArthropodsC o r n r o o t w o r m sCutwormsEuropean cornborers IA r m y w o r m sCorn leaf aphidStored grain Insects

DiseasesSeedling blight NS t a l k r o t s NA n t h r a c n o s e NLeaf bllghts NB a c t e r i a l w i l tSmut NEar rot NViruses

1111111111

111111

1111111

hosts rotation date seed mqmt mqmt

1111111111

111111

1111111

— .

1111111111

113111

33233333

2222222222

112213

22323222

1111111111

331111

11111113

1111111111

321111

23312122

1111111110

232111

22112113

1111111111

111111

31111111

Key 1 = htlle or no use2 = some use3 = major use

yields of corn than do multiple cultivationswithout herbicides.

Seeding date disrupts the synchrony be-tween a susceptible stage in crop develop-ment and the pest cycle. Full-season cornhybrids are generally higher yielding andmore efficient than short-season hybrids, butseeding after a certain date greatly reducesthe yield potential of full-season hybrids.Seeding in cold, wet soil generally increasesweed competition, seedling diseases, andearly insect damage, but it may reduce stressduring grain formation and avoid severelosses from viruses, bacterial wilt, and ser-ious stalk- and ear-damaging pests that maybe more prevalent later in the season. Early-maturing varieties may escape disease andinsect damage for the same reason. As a pestmanagement device, seeding dates must bebalanced against available moisture during

1111111122

222211

33221111

1111111111

222211

13221121

3333333333

111111

12311113

3333333333

331211

11111111

1111111111

111013

31111111

Predlc-Monitor- twe

Follar lng models

1 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 11 3 11 3 11 3 11 3 13 3 1

2 2 23 1 12 1 13 1 12 1 11 1 1

11111111

the cropping season, the limited number ofdays available for the crop to develop andmature, overall pest problems, and othermanagement decisions.

Tillage is a direct control measure forweeds and an indirect control for diseasesand insects. Clean cultivation removes somealternate hosts of insects and pathogens,while incorporation of crop residues into thesoil hastens their degradation and subjectspests to natural enemies or antagonists. Cropresidue on the soil surface increases somepest problems by maintaining a high popula-tion of the pest where it is easily disseminated(diseases), stimulated to germinate (weeds),or protected from natural enemies (insects).Damage by rodents and birds increases withreduction in tillage in row crop agriculture.

Crop rotation is one of the oldest methodsof control and it is still one of the most eco-


nomically effective nonchemical means of de-creasing most soil pests. The Corn Belt grow-ers have a distinct advantage in choosingcrop rotation as a control tactic, since thecrop grown in rotation is usually one of highvalue (soybean, wheat, sorghum). Indeed,long-term crop rotation studies coveringmany decades show that the best way to pro-duce corn in the Corn Belt is to grow it in rota-tion, especially with soybean and wheat,However, the generalization that greatercrop diversity in the Corn Belt would result infewer pests is not justified. The importance ofusing crop rotation for pest control dependson the seriousness of a specific pest, sinceother pes t prob lems may be enhancedthrough crop rotation. Crop sequence deter-mines the overall complex of pests presentmore than the length of rotation betweencrops.

Plant Resisitance

The effectiveness of plant resistance incombination with cultural controls accountsin large part for the very low use of pesticidesfor disease control in the Corn Belt. Pest-resistant plants provide a natural, economic,environmentally safe, self-generating systemthat is compatible with other control tactics,is readily accepted by farmers, and has beena primary control tactic for several decades.Twenty-two of the thirty-eight most damagingcorn diseases are effectively controlled bygenetic resistance. Resistance has also beenidentified for 11 others. Resistance is not ex-ploited as effectively for control of corn in-sects because of the lack of a uniform naturalinfestation or a suitable method for rearingcorn insects that are required to screen forresistance. Breeding plants for greater vigor,stiffer stalks, and tolerance to higher popula-tion densities that permit closer row spacingetc., also provides more competition againstweeds,

The evolution and selection of pests resist-ant to specific control tactics or capable ofovercoming plant resistance are natural phe-nomena. Thus, breeding plants for crop re-sistance is a continuing process because of

the development of new pest biotypes, importof new pests, and changes in behavior ofpests. Breeding higher yielding, betteradapted, more energy-efficient, and more nu-tritious varieties are also continuing goals.Great untapped potential for pest-resistantcorn cultivars exists both with presentlyavailable germ plasm and with germ plasmfrom other regions of the world. Techniquesnecessary to advance the field of genetic re-sistance are already proven. Further im-provement through this avenue depends onlong-term support and increased communica-tion among geneticists, plant breeders, andcrop protection scientists.

Biological Control

The regulation of pest organisms by theirnatural enemies is one reason why manypests seldom reach their full biotic potentialin the Corn Belt. Indigenous parasitic or an-tagonistic biological control organisms areimportant agents for control of many soil-borne pests of corn, and some of these biolog-ical control agents can be manipulated byspecific cultural practices such as crop se-quence, tillage, and fertilization, Manipula-tion of these control organisms by habitatmanagement has generally been as effectiveas the introduction and establishment of ex-otic organisms.

Organic Farming

The term “organic farming” is poorly de-fined and often used rather loosely. Organicfarmers benefit from resistant crop varieties,areawide biological control programs, and re-duction in certain insect and weed pests asmore sophisticated control tactics are ap-plied by neighbors. Only a very few farmerspractice pure organic farming; an increase inorganic farming in the Corn Belt would re-quire major shifts in cropping practices,would reduce the yield and grain availablefor export, and would increase the risk of cat-astrophic outbreaks and loss from pests. Or-ganic sources of nutrients such as animalwaste are available only in limited quantities,


and much of the grain produced on organicfarms is used as feed for livestock on thefarm.

Other Control Tactics

The combination of crop resistance andbiological, cultural, and chemical control tac-tics used in the Corn Belt is constantly chang-ing as new farming practices become avail-able. For example, reduced tillage practicesmay greatly decrease losses from cornstalkrot and will decrease the movement of sedi-ment and pesticides into water, but reducedtillage may increase the severity of someother pests. Pest scouting, by the farmer orby someone hired, is gaining importance inthe Corn Belt as a viable pest managementtactic to aid the judicious use of pesticides.Other new developments in pest managementinclude sex pheromone traps that are used todetect the occurence and density of black cut-worm moths early in the season, and the iden-tification of karimones that, by providing thechemical communication needed for many in-sect predators and parasites to find theirprey, make some biological control agentsmore effective.


Some 1PM practices are used in the CornBelt, and there is an awareness of pest con-trol advantages through an integrated ap-proach to pest management. The interest in1PM reflects a growing concern for stabilityin agricultural production by preventingcrises in pest control. Recent innovations inpest monitoring provide a means of enhanc-ing pest management through greatly improv-ing the efficiency of chemical and culturalcontrol tactics. In this way 1PM can play animportant role in minimizing nontarget pollu-tion by pesticides. 1PM is on the verge ofgreater acceptance and use by farmers in theCorn Belt.

Those proven practices that are ready forincorporation into programs on some cropsand for some pest species are being adopted.Thus, the farm management system must in-

clude effective pest control practices inte-grated with those essential for optimum cropproduction.

Current adoption and use of pest manage-ment are largely limited by the lack of basicand applied research information on pestbiology and by the lack of timely biologicaland weather data for incorporation into pestmanagement systems. For most pest species,pest management lacks the data base for ac-curate pest detection, prediction of pest den-sity, and relating pest density to crop loss. Un-til these data are obtained and field-testedand control tactics are improved, the prophy-lac t i c use o f pes t i c ides as “ insurance”against pest problems will continue.

Pest management can integrate pest con-trol into crop protection/crop productionsystems that will reduce the severity of pests,the frequency of pest problems, and pest re-sistance. For example, pest monitoring canreduce the need for prophylactic use of somepesticides through improved detection ofpests, measurement of pest density, relatingpest density to yield loss, and rapid deliveryof this information to the user. Reduction inpesticide need and use is not the objective ofpest management, though many of the pestcontrol tactics such as resistant host plants,some cultural practices, pest scouting, andbiological control may, over time, reduce theneed for pesticides and the energy it requiresto produce them. Improved pest managementcurrently reduces the annual dependency ona given pesticide by using pest-tolerant cropvarieties, crop rotation, timely harvesting of acrop, and by enhancing the effectiveness ofpredators, parasites, and antagonists. Pestmanagement research is needed to developimproved application technology and for-mulations that will reduce drift and hazard tothe user and the environment.

Present Problems and Concernsin Crop Protection on Corn

Problems in pest control are anticipatedfrom: 1) limited basic knowledge on pest and


pest/crop interactions, 2) rapid changes incultural practices, S) decreased public effortin breeding for resistance, 4) decreased ef-fectiveness of some insecticides and limitedeffort in product development in certain pestareas, 5) Government regulations against pes-ticides, and 6) introduced exotic pests.

Limited knowledge. —Serious knowledgegaps exist in both basic and applied informa-tion of disease and lifecycles; physiology ofdormancy or virulence; mechanisms of biolog-ical control, resistance, or susceptibility;physiology of host-parasite interactions; thebiology and behavior of pests indifferent en-vironments: and threshold damage level.Present pest management practices will bedifficult to improve without the generation ofnew research data.

Minimum tillage. —Minimum or reducedtillage practices increase the severity of cer-tain insects and diseases previously con-trolled by cultural practices. Although theseproblems are not insurmountable, they willrequire much additional research and placean additional burden on a severely limitedmanpower pool for pest control.

Narrow germ plasm base.—Although thepotential corn germplasm base is not limitingand the relatively narrow germ plasm pres-ent in any one year’s commercial productionis frequently cycled (approximately every 4years) as improved inbreds are developedand released, there is a severely limited man-power resource for using the broad geneticbase available for further improvement ofpest resistance. After locating gene sources,8 to 14 years are generally required to in-corporate genetic resistance into high-yield-ing, environmentally adapted, high-qualityvarieties. Breeding programs have an impres-sive record for pest control through resist-ance, This effort is being diluted by esotericstudies that are only remotely applicable topractical problemsolving, Approaches toplant improvement (genetic engineering, tis-sue culture, etc. ) with long lag periods beforethey can be applied to current problems havetended to detract from, and decrease em-phasis on, the traditional breeding and crop

improvement programs. Private companiesstill depend on public release of germ plasmmaterials for varietal improvement.

Evolution of resistant biotypes.—Pestresistance to pesticides should be considereda natural phenomenon in response to environ-mental pressure. Several major insects havedeveloped resistance to the cyclodiene insec-ticides—aldrin, dieldrin, and heptachlor.There is also evidence of reduced efficacy ofcarbamate and organic phosphate insecti-cides for controlling corn rootworms. The po-tential lack of suitable effective soil insec-ticides for the future is cause for alarm. Noweed resistance to herbicides or corn diseasepathogens to fungicides are known, althoughweeds naturally resistant to herbicides maybe selectively favored as competition is re-duced. Genetic resistance to some foliar dis-eases is relatively unstable (4 to 8 years)while to other pathogens it is very stable (25or more years). Much concern exists that ef-fective, safe chemical pesticides will not beavailable when needed against those peststhat result from shifts to minimum tillage orthat may develop resistance to existing prod-ucts.

Exotic pests. —Most commercial hybridscurrently grown are susceptible to severalexotic pests that could cause disastrouslosses if introduced accidentally. Exclusion ofthese pests from the United States must bemaintained as a priority strategy for pest con-trol even though ongoing integrated researchand extension programs eventually may beable to minimize their initial impact.

Economics o f pes t management sys -tems.—Reluctance on the part of growers tochange practices for pest control or to reducepesticide use is frequently associated withprevious loss experiences and uncertaintythat the change will not result in lower yieldsor greater risk of pest problems and asso-ciated yield instability. Economics definitelyinfluence the rate of adoption of new prac-tices. The higher the potential return, themore rapid the adoption rate. It is difficult topromote a change if the practices are noteconomical.

Ch. 11—Present Status 0f Crop Protection ● 37

Any improvement in technology that inthat are capable of limiting the necessities ofcreases production potential, efficiency, in- life for tomorrow’s consumer.centive, and quality will, in turn, result inlower prices for consumer products. Greateradvances in pes t management a re s t i l l For a detailed report of crop protection onneeded to control present and potential pests corn in the Corn Belt, see volume II.

SOYBEAN IN THE

Soybean was a domesticated crop in Chinaseveral thousands years B.C. but has been animportant crop in the United States only dur-ing the last 40 years. More than 64 millionacres of soybean, which is more than half oftotal world production, are now grown inthe United States. Approximately $4 billionworth was exported from the 1977 crop.

Soybean production areas in the South-eastern United States are characterized bytemperate to subtropical temperatures, gen-erally humid conditions, and long growingseasons. The area considered in this reportincludes States ranging from Arkansas, Ken-tucky, and Virginia southward to Florida andthe Texas gulf coast. Acreage tripled in theregion from 1960 to 1973 with another 4 mil-lion added by 1979 to bring the total to 21 mil-lion acres or 37 percent of total national pro-duction. The major agroecosystems involvesoybean/corn/forage, soybean/corn/cotton/small grain, soybean/grassland, soybean/rice,and soy bean/sugarcane. There is great diver-sity on many farms including tobacco, pea-nuts, and vegetable crops, plus hedgerows,forests, and swamps where numerous wildhosts of soybean pests may be found. Predict-ably, pest problems will change over time onthis relatively new major crop.

Farming operations and availability ofmanagement options vary widely with farmsize, which ranges from less than 100 to morethan 100,000 acres. Sufficient flexibility mustbe built into pest management efforts to ac-commodate this wide range of farming opera-tions.

SOUTHEAST

Pests Of Soybean

The pests of soybean that cause economiclosses include weeds, insects, nematodes, andplant pathogens. The economic impact ofthese pests cannot be effectively fractionatedinto separate units such as individual weedspecies or even as a complex of weed species.The total effect of all pests (weeds, insects,nematodes, and plant pathogens) is what thesoybean producer must consider. The pres-ence of one pest may compound the adverseeffects of another. Control procedures—i. e.,chemical or cultural—taken against onegroup of pests may have a strong influence onthe incidence of other pests. Therefore, theproducer must integrate efforts among disci-plines to control pests properly.

Weeds are the most important of thesepests and are estimated to cause average an-nual losses of 15 to 20 percent of the potentialvalue of the crop with present controls. In ad-dition to competing directly with the crop fornutrients and space, they also interfere withthe operation of equipment and harbor in-sects, pathogens, and nematodes. Costs ofcontrol practices, which include herbicidesand tillage, are high.

The exodus of labor from southern farmsduring the last 20 years has been accom-panied by a dramatic rise in the developmentand use of herbicides for weed control. An-nual grasses were the major problem weedsduring the early to mid-1960’s. A very effec-tive family of herbicides (dinitroanilines) wasemployed against these grasses. As use of


these grass herbicides expanded, broadleafweeds became more and more serious com-petitors with soybean plants for essentialspace, nutrients, light, and moisture. Theearly season and widespread control ofgrasses had basically provided niches intowhich the broadleaf weeds moved. Unfortu-nately, these types of weeds are more similarto soybean than were grasses, which makesdevelopment of effective controls of broad-leaf weeds much more complicated.

Insects may cause yield losses by attackingroots and nodules, stems, foliage, and pods.The most common insect pests of economicimportance on soybean are complexes thatfeed on foliage and pods (seed) in August andSeptember. However, the economic impor-tance of root-, nodule-, and stem-feeding in-sects is becoming more obvious as researchefforts are intensified. Direct costs of insectpests are related primarily to crop losses andexpenditures for insecticidal application.However, the occasional misuse of insecti-cides through unnecessary applications, useof the wrong insecticide, or use of unneces-sarily high rates often has indirect conse-quences, such as killing of natural enemiesand subsequent pest resurgences, which areextremely difficult to assess.

Nematodes associated with soybean arevery small (almost microscopic), cylindrical,elongated soil-dwelling worms, and their ad-verse effects on production are difficult to as-sess. The effects may range from completecrop loss in some areas to very subtle effectsthat reduce yields. Some feed on decaying or-ganic matter, others are predators, but thosewith which we are most concerned feed onroots and nodules of the soybean plant. Nem-atodes have a large number of crop and weedhosts in addition to soybean. Because of in-adequate information many producers applynematicides to all of their fields when only afew fields or portions of fields may needtreatment.

Diseases of soybean in the Southeast cancause serious losses in production. Pathogensinfest various plant parts but the principaldiseases are foliar. Soil-borne diseases occur

much more erratically. The Mississippi RiverValley and Delta are frequently the sites ofthe most severe damage from such organismsbecause of their heavier soil types. In addi-tion to the use of resistant plant varieties, re-cent control practices also involve two ap-plications of a fungicide during pod develop-ment. In most States in the lower South, theseapplications have consistently increasedyields, but in the upper South, yield responseshave been erratic.

Disease-loss relationships are only partial-ly developed but vary within the Southeast.Definitive data are not currently available,either on losses from individual diseases oron losses from disease complexes.

The major pests and principal control tac-tics of soybean in the Southeast are in table 4.


Chemical pesticides are vital in the controlof each class of soybean pest. This is trueeven though weed control depends more onchemicals than does insect or nematode con-trol . Plant disease control has generallydepended less on chemicals, but use of foliar-applied fungicides currently is increasingyields and thus becoming more widely used.

Weed control in soybean production beganchanging markedly in the early 1960’s withthe introduction and use of more consistent,effective chemical herbicides. By 1969, ap-proximately 50 percent of the soybean acre-age was treated with an herbicide. Now al-most all of the acreage is treated with someform of herbicide that is used in preplant,preemerge, or postemerge treatment. Basi-cally, control of al l of the major weedsdepends on chemical herbicides that performbest when used in addition to good culturalpractices rather than as the sole means ofcontrol. Evaluation of performance has devel-oped from rating herbicides for overall weedcontrol, to control of grasses and broadleafweeds, and eventually to the control ofspecific weeds.

Current predictions indicate that herbicideuse will level off, primarily because most

Ch 11—Present Status 0f Crop Protection ● 3 3

Table 4.—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Soybean in the Southeast

Native ( N J IBlologlcal

!Introduced (1} Pred & MicroMajor pesfs para blal

WeedsCocklebur NSlcklepod IMornlngglory IJohnson grass IPlgweed ., ICrabgrass NPrickly slda IHemp sesbanla IFlorlda pusley NNutsedges I

ArthropodsBean leaf beetle* NMexican bean beetle ICorn earworm’ NSoybean looper”’Velvet bean caterpillar ;Southern green stink bug* I

DiseasesAnthracnose NBrown spot IFrogeye ISouthern bllght NPod and stem bllghtBacterial bllght N

NematodesRoot knot NSoybean cyst ILesion NRenlform ILance NEctoparasltes N

.“Trap crop control –

1111111111

1

1

2221

111111

111111

1111111111

1

1

1

211

111111

111111

‘‘M!q~ale aqnua Iy from central Amenc?n and C?rr!fwan

Kei 1 = hllle or no use2 = some use3 = major use

. — —Cultural Chemica l -

T

—

H o s t Other -

— —plant

i

Ellml -resist- Sanlta- natlng Crop Plantlng Clean Water Fertilityance tlon hosts rotation date seed mgmt mgmt Tll lagel SoIl—

11111111

1

1

111111

112111

33121

1

2222111

212

111111

111111

111

1

1

1

1111111111

111111

111111

111111

2222111212

111111

211321

232222

acreage is now treated. However, this level-ing off may fail to materialize if no-till cultur-al practices are adopted more widely. No-tillculture requires more broadcast applicationsof herbicides than do conventional tillagemethods, more types of herbicides, and pos-sibly slightly higher rates of application. Also,as herbicides become more weed-specific, theleveling-off trend may be delayed further.

Chemical insecticides provide soybeangrowers with a consistently effective and eco-nomical method of suppressing populations ofinsect pests that threaten crop yields. Theonly other control method is using a bacter-ium (or biological insecticide) against some

1111111111

112111

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3333333333

111111

222122

131111

—

1111111111

111111

111111

111111

1111111111

111111

111121

111111

3333322323

111111

111I

11

111111

2323333332

111111

111211

323333

Seed

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

221

1

32

111111

3332212312

333333

333121

111111

3331212312

111111

111211

211111

—.

1111111111

111111

332122

111111

—

lepidopterous larvae, such as the soybeanlooper and the velvetbean caterpillar. Selec-tive dosage rates control the pest species buthave the least adverse effect on naturalenemies (particularly predators and insectpathogens). For example, low rates of car-baryl will control pests such as corn earwormbut have little adverse impact on naturalenemies. On the other hand, rates of methylparathion that are sufficient to control theearworm cause high mortality among naturalenemies. However, methyl parathion is effec-tive, economical, and widely used for controlof stink bugs late in the season when naturalenemy disruption is relatively unimportant.Insecticides must be used judiciously.


Chemical control of nematodes has de-pended heavily on the use of DBCP againstspecies for which there are no effectivecultural techniques or resistant soybeanvarieties. Its use has been severely restrictedrecently and it will be ultimately lost becauseof health hazards to workers in plants thatmanufacture or formulate the chemical .DBCP was effective and fitted easily into theland-preparation planting operation becauseof its easy application. Further, its use hadthe apparent benefit of promoting coloniza-tion of roots by endomycorrhizae, beneficialfungi that promote phosphorus and water up-take. Chemicals that may replace DBCP aregenerally less effective, and some have ad-verse effects on insect predators. The loss ofDBCP for control of major nematodes, and thescrutiny other chemicals are receiving fromEPA in the RPAR (rebuttable presumptionagainst registration) process, may seriouslyimpair control of nematode pests of soybean.

Chemical control of soybean diseases hasbeen practiced only on a limited basis usingfungicides as seed treatments and, more re-cently, as foliar applications. Chemicals arecurrently applied to less than 10 percent ofthe acreage in the Southeast for control offoliage, stem, and pod diseases.


Cultural controls are used for all pestclasses of soybean, are probably used lessagainst insects than against other pests, butare generally less important than chemicalcontrol.

Mechanical tillage and hoeing or weedingby hand were the major weed control meas-ures before development of effective herbi-cides. Hand labor is not used now because ofextremely high costs and, moreover, is usual-ly unavailable at any cost. However, produc-ers rely heavily on mechanical tillage as anexcellent means of controlling weeds in soy-bean. Even where herbicides are used, tillageis a valuable component of a Johnson grasscontrol program.

Rotation of both crops and chemicals isanother effective method to control weeds

that plague soybean. Also, narrower rowwidths provide an earlier shading effect thanwider rows and are often effective againstcertain weeds.

Although cultural controls are not widelyused for insects, trap crop control proce-dures using limited plantings of early-matur-ing varieties are employed in some areas.Also, deep plowing is recommended as theonly consistently effective method for controlof the stem borer Dectes. Avoidance of severedamage from the corn earworm is accom-plished in some areas through cultural prac-tices including early planting of early-maturing varieties and narrower rows tohasten canopy closure.

Rotation of nonhost crops with soybean hasreduced nematode damage. Rotations are notoften used, however, because the rotationcrop may have a low value, the nematodes tobe controlled have a wide host range, and fre-quent rotation may build up other pathogenicspecies. Currently rotation in soybean pro-duction is effective against the soybean cystnematode,

Cultural control of diseases in soybean in-clude rotation, deep turning (plowing) forburial of crop litter, and harvesting as soonafter senescence as possible to reduce seeddiseases. Rotation and deep turning reducethe amount of disease inoculum present whenthe crop is planted. However, the use of rota-tion as well as deep plowing is declining be-cause of increasing conversions to regionalsoybean monoculture and to no-till culture,respectively.

Plant Resistance

Pest-resistant varieties are vital to the con-trol of certain nematodes and plant diseases.Although resistance to certain insects hasbeen identified and resistant lines are in var-ious stages of development, there currentlyare no insect-resistant varieties in commer-cial use. Certain varieties with differentgrowth patterns may compete better withweeds, but this varies with particular grow-ing conditions. Additionally, herbicide toler-ance varies among existing soybean varieties.


Some nematodes are currently controlledwith resistant varieties that allow the growerto produce high yields even when fields areheavily infested. Nematode-resistant vari-eties are not without disadvantage; however,they are only effective against a specific nem-atode and are usually susceptible to othernematodes within the same genus. On theplus side, use of resistant varieties avoidsdependence on lengthy rotational schemesthat may involve crops of low economic value,and reduces the need for costly and perhapshazardous chemicals. Also, nematode popula-tions are reduced more rapidly by this controlmethod than through rotation practices.

Several important diseases of soybean arecontrolled through the use of resistant vari-eties. Several varieties are resistant to Phy-tophthora, and others have recognized toler-ance to the frogeye leafspot pathogen. Mostmajor varieties have moderate levels of re-sistance to target spot. Every major variety inthe South has resistance to bacterial pustuleand wildfire which have been observed atvery high levels in susceptible lines in certainareas. These diseases would be very impor-tant if our current commercial varieties weresusceptible.

Biological Control

In general, biological control methods forinsects have been neither used by growersnor determined to be of significant impor-tance by researchers. However, there are ex-ceptions which include the control of a weed(northern joint vetch) with a disease orga-nism, the regulation of insect populations by alarge complex of natural enemies that serveto keep pest populations at subeconomiclevels, and manipulation of cultural practicesto enhance indigenous control of many soil-borne pathogens. Biological control of theMexican bean beetle through annual releasesof a parasite from Asia appears promising.

In some areas of the Southeast, growershave quickly learned the benefits of naturalinsect enemies, and received maximum bene-fit from them by: 1) not applying insecticidesuntil economic thresholds are reached, 2)

using insecticides that are least destructiveto the natural enemies, and 3) using insecti-cides at minimum effect rates for targetpests.


Weed control recommendations are basedon several factors such as soil type, percent-age of soil organic matter, available meth-od(s) of application, growth stage of crop,growth stage of weeds, costs of control meth-ods, climatic and stress conditions, labelingrestrictions, and specific weeds involved.Threshold levels have not been used becausethey are largely unavailable.

Most States in the region currently recom-mend prototype management programs for in-sect pests based primarily on: 1) scouting todetermine economic damage thresholds thatusually include an assessment of defoliationlevel, plant growth stage, and numbers of in-sects per unit area, and 2) using minimum ef-fective rates of insecticides that have theleast effect on natural enemies for control oftarget pests that exceed these economicthresholds. Some States combine the abovewith cultural controls for certain pests. En-thusiasm has been the characteristic re-sponse of growers who use these programs.Not only have such programs been adopted inareas of the southern United States but re-cent studies in Brazil have demonstrated theeffectiveness and adaptability of these sys-tems in areas where pest complexes and con-ditions differ.

The need for nematode control is most ef-fectively determined by intensive sampling inthe fall after maturation and harvest of thesoybean crop. Most States provide servicesfor annual soil sample analyses on which rec-ommendations are based.

Foliar diseases of soybean are generallycontrolled with two applications of a fungi-cide. A system developed for predicting theprobable occurrence of disease infection andthe necessity of fungicidal applications isestimated to reduce the number of applica-


tions by about 30 percent from an across-the-board recommendation.

Some Southeastern States have prototypesoybean pest management scouting programswhereby fields are checked at weekly inter-vals for insects, diseases, and weeds. Cur-rently, no State presents data from a pest-monitoring system in timely regional summa-ries or forecasts outbreaks. Although modelshave been used in research programs, theyare not used currently for control strategydecisions in the field. Pest management sys-tems are by no means universally employedby growers, Many times weed control chemi-cals are applied too late for greatest effec-tiveness, and preplant or aerially appliedpostemerge treatments are used when post-emerge directed sprays would be more ef-fective. Too often insecticides that are de-structive to natural enemies are appliedwhen no insecticide is necessary or when aless-destructive one would do a better job.Many growers treat all of their fields with anematicide when only a few fields or portionsof fields actually require treatment. Pre-scribed sampling for nematodes and insectsfrequently is not done because of limitationsof the data obtained, thus “insurance” treat-ments are used. Too many fungicidal applica-tions are made routinely even when condi-tions are dry and foliar diseases are not aproblem.

Present Problems and Concerns inCrop Protection on Soybeans

Monoculture. —Producers are convertingto regional monoculture without an ade-quate number of acres of crops with which torotate. This is done mainly for economic rea-

sons. After several years, fields planted tosingle crops may decline in productivity.Moreover, monoculture may increase the riskof some disease or nematode problems. Rota-tion is necessary for control of a number ofweeds.

Exotic pests. —It is necessary to preventthe introduction of pests such as soybean rustfrom Puerto Rico and other areas, and thesoybean pod-borer from the Orient.

Resistance of pesticides.—There are nowserious levels of soybean looper resistance tomethomyl and there is concern that diseaseorganisms also will rapidly develop resist-ance to benomyl as its use increases, Culti-vars must be developed to resist these pestsso that e f fec t ive contro l tac t i cs can beavailable.

Resistance to resistant cultivars.—Certainraces of the soybean cyst nematode causeserious losses on previously resistant vari-eties. Resistance-breeding biotypes are alsoencountered in the root-knot nematode.

Slowdown in development of pesticides.—This was identified as a serious problem forall pest classes, but particularly for nema-todes (loss of DBCP) and plant diseases (ben-omyl on RPAR list) that have developed pesti-cide resistances.

Knowledge gaps. —There is need for in-creased disciplinary and truly interdiscipli-nary studies that are now lacking because ofinsufficient funding and newness of identifiedneeds. Where information on current technol-ogy is available, staff to provide instructionon implementation is not adequate.

For a detailed report of crop protection onsoybean in the Southeast, see volume II.

The apple, a fruit native to Eurasia, was in-troduced to North America in early colonialtimes. Until the latter part of the 19th cen-tury, commercial apple production was scat-tered throughout the northern half of the

country, but since then has been concen-trated in restricted favorable areas of thehumid Eastern and Midwestern States and inirrigated areas of the arid West. It also oc-curs in the wild throughout much of the coun-

Ch. 11—Present Sfatus of Crop Protection . 37

try where it is an important food source forwildlife. Apple production in the UnitedStates usually exceeds 150 million bushelsyearly, with an on-farm value of about $500million. Apple agroecosystems and their pestcomplexes vary greatly from east to west.

Pests of Apple

Apple orchards harbor a variety of nativeand introduced pests such as arthropods,disease pathogens, nematodes, weeds, andvertebrates. In the humid East and Midwest,the number of economically important insectand mite species is greater than in the aridwestern portion of the United States, but theintensity of attack may be equally severe inall areas. About 20 insects and a similarnumber of diseases are potentially limitingfactors nationally and require control meas-ures on an annual basis. Plant-parasitic nem-a todes reduce productivity as root pathogens,predisposition agents, and virus vectors.When weed species are added, the number ofpests that occur is increased by at least oneorder of magnitude. Vertebrates are seriouspests of orchards in many sections.

If left unmanaged or uncontrolled, appleswill sustain 80- to 100-percent damage frompests annually. A single blemish on the fruitcaused by pests can either render it unmar-ketable or greatly reduced in value. Thus,pest control is a major production operationof apple growers,

Several control strategies are employedagainst these pests including biological, host-plant resistance, cultural , chemical , andothers to ensure that damage at harvest isless than l-percent infested or infected fruit.This level of pest-free commodity is necessaryfor the dessert and cosmetic appeal of thefresh fruit. Freedom from internal insect fruitfeeders is required for processed fruits,

The major pests of apple and principal con-trol tactics are shown in table 5.


On a per-acre basis apples receive thehighest amounts of pesticides, seasonally, of

any major U.S. crop. Of the 12 million lbs ofpesticides used in 1974 on apples, approxi-mately 7 million were fungicides, 5 millionwere insecticides, and 100,000 were her-bicides.

Insect pests of apple are controlled primar-ily by chemical means, although improvedmonitoring methods such as pheromone trapsallow pest control personnel to appraise ac-curately the need to spray and thus minimizethe use of insecticides, Models, when coupledwith monitored events, improve the schedul-ing of insecticide use even more, whichresults in maximum insecticide effectiveness.

Nematodes are usually controlled chemi-cally during preplant periods. Other tech-niques are useful after planting, but in casesof extreme nematode attack, postplant ne-maticides may be applied,

Diseases of apple are controlled primarilyby fungicides and by host-plant resistantvarieties. Apple scab, the most serious dis-ease in humid areas east of the Mississippi, iscontrolled only by fungicide sprays. However,resistance to chemicals such as benomyi anddodine have greatly reduced the availabilityof chemicals for disease control. These com-pounds are applied on the basis of detailedmonitoring of weather conditions favorablefor disease development (e.g., wetting peri-ods, temperature, ascospore levels). Modelsare available that integrate these factors andprovide more detailed forecasts of scab infec-tion periods by which growers can more pre-cisely determine the need for spraying.Recently, in-field microprocessors have beendeveloped that accomplish these same tasks.

Fireblight, a serious disease, can be read-ily monitored in orchards of the WesternUnited States using a selective cultural mediatechnique to determine the need to apply con-trol sprays, (Application of this method alonein California pear orchards is estimated tosave between $960,000 to $1,600,000 perseason in spray costs. )

Mildew, rust, and virus diseases of appleand other deciduous tree fruits are primarilymanaged by chemicals and host-plant resist-


Major pests I para blal ] ancel tlon hosts rotation cluslon stock mgmt

WeedsQuack grass . . IPoison ivy . . NField bindweed ICommon dandelion IRedroot pigweed ILambsquarters N,lLarge crabgrass I

ArthropodsCodling moth IApple maggot NPlum curcuho ... NLeaf rollers NSan Jose scale IAphids NMites IN

DiseasesScab IRusts NFire blight NPowdery mildew IV i r u s e s N,l

NematodesR o o t - l e s i o n ?Root-knot ., 7Dagger ~R i n g ?N e e d l e 9

VertebratesR o d e n t s NBirds* NDeer* N

‘Repellents = 3Key 1 = little or no use

2 = some use3 = major use

1111111

1112233

11111

11111

111

1111111

2112111

11111

11111

111

1111111

1111121

22221

11111

111

1111111

1111111

11211

32322

311

1111111

1112111

12211

12222

111

1111111

1111111

11111

22222

111

ance. Monitoring methods for predicting thepotentials of these diseases are less well-developed than for apple scab.

Weeds in orchards are less intensively con-trolled than weeds in most annual crops, butin young orchards herb ic ides are usedwidely,

Soil and foliar applications of chemicalsare used under conditions of intensive rodentpopulations, and chemical repellents areused to reduce damage by birds; no satisfac-tory methods are available for deer control.

1111111

1111111

11111

11111

223—

1111111

1111111

11113

22222

111

1111111

1111112

11111

22222

111

mgmt chanlcal SoIl Seed Fohar

1111111

1111122

21211

11111

111

2222333

1111111

11111

11111

311—

3123333

1111111

11111

32322

311

1111111

1111111

11111

11111

111

3333333

3332333

33331

22222

111

Other

Predlc -Monitor- Ilve

Ing

1111111

2222122

22211

22222

211

1111111

2112222

31211

21111

111


Mowing is the major cultural method ofpest control in orchards and is used widely tomanage weeds in orchards maintained with asod ground cover. Tillage controls weeds inorchards where sod is not the ground cover.

Plant Resistance

Resistant plants control pests most effec-tively when combined with chemical pesti-cides, as in the control of mildew and rustdiseases. Plant resistance controls nema-todes after trees are planted, but pests must


be first chemically controlled during preplantperiods to reduce their populations. Some dis-ease-resistant variet ies are available forplanting in new orchards.

Biological Control

Indirect secondary pests such as mites andaphids can be controlled primarily by biolog-ical means if predators or parasites have notbeen killed by unselective chemicals appliedagainst other pests. For these pests, manage-ment models are available for estimatingbiological control effectiveness; these toolsenable pest managers to determine the needto readjust predator or parasite pest ratiosbased on field population counts. Possibilitiesfor biological control of nematodes may beconsiderable but, generally, they have notbeen explored for fruit crops.


Other control tactics include sanitation,fertility management, sterile insects, phero-mone confusion, monitoring, and physicalbarriers. Sanitation measures for arthropodpest control most often involve destruction ofinfested fruit that harbors species such asthe codling moth and apple maggot. Sanita-tion also helps to control nematodes and toreduce rodent populations; fertility manage-ment can affect aphid, leaf-roller, and mitepopulation levels. Physical barriers such asfences and netting are possible but imprac-tical exclusion methods for deer and birds.


Integrated pest control has long been asso-ciated with apple culture. There is evidencethat it had some of its earliest significantbeginnings on this crop in North America in-sofar as implementation is concerned. Thefirst widespread and extensive program wasin the 1940’s-50’s in Nova Scotia. Research in1PM was greatly intensified during the1960’s, especially for mites and apple scab. Acomparison between current practices (table5) and those discussed below indicates the

degree to which integrated pest control hasbeen developed and used on apple.

During the 1970’s efforts have expanded toprovide improved monitoring tools and tech-niques for primary arthropod pests of or-chards that feed directly in the fruit. In com-mercial practice the tolerance for such pestsis essentially zero. Recent advances in moni-toring technology with baited traps and care-ful orchard inspections have enabled grow-ers to spray against such pests only asneeded. Thorough inspections must be madethroughout orchards on individual farms bywell-trained pest management personnel toavoid the possibil i ty of infestations andserious economic losses.

Programs of integrated mite control in thePacific Northwest partly resulted from resist-ance development to pesticides among spidermites and a similar resistance development inthe predators that attack these pests. Thosesuccessful programs of integrated mite con-trol stimulated interest countrywide, and dur-ing the period 1965-75 similar programs wereresearched and implemented in virtuallyevery major fruit-growing State in the UnitedStates. Computer models for several of themite systems have been developed and whencoupled with monitoring data, they providethe basis for more effective decisionmakingrelative to chemical pest control. Implementa-tion of these programs reduced the need forchemical control of mites by 50 to 90 percentwhich translates to a savings of $10 to $ 3 0per acre where implementation has beenmost successful.

Beyond mite systems, 1PM programs forseveral other insect pests such as aphids andleafhoppers are in the initial stages of devel-opment. New nonchemical methods of insectcontrol such as the sterile male technique forthe codling moth and pheromone control viathe confusion method for the codling moth,redbanded leaf roller, Oriental fruit moth,and grape berry moth are technologicallyfeasible and show promise for the near fu-ture. A most recent advance is an early warn-ing forecasting system for predicting apple


pest phenology developed for use on a na-tional scale as a result of the National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF)/EPA-sponsored Huf-faker Project. To date, reasonably precisegrowth models for the apple tree and timingmodels for ascospore maturity of the applescab disease and some more than 10 insectpests of apple are available. Further re-search and development of this program overthe next 10 to 15 years will greatly improvetiming control procedures for apple pests andcertainly facilitate a more judicious use ofpesticides.

In parallel with work on 1PM systems formites, techniques for apple scab control havebeen developed to show that fungicides maybe precisely timed relative to specific rainperiods. With impetus from research sup-ported by the NSF/EPA-sponsored HuffakerProject in the mid-1970’s, additional refine-ments in disease management have been de-veloped. Most significant advances have beenin the measurement, monitoring, and predic-tion of inoculum of the scab fungus. Work onthe design and construction of instruments tomonitor weather at the orchard level hasbeen significant. The computerization ofseveral of these technologies has been ac-complished, especially to forecast disease in-fections. Most of these developments havebeen implemented into 1PM programs in cer-tain States. Although, to date, usually onlyrelatively small reductions in fungicide usehave been realized, fungicides are now muchmore effectively used,

Resistant varieties that control disease andinsects have not yet significantly impacted1PM for apples and other tree fruits. Most ofthe current apple varieties are highly suscep-tible to one or more diseases. Several newvarieties are available that are highly resist-ant to apple scab and some other diseases,but none of these have been widely planted,Currently, an effort in breeding for resist-ance to several diseases and insects is under-way. The possibility of utilizing tissue culture

to speed up this slow process in apples isbeing examined.

1PM programs for nematodes and weedpests on apples are less developed than arethose for insects and diseases primarilybecause these pests have not been consideredmajor problems. In recent years, however,the effect of nematicides in improving standand vigor of replanted apple orchards hasbeen dramatically proven. It thus appearsthat the use of nematicides as preplant and,to some extent, postplant treatments for ap-ples will become a standard practice andmay result in a significant increase in chem-ical use for this purpose. To date, resistanceto nematicides is minimal, and their ecolog-ical impacts are little understood. Becausenematodes are primarily soil-borne, the op-portunities for 1PM programs for these para-sites are large. However, at present they arealmost totally undeveloped. The manipulationof chemicals, weeds, cover crops, and root-stock cultivars offers a considerable promisefor economic control of these pests withoutundesirable environmental effects.

In summary, proven 1PM technologiesavailable for disease control in tree fruits areutilized to a high level. Thus, fungicide use isas efficient as possible within the currentscenario of agronomic practice, pesticideavailability, spray technology, and extensionof information. Further improvement dependson the development and implementation ofnew 1PM technology. Although there are nowseveral working prototype 1PM systems, espe-cial ly for insect and disease pests, thatsignificantly reduce pest resistance andpesticide usage, we are still only workingwith a small portion of the entire pest com-plex attacking apple. Implementation of theseprototypes has proceeded in a rather piece-meal fashion and has been limited by manyinstitutional and production-related con-straints. Probably the greatest success in im-plementation to date has come from improvedmonitoring of apple pests and more effectiveuse of pesticides.

Ch. 11—Present Status of Crop Protect/on ● 41

Present ProbIems and Concerns inCrop Protection on Apple

Apple and other deciduous tree-fruit plant-ings present a crop protection situation quitedifferent from most other agricultural crops.Planting an orchard is a long-term investmentfor 20 to 50 or more years. Fruit growingmeans monoculture for the life of the or-chard. Orchards offer opportunities for en-couraging biological control not possible onannual crops, but the system precludes thepossibilities of using cultural controls such ascrop destruction and makes the developmentof resistant cultivars an extremely lengthyprocedure, Interestingly, however, many ofthe problems and concerns in crop protectionare similar to those on other crops.

The evolution of resistant biotypes is a ma-jor concern for insect, mite, and disease orga-nisms of apple, With apple, insect resistancewas first documented in 1908 when the SanJose scale was found resistant to HCN. Dur-ing the 1930’s there was widespread resist-ance in the codling moth for lead arsenate, aninsecticide then in general use against this in-sect. Growers in several areas were unableto prevent devastating losses. This same in-sect was able to evolve resistant strains toDDT after less than 10 years of exposure, andthe red-banded leaf rollers developed resist-ance to TDE in about the same length of time.As a result, DDT and TDE were little usedbeyond 1960, long before the use of DDT wasbanned in the United States. Resistance to or-ganophosphates and most miticides has de-veloped generally among mites. Leafhoppersand, in some areas, leaf miners are resistantto all insecticides registered on apples exceptthe carbamates. It is interesting to note thatthe long-term use of the organophosphate in-secticides has resulted in the evolution of re-sistance among beneficial species of naturalenemies of aphids, mites, and leafhoppers. Infact, such resistant natural enemies are the

basis for the successful integrated mite andaphid control programs used in severalStates.

With fungicides the history of resistancehas been variable. Sulfur fungicides havebeen used on apples for three quarters of acentury wi thout ev idence o f res i s tanceamong disease pathogens. Dithiocarbamatesand captan have been used for three to fourdecades without resistance problems. Yetdodine- and benomyl-resistant strains of scabhave been documented after relatively shortperiods of use.

To date the only success in coping withresistance problems has been to use chem-icals with different modes of activity. Thisprocess may not be a practical long-term solu-tion, and much greater research is needed tofind more suitable solutions.

The slowdown in new pesticide develop-ment is of great concern because of the veryrapid evolution of resistance to existing insec-ticides, miticides, nematicides, and fungi-cides and the potential loss of useful mate-rials now on the RPAR list. The very existenceof the apple industry rests on the availabilityof effective pesticides.

The lack of alternatives to chemical pesti-cides for control of several major diseasesand insects is a major concern. A great needexists for development of practical alterna-tive tactics and strategies.

Lack of information is the greatest overallconstraint to the maintenance of present pestcontrol capability. Progress in 1PM on applehas been possible in recent years with Fed-eral and State support, but unless the knowl-edge gap in basic information is reduced, fur-ther progress will be severely limited.

For a detailed report of crop protection onapple in the North, see volume II.


POTATO IN THE NORTHEAST

Potato is a row crop that had its origin inSouth America where it was a staple crop ofthe Incas and many other people. It has sincespread to most parts of the world and is nowthe sixth most important source of humanfood. This report is limited to Irish potato pro-duction in 10 Northeastern States (Maine,New Hamphshire, Vermont, Connecticut,Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York,Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware).The most concentrated production is inMaine where approximately 110,000 acresare planted to potatoes. The total value of theNortheast crop fluctuates considerably; forexample, in 1974 the value was $215.5 millionand in 1975 it was $305 million. Average an-nual production for the period 1973-76 was55 million cwt (hundredweight).

Pota to i s propagated vegeta t ive ly astubers, a method that creates special prob-lems regarding the transmission of diseases.Therefore, more vigorous control proceduresare practiced to produce pest-free tubers forseed than for food uses. A large number ofpests attack potato including the late-blightfungus, which caused the disastrous potatofamine in Ireland during the 1840’s, and theColorado potato beetle, which caused greatlosses as it spread into the eastern half of theNorth American Continent during the 1860’sand 1870’s and later throughout Europe.These and other pests continue to affectpotato production and practices.

Pests of Potato in the Northeast

The major pests of potato include nema-todes, disease pathogens, weeds, and insects.Vertebrates are not a problem. The importantpests found in the Northeast include 12 weedspecies, 5 insects, 9 pathogens, and 2 nema-todes. Some pests such as weeds are a con-stant problem. Others, such as insects andplant pathogens, have a sporadic but explosive destructive potential; in some seasonsthey may cause minor losses while in othersthey may cause complete crop failures. It isbelieved that potatoes could not be grown

commercially in the Northeas t wi thoutpesticides.

Annual broadleaf weeds and grasses andperennial weeds are problems in potato pro-duction. The broadleaf annuals grow rapidlywhen soil temperatures are relatively low,while the annual grasses grow best later inthe season when soil temperatures rise. Theperennial weeds reproduce primarily by un-derground roots and, once established, aredifficult to control. These weeds can causeconsiderable yield and quality reductions asthey not only compete with potatoes fornutrients and water but can also penetratethe potato tuber. A recent estimate of eco-nomic losses due to weeds in four of theNortheastern States (Maine, New York, Penn-sylvania, New Jersey) totaled $6.6 million,which includes costs of herbicides as well asyield and quality losses.

Insect pests, while not as predictable asweeds in their patterns of destruction, con-sistently cause crop losses. Of the more than100 insects known to damage potatoes in theUnited States, only 5 are serious pests in theNortheast; these are primarily aphids andbeetles. Many produce several generationsduring a growing season and can reach eco-nomically important proportions very rapidly.

Nematode problems in Northeast potatoesusually are associated with crops grown inmonoculture. Where potatoes are grown insandy soils, root damage and yield reductioncan be considerable; losses as high as 25 per-cent have been reported. Although a programof integrated control can significantly reducepopulation densities of the golden nematode,the cost of this program is high.

Disease pathogens of potatoes are primari-ly fungal, viral, and bacterial and infect foli-age and tubers. Some can result in disastrousfield losses if rigid control measures are notfollowed; others cause major losses in storageand transit. Insects and weeds spread sever-al diseases and often infect potatoes in com-bination.


The major pests of Northeast potatoes andprincipal control tactics are shown in table 6.

.


Pesticides are widely used on potatoesthroughout the United States but especially inthe Northeastern areas. In 1971, fungicides,herbicides, and insecticides were applied toalmost all potato acreage in the Northeast.Most growers follow a treatment schedule ofregular intervals throughout most of thegrowing season to control diseases. Systemicinsecticides may be applied to the soil atplanting to control early insect pests with the

leas t poss ib le d i s turbance to benef i c ia lspecies. Later, insecticides are applied to thefoliage as required to control aphids, beetles,and leafhoppers. Most potato growers applyan herbicide before the crop emerges. Allgrowers use some mechanical tillage. In addi-tion, potato fields are sprayed just prior toharvest with a vine killer to hasten ripeningand to make harvesting more efficient. Thesematerials also kill any weeds that may bepresent. In areas where the golden nematodeis present, some soil treatments are madewith nematicides but the number of acrestreated is very small.

Table 6.—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Potatoes in the Northeast

Native (N) Blologlcal

Introduced (1) Pred & Mlcro-Malor pests 1 para

WeedsNutsedge NSmartweed NRagweed NFa l l pan l cum NQ u a c k g r a s s IRedroot plgweed ILambsquarters IM u s t a r d IBarnyard grass IFoxtail–yellow IFoxtail–green ILarge crabgrass I

ArthropodsGreen peach aphid I 1Colorado potato beetle N 1Leafhopper N 1Flea beetle N 1Potato aphid N 1

DiseasesP tnfestans I 1A s o l a n i “? 1Pvx, Pvy 1 1Leaf roll 1 1B a c t e r i a l r o t s N 1F u s o r l u m N 1Vertlcllllum N 1Rhlzoctonla N 1Streptomyces N 1

NematodesG rostochlensls 1 1P penetrans N 1

Dial

11111

111111111

11

ance 1 - .flon

222222222222

11111

211111212

21

222222222222

21111

323333332

31

hosts rotation harvest) seed mgmt mgm[ TNage.— —-

11111

111211111

11

222222222222

11111

121122221

21

333333333333

2 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 t1 1 1 11 1 1 1

1 1 1 11 1 1 22(2) 3 1 12 (2) 3 1 13 3 2 12 3 2 11 3 2 12 1 1 11 1 1 3

l(l) 3 1 1l(l) 1 1 1

Chemical-—

Soil

333333333333

11111

112211111

32

Seed Follar. —

222222222222

2 32 32 32 32 3

1 31 31 31 31 12 12 12 11 1

1 11 1

Other ‘-

Predlc -Monitor- l ive

lng models

1 11 11 11 11 1

1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1

2 11 1

Key 1 = Illtle or no use2 = some use3 = majo( use



Cultural practices are used intensively tocontrol potato diseases. One of the most im-portant practices is to plant pathogen-freeseed tubers that are produced by specializedgrowers using strict sanitation and rigorousdisease controls. Diseases not controlled bythis practice can cause yield losses of 50 to 75percent. Destruction of infected plants andcull potatoes reduces the chance of blight andaids in the control of several other diseases.One of the most widely applied cultural dis-ease controls is the maintenance of soils atlow pH levels primarily to prevent potatoscab. Rotation and monoculture control somedisease, but these practices tend to increaseother problems. Mechanical tillage in combi-nation with herbicides is used universally forweed control.

In a pilot program in Maine, attempts havebeen made to control the green peach aphidby eliminating its overwintering host (CanadaPlum) and by preventing its introduction onbedding plants, vegetables, or ornamentaltransplants,

Plant Resistance

At present, highly effective late-blight-resistant potatoes are not available for com-mercial use. Cultivars with single gene resist-ance to late blight were not successful be-cause of the ability of the blight pathogen toovercome such plant resistance, There is aserious need for cultivars resistant to severaldiseases. Golden-nematode-resistant culti-vars are used in infested soils,

Potato cultivars do vary in their compet-itiveness with weeds, but growers choose va-rieties based on other qualities. No potatoeswith resistance to insects are available com-mercially in the Northeast. However, thereare varieties known to have insect resistance,and research is underway to incorporatethem into commercial lines.

Biological Control

Currently, no strategies used on potatoesinvolve the conscious manipulation of biologi-

cal control agents for insect, pathogen, nema-tode, or weed pests. However, a number ofnaturally occurring parasites and predatorsdo regulate insect pest populations. Ento-mophthora fungi cause spectacular reduc-tions in aphid populations, but, unfortunately,fungicides applied to control late blight andother diseases also destroy populations of theEntomophthora. A lady beetle predator ofaphids has been established recently in theNortheast in a few locations but its useful-ness is not yet determined.

Organic Farming

Organic farming practices for pest controlare not adequate for commercial potato pro-duction.

Other Control Practices

Eradication and quarantine efforts againstthe golden nematode have only helped todelay the spread of this pest. Other controltactics such as the use of pheromones, repel-lents, allelopathy, etc., have not been devel-oped for management of potato pests.


Several components of the 1PM approachare now used in potato production. However,attempts to develop and implement them havebeen piecemeal and uncoordinated. Late-blight forecasting schemes based on theweather (e. g., “Blightcast”) have been devel-oped and make possible much more efficientuse of fungicides against this disease. Inpractice, however, it is not popular amonggrowers because savings are small and avail-able fungicides are relatively cheap. Also, ef-fective use of the forecast requires timelytreatments when infections occur. ManyNortheast potato farmers are not adequatelyequipped to treat their entire planting withinthe required time. Others depend on aerialapplication by commercial operators whomust schedule their operations, Thus potatogrowers must continue to use protectivesprays on a calendar schedule.


Additional techniques help manage severalother diseases. These techniques include:early harvest to avoid virus infection of eitherseed or table stock potatoes: application ofoils to prevent transmission of certain vi-ruses; rotation, which is practiced by a largeproportion of potato producers to preventdramatic increases in soil-borne pathogenpopulations; and isolation of certified seed-potato production from other types of potatoproduction, which permits production ofhigher quality seed.

Currently, weed control blends mechanicaland chemical means and functions fairlywell. It is not formally labeled as a pest man-agement program. A more specialized 1PMprogram for weeds cannot be developed untila wider range of cultivars that are competi-tive with weeds and a group of postemer-gence selective herbicides become available.Neither of these is likely to become a realityin the near future,

While insect control on potatoes is basedlargely on the use of insecticides, some ef-forts are made to use selective insecticides orbroad-spectrum materials in such a mannerthat they cause the least possible destructionof beneficial. Various techniques are beingdeveloped to predict or identify when aphidsmight become a problem. In Maine, a north-south trap line more than 250 miles long isused to determine when aphids begin tomigrate into the area. Timing insecticide ap-plications or making a decision for earlyharvesting of the crop can be based on suchinformation.

Present Problems and Concerns inCrop Protection on Potatoes

Several concerns about the present andnear future of crop protection on potatoes

seem to center around pesticides becausethese are the primary tools used for control ofpotato pests. The basic problem, however,seems to rest on a lack of information onpests, the crop, the environment, and their in-teractions. Specific problems and concernsare:

Development of resistance to pesticideshas created a difficult problem in some areas,particularly on Long Island. The Coloradopotato beetle has developed resistance to allexcept the newest insecticides. Aphids havealso developed resistance to some insec-ticides, but the situation is not yet critical.

The slowing rate of introduction of newpesticides to replace those lost to resistanceand regulation is a concern. Also there is aneed for new herbicides which can be usedpostemergence on potatoes.

Lack of effective alternative managementto offset problems with pesticides, especiallyinsecticides, suggests there may be seriouspest-caused losses in future years.

Lack of support and manpower to developpest management tactics and strategies iscritical. Some pest-resistant germ plasm isknown, but incorporating resistance into use-ful commercial cultivars requires much effortand time. With present resources, the proce-dure will be lengthy. There is also a need fornew resistant germ plasm for use in breeding,Other areas such as determining economicthresholds, developing more comprehensivepredictive models, economic analysis of pestcontrol methods, practical demonstrations ofnew technologies, etc., are also needed.

For a detailed report of crop protection onpotatoes in the Northeast, see volume II.

California is by far the most importantvegetable-producing State, producing abouthalf of the total national supply of fresh-market and processing vegetables and ac-

counting for virtually all of the commercialsupply of some vegetables and vegetableseed. Vegetables are produced in Californiain several districts in the coastal and interior

46 ● Pest Management strategies

valleys and usually are produced as part ofyear-round cropping systems. The coastalplains and valleys have a cool oceanic climatesuited to the year-round production of vege-table crops but particularly the summer pro-duction of cool-season crops. Here, vege-tables follow vegetables on a double- ortriple-crop annual cycle, with no attempt atrotation. The interior desert valleys aresuited to winter and spring production butare too hot for summer and fall vegetables. Inthese areas most vegetables are grown in ro-tation with one another and with a variety offield crops including small grains, alfalfa,and sugar beets. Rotations serve a variety ofpurposes, often to utilize an off season notsuited to the main crop and to reduce buildupof insects and diseases.

Vegetable production usually occupieshigh-quality land that is precisely leveled andserved by advanced irrigation systems andother backup systems including nearby pack-ing and shipment facilities.

This assessment of vegetable pest manage-ment in California reviews practices in let-tuce, melons, potatoes, strawberries, toma-toes, and cole crops. These crops account forabout three-fourths of the 860,000 acres and$1.7 billion farm value of California v ege -tables and provide a representative sample ofcrop protection problems and practices in ir-rigated vegetable production.

Pests of California Vegetables

Pests that attack vegetables include dis-ease pathogens (viruses, bacteria, fungi),nematodes, insects, mites, slugs, birds, ro-dents, and weeds. The principal crop lossesare due to weeds, disease pathogens, and in-sects.

Vegetables are intensive crops, and allaspects of their production including protec-tion from pests are pursued intensively anduncompromisingly. Growers spend upwardsof $100 per acre per season for pest protec-tion in the best situations, but many spend asmuch as $1,000 per acre in the case of straw-berries, where cost of fumigants, insecti-

cides, and other pesticides alone may exceed$600 per acre.

The genera l l eve l o f c rop protec t ionachieved in practice is excellent. Aggregatelosses from insects, diseases, and other pestsincluding weed competition are probably nomore than 20 percent of the value of the as-sessment crops and rarely more than 10 per-cent to any one of the main categories ofpests. An important benefit has been to sta-bilize production and reduce the large pricegyrations that have accompanied insect anddisease epidemics which have caused muchdistress to both producer and consumer.

Weeds rarely attack the crop directly butreduce production by competing with thecrop for water, sunlight, and plant nutrients.Some weeds carry disease organisms and in-sects that attack the crop. Others are seedplants that are parasitic on crops. Vegetablecrops generally compete poorly with weedsand require a high level of weed control foreconomical vegetable production. It is ordi-narily not feasible to grow vegetables in fieldsheavily infested with perennial weeds unlessmajor reclamation measures are undertakenbeforehand.

Insects and other arthropods that affectvegetables often are present in the field at thetime of planting. Some of the insects attack allcommon vegetables as well as other cropsand weeds. In addition to feeding, insects con-taminate crops with fecal material, some-times inject toxins into plants, and spreadplant diseases. Some insects are beneficiale i ther as enemies o f o ther pes t s or aspollinators.

Usually plant diseases occur sporadicallybut losses may be severe locally. For the mostpart the disease organisms are specific foreach host and closely related weed species,but a few, such as soft-rot bacteria and root-knot nematodes, can attack several crops andmany noncrop plants.

Because of the dry summers California veg-etables are largely free of the many plantdiseases that propagate on moist foliage.


Thus, many wet-weather diseases that re-quire chemical control in the East and Mid-west do not occur in California or appear onlybriefly during spring and fall. In contrast, thesoil-borne fungi causing vascular wilts androot rots are favored by the year-round crop-ping as are viruses harbored by weeds andviruses spread by insects that withstand themild winters.

Thus, California conditions, while provid-ing relief from foliar diseases, favor insect-borne viruses and soil-borne fungi, diseasepathogens that are relatively unresponsive tochemical controls. This has caused researchefforts to be directed toward intensive breed-ing for resistance and systematic attention toa broad range of cultural and biologicaltechniques.

The current strategy in vegetable produc-tion is for the farmer to control every produc-tion variable that can be profitably con-trolled. Economics dictate the ecologicalstrategy in pest management as in other pro-duction practices. Tables 7 through 12 showthe control tactics currently used against ma-jor pests of California vegetables.


Insect control in California vegetables isheavily dependent on insecticides. Althoughcrop rotation, field sanitation, quarantine,and a variety of cultural and managerialmethods are employed, they do not control in-sects and mites adequately. Generally, theshort crop cycle, the high value of the crop,and the high market standards for freedomfrom insect parts, blemishes, and filth placegreat pressure on the grower to use insecti-cides intensively. Unlike orchards and vine-yards, little time is available to establishnatural balances that could reduce the needfor pesticides. Insecticide treatments areoften, if not typically, by routine schedule orrule of thumb rather than on the basis of as-sessment of pest populations.

Herbicides, used in combination with culti-vation and hand weeding, adequately controlthe weeds of most crops. Herbicides are inex-pensive and are effective against most weeds;however, some weeds, particularly thoseclosely related to the crop, are resistant toavailable herbicides and must be removed ini-tially by hand at high cost. Herbicides are

Table 7 .—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Lettuce in California

IB[ologfcal

1 I ‘--

— .— —

~ 1 - -

—Native (N) –- - Host

Culfural Chem!cal1 - - -

O t h e r—

WeedsAll

ArthropodsLoopers and other wormsAph[dsLeaf miners

DiseasesBlg veinDowny mildewSclerotlnla

NematodesRoot knot and stubby root

VertebratesA l l

Key 1 = hftle or no use2 = some use3 = malor use

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1

1 1 2 11 1 1 11 1 1 1

1 1 3 2

2 1 1 1

hosts rotation—

1 2

1 11 11 1

1 31 11 2

2 2

1 1

1

211

222

2

1

2 1 1

1 1 11 1 11 1 1

1 1 11 1 11 3 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

3 3

1 11 11 1

1 21 12 1

1 3

1 1

Pred!cMonitor- twe

Seed Fol~ar 1 !ng

1 1

1 31 31 3

1 11 21 2

1 1

1 1

2

111

211

2

1

models

1

111

1i1

1

1— .


Table 8.—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Melons in California

HostC u l t u r a ; – –

—plant Ehml-

‘ - - - - - : : ’ ” ‘ [ ’i ~ k ~ ’ ’ - - k : : i iresist - Samla- nahng Crop Plantlng Clean Water Fertl lttyancel t,on hosts rotahon date seed mgmt mgmt Tlllagel SoIl Seed - - 1 . Y ! L ! Y 2 Z KFollar.- — — .

1 1 1 2 1

1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 1

1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1— — .

Key I = Itttle or no use2 = some use3 = malor use

Table 9.—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Potatoes in California

Native (N) I Biological

IIntroduced (1) Pred & Mlcro-Ma]or pests para blat

WeedsAll 1 1

ArthropodsTuber moth 1 1Peach aphid 1 1L e a f h o p p e r 1 1

DiseasesRing rot 1 1S c a b 1 1Late blight. 1 1Viruses 1 1

NematodesR o o t k n o t 1 1

VertebratesAll 2 1

Hostplant

“1 “-

Ehml -reslst Sanda natlngance tlon hosts

1 1 1

1 3 21 1 11 1 1

1 3 11 2 12 1 12 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

—Cultural

Crop Plantlng Cleanrolallon date seed

2 1 1

1 2 11 1 11 1 1

1 1 33 1 21 2 11 1 3

2 1 1

1 1 1

‘Chemical Other

Predlc -Water Fertllrty Monitor- tlvemgml mgmt Til lage SoIl Seed Follar Ing models—

1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1

1 1 3 1 1 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Key 1 = little or no use2 = some use3 = major use

Ch. 11—Present Status of Crop Protection 49

Table 10.—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major pests of Strawberries in California.

ChemlcdlI

OtherBlolog[calI Host

Cultural

plant Ellm[-resls[ Samta natlng Crop Planhng Clean Water Fertl l l tyance flon hosts rotahon date seed mgmt mgmf Tlllaqe

PredlcMonitor tlve

Soil Seed Follar Inq models‘red & Micro -para bial

Introduced ( I I

Major pests

WeedsAll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 1 1 1 3 1 1 12 1 1 1 3 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.

3 1 1 1 1

ArthropodsMitesAphfds

1 1 1-21 1 1

1 1 3 1 11 1 3 1 1

DiseasesVertlcilllum wiltVirusGray mold

1 1 11 1 11 1 1

1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 2 1 1

VertebratesAll 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Key 1 = little or no usP

? = some use3 = IT ,IIOC use

Table 11 .—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Tomatoes in California

Native I N I

Introduced I I i

Bloloqlcal

Pred & Micro

Cultural

Elm-Iatlnq CroD Plantlnq Clean Water Fertlllty

Chemical I Other

soil

Hostplant

reslsl Samtaance hon

PredtcMon!tor tlve

Fohar Inq modelsMajor pests ] para

WeedsAll 1

ArthropodsFruit worms 1Pln worms 1Mites 1Potato aphid 1

DiseasesVertlcllllum wilt 1Fusarlum wilt 1Black mold 1

NematodesRoot knot 1

VertebratesAll 2

Key 1 = hrlle or no use2 = some use3 = major ufe

blal

1

1111

111

1

1

hosts rolatlon dale

1 2 1

1 1 21 1 21 1 21 1 2

1 2 11 2 11 1 3

1 1 1

1 1 1

Seedseed mqmi mgmt

2 1 1

1 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 1

1 1 11 1 11 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

rlllage

1 1 3

1111

111

1

1

3 1 1 2 1

3 1 13 1 13 1 13 1 1

1 11 11 12 1

1111

1111

1 1 11 1 12 1 1

3 13 11 1

111

111

3 1 3 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

the principal controls of weeds of Califorinapotatoes at all stages of their growth and,thus, hand weeding is rarely necessary. Landused for strawberry production is fumigatedfor control of a wide variety of pests prior toplanting. The fumigant destroys most of theweed seeds in the strawberry crops, but sup-plemental hand weeding is still necessary,particularly if the crop is grown a second con-secutive year, The fumigant is broadly effec-

tive in control of nematodes, general plantdiseases, and soil-borne insects.


Disease prevention usually results from acombination of measures such as crop rota-tion, production of disease-free seed andvegetative propagation stock, destruction ofcrop residues, proper irrigation, use of seed


Table 12.—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Cole Crops in California

BlologlcalNahve (N) —

Introduced (1) Pred & Mlcro-Major pests para blal——WeedsAll . . . . . 1 1

AtihropodsWorms 1 1Cabbage aphids 1 1Maggots : : : 1 1

DiseasesClubroot 1 1

NematodesRoot knot. 1 1

VertebratesAll 2 1

Hostplant

resistance

Cultural ~ C l w m c a l

Ellml-SanNa- natlng Crop Planting Clean

hon hosts rotation date seed ‘ a ’ e r: : K Y Y l z U I I V lmgmt

1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Other

Predlc-Monitor- twe

Ing models

2 1

1 11 11 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

Key 1 = hllle or no use2 = some use3 = major use

protestants, timing of planting, preplanningsoil fumigation, and, particularly, the use ofresistant varieties. Despite all efforts, avail-able methods sometimes fail and substantialdisease losses occur. Nevertheless, protec-tion of vegetable crops from plant diseases iscurrently far more effective than at any timein the past.

Crop rotation, timing of planting or trans-planting, control of weed and other hosts,general sanitation, and other cultural proce-dures are important and well-recognizedmeans of controlling insects and mites in veg-etable production. These methods adequatelycontrol many potential pests, thus reducingthe need for insecticides.

Weed control is currently accomplishedabout half by cultural and managerial meth-ods and half by herbicides. Once crops arewell-established and weed-free as a result ofa combination of chemical, mechanical, andmanual methods they may be maintained forthe rest of the growing season essentiallyweed-free by chemicals at very low cost.

Plant Resistance

Resistant plant varieties combined withcultural and chemical control tactics, areemployed in disease prevention. Recently,much progress has been made in breeding va-rieties resistant to diseases that cause severe

losses. Breeding for resistance to insects hasreceived less attention, while resistance toweeds is largely a matter of breeding for cropvigor. Breeding for resistance to pests anddiseases as a primary means of pest controlhas never received the recognition and fund-ing that it deserves.

Biological Control

There is some release of natural enemies ofvegetable pests, but major biological controlprograms that could be manipulated by grow-ers are not available, nor are they likely tobecome available soon.

The national and international work forcein biological control has not been sufficient tomake a major impact on pest control prac-tices, and there is little evidence that the defi-ciency will be corrected.

Organic Farming

Organic farming is highly labor-intensiveand is most suited to hoe gardens and tosmall-market gardens for local consumption.However, there are no “organic” solutions tomany crop protection problems in plant cul-ture, and for this and other reasons the meth-od is not competitive nor sufficiently produc-tive in large-scale vegetable production inCalifornia.

Ch. 11—Present Status 0f Crop Protection ● 51


Pest management is greatly handicappedby the lack of sufficient knowledge of thebasic biology of agricultural pests. There isgreat need for thorough study of the lifecyclesand means of survival of agricultural pests.Such studies afford the only rational ap-proach to the discovery and development ofentirely new control procedures.


Insect, weed, and disease controls arebased on a complex balance of cultural andchemical methods. The use of resistant vari-eties is an additional method in disease con-trol and of particular importance in a preven-tive strategy. However, there is nothing in-herent in integrated systems that ensuresreduced pesticide use and an increase in theuse of alternative cultural and other methods.A close analysis of all existing factors in-dicates that the Dresent trend in Californiatoward a chemically intensive, highlytegrated system is likely to accelerate.

COTTON AND

in-

Present Problems and Concerns inCrop Protection on California

vegetables

Current practices provide more efficientcrop protection than has been available atany time in the past, yet the technology is stillinefficient, hazardous, expensive, and oftenoffensive to the consumer. The potential forimprovement lies in the direction of furtherresearch to find technology as free as possi-ble from the defects of present methods. Theneed is for intensified research leading tomore resistant varieties and improved chemi-cals, cultural methods, and biological con-trols.

There is concern that if the present reli-able pesticides were no longer available, lessefficient pesticides would be substitutedwhich would result in both increased costsand quantities used.

For a detailed report of crop protection on

During the past decade in Texas, cottonhas contributed approximately $800 millionin cash receipts annually; sorghum has fol-lowed with an average of approximately $700million. The two crops represent approx-imately 50 percent of the total cash receiptsfrom all crops and are produced on about 50percent of the total cropland acreage in theState.

Since 1880 Texas has produced 31 percentof the Nation’s cotton of which approximately63 percent is exported annually. Sorghum iscurrently the State’s second leading exportcommodity with 50 percent of the annual pro-duction exported. The two crops have becomeimportant complementary crops in most geo-graphic areas of the State. They provide theTexas producer with an alternative economiccrop choice which enables a response to mar-ket conditions. Additionally, the two crops

California vegetables, see volume II.

SORGHUM lN TEXAS

are excellent in a rotation program thatsignificantly contributes to improved soil con-ditioning, weed control, plant disease sup-pression, and diversity in the crop ecosystem.

Pests of Cotton and Sorghum

Cotton: Of the most prevalent pests of cot-ton only four insects, six pathogens. twonematodes, and seven weeds are consideredof major importance annually. Present pestlosses in cotton are estimated at 35 percent ofpotential production, which represents anestimated annual loss of nearly 1.2 millionbales and a dollar loss to producers in excessof $250 million.

Of the insect species considered majorpests, only the cotton fleahopper and bollweevil are viewed as “key*’ pests that requiredirect annual action by the producer to avoid


economic losses. The bollworm and tobaccobudworm most often cause economic damagefollowing disruption of the delicate balancebetween the pests and their natural controlfactors. The other insect pests of cotton aretypically occasional pests, causing only spor-adic economic losses in limited productionareas,

Losses due to disease organisms andnematodes are influenced dramatically byweather, cultural practices, soil type, date ofplanting, seed quality, variety, and a com-bination of these factors. The producer’sabil i ty to recognize specif ic disease andnematode problems, and assess their impor-tance, is critical in permitting him to wiselydes ign a management strategy utilizingavailable alternative tactics.

Pigweed is the most serious weed pest ofcotton in Texas. It accounts for about 52 per-cent of the losses to weeds in Texas cottonand infests nearly 85 percent of the cottonacreage. Johnson grass is the second most im-portant weed, infesting over 36 percent of thecotton acreage and accounting for about 17percent of the losses to weeds in cotton.

Sorghum.—Of the pests of sorghum inTexas, 2 insects, 15 pathogens, and 6 weedsare of major importance, Losses in sorghumdue to all pests are estimated at 30 percent ofpotential yield. This loss estimate exceeds144 million bushels with an average value inexcess of $218 million annually over the lastdecade,

The sorghum midge and greenbug are thekey insect pests that together account forover 80 percent of the estimated losses at-tributed to arthropod pests. The remainingarthropod pests are secondary or occasionalpests.

The diseases of sorghum are numerous andtheir importance in any given year is influ-enced extensively by weather conditions. Thepredominant diseases contributing to re-duced yields are downy mildew, head smut,maize dwarf mosaic, charcoal rot, and redrot.

Most producers consider weeds to be theirmajor pest problem, Controlling the grassyweed species is particularly difficult in thiscrop. Effective weed control requires an in-telligent combination of tillage, herbicides,fallow, and/or rotation with a broadleafedcrop, such as cotton or soybeans.

Tables 13 and 14 show the control tacticscurrently used against major pests of cottonand sorghum.


Dramatic changes have occurred in thecontrol of cotton pests during the last 10 to 15years. Following World War II cotton breed-e r s u s e d t h e “insecticide umbrella” todevelop cotton varieties with superior yieldand fiber qualities which were produced withphenomenal success under the same insec-ticide umbrella. Reflecting the success of thebreeding effort and effectiveness of insec-ticides, average yields on a decade basis ex-ceeded 200 lbs per acre statewide for thefirst t ime in this century in the 1950-59period. With the development of insecticideresistance in the mid-1960’s, the insecticideumbrella ruptured, and the entire productionsystem began to change.

Cotton acreage, average yields, and pesti-cide use patterns from 1945 to the presentreflect the transition of the cotton industry inTexas through the exploitation, crisis, dis-aster, and early recovery phases of cottonproduction. Insecticide use on cotton in Texaspeaked at nearly 20 million lbs in 1964, wasover 11.5 million lbs in 1966, declined to 9.6million lbs in 1971, and was just under 2.5 million lbs in 1976. This reduction reflects, inpart, a shift from high-dosage type insec-ticides, such as DDT, to low-dosage materials.The base acreage treated has only been re-duced from an estimated 45 percent of thecotton acreage in 1964 to 32 percent in 1976.The major change in the insecticide use pat-tern has been in the number of applicationsused and the rate of insecticide (active ingre-dient) used per application,

Ch. 11— Present Status of Crop Protection ● 53

Table 13. —Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Cotton in Texas

B!oloqlcalHostplant

Introduced ( I I Red & Micro - reslst SanllaMajor pesls ] oara

WeedsP l g w e e d 1Mornlngglory 1Cocklebur 1Field bindweed 1Silver nightshade 2Jungle rice 1Barnyard grass 1Panlcums 1Bermuda grass 1Johnson grass 1

ArthropodsBoll weevil 1 2Fleahopper N Z

Bollworm N 3Tob budworm N 3Cabbage looper N 3Spider mites N 2Pink bollworm 1 2Lygus bugs N 2Thrlps N 2Aphids N 3

DiseasesBacterial bllghtSeedling diseasesFusarlum wiltVertlclll[um wiltP root rotBoll rotsS W cotton rustFungal leaf spotsViruses

NematodesRoot knot and renlform

Key 1 = Ihlfle 0, no use? = some use3 = major use

b[al I ance I tlon

2 11 13 23 22 12 12 11 11 12 1

323312321

3—.

1122211122

2111112111

221112121

1

Cultural ] Chern,cal

Elimlnatlrrq Crop Plantlnq Clean Water Fertl l!ty Ihost; rotallon

1223311111

3 12 11 11 11 11 13 12 11 11 1

123331121

3

Cotton insect control in Texas still dependson the availability of effective insecticides.This is particularly true for the control of thetwo key pests: cotton fleahopper and bollweevil. Fleahopper control is achieved byusing carefully timed applications at signifi-cantly reduced rates; boll weevil controloften has been aided by shifting applicationtiming to reduce the risk of other pest out-breaks. Far less dependence is placed on in-secticides in controlling bollworm and tobac-co budworm.

Control of insects on sorghum relies heavilyon insecticides and planting date for the ma-jor pests. In 1966, insecticide use was limited

da!e

1111111111

3111112111

121122111

1——

seea

1111111111

221111111

1

mgmt

1111111111

1122111111

111111111

1

mgmt T[llage I SoIl

2223322233

1 11 12 12 11 11 11 21 11 11 1

111111111

1

3331133313

1211111122

122111111

2—

Seed

1111111122

221111111

1

Follar

1221111133

3222222232

111111311

Othel

Pred(cMomtor tlve

Inq models

3 13 13 23 23 13 13 13 13 13 1

1—

to no more than 2 percent of the harvestedacreage; by 1976 ‘insecticides were beingused on almost 60 percent of the State’s sor-ghum acreage, The major use of insecticideson sorghum is for control of greenbug. Mini-mum effective insecticide rates combinedwith naturally occurring predators, para-sites, and economic thresholds are effectivetactics used to minimize greenbug losses. In-secticide use in midge control is limited inmost production areas to late-planted fields.

Pesticides are not used for disease controlin cotton except in the treatment of seed andin-furrow fungicide applications for seedlingdiseases, and on rare occasions as an emer-


Table 14.—Control Tactics Now Employed Against Major Pests of Sorghum in Texas

Natwe (N I

Introduced ( I )Major pests

WeedsB r o w n p a n l c u mJungle riceJohnson grassBermuda grassNutsedgesP l g w e e dM o r n m g g l o r yCockleburF i e l d b i n d w e e dT e x a s b l u e w e e d

ArthropodsW h i t e g r u bWirewormsGreenbug aphid IFall army worm IBeet army worm IS W. corn borer IS u g a r c a n e b o r e rChinch bugSorghum midge ISorghum webworm

DiseasesL e a f b l i g h tA n t h r a c n o s eG r e y l e a f s p o tZ o n a t e l e a f s p o tB a c t l e a f s t r i p eHead smutLoose smutCovered smutRustS o r g h u m d m i l d e w

Key 1 = Ilttle or no use2 = some use

3 = mafor use

Blologlcal

Pred & Mlcro-para blal

1111111111

1121111111

1111111111

Host1 - -

Cultural

Dldnt Elm-

1resist- Sanlta- natlng Crop Planllng Clean Waler Fertllltyance tlon hosts rotation date mgmt Tlllage

1131111211

3322332233

2223112232

2211133111

1221211111

2333311211

2 22 31 11 11 11 21 22 11 11 1

2232221113

1111111111

2223123233

2211121123

gency treatment to control Southwestern cot-ton rust. The use of pesticides for diseasecontrol in sorghum is limited primarily to seedtreatment.

Weed control in cotton witnessed a rapidtransition from a combination of cultivationand hand-hoeing in the 1950’s to a combina-tion of tillage and herbicides in the 1970’s.Herbicides use more than doubled from 1966to 1976. Approximately 70 to 75 percent ofTexas cotton acreage is presently treatedwith one or more herbicide applications.Weed control in sorghum depends on cultiva-tion, rotation, and herbicide use. Althoughherbicides are considered by many to be thebasis of a good weed control program, they

seed

1111111111

1211111111

are

mgml

1111111111

1111111111

1111111111

2232222222

1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1

2211121111

not effective

Soil

3311133311

3211111111

1111111111

Chemical

Seed

1311111111

1111113313

unless

Follar

1133323333

1132211233

1111111111

Other

Predlc -Monitor- tlve

Ing models

1 11 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1

integrated withcultural practices. Herbicides become muchmore important in conservation or minimumtillage production systems.

Nematicides, in combination with varietal ~resistance, control nematodes in Texas cot-ton. Approximately 200,000 acres are treatedannually with nematicides.


Cultural controls that are of major impor-tance on cotton and sorghum are crop rota-tion, tillage, planting and harvesting dates,and sanitation. Other cultural methods, suchas the use of clean seed, eliminating pest


hosts, nutrition, and water and fertility man-agement, are employed but to a lesser extent.

Although insecticides are a major controltactic in avoiding or reducing losses on cottondue to the boll weevil, the use of rapidly fruit-ing cotton varieties and short productionmanagement are equally important tactics ina successful pest control strategy. Sorghumlosses from midge damage are reduced byusing an early, uniform planting practicewithin each of the production areas. Thispractice limits the length of the “effective”midge buildup period to no more than one ortwo generations and has proved to be an ex-tremely important tactic.

Disease control in cotton primarily de-pends on crop residue management and croprotation in combination with varietal resist-ance and seed treatment. Burial of crop res-idues that incite biological activity in soilreduces the survival of soil-inhabiting path-ogens. Early planting, rapidly maturing vari-eties, and short-season management prac-tices reduce losses resulting from boll rot,Verticillimn wilt, and Phymatotrichum rootrot. In sorghum, disease control relies prin-cipally on crop rotation, host resistance, andseed treatment.

A cotton/sorghum crop rotation is extreme-ly important in controlling certain weeds incotton. Timely cultivations are reliable inremoving rhizomatous weed roots and stems,and effectively reduce competition duringearly cotton growth stages. In sorghum, weedcontrol depends extensively on cultivation,crop rotation, and herbicides. Effective con-trol requires rotation with cotton, soybeans,etc., and frequent fall tillage or the appli-cation of glyphosate for rhizome control.Although herbicides are effectively usedagainst some weeds, cultural practices arethe foundation of any weed management pro-gram.

Plant Resistance

Beginning in the mid-1960’s the cotton-breeding programs in Texas stressed thedevelopment of genetic lines with multiple in-

sect and disease resistance —primarily toler-ance and escape resistance mechanisms.This breeding practice reflected a significantand, in retrospect, important change in basicbreeding philosophy. Most of these varietiesdisplayed high seedling vigor and rapidfruiting characteristics. These so-called“short season’” varieties were selected underharsh, pest-competitive, natural conditionsand were found to produce well in the fieldwhen in competition with disease pathogensand insect pests. Varietal resistance is exten-sively relied on in reducing losses associatedwith bacterial blight, Verticillium wilt, theFusarium wilt root-knot nematode complex,nematodes, and seedling disease—the majordiseases of cotton.

With the development of hybrids in the1950’s, sorghum breeders until recentlyselected hybrids for grain quality and highyie lds wi th l imi ted a t tent ion to insec tres i s tance . In the absence o f e f fec t ivefungicides, genetic resistance to sorghumdiseases has received major attention inbreeding programs. Greenbug-resistant lineswere released to commercial breeders andsubsequently made available to producers ona limited basis in 1975. Greenbug-resistantvarieties are currently being planted on over50 percent of the Texas acreage, but sorghumproducers have not learned to fully utilizethese resistant varieties.

Biological Control

Farmers, producers, consultants, researchentomologists, and extension specialists aresensitive to the important role of naturally oc-curring beneficial species in suppressingdamaging insect populations. This is par-ticularity true of the secondary pest species,Naturally occurring predators and parasitesare the principal controls of most insect pestsof cotton.


Greater emphasis is presently being placedon careful field monitoring and the use ofeconomic thresholds to establish clearly the


potential for economic loss and the need fordirect action by the the producer.


Although virtually all of the pest problemsassociated with cotton and sorghum produc-tion are controlled by a combination of tac-tics, the management program employed inweed control most closely resembles a trulyintegrated pest management strategy. Theuse of cultivation, crop rotation, hand-hoeing,and crop residue burial in combination withherbicides is a strategy designed specificallyto address the weed problems encountered ina given field or production area.

Present Problems and Concerns inCrop Protection on Cotton

and Sorghum in Texas

Based on the pesticide use experience incontrolling cotton insect pests, there is con-

cern developing among weed scientists thatadditional weed control tactics need to bedeveloped to broaden the available controlalternatives. To develop this technology,however, additional weed scientists and sup-porting resources will be absolutely essential.

The importance of naturally occurring par-asites and predators in regulating insectpests of cotton has been established, How-ever, the ability to optimize the use of this tac-tic is greatly limited by a lack of knowledgeconcerning the manipulation of these naturalcontrol factors.

For a detailed report of crop protection oncotton and sorghum in Texas, see volume II.

Chapter Ill

Fifteen-Year Prelection ofAgricultural Pest Control in

the United States

Chapter III

Fifteen-Year Projection ofAgricultural Pest Control in

the United States

Each of the seven regional work groups was asked to project crop protec-tion for their crops based on three assumptions: 1) continuation of current cropprotection tactics, 2) no pesticide use, and 3) full implementation of integratedpest management (1PM). An overriding assumption was that any significant newtechnology that will take place in the field during the next 15 years is in the earlydevelopmental stages at this time. For example, the developmental period for anew pesticide is 8 to 10 years before initial registration which is then followedby an additional period of time before it is generally adopted by users. A similaror longer time span is involved in developing and introducing pest-resistantcultivars. Radically new procedures are likely to require even longer periods tobe fully validated, demonstrated, and adopted.

The scenarios for the several crops are shown in figures 4 to 16. It must beemphasized that these projections are schematic trends and, because actualtrends are not known, they are not quantitatively accurate; rather, they are in-tended to illustrate our best qualitative estimates of what may occur in the nextone and one-half decades.

From these figures it is obvious that greatvariation exists in the dependence on pesti-cides to produce each of the crops. Croplosses for wheat, corn, and soybeans wouldincrease significantly without pesticides butcould be reduced to a reasonable level afterseveral years by substitution of other tactics.Current yield potential of corn and soybeanswould not be maintained, but alternate tac-tics could reduce pest losses. On the otherhand, production of apples, lettuce, colecrops, strawberries, and Northeast potatoeswould be disastrously reduced to the level atwhich commercial production would becomeimpossible. Obviously one cannot generalizeon the role of pesticides in production acrossagricultural crops.

The principal impact of the adoption of1PM over the present mix of tactics would be

a trend towards reduced pesticide use ac-companied by more stable control of insectsand diseases. Considerable fluctuations incrop losses are anticipated when the use ofcertain existing chemicals is discontinuedbecause of pest resistance, regulations, eco-nomics, or combinations thereof when no ef-fective substitutes are immediately available,For most crops, losses would be consistentlyless with greater implementation of 1PM thanwith current practices.

As stated elsewhere, a significant percent-age of crop production is lost prior to harvestbecause of pest activity. This occurs in spiteof the extensive use of pesticides. This im-plies that pesticides are not efficient or effec-tively used; actually they are reasonably effi-cient and cost-effective for farmers in mostsituations. The extensive crop losses that do

59


Figure 4.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Wheat in the Great Plains

Figure 5.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Corn in the Corn Belt

Figure 6.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Soybeans in the Southeast

Figure 7.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Apples in the North

Ch Ill— Fifteen- Year Project/on of Agrcultural Pest Control In the United States ● 61

Figure 8.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Potatoes in the Northeast

Figure 9.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Lettuce in California

Figure 10.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Melons in California

Figure 11 .—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Potatoes in California


Figure 12.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Strawberries in California

Figure 13.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Tomatoes in California

Figure 15.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Cotton in Texas

Figure 14.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Cole Crops in California

Ch ///— F//teen- Year Protection of Agricultural Pest Control in the United States ● 63

Figure 16.—Schematic Projections for Three CropProtection Scenarios for Sorghum in Texas

---- Nopoeiilxdml~ Ifltl!!ptdod W!* I Iwntlg+llm!nl

occur are caused by pests against which pes-ticides are not generally used and for whichthere are no other known feasible control tac-tics. The development of other control tactics,such as host resistance, cultural controls,and biological controls and their implementa-tion in 1PM systems will significantly reducepest losses. It has been estimated that cur-rent losses can be reduced up to 50 percentor more on a number of crops.

Production costs for pest control on mostcrops are expected to be much higher withoutpesticides than with either current practicesor 1PM. The need for increased cultivation,hand weeding, and insect picking would addgreatly to production costs. 1PM is expectedover time to reduce production costs some-what, but the reduction will probably be mini-mal even on high pesticide use crops such ascotton and apple. The reliability of crop pro-duction is much improved on many crops by

the use of pesticides and is further improvedby the use of 1PM programs.

With increased IPM, pesticide use is pro-jected to decrease on all the crops consid-ered; however, the amount of reduction isspeculative and may not be as significant asis often assumed by some persons. It is morecertain that the pesticides that are appliedwill be used more efficiently and effectively.

One final projection observed in figures 4through 16 is the amount of research re-quired for the three scenarios. If pesticideswere not available, much additional researchwould be needed to improve crop protectionby other tactics and strategies. Even with anall-out effort, the results obtained for mostcrops are not expected to be equal to the judi-cious use of pesticides during the next 15years. Also evident is the estimate that moreresearch effort is required to develop and im-plement pest management strategies than tocontinue with the present mix of tactics. Thisreflects the greater complexity of the 1PM ap-proach over the use of single tactics and thetime and effort required to develop and imple-ment such methods.

A review of the seven regional reports, aswell as other reports and the literature, pro-vides little evidence that there will be anyrevolutionary new technological develop-ments in insect, mite, disease, nematode, andvertebrate control over the next 10 to 15years. The new synthetic pyrethroids andcertain other insecticides are most promisingbut are likely to be used in place of. and in amanner similar to, existing products. Thesame situation exists for fungicides, nemati-cides, rodenticides, and avicides. On t h eother hand, projections for the use of existingand new herbicides indicate that their usewill increase dramatically over the next 10 to15 years. In fact these materials are creatinga revolution in the production of certain agri-cultural crops in the United States, particu-larly in wheat and corn, as discussed later inthis chapter.

In spite of the great need for improvedpesticide application technology. there are


few new developments underway that prom-ise to have significant impacts on pesticideuse during the next 15 years. Recent researchat the University of Georgia has produced abreakthrough in the use of electrostaticallycharged dusts and sprays. Evidence showsthat application rates can be halved usingthis method without loss of insect control onrow crops. Several prototype sprayers arebeing evaluated on row crops, and researchis planned to adapt the principle to treecrops. This development can significantly im-prove the efficiency of pesticide applicationsand reduce the quantities used. Another de-velopment, resulting from joint research ef-forts of weed scientists and engineers, is therecirculating sprayer. It can be used effec-tively for weed control in some situationswith greatly reduced rates of herbicide ap-plication and lower costs to farmers, The fullpotential and impact of these and other newdevelopments have yet to be determined. Aneed still remains for much greater efficiencyin aerial application to improve the target-to-draft ratio.

Much of past and even present agriculturalproduction practice has been dictated bydisease, insect, nematode, and, especially,weed problems. The development and use ofan array of herbicides with various combina-tions of selectivity, short- and long-residualaction in the soil, systemic and contact activi-ty, etc., now provide farmers with the capa-bility of controlling weeds without the usualplowing, fitting, transplanting, and frequentcult ivations that have been required forthousands of years. The practice of no-tillcorn is being widely adopted, particularly inrolling land where soil erosion is severe.Here, weeds are killed by a contact herbicideand seed sown in unplowed soil. The deadsurface vegetation remains in place where itprevents erosion by as much as 50 percentdepending on slope, rainfall, and soil type.

A similar development is underway in thedry-land Great Plains wheat production areawhere herbicides are also replacing plowingand cultivation. To conserve moisture, theland is left fallow (not cropped) for varyingperiods of time. Because weeds remove mois-

ture from the soil during fallow they must becontrolled. Until recently frequent cultiva-tions were required, but these tend to dry outthe surface soil layer, increase wind and soilerosion, and reduce soil organic matter. Aproduction system called “ecofarming” hasbeen deve loped and was used on over100,000 acres in 1978. In this system, her-bicides replace cultivation, thus changing theecosystem considerably in favor of increasedsoil organic matter, greater moisture conser-vation, and reduced soil erosion. Other ob-served changes include increases in certainpests such as rodents and rattlesnakes, butdecreases in others.

Herbicides are also influencing productiontechnology for row crops. Traditionally thesehave been spaced according to the width re-quired for cultivation—wide rows requiredfor animal-drawn cultivators have been modi-fied to accommodate tractor-drawn imple-ments. Herbicides now can eliminate mostcultivation needs for many crops and permitspacings based on considerations other thanweed control, Again, such changes in themicroenvironment favor some pest organismsand reduce others.

The ultimate potential for changes in agri-cultural production methods created by her-bicides has yet to be determined. Similarly,the secondary impacts on crop protectionproblems are not fully known or understood.Obviously, much more interdisciplinary cropprotection research is required.

A similar but unknown potential for chang-ing cultural production systems exist in trop-ical agroecosystems, even rather primitiveforms (see chapter VII).

A trend observed in California towardstrawberry production in nearly sterile soil islikely to continue and may expand to otherhigh-value crops. For example, Californiafarmers are finding that yields of other cropsare significantly higher when planted in landfumigated the preceding year for strawberryproduction. For many years fruit growershave had replant problems caused by nema-todes and other pests that are now controlledby soil fumigation. Some form of soil fumiga-

Ch Ill— Fifteen- Year Proiectlon of Agricultural pest Control In the United States ● 65

tion is routine practice in greenhouses. Theuse of sterilized soil is possible only if asatisfactory soil fumigant or other method ofaccomplishing the same end is available. Be-cause the current cost of such treatments ishigh [$450 to $!500 per acre for strawberries),the cost/benefit ratio is favorable only forhigh-value crops. If an inexpensive safe mate-rial or method were available, soil steriliza-tion would expand and spread widely. Nosuch material or method is now available,and all commonly used liquid soil fumigantsare on the current RPAR (rebuttable pre-sumption against registration) or pre-RPARlists (April 1979). Research data on micro-wave soil sterilization shows that this methodcan be used to kill weed seed and some micro-organisms but is not yet proven technolog-ically nor is it considered to be feasibleeconomically.

Chemical pest control includes the use ofhormones for control of insects and weeds.Insect juvenile hormones or mimics do not ap-pear promising except for control of certainspecies such as mosquitoes and house flies,which are a problem as adults but can be con-trolled as immatures. The recently discov-ered anti juvenile hormones appear muchmore promising, but none are available yetwith a satisfactory spectrum of activity. Ahormone that either inhibits or induces seedgermination would have a potential use inweed control, but such chemicals are not yetavailable for practical use. As promising asthese approaches appear to be, widespreadsuccess seems unlikely in the next 10 to 1 5years.

Projecting the use of other control tactics ismore difficult than for pesticides. We havealready commented on changes in cultivationprocedures now taking place and mentionedtheir potential impact on pest populations.Cultural controls including plowing and culti-vation have been recommended and used forgenerations for the suppression of pests otherthan weeds. Some of these are being re-examined and may have potential in 1PM sys-tems. Modern equipment permits the timely,efficient execution of operations that wereonce difficult or even impossible. Certain

changes no doubt will be made for pest sup-pression purposes; however, no radicalchanges are likely. The use of rotations, timeof planting, trap crops, and habitat diversifi-cation are based on economic and managerialconsiderations. These practices are not ex-pected to change appreciably within the next10 to 15 years. With the potential for in-creased costs of irrigation water and fertil-izers during the projection period, increasedmanipulation of these tactics for managingpests is unlikely; in fact, decreased use ofwater and fertilizer for control will becomeless attractive economically.

Although biological control is of only lim-ited use in the control of agricultural pests;insects, mites, and many minor arthropodpests would be major problems in the ab-sence of the biological control provided byparasites, predators, and pathogens. Thesudden elevation of secondary insect andmite pests to major importance following ap-plications of certain insecticides provides am-ple evidence of the role of biological agents.Other major weed, plant pathogen, verte-brate, and nematode pests are controlled lesseffectively by biological agents.

It is entirely possible that at least some cur-rently important arthropod pests will be ef-fectively controlled biologically during thenext few years. An excellent example is theuse of a small wasp parasite from India thathas effectively provided season-long controlof the Mexican bean beetle when releasedearly in the season.

Based on experience over the past fewyears, the projection for the increased use ofhost-plant resistance is not encouraging.Much of the breeding work to incorporateresistance into commercially available cul-tivars has been discontinued in State experi-ment stations and Federal laboratories on thebasis that this work is more appropriatelydone by commercial seed firms. The latterhave not been effective in recent years eitherbecause of a lack of incentive or a lack ofsuitable resistant germ plasm and the geneticinformation required to combine resistancewith desirable agronomic qualities. Expe-


rience indicates that the use of resistant culti-vars is likely to decrease rather than increaseover the next decade unless strong publiclysupported efforts in host-plant resistanceprograms are implemented.

Autocidal (sterile male release) control ofinsects has been effective against certainspecies, especially the screwworm and thefruit flies, and has been demonstrated to beeffective against low populations of codlingmoth and onion maggots but is not now eco-nomically competitive with other controlmethods, The autocidal method has not beeneffective or practical against moderate-to-high insect populations or where heavy mi-gration is common. Technical problems andthe expense of mass rearing and sterilizationhave limited the range of uses for this in-novative and ecologically sound method of in-sect control. No large increases in its use areanticipated over the next 15 years exceptpossibly in conjunction with eradication proj-ects where costs are not the prime considera-tion.

The use of insect pheromones for controlhas been demonstrated successfully usingtwo approaches. The use of pheromone-baited traps to control insects by eliminatingmales and reducing mating is subject to thesame limitations as the sterile male releasemethod. Although the use of these phero-mones for control by “male confusion’” hasbeen successful (Gossyplure H,F. is regis-tered and being used by some cotton farmersin Arizona and California), there have beenenough failures in experimental testing tosuggest that there are still some unsolvedproblems. However, it is expected that thesematerials wil l be used commercially fordirect control of some insects within the nextfew years.

Eradication of pest organisms is perhapsthe ideal solution for introduced species if itcan be accomplished without incurring unac-ceptable costs and risks to human health andthe environment, Experience indicates thateradication is not feasible for establishedspecies, For example, the barberry eradica-tion program is being terminated in 1979

after 61 years of unsuccessful effort. Thereduction in numbers of barberry, the alter-nate host of stem rust of wheat in the GreatPlains area, may have helped to reduce thethreat of this severe disease, but the goal oferadication is now deemed unattainable byany acceptable means. The fire ant eradica-tion program has also failed. Success seemsattainable only with newly introduced spe-cies before the infestations become wide-spread and well-established. Some organismssuch as nematodes simply cannot be eradi-cated. Any proposed eradication programmust be carefully examined in terms of prob-ab i l i ty o f meeting objectives, Politicalpressures for eradication are considerablebut must be tempered by the reality of expe-rience. A second experiment to evaluate thefeasibility of boll weevil eradication is nowunderway. Many knowledgeable people areconvinced that eradication of this pest is notfeasible with present technology at any rea-sonable cost and risk to the environment. Cer-tainly eradication will not be an importantpart of agricultural pest control exceptwhere new pests may be introduced.

Quarantine efforts to prevent the introduc-tion of new pests are partially successful andjudged to be cost-effective but are inadequatewith present transportation facilities andpractices for people, animals, and goods.Modifications and improvements are neededto adapt outdated quarantine methods totoday’s conditions.

Organic farming, as defined in this report,is crop production without using syntheticfertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, and otheragricultural chemicals. In considering or-ganic farming as it affects crop protectionagainst pests, we assume that acceptablepesticides are only those derived from plants,such as rotenone, nicotine, and pyrethrum.However, others suggest that organic farmingcan involve a minimum, or minor, use of syn-thetic pesticides, If that were the case, thedistinction between organic and conventionalfarming is obscured and organic farming ap-proaches the 1PM concept regarding pesti-cide use. Unfortunately, most of the argu-

Ch ///— Fifteen-Year Protection of Agriculfural Pest Control In the United States ● 67

ments for and against organic farming arequalitative in nature; there are scant quanti-tative comparative data on the value of or-ganic versus conventional farming for cropprotection.

The opportunities for successful use oforganic farming methods vary greatly withcrop susceptibility to pests, climate, avail-ability of labor, season, and regulations re-garding undamaged produce in the market-place. Certain fruit and vegetable crops arealmost completely destroyed by a variety ofpests if not properly protected with appro-priate pesticides. In other cases, the amountof hand labor involved in weeding is prohibi-tive for large-scale commercial agriculture.However, some crops that are less severelyattacked and for which nonpesticidal con-trols are known can be produced successfullyon a commercial scale without the use of syn-thetic pesticides, although yields may belower than with conventional methods. Theseinclude several field and forage crops such asalfalfa and field corn. At present, very fewcommercial farmers within the seven crop-ping regions of this report are using organicmethods of crop production. The estimated10,000 to 15,000 organic farms in the UnitedStates are relatively small operations forwhich organic farming is most applicable.

Because of the considerable interest inorganic farming and the increasing demandfor organically grown foods, research isneeded in this area. At present, those in-terested in producing organic foods cannotobtain from county agents or agricultural ex-periment stations much, if any, informationon how to manage pests without pesticides.Research is needed to evaluate the value ofmethods now being proposed, such as com-panion plantings, and to develop new’ tech-niques, Much of present research on develop-

ing 1PM systems involves approaches thatmay be useful to organic producers. The tac-tics of genetic host-plant resistance, en-couraging biological control organisms, andcultural controls, along with other tactics,must be improved and incorporated intodemonstrated production systems to makethis approach more widely attractive in com-mercial agriculture.

A careful study of pest control in the sevenregions indicates that there is now’ muchmore 1PM being practiced than is generallyrecognized. This is particularly true forwheat in the Great Plains States where exten-sive use has been made of cultural, host-plantresistance, and chemical controls for weeds,insects, diseases, and vertebrates, and whereextensive disease-monitoring systems areused. Pest management systems have beenintegrated into wheat production practiceswith due consideration of environmental fac-tors. The impetus for 1PM development andimplementation has been economics (wheat isa low-value crop) and the lack of appropriatesingle-control tactics. The present level of1PM, however, is still far from its potential onthis crop. Various levels of 1PM are used onthe other crops.

We project that the implementation of 1PMin crop production in the United States willproceed slowly over the next 15 years unlessmuch greater inputs are made at the Nationaland State levels. The major obstacle to fasteradoption is lack of demonstrated feasible1PM systems. This is due to a number of fac-tors, but lack of information on the basicbiology of pests and crops, lack of establishedeconomic thresholds, cost/benefit analyses of1PM programs, and the primitive state of pre-dictive modeling and agroecosystems anal-yses are the most important.

i-’

Present Problems,

Chapter IV

Concerns,and Most Promising

Approaches

Chapter IV

Present Problems, Concerns, andMost Promising Approaches

In chapter II the crop protection problems and concerns for each of theseven regional systems are described. In this chapter these problems and con-cerns are grouped according to type of control tactic and strategy and arepresented along with others generally recognized for pest control, which arefollowed by several areas of general concern. Finally, several approaches arepresented that appear to be most promising.

SPECIFIC AREAS OF CROP PROTECTION

Cultural Controls

Crop rotations developed in the first half ofthe 20th century were practiced. in part. tocentrol certain pests including weeds. Foreconomic and other reasons many of these oldrotations were replaced by’ monoculture;(planting the same crop on the same landeach year) or by rotation with different crops(e.g., the rotation of soybeans instead of oatswith corn in the Corn Belt States). Suchchanges in the agroecosystem often have im-pacts on the incidence of pests, The studies ofthe seven regional systems clearly show thatsuch impacts may be both negative and posi-tive depending on the nature of the specificpests. They also show that the changes arenot predictable and that a very serious knowl-edge gap exists in understanding the basic in-teractions between pests and their physicaland biological environments. Until this infor-mation is available, pest management by hab-itat modification through cultural means canonly be developed on a trial-and-error basis.When several pests are involved, as on mostcrops, this process is time-consuming and ex-pensive.

Because of the rapid acceptance of newtechnologies by American farmers. there isconcern that new cultural practices could

C; I use excessive pest-caused losses over wideareas. The rapid adoption of no-till corn is anexcellant example. By 1977 minimum t ill age(no-till) methods were used on over 300,000acres of corn in Maryland, and many of theseacres were show’ing enough insect and slugdamage by these formerly very minor pests towarrant pesticicle a ppl i c a t ions. The onlyavaiable effective insecticide properly regis-terd for use in this situation was on t h eRPAR (rebuttable presumption against regis-tration) list. Similar concerns exist for no-tillcorn in other areas and for other crops in-volved in major changes in production tech-nology.

Such cultural changes may or may not betotally sound economically, environmentally.or socially. only time with further researchand experience will provide the answer.However, the need to adapt pest managementpractices to new production methods must beconsidered early and given adequate atten-tion. Crop cultivars resistant to new pa tho-gens, nematodes, and insects may be the long-term answer. but for the short term, appro-priate pesticides must be used if available. Ifpest problems become a limiting factor, eventhe most promising new cultural practicesmay have to be abandoned.

71

—


Host-Plant Resistance

Concern over the present and future use ofpest-resistant cultivars lies in two areas: 1)the effective use of known resistant germplasm and 2) the identification and preserva-tion of new sources of resistance.

The uses of pest-resistant wheat and corncultivars on a large scale for both diseasesand insects are classic success stories ofhost-plant resistance. However , recenttrends in the Great Plains Wheat Belt aredisturbing. T h e a c r e a g e of Hessian-fly-resistant wheats in Kansas and Nebraska hasdecreased from about 66 percent in 1973 toabout 42 percent in 1977. Hessian fly infesta-tions have increased where susceptible culti-vars have been planted. In South Dakota in1978, in an area not normally heavily in-fested, an estimated 1.25 million acres ofspring wheat were infested resulting in lossesof $25 million to $50 million, An even greaterdecrease in resistant-wheat acreage is ex-pected in the next 2 to 5 years as a result ofrecent releases of cultivars that have im-proved agronomic traits and disease resist-ance but which are susceptible to Hessian fly,Insect resistance has not been a significantcomponent of commercial breeding pro-grams, and none of the new commercialwheats have resistance to Hessian fly, In1972, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)research on wheat stem sawfly was termi-nated. The resistant cultivars presentlygrown are expected to be replaced with sus-ceptible cultivars, and infestations of thispest are also expected to increase.

A similar trend towards the use of cornhybrids more susceptible to corn borer isreported in parts of the Corn Belt with con-comitant increases in infestations and insec-ticide use, The reduced use of resistant cropsdoes not extend to all areas and all crops. Forexample, greater use is now being made of re-sistant cotton.

The reasons for the reduced use of knowngerm-plasm resistance for such important in-sects as the Hessian fly, wheat stem sawfly,

and the corn borer are complicated. Becauseresistant cultivars have been effective inreducing damage and pest populations formany years, there is little recent evidence ofthe potential destructiveness of these insects.As a result. new generations of farmers donot demand resistant cultivars, This trendhas been abetted by the deemphasis of breed-ing programs in many State experiment sta-tions and USDA laboratories. The latter de-velopment was based in part on the assump-tion that commercial seed companies coulddo the necessary work to maintain and in-crease pest resistance. Experience indicatesthat this was not a correct assumption. Thetrend away from plant resistance-breedingresearch in publicly supported institutionshas been abetted by the erosion in F e d e r a lsupport for agricultural research and theconcept among administrators and research-ers that plant-breeding research of thisnature is less prestigious than basic studies.Lacking demand by growers and the stimulusand information from Federal and State ex-periment stations, commercial seed compa-nies have also deemphasized efforts to incor-porate insect and even some disease andnematode resistance into new cultivars, Theresult of this trend could have disastrous con-sequences not unlike the southern corn leafblight epidemic of 1970. Although the cornblight epidemic required only 1 year to cor-rect (the problem was one of cytoplasmic sus-ceptibility), insect, disease, and nematode ep-idemics brought on by the use of susceptiblecultivars could take several years to correct.

Development of pest-resistant crops withgood agronomic characters is a lengthy andexpensive procedure, However, the cost/ben-efit ratio, especially the cost in terms of useby growers, is very small. And perhaps ofmore importance, resistant cultivars can beused by small as well as large growers andeven by gardeners. Adequate funding of pub-lic research to ensure continued developmentof resistant crop cultivars appears to be notonly desirable but imperative for long-rangeeffective pest management and the publicgood.

Ch. IV—Present Problems, Concerns, and Most Promising Approaches ● 73

Germ plasm resistant to many diseases,nematodes, insects. and mites is not availablefor a number of crops. This is most pro-nounced for crops that originated outsidecentinental North America. Areas whereplants and their pest coevolved are goodsources of resistant germ plasm. In somecases, wild progenitors of our cultivatedcrops in which resistance may be found arebeing lost. In order to find and preserve thesesources, search and conservation projectsare needed. These efforts should includevegetables and fruits as well as major cropssuch as wheat, corn, and soybeans. A new op-portunity exists with respect to soybean asimproved relations with China afford con-siderable promise in developing programs tolocate pest-resistant germ plasm where soy-bean originated,

Present USDA/State plant introduction pro-grams do not adequately meet the need fordeveloping pest-resistant crops. Recent ef-forts to increase introductions and establishgerm-plasm banks have been underfundedand developed slowly. Programs such as theone for rice at the International Rice Re-search Institute in the Philippines wherethousands of genetic lines are maintainedand evaluated for resistance to pests areneeded. Such projects could be cooperativewith other countries with similar interests.The costs of these programs are high but thealmost certain potential benefits are much,much greater.

Biological Controls

Just as the major emphasis on breeding forhost-plant resistance in the past has been fordisease control, the greatest effort in biologi-cal control has been on insects and mites. Re-cently however, more attention is being givento biological control of pathogens, weeds, andvertebrates.

A few spectacular successes in biologicalweed control have occurred—i. e., the controlof prickly pear cactus in Australia throughthe introduction of insects that feed on thisplant and that are indigenous to the areafrom which the weed originated. Another ex-

ample is the control of alligator weed in irri-gation canals and ponds in the SoutheasternUnited States through the introduction of aleaf- and stem-feeding flea beetle from SouthAmerica. Biological control works best whenonly one weed species is the problem, as op-posed to having several species involved.Good examples are lantana and the pricklypear cactus, which are primary weeds thattake over certain habitats. Control of these byany specific means including biological is sat-isfactory. However, the use of specific con-trols for single species in agricultural crops isnot satisfactory because other weeds quicklytake over n iches l e f t by the contro l ledspecies.

Biological control of plant pathogens andnematodes may be more promising than wasthought earlier. A recent breakthrough is theuse of one bacterial species (Agrobacteriumradiobacter) to control crown gall on appleand other crops caused by another bacterialspecies in the same genus IAgrobacteriumtume~aciens). The lack of knowledge of thebasic interactions among species of micro-organisms limits judging the potential of thisapproach for control of these pests.

Vertebrate pests are normally held incheck by predators, parasites, and disease.Attempts to use specific biological controlmeasures have had few successes and manyfailures. The introduction of the ferret pred-ator into Puerto Rico failed to control rats andactually added a new pest to the island. Theintroduction of’ myxomytosis disease to Aus-tralia to control rabbits succeeded initially,but over several years strains of rabbitevolved that were resistant to the disease,The rabbit is still a pest but is not as serious aproblem as formerly.

As mentioned earlier, the greatest effort inbiological control has been against insectsand mites. So-called “classical” biologicalcentrol—i. e,, the introduction of agents tocontrol exotic or native pests—has producedthe most spectacular results. The control ofthe cottony cushion scale on citrus in Califor-nia through the introduction of the Vedaliabeetle in 1899 is perhaps the best known ex-


ample, There are recent successful examplessuch as the control of the alfalfa weevil andcitrus blackfly with introduced parasites.The other phase of biological control is to in-crease naturally occurring agents throughmanipulating the environment or by artifi-cially propagating and distributing them.Spores of the bacterium causing milky dis-ease of Japanese beetle larvae have beenused for many years to reduce populations ofthis introduced pest. Currently efforts are un-derway to propagate and disseminate virusdiseases of certain insects and tiny wasp par-asites of the eggs of several insect pestspecies.

A substantial number of the major insectpests of agricultural crops in the UnitedStates are introduced, and there is goodreason to believe that they can be effectivelycontrolled by biological agents introducedfrom their points of origin. The major obsta-cle to greater success is the low level of sup-port available for facilities, personnel, andoperational funds to identify, investigate, in-troduce, and establish these beneficial orga-nisms. The USDA 1979 budget for classicalbiological control is $2 million. With the ex-ception of California and Hawaii, the Statesdo not have strong programs, Also, accordingto some experts, the effort within USDA couldbe improved by a vertical rather than a pri-marily horizontal approach—i.e., having thesame scientist or team conduct the total ef-fort from discovery through establishmentrather than different groups being responsi-ble for each operational stage. In view of thepotential benefits to be derived from the suc-cessful introduction of biological controlagents, the low levels of Federal and State ef-forts seriously limit the progress of this im-portant program. An evaluation of past ef-forts indicates that the benefit/cost ratio hasbeen 30 to 1 In addition to the direct dollarbenefit, there has been a reduction in bothcrop losses and the use of insecticides. Whilebiological controls are not permanent or uni-form each year, they tend to be more perma-nent than most other tactics and require littleor no further expense once established.

Quarantine

A study of tables 2 to 14 shows clearly thatmany of our major weed, insect, mite, patho-gen, nematode, and vertebrate pests are in-troduced. Some are serious in the UnitedStates but are of little importance in theirnative habitat. Lack of biological controlagents, the presence of more susceptiblehosts, more favorable environmental condi-tions, and other reasons are cited as causesfor this phenomenon. But regardless of thereasons, the potential for serious and evendisastrous crop losses that result from theintroduction of additional new pests is veryreal. There are many identified potentialpests and undoubtedly many others of un-known potential.

The rapid movement of people, food, fiber,and other goods about the globe makes effec-tive quarantine a difficult task. As a conse-quence, present efforts and methods are notconsidered to be as effective as formerly.There is a need to develop and implement im-proved technologies for preventing the in-troduction of undesirable organisms into theUnited States. Also a need exists to improvesurvey and identification capabilities forexotic pests in order to find new introduc-tions before they become too widespread andwell-established to be eradicated,

Eradication

Large sums of money have been, and stillare being, spent in attempts to eradicate in-sect and weed pests. Successes have beenlimited to a few situations such as eliminationof the Mediterranean fruit fly from Floridaand California and the screwworm from theSoutheastern States. In all these instances,newness or restricted winter survival area(screwworm survived winter only in southernFlorida) limited the infestations. Eradicationefforts against barberry and the importedfire ant failed. Large sums of money andmuch manpower are now being utilized in asecond boll weevil eradication experiment.With present technology, many knowledge-able scientists consider the probability of suc-

Ch. IV—Present Problemsj Concerns, and Most Promising Approaches ● 75

cessful eradication of this widespread, well-established insect pest of cotton to be ex-tremely remote.

Eradication is attractive because successoffers a permanent solution to a pest prob-lem, at least until the next introduction. Erad-ication programs are politically attractive be-cause of their visibility and because, while inprogress, they offer short-term relief from at-tacks of the pests involved, but permanentsuccess is difficult, if not impossible, to attainfor most pests using present technology. Also,the potential hazards to human health andthe environment must be considered. There ismuch concern that funds and manpower sobadly needed for other crop protection effortswill be wasted on technically unsound erad-ication projects that are doomed to failurefrom the beginning.

pesticides

Present problems and concerns for pesti-cides for agricultural crops focus on healthhazards, environmental hazards, and avail-ability and effectiveness. While this reporthas concentrated on crop protection technol-ogies and strategies, concerns about humanand environmental hazards associated withthe manufacture, distribution, and use of pes-ticides have been expressed by assessmentpanel members, by participants in a publicmeeting, and by the public media.

Health problems associated with pesti-cides involve acute (or subacute) and chroniclow-level effects. In the United States, wheremedical services are readily available andpoison control centers have been established,acute effects are relatively clear-cut and canbe identified correctly. There are concerns,however, that some effects, particularly thesubacute, are not identified and reported.Also some concern exists that some illnessesare incorrectly ascribed to pesticide intoxica-tion.

The safe use of pesticides has receivedgreat emphasis in the United States over thepast 25 years. The effort has succeeded de-spite the vast increase in the availability and

use of pesticides during this period; the inci-dence of fatal poisonings directly attributedto pesticides has dropped continually—from152 in 1956 to 31 in 1976—while total popula-tion and total accidental poisoning deathshave more than doubled. The meager datathat are available from developing countriesindicate much higher death rates, eventhough pesticides are not used as extensivelyas in the United States. Although acute toxici-ty episodes can be minimized through educa-tion, they remain a continuing hazard, espe-cially where educational and medical facili-ties are minimal.

The phenomenon of delayed neurotoxicityfor a few pesticides has received consider-able attention in recent years following thediscovery that permanent weakness, ataxia,and paralysis can be induced by a single sub-lethal exposure to leptophos, an organophos-phate insecticide. EPN, also in the samechemical group, has caused similar effects intest animals. Fortunately, most organophos-phate pesticides do not cause these delayedproblems.

The long-term exposure of humans to com-paratively low levels of many pesticides in theenvironment and in the body is of great con-cern because of known and suspected poten-tial harmful effects. These effects are manyand may include eye irritation, neurologicaland reproductive impairment, teratogenic ef-fects, cancer, and others.

Real human hazards that result from long-term pesticide exposure are extremely diffi-cult to assess. For example, the inductionperiod for cancer may be in the range of 20 to30 years with complications resulting fromexposure to other synthetic and natural po-tential carcinogenic agents. Thus, human epi-demiological studies are difficult to conductand produce inconclusive results. In spite ofthe fact that chlorinated hydrocarbon insec-ticides, particularly DDT, have been in theenvironment and present in human tissue formore than 30 years, and certain inorganicpesticides for nearly a century, no detectableeffects on the human population have been


proven. However, this does not prove that noeffects have occurred or that none will occur.

The organochlorine insecticides (DDT,aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, andchlordane) are persistent chemicals and havebeen commonly found in human foods andhuman tissues. Since most uses for theseproducts have been discontinued in theUnited States, a steady decline has occurredin the concentration of these materials ortheir metabolizes in human adipose tissue. Ex-tensive toxicological studies on several exper-imental species including mammals, birds,and fish must be conducted before pesticidescan be registered for use, Currently there ismuch concern and controversy about extrap-olating from animals to humans, particularlyregarding carcinogenicity.

With the exception of the inorganic andorganochlorines, pesticides or harmful me-tabolizes are relatively short-lived in the envi-ronment. A few herbicides persist in the soilup to 12 to 18 months but most disappear inconsiderably less time. Less is known aboutresidues in air that serve as a global trans-port medium for pesticides. Water pollutionby pesticides exists in most surface waters inthe United States at very low levels, Organo-chlorine insecticide residue levels reached apeak in 1966 and declined in succeedingyears as the use of these products was re-duced,

Pesticide residues are also found in plantsand animals. The phenomenon of “bioaccu-mulation’ ‘—i. e., the process in which lowlevels of a chemical in organisms, such asalgae, at the bottom of the food chain ac-cumulate through the food chain until ex-tremely high levels occur in animals such asfish or birds at the top of the chain—hasresulted in serious losses of some wildlifespecies.

Until the 1960’s detailed evaluations of theimpacts of pesticides on the environment hadnot been done. Because of this and becausethe world ecosystem is large and complex,only limited knowledge is available on thesubject except in the area of acute toxicity.

Generally, acute toxicity problems for wild-life are known and managed at acceptablelevels except for accidents or misuse.

On the other hand, much concern existsabout known and unknown chronic effects onwildlife from low levels of exposure to pesti-cides. These can be subtle effects such as theeggshell thinning in the bald eagle, theperegrine falcon, and the brown pelicanwhich seriously reduced the reproductivepotential of these species. A comparablereproductive problem developed in a varietyof fish and food-chain-dependent mammals.These reproductive disorders have declinedwith the elimination of DDT and most otherorganochlorine pesticides from agriculturaland forest uses. Concerns have been ex-pressed for other chronic effects such asgrowth inhibition, acute nervous stress, on-cogenesis, and others. Indirect effects ofpesticides on wildlife are also thought to besignificant. Suppression of food, obviously, isa potentially harmful effect,

Capabilities for detecting and measuringpesticide residues in the physical and biologi-cal environment now extend to parts per bil-lion or less. Unfortunately, little is known ofpossible hazards of such low residues. Risksmust be weighed against benefits to deter-mine whether or not specif ic chemicalsshould be approved for use in agriculture.Thus, their use should be limited to essentialneeds where risk/benefit ratios are favorableand where other control tactics are insuffi-cient.

There are serious concerns about the fu-ture availability and effectiveness of pesti-cides. For all the crops included in this reporton which pesticides are used extensively,there was concern that effective materialsare lost because of regulations, resistance,economics, or combinations thereof more rap-idly than replacements are found, developed,and introduced. This situation is most criticalfor insecticides and miticides, is potentiallyvery critical if present RPAR’s fungicides arelost, and is least critical for herbicides. Thelack of safe and effective rodenticides and

Ch IV—Present Problems, Concerns, and Most Prom/s/rig Approaches ● 77

avicides is also a problem. For short periodsduring the past few years, no effective insec-ticides were available to control insect com-plexes on cotton in parts of Texas and Mex-ico, and no miticides were available for con-trol of mites on apples in Washington. Sev-eral emergency registrations of new insecti-cides on fruit, vegetables, and cotton werenecessary because existing materials wereno longer effective or registered.

The number of registrations of new molec-ular structures for pest control for agricul-tural crops has dropped sharply during thepast 10 years. With the continuing loss of ef-fectiveness of current products due to resist-ance, and losses due to regulations and eco-nomic factors, the situation is l ikely toworsen, especially on minor crops.

To date the problem of acquired Weed re-sistance—i. e., the evolution of weed strainsresistant to an herbicide—is not serious inweed control even though examples exist.The major resistance problem in chemicalweed control occurs when naturally resistantweed species survive, thrive, and soon takeover without competition from other weeds.Such problems are managed by using com-binations of herbicides, changing herbicides,and crop rotations. The loss of inexpensiveselective herbicides, such as the phenoxvmaterials 2,4-I) and 2,4,5-T’, would create adifficult problem for a number of agriculturaland nonagricultural users.

A major overall concern about pesticidesis the lack of availability of compounds pos-sessing the required range of activity againstpests. This is particularly the case in devel-

oping pest management systems that involvethe use of pesticides. For some situations, aninsect icicle or miticide with a verv narrowrange or short residual toxicitv is required toreduce a pest species without disrupting bio-logical control agents. In other cases, pesti-cides may be required that control a broadrange of weeds, pathogens, or insects. Some-times short residual contact materials are re-quired while for others, as for control of soilinsects or season-long weed control. residualeffectiveness may be required for severalmonths. When no pesticide with appropriateactivities is available, substitutes often haveto be used at higher rates with repeated ap-plications and sometimes with harmful ef-fects on beneficial species. A limited range ofpesticides restricts the potential for pestmanagement on many crops.

The inefficiency of pesticide applicationtechnology is another concern. In some ap-plications as little as 25 percent of the tox-icants reach the target. This inefficiency isnot only wasteful but can cause secondaryhealth and environmental problems outsidethe target area,

The difficulty in obtaining registrations ofpesticides for minor crops and minor uses isanother ser ious problem that the 1 9 7 9Amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is designedto alleviate. A further concern is the problemof developing and registering new and noveltypes of control agents such as insect phero-mones and hormones or antihorrnones, allelo-pathic materials, and microbial pesticides.

GENERAL PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS

Pest-Caused Losses this Nation is enormous. Secondary costsmay, in the long run, be even greater. For ex-

The amount of land now cultivated is 50 ample, soil erosion losses that result from cul-percent greater than would be required if tivation of marginal, sloping lands and tillagethere were no pest-induced losses. The for weeds and other pest controls representamounts of fertilizers, energy requirements, significant costs to society while the costs oflabor, capital, and other inputs are also cor- pesticide use in terms of health and the envi-respondingly greater. The total direct cost to ronment have only recently been addressed.

78 . Pest Management Stategies

The economic impacts of increased lossesthat would occur if no pesticides were usedon grains and soybeans have been estimatedbased on economic models (see Volume 11—Corn). Food grain, feed grain, and oilmealprices would increase 60 percent, 200 per-cent, and 171 percent, respectively. Consum-er welfare would decrease by over $38 billionannually, but farm income would increase by$27 billion with a net economic efficiency lossof about $11 billion annually. These estimateswere made on a short-term basis; the long-term impacts are not known.

Although estimates were not made of theimpacts of reduced pest-caused productionlosses as a result of the use of alternative pestmanagement strategies, improved pest con-trol can be expected to favor consumer wel-fare and eventually the entire community, Forexample, if pest-induced losses could be re-duced by one-half, current production couldbe maintained with a 30-percent reduction inagricultural land use.

A major problem with the above type of es-timating and generalizing is that crop lossesare not uniform across crops nor are themethods of control. As stated earlier, pesti-cides are the primary control tactic for spe-cific pests on some crops while host resist-ance, cultural, or biological control may bebasic for others. Also, direct measurablelosses for some crops are thought to be mini-mal, while for others there are appreciableknown losses against which no economicallyfeasible controls are available.

Instability of Pests andPest Control Tactics

Without doubt the overriding problem andconcern in crop protection on agriculturalcrops is the ephemeral nature of most controltactics. This is due in large measure to theevolutionary process by which organismsadapt to their environments. The process hasbeen going on as long as life itself, but inagriculture, evolution of pest species is ac-celerated by intense selection pressurese i ther for res i s tant s t ra ins or res i s tantspecies. The practices of plowing and culti-

vating soon result in the elimination of peren-nials and great increases in high seed-pro-ducing annual weeds. The use of stem-rust-resistant wheat cultivars eventually resultsin rust strains capable of overcoming suchresistance. Continual exposure of pests to dis-ease or other biological control agents canlead to resistant pests as in the case of rab-bits to myxomytosis in Australia, The rapidevolution of pesticide-resistant insects andmites is documented by the long list of specieswith acquired resistance. A similar pattern isdeveloping for some plant pathogens. Somerodents are now resistant to anticoagulantcontrol agents. Many pesticides, especiallyinsecticides and miticides, have been short-lived relative to long-term crop protection.

In addition, there are the problems of thespread of pests into new areas, of the in-troduction of exotic pests, of the adaptationof indigenous species to cultivated crops andchanges in agricultural practices, crops, andcropping systems that impact on the natureand intensity of pest problems. Weather, too,can drastically change pest problems fromyear to year and even within the same year.

Thus, pest problems and solutions are con-tinually changing and evolving and alwayswill. The great concern is whether adequatecontrol tactics and strategies can be madeavailable to avoid serious or catastrophiclosses. The present national effort , bothpublic and private, may not be adequate tomaintain present levels of crop protection, letalone reduce losses caused by pests.

Inadequate information to Developand Implement Effective Pest

Management Systems

Another general problem and concern incrop protection that emerged from the origi-nal crop studies is a lack of knowledge thatmust be available as a basis for developing ef-fective, economical pest management systemsfor agricultural crops. The identified knowl-edge gaps are:

basic biology of pest organisms;. interactions between pests and hosts;

Ch. IV—Present Problems, Concerns, and Most Promising Approaches ● 79

●

●

●

●

●

●

Not

interactions between pests and their biological environment;pest detection and monitoring capabil-ities;prediction capabilities;economic thresholds, particularly formultiple-pest complexes;impact of crop rotation, tillage, pesticideuse, and other production practices onpest problems; andprevention or delay of pest resistance tocontrol tactics, especially pesticides.

all of the above information is needed toinitiate pest management; relatively simplesystems can be put in practice with moderatelevels of information. However, further ad-vances will occur largely on the basis of newknowledge in these areas.

Lack of Manpower

All the regional study teams reported thatthere is not enough available scientific man-power to significantly increase the rate atwhich pest management is now being devel-oped. Estimates of the number of additionalscientific man-years required to fi l l theknowledge gaps in a reasonable length oftime and to make significant gains in cropprotection indicate that appreciable in-creases are needed for all the cropping re-gions considered.

Another manpower problem is the numberof persons needed for integrated pest man-agement (IPM) implementation to performscouting, consulting, and other components ofpest management on agricultural crops. TheUSDA/Science and Education Administra-tion/Extension Service estimates there will beover 3,600 private farm advisors (consult-ants) and 63,000 seasonal scouts needed by1986. The Extension Committee on Organiza-tion & Policy (ECOP) Pest Management Plan-ning Committee estimated 5,000 advisors andup to 70,000 seasonal scouts. Recently theNational Agricultural Chemicals 1PM Com-mittee estimated a need for 7,600 to 10,600supervisory personnel and 61,300 to 82,600scouts to fully implement 1PM on cotton, corn,sorghum, soybean, alfalfa hay, peanut, rice,commercial vegetables, fruits and planted

nuts, and tobacco. The three estimates areremarkably close. The assumption is madethat most scouts and advisors or consultantswill be in the private sector and supported bythe primary beneficiaries, the producers.

The above estimates of personnel require-ments may not be very accurate, but even ifthe demand should be only 50 percent ofthese, a sizable number of persons must betrained and paid. The added manpower willreplace “insurance applied” pesticides andother tactics used to ensure that unaccept-able crop losses will be avoided. In otherwords, manpower is to be substituted for un-needed pesticide use, tillage, etc., and to en-sure maximum effectiveness of all tactics.The eventual level of substitution will dependon economics and the value to the producersof the crop protection service provided by theprivate sector.

The lack of manpower required for teach-ing and training personnel needed to developand implement improved crop protection tac-tics and 1PM systems is also a problem andconcern for those institutions responsible forsuch activities.

Lack of Alternatives toChemical Pesticides

There are enough known and potentialproblems with the use of most pesticides to in-dicate that research efforts must be in-creased to develop alternative control tactics.The regional studies illustrate that there aremany insect, disease, nematode, and weedproblems for which there are no alternativecontrol techniques to pesticides. Without theuse of pesticides, diseases and insect pests ofapple and potato, boll weevil on cotton,strawberry diseases, insects and weeds, allclasses of pests on vegetables, and weeds inwheat, corn, and soybean would take intoler-able tolls in production of these crops. Thelack of alternatives is not only a concern butcreates the potential for a major dislocationin food production should critical pesticidesbecome unavailable for use. Potential alter-natives, as indicated in earlier sections, maytake years to develop.


MOST PROMISING APPROACHES

It is not practical to concentrate on any onecontrol tactic to the exclusion of others. Ifcrop losses in the United States and else-where are to be reduced, efforts must bemade on all fronts. The availability of a suit-able array of control tactics is essential forthe future of crop protection and pest man-agement programs.

The primary responsibility for developing,implementing, and maintaining these tacticslies in the public sector, in the private sector,or in both sectors. Those depending on publicsector teaching, research, and extension ef-forts are host-plant resistance, cultural con-trols, biological controls, monitoring, model-ing, and prediction technology. Industry ofteninteracts to enhance these, especially indesigning and producing equipment, Quaran-tine and eradication programs are almost en-tirely publicly supported.

The private sector has primarily developedand introduced traditional pesticides, whilethe public sector has greatly influenced andcontrolled the use and regulation of these ma-terials. Application technology efforts havebeen supported by both.

The development and use of microbialpesticides, hormones, antihormones, phero-mones, and allelopathic agents have resultedfrom the efforts of Federal, State, and indus-try scientists.

The need for an integrated approach tocrop protection is becoming more and moreevident as the problems of unilateral controlsare being discovered. Therefore, a basic re-quirement for maintaining present levels ofcrop protection and reducing present lossesis the availability of feasible pest manage-ment programs for all of our crops. These willrequire multidisciplinary efforts by scientistsin the crop protection, crop production, eco-nomics, and related disciplines as well as thecooperation of private industry.

An essential component of any system toensure reduced crop losses due to pests is anappropriate and adequate farmer advisory

capability. This must involve the cooperativeextension system, weather service, privateconsultants, scouts, and the pesticide in-dustry.

And the final essential element to improvecrop protection is a teaching capability ade-quate for the task. Appropriate instructionand information are needed for all persons in-cluding farmers, county agents, extensionspecialists, industry personnel, consultants,scouts, and crop protection researchers.

A study of the seven regional reports sug-gests that the development of pest-resistantcultivars offers significant promise of reduc-ing losses on a long-term basis from diseases,nematodes, insects, and perhaps mites. Theresults obtained on several crops when re-alistic efforts have been made are impres-sive: examples from this assessment arefound on cotton, wheat, corn, vegetables, andpotato. Useful resistance has been bred intotobacco, rice, and many ornamental. Toler-ance of attack by pest organisms can beuseful in reducing losses. It has been demon-strated experimentally and in actual prac-tical use that control tactics, such as pesti-cides and time of planting, are more effectiveon plants with even a modest degree of resist-ance than they are on susceptible plantsgrown under similar conditions.

The classical biological control approachon insec ts and mi tes , especially exoticspecies, is one that should be stressed toreduce losses by these arthropods. The aug-mentation of exist ing natural enemies isanother underdeveloped area that offersmuch promise for reducing insect and mitelosses. This can be accomplished by propa-gating and releasing parasites and predators,creating favorable environments, and usingpesticides in a manner least harmful to bene-ficial organisms. Biological control is particu-larly adapted to those pest organisms thatcan be tolerated in low numbers on crops,Less success has been obtained againstdirect feeders such as the codling moth, cab-bage worms, cabbage looper, and European

Ch. IV—Present Problems, Concerns, and Most Prom/sing Approaches ● 81.—

corn borer. The ultimate role of biological greatest potential in pest management strat-control of plant pathogens and nematodes is egies, we are not suggesting that other tacticsunclear, but enough successes have been ob- are unimportant or do not warrant further re-tained to suggest that considerable effort search and development. Rather, we empha-.,. ,should be made in this area.

By singling out host-planbiological control as those ta

size that their potential justifies a greater de-gree of effort than in the past and that ex-

resistance and cellent gains toward improved pest manage-ctics offering the ment are possible through increased efforts.

Chapter V

Obstacles to the Developmentand Adoption of Improved

Pest Control Tactics and

Chapter V

Obstacles to the Development andAdoption of Improved Pest

Control Tactics and PestManagement Strategies

Great advances have been made in crop protection in the United States overthe past century, but there are many difficult problems and concerns about pres-ent and future capabilities to protect our agriculture from the ravages of pests. Aclear need exists for new and improved crop protection tactics and new pestmanagement strategies. There are also serious concerns about the negative im-pacts of tactics used in crop protection, especially as they affect human health,the environment, and agricultural productivity.

This chapter addresses the obstacles to the development and adoption ofnew and improved pest control strategies and tactics, and problems of the Fed-eral, land-grant, and private enterprise systems that undergird agricultural pestmanagement in the United States. The impression should not be drawn that all iswrong but rather that a reasonably good system has faults that should be modi-fied to meet present and future needs.

The several constraints that are identified in this report form the basis oftwo dominant but related classes of obstacles to the implementation of integratedpest management (1PM): technological and administrative. Technological obsta-cles are: 1) inadequate knowledge base for full 1PM development in both basicand applied aspects of crop protection, Z) narrow range of available control tac-tics, 3) inadequate delivery systems, 4) lack of environmental monitoring systems,5) lack of adequate pest management training programs and trained manpower,and 6) grower skepticism. Administrative obstacles are: 1) lack of cooperationand coordination and 2) cosmetic (esthetic] standards. There is no general agree-ment among experts regarding the relative importance of each of these, but cer-tainly the inadequate scientific knowledge base for full 1PM development is at thetop of the list. Also, lack of cooperation and coordination within the Federal agen-cies and between them and the States is of prime importance.

Inadequate Knowledge Base management are made will depend largely onthe rate of development of new knowledge in

An inadequate knowledge base is a major both basic and applied crop protection andobstacle to future advances in crop protec- related sciences. It is generally recognizedtion. The rate at which new advances in pest that few sophisticated 1PM systems are oper-

85


ational. Of the programs in operation, mostare already as sophisticated as they can bewith existing information. Further informa-tion has not been developed on the basic biol-ogy of pests, biosystematics, interactionswithin pest complexes and between them andtheir host plants, economic thresholds, andthe economics of pest management. Only re-search can provide this information.

A major gap impeding implementation ofimproved pest management is definitiveknowledge of the interactions of pest com-plexes that attack the farm production unit.Growers are increasingly aware of the needto consider entire complexes of pests of alltheir crops in the total farm management sys-tem. They want information on the total im-pact of pest complexes rather than on individ-ual pest species, and they need to know howactions taken against one pest or group ofpests on one crop may affect other pest popu-lations on that or other crops.

Data to support crop loss estimates due tomost pests is lacking. Figures that are widelyquoted on pest losses are little more thaneducated guesses. Accurate data on cropyield, quality, and the effect of pest popula-tions on these factors are essential to estab-lish economic thresholds, to make control rec-ommendations, and to evaluate the success ofpest management programs.

Adequate information in these crucialareas is not available. The broadly interdisci-plinary research, which cuts across depart-mental, agency, and institutional lines andwhich is necessary to address these ques-tions, has not been adequately supported. Atpresent, a major portion of the public sectorfunds for crop protection is in basic and com-ponents research, but very little is spent put-ting the pieces together. Much of the fault forthis lies in the necessity for a strong discipli-nary base before interdisciplinary researchcan be effective. Funding and incentivessimply have not been there to foster the kindof effort needed.

Pest management implementation pro-grams also depend on the use of accurate eco-nomic thresholds to make decisions on when

and how to act against a pest population.Thresholds are difficult to quantify; many arebased on “rule-of-thumb” estimates of thetradeoff between costs of control and croplosses. If the number of implemented pestmanagement programs is to increase, sub-stantially greater effort must be expended onthe development of economic thresholds andother short-term research needed primarilyfor implementation programs.

One other area, the economics of pest man-agement programs, has not been adequatelyinvestigated. Economic benefits are the key tothe rapid adoption of a pest management pro-gram by growers. Economic research is nec-essary to determine the costs and benefits ofdifferent control tactics, develop sophisti-cated economic threshold levels, and presentgrowers with specific examples of the in-creases in economic return that can be ob-tained in a pest management program. Part ofthe problem is the lack of money available forsuch research. Much of the problem is due tothe lack of awareness of the subfield of pestcontrol by professional economists. Efforts tomake more economists aware of the issuesand opportunities in pest management shouldbe encouraged.

Narrow Range of Control Tactics

A wide array of cultural, biological, andchemical control tactics is necessary to de-sign and implement effective pest manage-ment programs. Unfortunately, a broadchoice of tactics is not available for use onmost crops. Some tactics are in their earlystages of development; others are being slow-ly reemphasized and updated. For some con-ventional broad-spectrum pesticides, thereare serious questions regarding their safetyand applicability in pest management pro-grams. Further, the effectiveness of somepesticides is being eroded as resistance tothem becomes more and more widespread.

Efforts should be made to improve the effi-ciency of pesticide use. A considerable poten-tial for greater precision in the accuracy anduniformity of pesticide applications now ex-ists. Improved equipment, such as electro-

Ch, V—Obstacles to the Development & Adoption of Improved Pest Control Tactics & Pest Management Strategies ● 87

statically charged dusts and sprays, variable-rate sprayers, recirculating sprayers, andmicrowave soil sterilizers, is now being eval-uated. Such equipment may have potentialfor use in pest control if it can be developedfor practical uses. The efficiency of certainpesticides can be improved by formulationchanges that can provide extended periods ofpesticide activity with lower rates of applica-tion. Also, certain broad-spectrum chemicalsmay be timed and properly applied to affordselective activity.

It is important that agricultural and chem-ical engineers be included in both the re-search and implementation phases of pestmanagement. Their expertise can help tobroaden the range of available tactics, addprecision to current practices, and developnew control tactics. It is clear that a con-certed effort has to be made to present thegrower with a broad assortment of safe andeffective control measures from which todesign a practical pest managment program.

Control tactics regulated by the FederalGovernment include the pesticides as regu-lated by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), under the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and to amuch smaller degree the biological controlprograms of the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture (USDA) and the States, EPA responsi-bility for pesticide regulations affects boththe development and use of pesticides in pestmanagement programs. This includes notonly conventional broad-spectrum pesticidesbut selective conventional pesticides—phero-mones, hormones, viruses, and bacteria aswell.

A new set of amendments to FIFRA hasbeen passed by Congress to deal with theproblems created by EPA’s registration pro-tocols. Developed after lengthy hearings anddebate, they are designed to speed up theregistration process without sacrificing en-vironmental quality and safety. Becausethese issues are widely discussed elsewhere,they are not addressed here. One point thatdoes deserve mention, however, is the lack ofa uniform national policy for making regula-

tory decisions on potential carcinogens.There are concerns in two areas. One is agenuine disagreement over the accuracy ofthe various guidelines for determining car-cinogenicity that are now used by regulatoryagencies. The other is the effect that this lackof uniformity of standards has had on the pre-dictability and stability of the regulatoryprocess. EPA has developed one policy on in-terpreting data on the potential carcinogenic-ity of a chemical; the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration, the Food andDrug Administration (FDA), and the Con-sumer Product Safety Commission have de-veloped others. Industry is faced with a situa-tion where the same chemical may be classedas a carcinogen by one agency and not byanother simply on the basis of a different enduse. This lack of uniformity and the resultingunpredictability of the regulatory process hasaffected the use of chemical pesticides aspart of a pest control program. Current con-gressional and executive branch interest indeveloping a uniform policy for making reg-ulatory decisions on carcinogenicity shouldbe given strong support.

EPA’s authority to regulate pesticidesunder FIFRA extends to their use in the field.Under FIFRA, legal use of a pesticide is gov-erned by label restrictions and directions foruse. The Agency took the stance that applica-tion of a pesticide to a crop named on thelabel but against an unnamed pest or at lessthan the recommended dosage was an illegalaction. The inflexibility created by this situa-tion made it difficult to design programs usingless than label dosages or prescribed meth-ods of application. The passage of the 1978FIFRA Amendment should largely eliminatethis problem by allowing pest managementprograms to be developed using pesticidesagainst unnamed pests, at lower than labeleddosage rates, and applied by novel meansunless prohibited by the label.

An unintended side effect of the amend-ment, however, increases the potential liabili-ty of pest management advisors. Under thepresent situation of strictly enforced labelrecommendations, liability lies primarily with


the manufacturer for harm due to foresee-able use. If a pest management advisor makesa recommendation to use a pesticide at lessthan label rate, against an unnamed pest, orusing a novel method, and damage or poorcontrol results, liability may shift from thepesticide manufacturer to the consultant.Liability problems may inhibit the formationof private pest management consulting firmsand advisory organizations.

Some items falling under EPA’s definitionof pesticides have come under increasingpublic attention as potentially effective toolswhile presenting minimal health and environ-mental dangers. Included are narrowly selec-tive conventional pesticides, the so calledthird-generation insecticides—pheromones,hormones, viruses, fungi, bacteria, and pro-tozoa. The development and commercializa-tion of these items have been exceedinglyslow, much slower than the public interest inthem would warrant.

Part of the difficulty is a question of quan-tity. One desirable feature shared by theabove pesticides is their narrow spectrum ofactivity. By affecting only a particular pestgenus or family, these pesticides, especiallythe insecticides and miticides, can allowbeneficial predators and parasites to survivein a treated field. The narrow spectrum oftheir activity also means that in most casesrelatively small quantities will be sold. Thissmall market potential, coupled with the factthat the quantity of data required to registerthem is the same or more than that necessaryfor a broad-spectrum pesticide, has madetheir development an unattractive invest-ment, and industry has opted for the moreprofitable broad-spectrum high-volume pesti-cides. Where profitable markets for certainnarrow-spectrum pesticides do exist—for ex-ample, in situations where key pests are in-volved such as the boll weevil on cotton andthe codling moth on apple—industry needs toredirect its development efforts and take ad-vantage of these markets for narrow-spec-trum pesticides. In addition, the Governmentcould use all appropriate means to expandthe research aimed at discovering new molec-ular models of selective pesticidal activity.

The third-generation pesticides and micro-bial face a qualitative as well as quantita-tive problem. They are qualitatively differentfrom conventional pesticides; they act by totally different mechanisms, and they raisedifferent questions as to potential hazards tothe environment. At present, EPA’s registra-tion requirements for these compounds areextremely unclear. Past decisions appear tohave been based on the same tests requiredfor chemical pesticides. The added delaysdue both to uncertainty over tests requiredand to conducting inappropriate tests havedecreased their attractiveness to industry.

One explanation for this is that EPA hasnot made adequate use of the mechanismsavailable which would allow it to tai lorreregistration requirements directly to thedi f fe rent c lasses o f chemica l s . Becausebroad-spectrum pesticides are the most im-portant, the tests designed to answer ques-tions about their potential dangers weredeveloped first. EPA is applying the sametests to almost all compounds, and industryassumes they will continue to do so. WhileEPA intends to put together differentialguidelines for the registration of pheromones,hormones, and microbes, guidelines forbroad-spectrum chemicals have to be revisedfirst. This will continue the confusion and de-lays in attempting to register third-generationpesticides.

Another obstacle facing the commercialdevelopment of pheromones and microbial isthe uncertain status of patent and propri-etary rights. Pheromones are naturally occur-ring chemicals and cannot be patented, butthe process by which they are manufacturedis patentable, as are any novel chemical ana-logues of them. Until recently, micro-orga-nisms were also considered unpatentable.Two recent decisions] of the U.S. Court ofCustoms and Patent Appeals have opened thepossibil ity that these organisms may bepatentable.

With respect to “classical” biologicalcontrol—i. e., the importation of natural

IBergy, 197 USPQ, 78: Chakrabarty, 197 USPQ, 72.

Ch. V—Obstacles to the Development & Adoption of Improved Pest Control Tactics & Pest Management Strategies 89

enemies as opposed to the augmentation ofexisting forms or the use of autocidal meth-ods—it is apparent that a major increase insupport of Federal and State importation pro-grams is long overdue. Classical biologicalcontrol has proven potential, particularly forinsect and mite pests, but programs to ex-pand it have been understaffed and uncoor-dinated. Existing USDA and State programsfor natural enemy exploration and importa-tion have neither the funds nor the organiza-tional network to adequately explore and takeadvantage of the possibil i t ies for majorbreakthroughs. The need for more effectivecoordination of these efforts is now beingrecognized by the States and USDA.

Success in increasing the number of in-field biological control organisms has beenvery slow. Much of the problem has been thelow level of funding that biological controlhas received. Another part of the problemhas been the lack of a formally designated ac-tion agency to ensure that once established,an introduced natural enemy is distributedwithin a large geographical area.

A related constraint is the inadequacy ofinternational programs created to discovernew germ plasm. Over 95 percent of cropsgrown in the United States have their origin,centers of genetic diversity, and pest centersoutside the United States. Success of effortsto expand the use of host resistance as wellas biological control requires work in parts ofthe world where these crops are indigenous.It is in these areas that, through thousands ofyears, balanced cropping systems, natural re-sistance, and biological control agents haveevolved. Unfortunately, detailed informationabout the patterns of crop variability in cen-ters of crop diversity is lacking for mostcrops. As a consequence, even less is knownabout ancient cropping systems, the basic bi-ology of pests, and the distribution patterns ofnatural resistance and biological controls.

Seed and other breeding materials col-lected in centers of crop diversity are the bestproven sources for developing natural resist-ance. Furthermore, these traditional materi-als will be needed even if the dreams of genet-

ic engineers become a reality. For nearly adecade and a half, the United Nations’ Foodand Agriculture Organization has led in plan-ning international efforts to collect and con-serve crop variability. USDA’s AgriculturalResearch (AR) has had a similar plan to mini-mize genetic vulnerability of the Nation’scrops through germ plasm collection and con-servation. If diverse genetic materials are notavailable to plant breeders, the long-term po-tentials of developing pest-resistant and toler-ant varieties cannot be realized. The corol-lary task of understanding the basic mecha-nisms and genetics of resistance for eachcrop also depends on the availability of suchgerm plasm.

Lack of Adequate Delivery Systems

The lack of adequate pest management de-livery systems also constrains improved cropprotection. These systems must include themechanisms and personnel required to Collect and disseminate the information neces-sary to operate effective pest managementprograms. Delivery methods are in the earlystages of development, and many differentsystems are being tried in various regions ofthe country. It is unlikely that any one singlesystem will work successfully in all regions.

The organizations currently used to deliverpest management services to individual grow-ers can be broadly categorized as follows: a)public service entities, b) private commercialentities, and c) grower-owned entities (com-mercial, cooperative, and nonprofit).

Public service entit ies include Federalagencies and the land-grant universities withtheir research and cooperative extensionservices. The USDA/Extension Service-spon-sored pest management pilot projects havebeen the major effort to implement pest man-agement programs by the public sector.These programs have been extremely impor-tant in making people aware of pest manage-ment and creating a market for private pestmanagement services. Care must be exer-cised in determining the most useful extent towhich the publicly supported programsshould be developed—i.e., the point at which


public programs stop creating a market forprivate firms and become competitive withservices that could be provided by the privatesector.

Private commercial entities will be a vitalfactor in the long-term success of pest man-agement programs nationwide. Well-trainedpest management consultants can offer farm-ers more individualized services than those inpublic programs, Private consultants are like-ly to have the most success in concentratedfarming areas and where net farm incomeallows efficient manpower and equipmentutilization.

A major problem facing private pest man-agement consultants is the danger of unqual-ified persons identifying themselves as ex-perts in the field of pest management. MostStates do not have regulatory standards todetermine the competence of a pest manage-ment consultant. Growers are faced with asituation in which enterprising individualscan sell themselves as pest management spe-cialists on the basis of superficial field-check-ing skills while totally lacking the ability totranslate field data into sound pest manage-ment recommendations. A few such individ-uals in a particular region could severelyharm the emerging consultant industry inthat area.

Another area of concern is the liability ofpest management consultants for crop dam-age due to pests or control measures. If agrower changes his pest control practice onthe basis of a consultant’s advice and hiscrop suffers pest damage, the consultant canbe sued for malpractice. Just as in many otherprofessions, today’s soaring malpractice in-surance costs could present a severe finan-cial obstacle to the formation of new consult-ing services.

Grower-owned entitites that are operatedas business organizations that sell their serv-ices have to meet the same natural businessconstraints as private consultants and arefaced by many of the same problems. Grower-owned pest management cooperatives alsoencounter the same governmental and natu-

ral constraints faced by regular commercialentities. The seasonal nature of pest manage-ment activities can create difficulties for ven-tures that are limited only to pest manage-ment services. This often can be overcome byproviding pest management services in con-junction with other sales and service activ-ities. For existing cooperatives, it may be pos-sible to expand into pest management serv-ices. Both of these methods have been suc-cessfully employed by a small number of co-operatives around the country.

Organizing a cooperative specifically forthe purpose of providing pest managementservices can often present an insurmountablefinancial barrier in areas where pest man-agement is practiced only through an exten-sion service pilot program. There are severalconstraints that apply here: 1) the number offarmers involved in the extension pilot pro-gram may be too small to assume the finan-cial risk involved in capitalizing a full-servicepest management co-op, 2) there is a naturalreluctance to “sever the umbilical” to exten-sion service pilot programs where they are ineffect, and 3) the lack of qualified sales andservice personnel to handle day-to-day opera-tions makes formation of the cooperative dif-ficult, even if otherwise possible.

Nonprofit grower-owned entities can be ameans of avoiding these problems. They arefunctionally different from all other ap-proaches to developing the pest managementconcept at the grower level. This is because:1) they exist as a data-gathering base for jointland-grant university/Federal pest manage-ment programs; 2) they perform no sales orservice functions such as consultation, pesti-cide sales, or pesticide application; and 3) theonly direct benefit to member farmers is thereceipt of a copy of pest identification andpopulation data from the land-grant univer-sity. The farmer may use this information tomake his own decision or furnish it to a con-sultant for recommendation. The direct bene-fit to the farmer is incidental to the overallbenefit to farmers in general as a result of thedata collected and analyzed.

Ch. V—Obstacles to the Development& Adoption of Improved Pest Control Tactics & Pest Management Strategies . 91

These organizations can help growersmove from extension pilot programs into self-supporting, grower-owned activities. Theycan be either registered as tax-exempt orga-nizations or brought under the tax-exemptumbrella by becoming a county chapter of auniversity-sponsored State pest managementassociation.

Obstacles to their widespread use includethe unwillingness of growers to pay directlyfor pest management services and the com-plexities of registering with the InternalRevenue Service (IRS) for tax-exempt status.The paperwork surrounding the formation ofthese associations (even in an unincorporatedform) may be a severe disincentive for farm-ers of low-to-moderate income and education.Farmers who need most to be involved in pestmanagement programs are the ones most like-ly to be put off by endless correspondenceand forms.

The role of pesticide company fieldmenand pesticide applicators in pest manage-ment programs has not been adequately de-fined. To date, these individuals have beenthe most readily available sources of informa-tion on pest control methods to farmers.Chemical company fieldmen are located in allareas of the country and are active in dis-seminating pest control information. Ques-tions have arisen regarding the ability or will-ingness of these local company field repre-sentatives to embrace pest management atthe farm level. Although a few are enthusias-tic, their general approach to ongoing pestmanagement projects has ranged from indif-ference to outright hostility. Industry spokes-men maintain that they recognize the benefitsof the pest management approach and arewilling to become involved. Some outside ofindustry express doubt that a person whosejob is tied directly or indirectly to the sale orapplication of chemical pesticides can offerimpartial advice on a program that uses mul-tiple-control techniques. They view pesticidesas comparable to human drugs and ask if phy-sicians should be allowed to both prescribeand sell them to their patients.

This problem is complicated by the factthat many fieldmen are upstanding membersof the local community. Their advice is re-spected and their friendship valued. Someway of including them in the move to 1PMshould be found. One key will be to involvethem without limiting the choice of controItactics available in a program.

Lack of an Environmental MonitoringSystem

In addition to information relating to an in-dividual grower’s field, areawide informationon pest populations and weather is neces-sary. For most agricultural pests, informationfrom individual fields does not provide theclues needed to predict long-term or area-wide changes in pest populations. Since manypests move, either actively or passively, andall are affected by weather patterns, data onweather, crop mix and growth, and pest pop-ulations are necessary for the development ofpredictive techniques and the use of thesetechniques in pest management programs.

A national environmental monitoring sys-tem does not exist, and useful information inexisting research or implementation pro-grams is slowly communicated to others. Thisresults in duplication and information gapsthat are both costly and unnecessary.

A national agroecosystem monitoring pro-gram using existing computer and electronic-sensing technology is necessary to providethe predictive capabilities essential to pestmanagement systems. Such a program wouldprovide benefits in two major areas: 1) exten-sion specialists, agricultural agents, andprivate pest management consultants wouldhave access to accurate and timely crop,weather, and pest population forecasts foruse in existing pest management programs;and 2) researchers who cannot now afford togather the areawide weather and crop infor-mation necessary to understand their rela-tionship to pest populations would have avail-able the information necessary to predict po-tential pest outbreaks.


Two major impediments to attempting todesign such a system on a project-by-projector State-by-State system are: 1) the costs ofdata acquisition are too great to be borne byindividual projects or farmers, and 2) manyprojects do not have the expertise to choose,install, operate, and service the specializedinstruments required.

An interlocking network of State, regional,and national systems should provide the bestpossible service.

Lack of Pest Management TrainingPrograms and Trained Manpower

The lack of trained manpower and pro-grams in many institutions to train personnellimits the research, education, and implemen-tation efforts in pest management and resultsin part from the incomplete acceptance of theconcept within the university community. Todate, most administrators, professional re-searchers, teachers, extension specialists,and paraprofessionals have been educatedalong strict disciplinary lines. This incom-.plete acceptance, coupled with decreasingFederal financial support for teaching, re-search, and extension in the food and agricul-tural sciences, has inhibited the developmentof multidisciplinary training programs in pestmanagement. In a 1977 survey, only 34 of the49 responding land-grant universities re-ported having undergraduate programs inpest management. These were aimed mainlyat technical positions. At the graduate level,the number of M. S., Ph. D., and professionalre-education programs is much smaller.These are the programs that will supply theindividuals for teaching, research, and exten-sion efforts so critical to the future of pestmanagement.

A major constraint in establishing pestmanagement training programs as well asacademic teaching, research, and implemen-tation programs has been the lack of ade-quate financial and facility support. The lim-ited financial support for pest managementthat has been provided has come from theFederal Government through special grant orpilot program funds. This “soft money” does

.not attract highly trained faculty or providemotivation to develop programs that requirean expansion of classroom or laboratoryspace at a university. There is little incentiveto attach a high priority to programs thatwould, in effect, increase mission respon-sibility with an inadequate provision for in-creased staff and facility needs. Further, a“soft money” approach does not provide suf-ficient security incentives to attract the bestpractitioners available. In many universitiesthere is a budgetary inability to pick up andcontinue programs at the expiration of grantor pilot program funds.

Along with a sound scientific foundation,pest management personnel must have train-ing with a strong applied component. Peoplewith experience in field diagnosis and in mak-ing control recommendations are essential tothe successful design of future pest manage-ment research and education programs, aswell as the implementation of pest manage-ment programs. Field experience through in-ternships must be a central component of anypest management training curriculum.

There are some unique difficulties in thetraining of private pest management advi-sors. A major one is the need for broad spe-cialization in several areas. Scouts, scout su-pervisors, and pest management advisorssuch as county extension agents and privateconsultants are all needed to ensure effectivecoverage of a farmer’s pest managementneeds.

Recruitment and training of scouts facesome unique problems because of the season-al nature of the work. Scouts must be trainedto identify accurately at least the major pestsin a grower’s field and to assess pest damageto crops. The type and duration of their em-ployment make it difficult to establish a per-manent pool of trained scouts from which tohire each year. Efforts to locate individualswilling to work in the fields are concentratedon vacationing college students, farmers’spouses, and undergraduate students in pestmanagement. Effective short-term trainingprograms are needed to ensure the com-petence of the scouts.


Pest management practitioners are respon-sible for reviewing the data collected by thescouts and making control recommendationsto the farmer. They should have a solid back-ground in fundamental science as well as ex-perience in field problems and farm manage-ment. They must be able to recognize anddeal with all aspects of a farmer’s pest prob-lems, including weeds, diseases, nematodes,and insects. Specifically trained pest man-agement practitioners are rare. Lack of per-sonnel to provide the total production mana-gement schedule on a farm is a major limit-ing factor in pest management implementa-tion. Traditional university departmentallines and the difficulty with which adequateapplied components are introduced into atraining program have made their establish-ment difficult. The lack of support for prac-tical internships is a large obstacle.

Some have suggested that an entirely newprogram is needed leading to a professionaldegree in pest management, such as a doctorof plant health. Such a program would be sim-ilar to present programs in veterinary medi-cine and would involve a broad practical in-terdisciplinary education with an intensiveclinical experience component. It would moreadequately prepare an individual to addressthe special problems encountered when im-plementing a practical pest management pro-gram.

Grower Skepticism

Grower skepticism is often cited as an ob-stacle to the adoption of pest managementsystems. Reluctance by growers can be as-cribed to such factors as confidence in theirpresent pest control practices, hesitancy tospend money for the uncertain services of-fered in a pest management program, lack ofserious threat from pests with currently usedsystems, and lack of demonstrated economicbenefits from employing a pest managementprogram.

These are less a reflection of growers’ at-titudes than of the present state of the art ofpest management. Many growers have enthu-siastically adopted a pest management pro-gram when a program was well-developedand presented. In some instances, the pestmanagement approach has been the only so-lution to growers’ pest problems and hassaved their operations from financial disas-ter. The lack of availability of demonstratedeconomically sound pest management sys-tems is the overriding obstacle to farmeradoption of 1PM.

Being businessmen, growers are the first toadopt new ways to solve their problems andcut their costs. People working in pest man-agement must design programs that can beunderstood by growers, are practical interms of growers’ total farm management,and that offer them real economic benefits.

ADMINISTRATIVE OBSTACLES

Lack of Cooperation andCoordination

The preceding obstacles to improved cropprotection and to the pest management ap-proach refer to specific control tactics orstrategies. Lack of cooperation and coordina-tion are general constraints that are per-vasive throughout crop protection and par-ticularly for 1PM.

In 1971, concern over the environmentaland health problems of pesticides resulted in

the passage of the Federal EnvironmentalPesticide Control Act of 1972 (FEPCA) and anintensified search for more effective and de-sirable methods of pest control. The im-mediate product of the latter was the 1972report of the Council on Environmental Quali-ty (CEQ) entitled “Integrated Pest Manage-merit. ” Pest management was hailed as a wayto couple environmental protection with thepractical concerns of agricultural produc-tion. Unfortunately, this combination hasbecome the center of a policy struggle.


The main agencies involved in the issue atthe Federal level are CEQ, USDA, EPA, theNational Science Foundation, and, to a lesserextent, FDA, and the Departments of State,Defense, and the Interior.

Before detailing this obstacle a brief in-troduction to the roles and responsibilities ofthese agencies is presented.

Council on Environmental Quality: CEQ’srole is that of a catalyst. By performing broadpolicy oversight, participating in the budge-tary process, and making recommendationsto the President, it plans to “help the agenciesdevelop a comprehensive approach to 1PM. ”While CEQ recognizes the importance of pro-duction economies to the future of pest man-agement, the main focus of its approach is toprotect the quality of the environment. Itsgoal, as recently stated by Charles Warren,former chairman of the Council, is to “reducethe excessive use of such chemical pesticidesand to use natural biological and environ-mental measures to achieve pest controlwhenever practical. ”

U.S. Department of Agriculture: WhileCEQ has been given broad policy responsibil-ity, the lead Agency for pest management re-search, education, and demonstration isUSDA. Working with the associated system ofland-grant universities, State agricultural ex-periment stations, and cooperative extensionservices, USDA aims to promote efficient,productive agriculture. These cooperatingpublic institutions are the biggest factor inthe development and introduction of newtechnologies for U.S. agriculture.

As the lead Agency for agriculture in theFederal Government, USDA is concernedwith the ability of farmers to produce ade-quate supplies of food and fiber at a reason-able cost. Its many programs are designed tomake U.S. agriculture more efficient, moreproductive, and economically sound. Whilevitally concerned with the environment,USDA’s top priority in pest management is toensure that the programs offer farmers ade-quate protection against pest damage at areasonable expense.

Six major agencies of USDA are directly in-volved in efforts on pest management: Agri-cultural Research (AR); Cooperative Re-search (CR); Extension Service (ES); Econom-ics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service(ESCS); Animal and Plant Health InspectionService (APHIS); and the Forest Service (FS).To coordinate the efforts of these differentagencies, the Department created an inter-agency work group on pest managementchaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Conservation, Research, and Education.Its role is one of making suggestions andrecommendations; it has no program direc-tion or managerial responsibilities. In addi-tion, the newly organized Science and Educa-tion Administration (SEA), home of AR, CR,and ES, recently formed an SEA-wide coordi-nating team for pest management. Composedof technical experts from the three agencieslisted above and chaired by a pest manage-ment specialist, it makes recommendations onmethods to integrate the programs of the in-volved agencies.

Environmental Protection Agency: EPA’sinvolvement in pest management stems fromits overall responsibility to protect the qualityof the environment by regulating environmen-tal and public health hazards. This duty isvery different from the USDA’s responsibilityto promote agricultural production. These dif-ferent roles are reflected very clearly in theirapproaches to pest management.

EPA’s approach to 1PM represents a com-mitment to the production of food and fiber inthe most environmentally protective way thatis also economically sound. The responsibilityis clearly to protect the environment byminimizing the application of pesticides tocropland. This affects pest management intwo different ways. One involves the generaleffect of its registration procedures on theavailabil i ty of pesticides for use in pestmanagement programs. The second area in-cludes plans by EPA to directly employ pestmanagement in its regulatory programs. In adecision on registering a pesticide, ways tominimize the risks from the use of that pesti-cide are a central consideration. EPA views


pest management as one method for reducingthese risks.

EPA is also moving into the area of gather-ing and disseminating information about andencouraging the implementation of pest man-agement programs. EPA has also funded re-search in pest management, including theHuffaker Project (see NSF).

National Science Foundation (NSF): NSFhas been involved in pest management re-search and education. As part of its responsi-bility for supporting basic research, NSF wasthe lead Agency on the Huffaker Pest Man-agement Project. This was the most ambitiouspest management research project ever un-dertaken. It pioneered the use of systemsanalysis in looking at plant/pest interactionswithin a crop ecosystem and helped to bringpest management to the attention of all theland-grant universities. Together with EPA,NSF funneled $12.5 million into the projectover a 7-year period.

NSF has also sponsored several under-graduate pest management training pro-grams. As part of its science education effort,NSF helps develop programs to prepare sci-entists to work on important national prob-lems. Demonstration pest management edu-cation programs have been started at Michi-gan State University, Cornell University, Kan-sas State University, University of Californiaat Fresno, and Alabama A&M. The objectiveof these programs is to develop practical pestmanagement curricula that can be usedacross the country.

In addition to these four agencies, severalothers have program responsibilities that af-fect pest management.

Food and Drug Administration: FDA isresponsible for monitoring contaminants infood and feed under amendments to the Fed-eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.The Act requires that EPA set maximum pes-ticide residue tolerances in food and feed.FDA is responsible for monitoring residuelevels and enforcing the tolerance levels. Alsounder this Act, FDA has responsibility formonitoring processed foods for the presence

of filth or foreign objects. This latter respon-sibility has involved FDA in the debate overthe effect of cosmetic standards on pest man-agement programs.

State Department: The State Department’sAgency for International Development (AID)supports several activities that relate directlyto pest control in developing countries. Theseprograms are in the broad categories of train-ing and education, country development proj-ects, and direct emergency assistance. AIDprovides funds for the training of foreign na-tionals in many fields, including pest manage-ment. The Agency also supports pest manage-ment projects in developing countries throughloans for equipment, supplies, and training.In addition, AID furnishes technical consult-ants and pesticides to countries where pestoutbreaks have created disastrous crop-lossemergencies.

Since 1972, AID has supported the “Uni-versity of California/AID Pest Managementand Related Environmental Problems” proj-ect. The project has involved extensive sur-veys of pest problems in developing countriesand workshops on pest and pesticide manage-ment. Project members have served as short-term consultants on pest problems and ad-vised AID on matters relating to pests andpesticides.

Interior Department: Interior has respon-sibility for managing vast tracts of publiclands. At present, the Department reliesmainly on pesticides to protect these lands,while conducting some research into alter-native methods of pest control. Wildlife andFishery Divisions also conduct experimentson the impact of pest control techniques onnontarget species.

Defense Department: The Defense Depart-ment carr ies on a l imi ted pes t contro lresearch program that focuses on organismsthat interfere with the Nation’s military capa-bility.

In the public sector, three areas in whichthe lack of cooperation is especially criticalare identified within the Federal Govern-ment, between the Federal Government and


the States, and within the land-grant univer-sity complexes. Lack of cooperation and coor-dination are frequently cited obstacles to thedevelopment of any program but the degree towhich they affect pest management is unusu-ally high.

Within the Federal Government

Although there has been considerable in-terest in pest management by Congress andthe President, the lack of a well-defined set ofobjectives, with clearly outlined goals and re-sponsibilities, has severely hampered effortsin this area. One result has been that agen-cies are competing for jurisdiction over pestmanagement.

Each of the four main agencies involved inpest management (CEQ, USDA, EPA, andNSF) has its own particular organizationalstructure and set of priorities. The absence ofa comprehensive set of goals leaves each ofthese agencies to pursue its own ends in pestmanagement. CEQ’s efforts to promote pestmanagement have little impact without activePresidential support. USDA’s leadership inpest management has been cautious. EPAtook the initiative in 1972 with the new pesti-cides legislation to become an active promot-er of pest management. NSF, following itsbasic mission, became involved in pest man-agement by funding basic research and neweducational programs. The result of this un-even Federal effort is a patchwork design ofconflicting goals and overlapping efforts.

This is particularly true between USDAand EPA. USDA is faced with the difficultiesassociated with reorienting a complex Fed-eral/State system, which has operated mainlyunder the ph i losophy o f un i la te ra l ap-proaches to pest control, to a philosophy thatactively seeks to include a large variety ofcontrol techniques. There is uncertaintywithin USDA over how the Department’s ex-isting programs can fit into the new researchand education thrusts.

EPA stepped into what it sees as a void leftby USDA and has become the main proponentof pest management at the Federal level.

While it does not have a major responsibilityfor research and education or possess re-search and extension networks, EPA is be-coming more and more active in these areas.The Agency provided a major part of thefunding for the Huffaker Project and obtainedauthorization for $2.5 million to aid in thefunding of the Adkisson project. It is also de-voting some effort to developing informationsystems and incentives to promote the adop-tion of pest management. EPA’s involvementin these areas of traditional USDA responsi-bility has increased the jurisdictional prob-lem between the agencies.

As EPA expands the use of pest manage-ment in its regulatory programs, philosophi-cal conflicts between the agencies arise aswell. USDA feels that the best way to promotepest management is through education, notregulation. EPA’s responsibility is to reducethe environmental hazards posed by pesti-cides. If they can employ pest management ina regulatory scheme to accomplish this goal,they will attempt to do so.

Without a firm commitment to bring agen-cy programs together and to develop mutualgoals and objectives, these jurisdictional andphilosophical conflicts can only increase. Therecent interagency agreement between EPAand USDA should eliminate much of the pastconfusion and conflict.

Between the Federal Government andthe States

The federally funded extension pest man-agement pilot projects have become a suc-cessful program of coordinated State andFederal action. On the other hand, the com-munication and cooperation in planning pro-grams between the two arms of the publicagricultural research effort—USDA’s Agri-cultural Research and the State AgriculturalExperiment Stations—have been much lesssuccessful.

This lack of cooperation in joint planninghas been recognized as a serious problem byboth USDA and the State Agricultural Experi-ment Stations, but progress has been very

Ch. V—Obstacles to the Development & Adoption of Improved Pest Control Tactics & Pest Management Strategies ● 97

slow in the past. The Department’s creationof SEA was aimed at increasing the coopera-tion among AR, the State research institu-tions associated with CR, USDA/ES, and theCooperative Extension Service. The SEA-widecoordination team on pest management iscurrently examining ways to improve the co-ordination of Federal and State research ef-forts.

Within the Land-Grant Universities

Cooperation and coordination in teaching,research, and extension efforts have beenslowed because of the universities’ disci-plinary and professional departmentaliza-tion. This departmentalization, which evolvedover the past 100 years to meet the needs ofstudents and to best conduct research andextension programs, serves the disciplinaryneeds of the universities but causes someobstacles for interdisciplinary approaches.These obstacles include lack of promotionand financial rewards for academic staff andinadequate funding for interdisciplinary pro-grams, In addition, the pest management con-cept has not been accepted universally byresearchers and extension specialists in theplant protection disciplines.

Cosmetic (Esthetic) Standards

The term “cosmetic standards” presents aproblem itself. It has come to include a widevariety of different quality guidelines allrelating to pest damage or contamination offoods. These guidelines include the “defectaction levels” (DALs) for pest parts in foodenforced by FDA, the State-set quality stand-ards for produce, as well as the local co-opand processor standards for surface blem-ishes and appearance, All of these guidelinesset acceptable levels for produce. Some aimat pest contamination; others aim at pestdamage and produce appearance. Responsi-

bility for setting them ranges from FDA tolocal marketing co-ops. Produce that does notmeet these standards is kept off the market orsold at a lower grade and price.

Cosmetic standards in pest managementmainly have impacts on fruits and vegetablesgrown for human consumption. Under strictstandards, the economic threshold for pestdamage on these crops is almost zero. Thismeans that the farmer can tolerate almost nosurface blemishes on the produce or pests orpest parts in the harvested crop. It meansthat pests in the field, especially insects, mustbe eliminated as completely as possible. Thisseverely limits the use of biological controland other management techniques which de-pend on the presence of some pests in thefield.

While widely discussed in articles on thefuture of pest management, “cosmetic stand-ards” (some prefer the term “esthetic”) donot appear to be a major obstacle to the adop-tion of pest management programs. Whatreally is at issue is the tradeoff between thehazards associated with the use of pesticidesand the hazards and willingness of the publicto accept pest-damaged and contaminatedfood. With existing technology, achievingnear-zero pest damage is possible only in asystem based mainly on the use of chemicalpesticides. If the cosmetic standards were re-laxed, with a resulting increase in the eco-nomic threshold, the type of applicable pestmanagement program could change consider-ably. Greater use could be made of naturalcontrol factors and other tactics that allowhigher levels of some pests in the field. Ineither case, a pest management approachcan be taken, but unless consumers becomewilling to trade less pesticide use for morepest-damaged food, programs on these cropswill remain limited in the scope of control tac-tics employed.

Chapter VI

Actions Needed to ImproveCrop Protection inthe United States

Chapter VI

Actions Needed tO ImproveCrop Protection in the United States

In view of the facts that pests collectively deprive the world of nearly one-half of the food mall attempts to produce, that many present control strategiesare in trouble that some pesticides have raduced effectiveness against manypests that support for the development of pest resistance is declining for some

3’craps, and that there are still undetermined risks involved in pesticide use bothto health and the environment, it is imperative that Congress examine its com-mitment to improve crop protection capabilities and reduce risks. Statistics re-cently compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) indicate that, inspite of the substantial funding and science years [SYs) spent on crop protectionthe effort directed toward integrated pest management (IPM) is relatively small.The total USDA expenditure for crop protection in 1977 was million ofthis total $81.3 million for USDA Agricultural Research [AR), and $110.3million was for State research. The USDA breakdown of the total is: basic re-search, 41 percent; control component research, 52 percent; 1PM systems re-s e a r c h — c o n t r o l t a c t i c s a n d m a n a g e m e n t 6 . 4 p e r c e n t ,

Thus, it is evident that the major present effort in both Federal-and Statecrop protection is devoted to basic and component research and very little to theintegration of control tactics into management programs as part of total cropproduction systems. Under the existing mode of operation, it is the farmers whointegrate the tactics into, their production system and they must do this

ror without the benefit of carefully conducted research toshow -tie positive and negative interactions that may occur.

The simple solution of transferring signifi-cant proportions of present efforts from basicand control components research to 1PM sys-tems research is not a viable option based onthe results of the seven regional cropping sys-tems studied. The development of 1PM sys-tems requires additional basic knowledgeabout pests and crops as well as an extensivearray of suitable management tactics. Thesituation has been compounded during thepast decade by reduced funding (in terms of1969 dollars). The traditional compartmental-ization of crop protection programs accord-ing to disciplines has been very effective forbasic and control component efforts butposes difficulties for developing interdisci-plinary teaching, research, and extension

programs. When additional funding for suchefforts is minimal, temporary, or nonexistent,it is most difficult to mount new programswithout jeopardizing essential ongoing ef-forts. An infusion of new funding is essentialfor success.

The basic policy judgment that Congressfaces is whether to commit the resources re-quired to increase the speed of adoption of1PM systems. The specific options chosen willindicate the level of commitment to this ap-proach. The degree to which the needed ac-tions are carried out will affect the timeframe within which 1PM achieves its full po-tential:

101


1,

2.

3.

At the present level of commitment, thestatus of crop protection would be main-tained as primarily therapeutic re-sponses to single-pest outbreaks for theimmediate future. The already-limitedrange of available control tactics wouldbe reduced even further as regulationsregarding the use of chemical pesticidesand resistance to them remove essentialcontrol tactics without replacement. Theevolutionary shift to 1PM is too slow tohave a significant impact except in a fewsituations.

A moderate increase in commitmentwould augment the present teaching, re-search, and extension programs to theextent that 1PM could eventually replacemost unilateral pest control programsover the next two or more decades.

A major thrust over the next few years

maximum protection to man and the en-vironment.

The technological and administrative ob-stacles to the implementation of 1PM are de-tailed in chapter V. Among the actions con-sidered in this report for the removal of thoseobstacles, two emerge as indispensible at anylevel of commitment to 1PM. These are to:

1. Provide means to expand the knowledgebase and the range of control tacticsthrough basic research and to increasethe pool of skilled manpower through ex-panded training programs.

2. Establish a clear focus of Federal intentand assign to USDA, the lead agency, theresponsibility, authority, and necessaryfunding to coordinate research pro-grams and to implement an adequatelystaffed and coordinated information de-livery system.

to remove the obstacles to the implemen- The details of these actions are presentedtation of 1PM would enable much of the below and, although they correspond to thepotential of 1PM to be realized within 15 specific constraints identified in chapter V,years. An unparalleled portion of U.S. they must be considered collectively to be ef-agricultural potential production could fective. More complete discussions are inbe achieved under 1PM while providing volume 11 (National Constraints).

EXPAND THE KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR PEST MANAGEMENT

Federal support of agricultural research interms of real ‘dollars has declined over thepast 38 years. During this period the Stateshave been hard pressed to meet the landgrant universities’ needs for facilities andstaff required to accommodate an increasedstudent load. This has resulted in reduced re-search efforts, including those on basic andapplied crop protection. At present there areno significant opportunities to reallocateresearch funds and personnel from other ac-tivities to pest management programs. TheUSDA’s AR is in a similar situation becauseof recent personnel ceilings and budgetaryproblems.

1PM research must of necessity involveconsiderable disciplinary and interdisci-plinary efforts. These require extra time, ef-

fort, and resources. A favorable climate andincentives for such efforts must be present toensure adequate cooperation among scien-tists.

Funds for Disciplinary andInterdisciplinary Research

Congress could increase the basic knowl-edge of pest and pest complexes by designat-ing certain research funds specifically fordisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies inthe four major protection disciplines (ento-mology, weed science, plant pathology, andhematology) and for other studies such asvertebrate pests. Funds are also needed tosupport work in other disciplines such as eco-nomics, agronomy, and agricultural engineer-

Ch. V/—Actions Needed to Improve Crop Protection in the United States ● 103

ing which can make significant contributionsto pest management programs.

To promote interdisciplinary efforts, it isessential that the continuing needs for basicnew knowledge within disciplines should notbe ignored. Such knowledge will form thebasis for future advances in pest manage-ment. Adequate funding in the USDA compet-itive grants program for the area of plantstress can ensure that new and imaginativebasic research will be undertaken.

Attention should be paid to the distinctionbetween designating existing funds and allo-cating funds for specific projects. If existingfunds are designated for interdisciplinaryresearch, it may be necessary to terminateongoing vital disciplinary research. Addi-tional funds are necessary to allow the initi-ation of new projects by new researchers nottied to existing programs.

Long-Term Support for PestManagement Research

If pest management is to have top prioritynationally, it must be given long-term continu-ing support. This need is highlighted by thecontinuing and changing nature of crop pro-tection problems and available control tacticsthat require continual study and updating.

To help solve this problem, Federal fundsfor pest management research should bemade available on a more long-term basis forfacilities and tenured staff. This would pro-vide pest management with the solid basenecessary to its future success. The mecha-nism to achieve this is to assign funding forpest managment research in the budget ofUSDA’s Science and Education Administra-tion (SEA)/AR, and SEA/Cooperative Re-

search (CR). Increased support throughHatch Act funding of SEA/CR with the specif-ic intent of Congress will provide the mostproductive returns per dollar invested notonly because of the efficiency of this partner-ship program but because in this fundingmechanism no overhead is charged and eachFederal dollar is matched with 3 to 4 Statedollars. Research areas most in need of sup-port and scientific manpower requirementsare discussed in chapter IV.

Reallocation of Funds FromUnfeasible Eradication Programs

Certain eradication programs are not con-sidered to be feasible. After a careful reviewof the merits of these programs on a case-by-case basis by an impartial review body, Con-gress could discontinue those judged to be un-worthy on the basis of cost/benefit ratios andprobabilities for success. The funds could bereallocated to projects considered to be moreproductive in terms of preventing pest-induced crop losses. An obvious exception isthe Plant Quarantine Act, which actuallyneeds greater financial and professional sup-port.

Peer Recognition

The rewards currently given a scientistwho makes a major breakthrough are usuallymeager. Congress could help advance techni-cal development in pest management tacticsand systems through a program that wouldrecognize scientists and groups responsiblefor major breakthroughs. By instituting sucha program, Federal and State researcherswould be provided with an extra incentive topursue new and innovative directions in pestmanagement research.

INCREASE THE RANGE OF AVAILABLE CONTROL TACTICS

Integrated pest management is an ecologi- simply changing some cultural operation andcal approach to crop protection that involves using a selective pesticide. More often, how-the coordinated use of two or more tactics to ever, an array of tactics is needed includingprevent pests from causing intolerable losses. pest-resistant crops, modified cultural prac-Sometirnes management can be obtained by tices, biological control, and pesticides with


certain ranges of activity. A suitable array oftactics is essential for the formulation and im-plementation of pest management systems.

Increased Support for andReorganization of Biological Control

Efforts

“Classical” biological control (importationand establishment of exotic control agentssuch as parasites, predators, antagonisticmicro-organisms, and other microbial) is animportant tactic in pest management. The po-tential benefits apply more to insects andmites than other pests, but there are ex-cellent examples of biological control ofvertebrate pests, weeds, and plant patho-gens. The payoff for success can be tremen-dous. The means for increasing the effective-ness of Federal and State biological controlefforts are both quantitative and qualitative.Increased funding, with adequate considera-tion for the devalued dollar overseas, willenable needed increments in biological con-trol exploration, importation, and distributionprograms for beneficial species. The poten-tial benefits of increased funding are about30 to 1 based on past experience. The majornegative aspect appears to be the cost, whichis small compared to expected benefits. A spart of this, adequate funding should be in-cluded to ensure that introduced beneficialare environmentally safe and effectively dis-tributed by State and Federal agencies. Othermeans of enhancing biological control effortsrelate to possible changes in the approachesused in Federal and State programs. Thepresent Federal horizontal structure could bemodified to a centrally organized, verticallystructured unit. Instead of foreign field lab-oratories with a staff involved only in explor-ation, a field biologist would be intimately in-volved in all phases [exploration, importation,distribution) of the program. The advantageof this approach is that one person would befamiliar with all aspects and requirements ofthe operation and would most likely succeedin finding and establishing biological controlagents. Also, a national biological controlplanning body with more even representationamong AR, CR, the Extension Service (ES), the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS), the Forest Service (FS), and theStates than exists on the current AR workinggroup should be established to plan and eval-uate programs, set priorities for project activ-ities and support, and coordinate State andFederal efforts.

The emphasis placed here on the “classi-cal” approach is not intended to imply thatother approaches to biological control, suchas parasite and predator augmentation, arenot important; these need continued support.

Increased Support for Host-PlatiResistance

The incorporation of pest resistance intoagricultural crops was identified as a vastpromising approach to reduce both lossescaused by pests and dependence on pesti-cides. One of the major reasons for seriouspest problems is that many of our crop culti-vars have been selected primarily for im-proved agronomic and esthetic character-istics without adequate regard to incorporat-ing resistance to pest attack. One of the ad-vantages of pest-resistant crops is that theyare inexpensive for the producer, whetherlarge or small, as well as for the home gar-dener. The cost of the lengthy process of find-ing genetic sources of resistance and movingthem through to the end product of agronom-ically acceptable crop cultivars is high. A snoted earlier, the private sector has not al-ways been effective in this area, and publicsector support is necessary. The cost/benefitratio in terms of direct economics as well asin terms of human health and environmentalconsiderations is judged to be favorable. Thelong-term benefits provided by pest-resistantvarieties should far outweigh costs involved.(In the case of Hessian fly, wheat stem saw-fly, European corn borer, and spotted alfalfaaphid, the net return for each dollar investedwas $30 per year or $300 over a 10-year per-iod in reduced crop losses alone. )

Increased Flexibility in Pesticide Use

The need to tailor pest management pro-grams to local conditions requires the flexible


use of tactics in putting a program together.Until the passage of the 1978 Amendments tothe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Ro-denticide Act, flexibility of pesticide use waslimited by labeling—not only on maximum butalso on minimum usage. Now pesticides canbe used against unamed pests, at lower thanlabel dosages, and in novel ways on crops forwhich registrations exist. Flexibility would beincreased further by reducing the turn-around time for applications to amend pesti-cide labels, or by allowing the States flexibil-ity under section 24(c) to permit labeling to beaccepted, printed, and used in the States if itdoes not vary appreciably from the originallabel.

incentives for the Development ofLow-Sales=Volume, selective

Pesticides

General agreement exists among crop pro-tectionists that narrow-spectrum, or selec-tive, pesticides are essential to the develop-ment of fully integrated pest managementprograms. Such pesticides include the so-called “third-generation pesticides’ ’—phero-mones, hormones, bacteria, and viruses. Thebarriers to the development and commercial-ization of these compounds are formidable.They include their generally small marketsize, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)registration requirements, unknown healthand environmental interactions, and in somecases lack of patent protection. Several dif-ferent options available to Congress toremove many of these barriers fall into thecategories of removing existing disincentivesor providing incentives.

One disincentive-reducing means that iscurrently available would be for Congress todirect EPA to devote more time and man-power to adjust ing the requirements forregistration for these compounds. These ad-justments could be based on findings regard-ing the amounts that would be used, relativesafety of the compounds, and mode of action.An example of this would be the formulationof a narrow policy to cover the registration ofpheromones. Such a policy could require that

a material have a very low use rate, that it bea naturally occurring substance, and that itbe in the most stringent toxicology categoryfor registration under the narrow require-ments. EPA is expressing intentions to movein this direction. The effectiveness of their ef-forts is being hampered by the internal desireto finish the registration guidelines for con-ventional pesticides. If Congress were tomake the necessary manpower available toEPA specifically tied to directions to accel-erate the adjustment of registration require-ments to reflect more accurately the dangersfrom narrow-spectrum pesticides, this situa-tion would be relieved considerably. If EPAhad the incentive to tailor registration re-quirements to the expected level of danger,the number of tests required to register aselective compound would, in many cases, de-crease. 1f industry had fewer data to collect,it would be more willing to develop thenarrow-spectrum pesticides.

Two other means would be aimed at itemsthat do not offer proprietary protection, suchas U.S. proprietaries on micro-organisms.One would be to offer an extended exclusivelicense for the development and commerc-ialization of a U.S. proprietary. The presentlimited period of license for private produc-tions of U.S. proprietaries is generally toobrief to warrant facilities, manpower, andmonetary commitments from private indus-try. An extension of this exclusive licenseperiod to 10 years after market entry mightwork as an incentive to introduce materialsinto the market that are not economicallyfeasible on a shorter time basis. Anotherwould be for Congress to extend patent pro-tection to include micro-organisms. Existingpatent laws do not allow for the patenting ofmicro-organisms. Besides the proprietaryprotection that could be offered under op-tions in the previous section, Congress couldconsider passing legislation to allow thepatenting of certain micro-organisms. Prece-dents for such legislation can be found in thePlant Patent Act of 1970. Since the passage ofthe Plant Variety Protection Act, there hasbeen a marked increase in the level of com-mercial breeding of new plant cultivars.


Finally, the Federal Government could of-fer support for the costs of developingnarrow-spectrum pesticides. On top of thecosts of registration, the potential market sizefor many selective compounds is too small toprovide an adequate return. Interest in thesecompounds is due mainly to social and envi-rontal, rather than economic, considerations.If their development is to be a high-priorityitem, Congress should consider subsidizingcompanies involved in the production of nar-row-spectrum pesticides. Some form of subsi-dization would encourage the commercializa-tion of certain materials that might otherwisenot be economically feasible for development.

Several different mechanisms for provid-ing such a subsidy are available. They in-clude:

●

●

A Government loan program. T h i swould involve making funds available ona loan basis to carry selective chemicalsto the point of market entry after thematerial has shown initial promise andmarket potential. Such a loan would becanceled in the event the item was nevermarketed. Repayment (in whole or inpart) would be determined on a slidingscale geared to gross revenues receivedfrom the product less pro rata recoveryof R&D cost. (This loan system was origi-nally proposed by Carl Djerassi in 1974. )

Such a program would not have to befunded by direct loan. In fact, the pro-gram might work best in the environ-ment of percentage Government guaran-teed loans from private institutions.Thus the Government cost is reducedover direct loans, the private enterprisemoney market is stimulated, and the de-veloper, by assuming a percentage of thefinancial risk, operates at a disincentiveto utilize Government funds to solve cashflow problems.Government R&D Contracts. Where anidentified need exists for an item thatcannot be economically developed, there

●

●

is historical precedent for use of theR&D contract. Governmental costs couldbe reduced by letting the contract on twodifferent basis: 1) a pure R&D contractthat compensates only the R&D efforts ofthe research and developer or 2) a Gov-ernment cost subsidy R&D contract thatis tied to a lo-year exclusive license toproduce the material developed.Tax Credits. Tax credits could be thelowest cost approach to developing ma-ter ia l s which , while socioenviron-mentally desirable, might be only mar-ginally feasible from an economic stand-point. Allowance of direct credit againstincome taxes for a percentage of R&Dcosts of specified materials (or classes ofmaterials) serves at least two ends. Itmakes real costs of the Government in-centive negligible and keeps competitionworking in the free enterprise frame-work by not limiting R&D work to onecompany.

Unfortunately, tax credits may also beone of the most complex and difficult ap-proaches to administer, with enormouscomplications regarding whether or notthe research should be subsidized by theGovernment.Competitive Grant. This approach tofunding can be patterned after other en-deavors where the Federal grant hasbeen used as a stimulus to R&D efforts.

Development of a Uniform NationalCancer Policy

The lack of uniformity in the cancer guide-lines is a problem connected to the develop-ment, regulation, handling, and use of pesti-cides. The development of a uniform nationalpolicy is an important task that impinges onpest management as well as on many otherimportant activities. Congress should use itsoversight and legislative powers to ensure auniform policy as soon as possible.


DEVELOP EFFICIENT PEST MANAGEMENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS

USDA-sponsored extension pilot programswill be operational in all 50 States in 1979. Aframework is being set up in all States onwhich to build a public system for supportingpest management implementation programs.Congress must decide how rapidly 1PMshould be adopted in the United States and towhat extent delivery systems should be sup-ported by Federal funds.

Support of Public Delivery Systems

As acceptance of pest management pro-grams increases, an important role of exten-sion will be to provide information and tech-nical support to ongoing private programs.Such support programs will demand stable,long-term support and should include the flex-ibility to use the funds for facilities for exten-sion pest management programs.

A pest management coordinating team isneeded at the Federal level in USDA to pro-vide adequate leadership for an expandedpest management program. USDA should re-order its priorities to create the needed capa-bility to review, coordinate, and administerexpanded support programs for pest manage-ment implementation.

To expedite implementation, each Stateshould have a State pest management coor-dinator to head a team of specialists thatwould include at least one specialist fromeach of the major pest control disciplines.The team of State specialists will be essentialto provide classroom, laboratory, and fieldtraining for consultants and scouts to assuresuccessful establishment of pest managementin their State.

Foster Private Sector DeliverySystems

I f pes t management i s to be wide lyadopted, it will be because of the develop-ment of a large private sector involvement.Growers should be willing to pay for pestmanagement services, and organizationsmust exist to offer such services on an eco-

nomical basis. Means of increasing the pri-vate sector involvement in pest managementcan be provided by the Extension Service.Other assistance will come through federallysponsored education and research programs.Additional aid could be provided in some ofthe following manners:

Support for grower-owned cooperativescould be based on the elimination of some ofthe financial constraints to their formation.This could involve the subsidization of pestmanagement trainees. It could also involvethe banks for cooperatives. A congressionalmandate could be given to the Center Bankand the District Bank for Cooperatives to pub-licize the availability of funds for financingcooperative pest management services. TheFarm Credit Administration could also be di-rected to approve a favorable interest ratefor loans made by the district banks for ex-pansion of existing cooperatives or for forma-tion of new pest management cooperatives.For fledgling nonprofit pest management co-operatives, a bill specifically exempting non-profit pest management associations fromtaxation would ease the way for their forma-tion.

Setting minimum certification standardsfor pest management specialists could alsohelp private pest management consultingservices. In most States, nothing restricts anindividual from calling himself a pest man-agement specialist. Congress could act to seethat standards are established that prohibitsuch individuals from operating in an unre-stricted manner. Details of ways to accom-plish this are provided in volume II (NationalConstraints).

Congress could encourage the developmentof private pest management consultantsthrough some form of support for their poten-tial liability burdens as outlined in chapter V.One approach would be the development of afederally sponsored liability insurance pro-gram for consultants. An analogy for such aprogram exists in a bill in the pharmaceuticalarea, H.R. 1247. The bill, which was not re-


ported out of committee, would have provided loans for the establishment of private con-for the establishment of a tax-exempt trust suiting firms through the Small Business Ad-for payment of liability claims. The decision ministration or the Farmers Home Adminis-that must be made is whether the gains out- tration. Such loans could have the added ef-weigh the costs to the Government in infect of increasing the opportunity for appren-creased time, costs, and opportunities for ticeships and applied training for potentialfraud. Another option is to offer low-interest pest management personnel.

DEVELOP A NATIONALLY COORDINATEDMONITORING PROGRAM

A welldesigned monitoring system forweather and biological factors can providethe necessary input for the design and use ofpredictive capabilities in a pest managementprogram. Such a national environmental mon-itoring system does not exist now. Useful in-formation in research or implementation pro-grams is rarely communicated to others on atimely basis. A national system taking advan-tage of existing computer and electronic-sensing technology could be designed to meetthe needs of pest management.

The National Weather Service’s agricul-tural weather reports are not precise enoughand do not have a rapid enough input/outputcycle to be truly useful in pest managementprograms. Agricultural weather is relativelylow on the Commerce Department’s scale ofpriorities. Little effort has been made to getmore accurate short- and long-range weatherpredictions on a local level.

Congress could direct the Commerce De-partment to work with USDA to develop amore precise agricultural weather system.The benefits of such a system would includeincreased precision in the prediction of pestoutbreaks (with resulting savings in controland scouting costs to the grower) as well as abetter base from which to plan general farmand rural operations. The cost of such a pro-gram could be kept at a reasonable level bymaking use of existing facilities and tech-nology.

Several land-grant universities are now de-veloping their own computer facilities for bio-logical monitoring and prediction capabili-ties. These local efforts could be turned into a

national biological monitoring system, whereappropriate, by linking them to a nationalcomputer. This would be similar to currentactivities of the National Weather Service. Itwould create a network for the national ac-cumulation of data from each of these Statefacilities. Congress could accomplish this byspecifying appropriations for the establish-ment of a national facility for the collectionand coordination of State information. Thedata accumulated could be used to tracemigratory insect movements as well as todescribe the status of other pests. Such in-formation would also help to limit scoutingand control costs to a specific period of timearound the expected danger period. By usingthis information, significant savings can ac-crue to the farmer through decreased pesti-cide use and decreased scouting costs.

An expanded national effort is needed forthe early detection of introduced pest spe-cies. Examples of new pests that have en-tered the country undetected and remainedso for several years include the cereal leafbeetle, the citrus blackfly, and witchweed.Many of the major pests of our crops are in-troduced pests. If the eradication of intro-duced pests is to occur, early detection is ab-solutely essential. A review of the presentNoxious Weed Act and adequate funding toallow inspection of shipments to the UnitedStates for exotic weed species should also beaccomplished.

Pesticide use surveys could also be coor-dinated by USDA. Each State now has a coop-erative crop-reporting service that can effi-ciently and effectively conduct such surveys.

Ch. VI—Act/ons Needed to Improve Crop Protect/on in the Un/ted States ● 109

USDA could provide national leadership andcoordination so that State survey informationcan be readily assembled on a regional or na-tional basis, Questions have been raised re-garding the need and utility of an extensiveuse survey system. USDA already collectspesticide data. These data are extremely im-portant in giving an overall picture of trendsin pesticide use.

One means that would be extremely usefulnot only for training programs but also for im-plementation efforts and pest monitoringwould be for Congress to support existingplant health clinics as well as help form newones in the States. Animal health clinics arewidely developed. There is a need to developsuch serv ices and teach ing centers forplants. The clinics could serve as the focalpoint for pest management implementationefforts. They would include diagnostic as wellas information capabilities; the accurate di-agnosis of plant pest problems would elimi-nate much of the misuse and waste of pesti-

cides and other control agents. The clinicscould also provide staffing and facilities forclinical programs in pest management. Withadequate support, they could be the back-bone of the practical component of pest man-agement degree programs. The volume andrange of pest problems brought to the clinicswould automatically monitor pest activitiesfor each State. The clinics would also greatlyincrease the l ikelihood of detecting in-troduced pests in time to institute eradicationor other indicated activities. Unfortunately,very few adequately sized and staffed clinicsnow exist.

Cost-effective support for the formation orimprovement of plant clinics could be givenby offering matching funds to those Stateswilling to join in their development. Fundsshould include provisions for facilities as wellas for staffing the clinics. Additionally, fundsshould be provided for interdisciplinary fac-ulty participation in the clinics, for bothdiagnosis and training.

PROVIDE TRAINED MANPOWER AND TRAIN~N6 PR0GRAMS

Lack of trained manpower at several edu-cational levels is an obstacle to the develop-ment and implementation or improvement ofpest management systems. Increased fundingearmarked for educational programs in pestmanagement at all levels is needed to providean impetus for more rapid increases in utili-zation of the pest management approach.

Support for Pest ManagementTraining Programs

Only university administrators can act onmany of the items outlined in this section. Theprime vehicle for congressional action in pestmanagement education would be to providefunds to support university programs. Theyare needed for the following levels:

● self and mutual retraining and reorien-tation of administrators, professional re-searchers, teachers, extension person-nel, and leaders of State and Federalagencies;

●

●

●

●

nondegree or certificate training pro-grams or special short-course sessionsfor paraprofessionals (scout supervisorsand scouts);

integrated, high-quality baccalaureatedegree programs to prepare students forgraduate study in traditional disciplinesas well as technical positions in indus-try, agribusiness, and farm, home, for-est, and urban pest management;

establish or improve pest managementprograms at the master of science levelconsisting of nonthesis terminal degreesfor students preparing to be practicingprofessionals and a thesis degree forthose aspiring to the Ph. D. level with apest management emphasis or a profes-sional doctorate in pest management;and

a Ph. D. in traditional crop production orprotection discipline with a minor in pest


management or minors in two relatedareas for preparing teachers and re-searchers for pest management.

A further possibility recommended only forconsideration at select institutions, perhapsas a consortia basis, is a professional degreein pest management for training practitionerswith the diagnostic and clinical skills to oper-ate the pest management programs requiredto preserve the future health of our crops.

Support is also necessary to initiate andsupport medium-term postdoctoral fellow-ships for research for highly qualified newPh.D.’s who would need additional expe-rience. Such a program would provide incen-tives for outstanding young scientists to enterthe field and, at the same time, make opportu-nities for creative developments in the field ofpest management.

Adequate clinical components are a crit-ical need in any of these pest managementtraining programs. Universities should be en-couraged to require a pest management in-ternship. This would require the developmentof a strong certification program and a com-mitment on the part of certified practitionersas well as university administrators andfaculty.

Congress could help by providing supportto the universities for administering the in-ternship program, to the certified practi-tioners, and to the students during field in-ternship. Advantage should be taken of theopportunities offered by the USDA-sponsoredpest management pilot programs. Pilot proj-ect funds could be used to provide trainingand subsistence for the pest managementdegree candidate. It could be required thatevery Extension Service action program in-clude an internship component. The net re-sult of this approach is a self-renewing supplyof qualif ied scout supervisors and expe-rienced pest managers available to publicand private pest management organizationsand the pesticide industry.

The Federal Government could also provide funds to support degree candidates forinternships with private consultants, grower

co-ops, and other organizations. These fundscould serve as an indirect subsidy to fledglingorganizations as well as provide opportuni-ties for field experience.

Competitive Study Leave Grants

The need for updating professional skillsfor working scientists in rapidly proliferatingfields such as pest management can be metby a system of study leave grants. Thesewould provide an additional way to take ad-vantage of the areas of technical expertisealready forming at certain land-grant univer-sities. Such a system would allow a specialistin pest management at one university or Fed-eral unit to spend 6 months to 1 year atanother university with a different set ofproblems and expertise in pest management.

Reducing Manpower Requirements

Another approach to the problem of lack ofappropriately trained manpower is to reducethe labor required for pest management pro-grams. The major portion of man-hours in-vested is in scouting and monitoring pestpopulations, crop development, and ecologi-cal factors that influence pest problems. Twoapproaches to reduce labor intensity havebeen identified:

Areawide pest monitoring and popula-tion prediction on the basis of computermodels will allow scouts to cut their timein the fields to the critical days of pestactivity. Scouts could then cover a largerarea.Develop and use automatic mechanicaldevices for monitoring pests and ecologi-cal factors influencing them. Most of thetechnology exists to design remote sen-sors tuned to different pheromones andsound frequencies to monitor for insectpests and provide rough estimates ofpopulation levels. Monitoring devices forvertebrate pests are also possible. Somedevices are available for monitoringtemperature, humidity, rainfal l , andlength of leaf wetness periods. Thesecan be connected to minicomputers that

Ch. VI—Actions Needed to Improve Crop Protection in the United States ● 11?

can signal dangers of plant disease in-fections. The development and tech-niques for use of such monitoring equip-ment involve research by both the pri-vate and public sector. Many segmentsof private industry, from the manufac-turers who build them to the growerswho save on their own time and scoutingcosts by using them, are interested insuch monitoring systems. Congressionalinterest in pursuing this approach willdepend on the level of private sector sup-port and the desire to use pest manage-ment as a means to provide jobs to ruralAmericans.

Establish Regional Pest ManagementStudy Centers

The establishment of regional pest man-agement study centers is discussed in detailin the section “Improve Cooperation and Co-ordination. Regional centers could helptrain and update crop protection personnel inthe latest developments in the field. Regionalcenters would be appropriate for workshopsand training for professional pest manage-ment personnel but not for scouts or scoutsupervisors.

OVERCOME GROWER SKEPTICISM

Growers are the key to the adoption of pestmanagement programs. Three approaches toobtain increased grower involvement havebeen identified: through education, by pro-viding incentives, and by regulation.

Education

Education has been the traditional methodof bringing new developments and technologyto growers. This approach to grower involve-ment in pest management has the advantageof grower acceptance and an existing coop-erative extension system to teach growers.The only missing element for many situationsis the availability of feasible, economicallysound validated pest management programs.Congress will play a critical role in determin-ing the rate at which such programs are de-veloped.

Providing Incentives

Providing incentives to increaseparticipation in pest management is

groweranother

IMPROVE COOPERATION

Problems in cooperation and coordinationas a constraint to pest management exist

option. Low-cost Federal crop insurance isone way to cover losses to pests and helpovercome skepticism. There are major prob-lems involved in establishing and operatingsuch a program. Also, well-conceived and val-idated pest management programs should notbe riskier than other control approaches.

Regulating Grower Involvement

Regulating grower involvement is a sen-sit ive area because of current att i tudestoward Federal regulatory efforts. Restric-tions imposed on a national level would bemet with strong opposition by growers. Thereis some interest in the use of locally enactedpest management districts to regulate growerparticipation. These districts can be estab-lished by a State enabling law and then con-firmed by local grower referenda. In Texas,enabling legislation has been passed but nodistricts have yet been established.

within the Federal Government, between theFederal Government and the States, and with


the State and land-grant university com-plexes. The problems and options to reducethe problems are outlined below.

Mechanisms to Coordinate Effortsof Federal Agencies

Legislation exists that is designed to cor-rect any problems among Federal depart-ments and agencies in the amendment to sec-tion 401(h) of the National Science and Tech-nology Policy, Organization, and Priority Actof 1976 (90 Stat, 471, 42 U.S.C. 6651(h) pro-vialed by section 1406 of Public Law 95-113,91 Stat. 986). Nevertheless, we address herespecifically the problem as related to pestmanagement. The problem of unclear andsometimes conflicting goals being pursued bydifferent agencies has severely hampered theFederal effort in pest management. Lack of amandated responsibility for pest manage-ment support activities or a plan on which toorganize agency programs is at the heart ofthis problem.

Two basic premises should be included inany deliberations on a Federal pest manage-ment strategy: 1) that USDA, with its exten-sive research and extension network, shouldhave the primary responsibility for pest man-agement programs, and 2) that EPA, with itsresponsibility for protecting the environment,has a valuable role in supporting the develop-ment of innovative tactics for and approachesto pest management. Other agencies, such asthe National Science Foundation (NSF) andthe Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alsointeract with 1PM development and imple-mentation. These roles and interactions aretaken into account in the following discus-sion.

Four different mechanisms to ensure bet-ter cooperation and coordination in the Fed-eral pest management program are outlined.While they are presented separately, theywould have the strongest effect if combined.

● A representative group from outside theFederal Government could be estab-lished as an oversight group for pestmanagement. Such a group would be

composed of individuals involved in pestmanagement from the Federal, State,and private sectors. They would knowthe grassroots needs for pest manage-ment and could bring that perspective tobear while reviewing the Federal ef-forts. With no control over budgets andstaffing, only strong executive supportcould make such a group an effectiveagent for coordinating Federal efforts. Itcould be most useful in an advisorycapacity.To ensure that groups with program re-sponsibility become involved, an inter-agency review group on pest manage-ment could be formed. To be an effectivepolicymaking body, it would have to con-s i s t o f indiv iduals a t the ass i s tantsecretary level from agencies with pro-grams related to pest management. Itwould examine the current structure ofFederal initiatives in pest managementand suggest means to streamline them. Itwould also serve as a forum for the de-velopment of a national pest manage-ment plan, including program goals andagency responsibilities. The drawbackhere is that such groups are often inef-fective. Starting with the intentions ofmaking policy, they frequently evolveinto forums for technical exchange,rather than for policy discussions.Congress could intervene and clarify theroles and responsibilities of the agenciesinvolved in pest management. The aimwould be to start with the functions ofUSDA and EPA outlined at the beginningof the discussion, include FDA, the Coun-cil on Environmental Quality (CEQ), andthe Department of Defense (DOD), andother appropriate agencies, and assignspecific program responsibilities andareas of interagency cooperation withinpest management. The effect would notbe to consolidate responsibility in o n eagency but to provide support and direc-tion for intra-agency and interagency ef-forts. Existing areas of interagency co-operation could be given formal recogni-tion, and other areas for future coopera-

Ch. Vi—Actions Needed to Improve Crop Protection in the United States ● 113

●

tion could be outlined. If combined withthe formation of an interagency reviewgroup charged with overseeing the suc-cess of the cooperation, the effect of anycongressional effort could be greatlyenhanced. The major drawback to thisapproach would be the interest requiredin Congress to undertake such a task.A Federal unit without present or futurefunding interests could be given a coor-dinating role for the national effort in1PM, CEQ has already been acting tosome extent in this role. To be effective,its coordinating and oversight role mustbe clearly delineated and adequatestaffing provided. The staff should besupplemented by an outside advisorygroup as outlined previously. The advan-tages of this option would be to place anoncompetitive Federal unit with readyaccess to the executive branch and allFederal agencies involved in 1PM in aposition to monitor and develop policyfor the Federal effort. This option cannotfunction effectively without a clear man-date, a modest staff knowledgeable inthe subject matter, and an appropriateadvisory group.

Cooperation and CoordinationBetween Federal and State Agencies

Of primary concern is the relationship be-tween USDA and the land-grant universitieswith teaching, research, and extension re-sponsibilities. The main problems are in theareas of program development, prioritiesestablishment, and budget development. De-velopment of the planning and coordinationmechanisms called for in title XIV of PublicLaw 95-I33 and the subsequent reorganiza-tion within USDA to form the Science andEducation Administration and the organiza-tion of Interregional Project 6 should makecoordination and cooperation easier. How-ever, it must be encouraged at every level.Congress can contribute by ensuring that theintent of Public Law 95-113 is fully im-plemented and funded.

Several potential problems face the re-gional and national planning approach that isbeing put in place. One is the potential dif-ficulty of fitting AR programs of nationalfocus into the regional priorities. A secondproblem is adopting the State organization ofthe extension services to a regional structure.Related to this is the fact that States will bewary of another layer of administrators ap-parently prepared to dictate regional prior-ities in extension to them. A final problem isthat by assigning priorities on both a nationaland regional basis even less funds will be go-ing to work on critical local needs.

Coordination and Cooperation Withinthe Land-Grant Universities

Traditionally, pest management teaching,research , and ex tens ion have been ap-proached from separate disciplines. 1PM re-quires consideration of more than one disci-pline and their interactions. This necessi-tates, as previously mentioned, not only evenstronger discipline teaching and research butinterdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teach-ing, research, and extension considerations.Present funding is simply not adequate toeven approach this job.

Providing additional funding at the Federallevel is essential for the development of newinitiatives in 1PM in teaching and researchjust as it has been in the extension pilot pro-grams. Congress can contribute the most toimproved cooperation and coordinationamong the disciplines, especially in research,by providing significant additional funding.This additional funding will be more produc-tive and effective i f provided to Statesthrough the regular funding under the Hatchand Regional Research Acts by USDA’sSEA/CR. This provides stable funding thatenables the development of scientists in atenure track of teaching and research. It alsoallows priorities to be set at the local level todevelop programs that address the major1PM problems in the local producer areas,


Establish Regional Pest ManagementStudy Centers

A major limiting factor in the advancementof pest management is a space/time problem.The study, comprehension, and application ofthe pest management concept has been donelargely on a personal or institutional basis.Until recently, few institutions had even a for-mal course or seminar in pest management.The few pest management specialists that ex-ist are scattered over the country and theworld, with inadequate opportunity in time,facility, or support for mutual discussion ofideas and strategies.

One option suggested to reduce this limit-ing factor is to establish regional pest man-agement study centers. Such centers wouldhave facilities for students, professors, re-searchers, extension specialists, and othersto work, study, and train in pest management.They would combine a “think-tank” at-mosphere with research, education, and im-plementation programs and would provide aplace for the different groups in crop protec-tion to discuss and attempt to unify ap-proaches to pest management.

This approach would use the centers oftechnical strength in pest management thatare developing across the country. At severalland-grant universities advanced work is al-ready being done in pest management. Thebase existing in these universities could beused to form a network of regional centers forpest management, education, research, andimplementation. These centers could combinethe think-tank atmosphere with work directedtoward the needs of pest management pro-grams in their regions.

Careful consideration should go into thedesign of each of the regional centers in

terms of location, facilities, administration,funding, missions, and philosophy. The cen-ters should be located at land-grant universi-ties that have evolved as leaders in pest man-agement and where facilities already exist orcan be constructed. Congress could authorizeand fund establishment of the centers. Fundscould be allocated to the respective institu-tions to include hiring directors and perma-nent support personnel.

While the option of creating regional studycenters promises to improve cooperation andcoordination as well as to assist in trainingpersonnel, there are potential problems thatmust be considered. The problems and lack ofsuccess experienced with regional centers inother fields suggest that the concept may notbe as useful in practice as in theory. The pre-cise role of the centers in accomplishing theirgoals must be carefully evaluated to deter-mine the probability of success. Administra-tive costs could become excessive and detractfrom the programs. In addition, linking thecenters to institutions identified as leaderscould increase the gap and the jealousies be-tween the have and the have-nets in pestmanagement. Such an occurrence could makeregional cooperation extremely difficult.

Competitive Study Leave Grants

This option was presented under the train-ing section. In addition to its merits for train-ing, this option would help improve coopera-tion and coordination among Federal agen-cies, between the Federal agencies and theStates, and among the States. The inter-change of personnel on study leaves wouldimprove communication, understanding, andthe flow of information. Properly adminis-tered, this option could be a very positiveforce in furthering pest management.

REVIEW IMPACTS OF COSMETIC [ESTHETIC) STANDARDS

If Congress decides that reducing the use should be evaluated. As noted in chapter V,of chemical pesticides whenever possible is the high-quality standards for certain fruitsone of the goals of Federal pest management and vegetable crops necessitate the extensiveefforts, existing food quality standards use of chemical pesticides. The safety or nu-


tritional value of the produce may or may notbe improved by these quality standards andmust be judged on a case-by-case evaluation.

Congressional efforts in this area couldhave two approaches. One would be aimed atthe standards it has under direct control,such as the defect action levels (DALs) ad-ministered by FDA. An assessment of the ef-fect of DALs on pesticide use, pesticide resi-dues, human health, and market value similarto an environmental impact statement shouldbe conducted. Such an analysis would com-

pare the benefits from present DALs andthose that would accrue from less-strictlevels, It would allow a responsible decisionto be made on the proper levels of defectsallowed while protecting human health.

The second part of the congressional effortwould be aimed at the broader issue of con-sumer and processor acceptance of damagedproduce. Studies should be conducted onmarket elasticity and consumer willingness toaccept blemished but safe food in order to re-duce pesticide use,

.> - { – {

Chapter VII

Transfer of North AmericanCrop Protection Technology

to the Developing World

Chapter VII

Transfer of North AmericanCrop Protection Technology

to the Developing World

The combination of control tactics in an ecologically oriented integratedsystem, known in the United States as “integrated pest management” (1PM), isbeing applied in the development of i&proved stable crop protection systems forU.S. agriculture and is widely accepted internationally; the term “integratedpest control” is used in most other countries for this holistic approach to pestcontrol. The two terms are often used synonymously.

Considerable progress has been made in transferring the basic philosophyof 1PM to the developing world. This has been fostered by the Food and Agricul-ture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), and certain bilat-eral assistance programs (especially those of Canada, France, the United King-dom, and the United States). The Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD), the United Nations Environment Program, the WorldBank, and the International Agriculture Research and Training Network of theConsultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) havebecome involved in recent years.

The problem of actually implementing pest management systems in the de-veloping world is not simply the transfer of the total 1PM concept, although cer-tain components of the system have great potential for transfer. Much adaptiveresearch on the potential component tactics of pest management and the devel-opment of entirely new systems adapted to local socioeconomic and ecologicalconditions will be required. Each candidate component to be considered for pos-sible transfer will need to be evaluated separately in terms of its potential foruse under the conditions that will be encountered. It must be compatible withand become part of the entire crop production process. Because productionpractices and environmental conditions vary widely within and between coun-tries, the transfer of crop protection technology is most complicated. By applyingthe concept and the scientific methods by which crop protection technology isdeveloped, in-country crop protectionists can produce a pest control procedurethat is well-adapted ecologically to the local agroecosystem and is socially andeconomically acceptable as well.

119

d. _ - “1


PRESENT LEVEL OF PEST CONTROL TECHNOLOGYIN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Pest control technologies are used uneven-ly in the developing world. Within any onearea the ecological environment, social cus-toms, political events, and economic milieu allinteract to set the magnitude of a particularpest problem and further to constrain feasi-ble solutions. Therefore, every situation mustbe evaluated and developed on a case-by-casebasis.

In a similar way, the level of dependenceon pesticides varies from country to country.In general, the more developed the country,the greater the use of pesticides, but thereare often large differences between crops inthe same country. Surveys by FAO a fewyears ago indicated that the entire developingworld used only about 7 percent of the globalconsumption of pesticides. Lack of financialresources to purchase pesticides is only onereason for this low use of pesticides. Theagricultural infrastructure taken for grantedin developed countries may be only partiallydeveloped or entirely lacking in developingcountries. The present marketing systemstresses certain crops in certain countriesand, thus, produces an uneven supply situa-tion. In times of serious pest problems,pesticides often are not available, are in thewrong place, or arrive in the right place atthe wrong time. Furthermore, an inadequatetransportation network in many countriesdoes not provide a way for pesticides to movefrom the capital city to the rural areas where

they are needed. Finally, few developingcountries have adequate equipment to applypesticides, and even fewer have a pest-moni-toring system to detect pest infestations whilethey are still at manageable levels.

In developing countries, the large estatecrops such as rubber, cotton, and sugar canetend to get a heavier use of pesticides than dothe plots of small farmers. In many cotton-producing countries in the developing world,two-thirds or more of pesticide use is on thissingle crop. In some developing countries, useof insecticides to protect stored products isalso of considerable importance. Overall,there is a slight trend for increased use ofpesticides in these countries, but the percent-age of the world’s total use is not increasing.

In the developed world, insecticides havedeclined in relative position among pesticidesfrom being the dominant class of pesticidebefore 1960 to representing currently onlyabout one-third of total pesticide use. Thischange primarily resulted from the rapidgrowth in the use of herbicides, which nowrepresent the major portion of pesticidesused on a global basis. 1n the developingworld, insecticides remain the dominant classof pesticides used, and their use is increasingat a rate that would appear to maintain theirdominant position for some time. Herbicidesuse, however, is increasing as appropriateand economically feasible uses are found.

OBSTACLES TO PEST MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSIN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

1PM systems are developed through thecareful ecological analysis of pest problemsthat exist in the growing crops. Research pro-grams for 1PM systems must relate to the en-tire pest problem and the full complexity ofthe field situation. No amount of sophis-ticated laboratory research will produce an1PM system. It is important to realize that re-

search on field problems can be extremelycomplicated as it must deal with establishingthe complex relationships that exist in theagroecosystem, such as those between thepest and the crop, among certain pests andnoncrop plants, between the pest and itsnatural enemies and plant diversity, andamong all of these considered together with

Ch. V/l— Transfer of North American Crop Protect/on Technology to the Developing World ● 121

other crops and the climate and economicand political aspects. These are often over-whelmingly complex problems facing the iso-lated crop-protection specialist in a develop-ing country, and the obstacles to their solu-tions seem insurmountable. Furthermore,there is often a lack of extension personnel orother paraprofessionals to train and encour-age farmers to adopt new practices, The spe-cialist may also find that farmers are often in-capable of or unwilling to adopt a new prac-tice because they lack the financial resourcesor proper motivation. The specialist may alsohave difficulties communicating with thefarmer because of language barriers or il-literacy or even reaching the farmer becauseof inadequate roads or transport,

It is not surprising, then, that the isolatedand frustrated pest control specialist mayrecommend an easy short-term solution suchas the use of some pesticide. The recommen-dation may be made with little or no opportu-nity for consideration of the complications of

undesirable side effects on people, importantnatural enemies, and the general environ-ment, and the long-term effects of pesticideuse.

In spite of the difficult odds, sound 1PMsystems have been developed under such cir-cumstances. Indeed, every operational 1PMsystem in developing countries has had a rel-atively simple beginning. The first step inthese programs was to develop an ecologicalperspective and then to design the best possi-ble action based on available knowledge. Thisdesign, at best, approximated an ideal systemwhich was then tested in the field. Where dif-ficulties were encountered they were posedas questions for parallel solution-seekingresearch. In this way, even where resourcesmay be limited, an effective 1PM system canoften be developed and adapted to the localsituation. This has been accomplished inPeru, Nicaragua, Malaysia, and certain othercountries with modest financial inputs for thedevelopment of the programs.

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WlTH TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERTO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Pest management systems developed forthe temperate part of the world, as stressedearlier in this discussion, may be completelyinappropriate to tropical and subtropicalconditions of the developing world. This isbecause of not only the greatly contrastingphysical and biotic conditions but also thecontrasting problems of modern intensivehigh-energy agriculture and those of tradi-tional subsistence agriculture involving multi-ple cropping and mixed cropping.

In the absence of adequate crop protectionprograms in many developing nations, thereis an over-reliance on the reactive use ofpesticides for pest control. There are numer-ous well-documented examples of the inade-quacy of this approach in both developed anddeveloping countries. Unless pest manage-ment or integrated pest control programs areinitiated, additional “pesticide abuse” situa-tions will occur. Complete dependence on pes-

ticides over a period of time not only fails tocontrol the pests in question but may actuallyaggravate pest problems and endanger hu-man health and environmental quality. Pesti-cides misuse also imposes an additional coston production.

The developing world must deal with an ar-ray of crops and pests that is not generallygrown in temperate countries. These cropsinclude avocados, bananas, breadfruit, ca-cao, cassava, coconuts, coffee, guava, mango,papaya, pineapple, plantains, sugarcane,tare, and yams. Many of these crops are ofgreat importance in world commerce andcontribute much to the world’s food supply.Because a bank of technological knowledgeon their culture and the management of theirpests is not available in temperate countries,it must be developed in-place in the tropicaldeveloping world. Nevertheless, some compo-nent tactics from temperate 1PM systems can


be adapted to these tropical and subtropicalcrops.

In any attempt to transfer the latest devel-opments in pest control technology to the de-veloping world it will be important to reachthe decisionmakers in these countries, manyof whom received their technological trainingprior to the resurrection of the ecological ap-proach to pest control. As a result, consider-

able reeducation will be necessary and newapproaches to communicate with the deci-sionmakers will be required to achieve satis-factory results. In addition, different socialand economic values placed on the impor-tance of food, environment, human life, indi-vidual rights, etc., in developing countries re-quire considerable adaptations of pest man-agement systems to accommodate thesevalues.

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF PEST CONTROL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

The losses of food crops to pests in the de-veloping world are enormous. Although de-tailed documentation is lacking, estimates oflosses run between 25 and 50 percent of thefood produced. Conservative estimates in-dicate that at least 50 percent of the lossescan be recovered, At the same time, the needfor enhanced protection from crop pests isfurther emphasized by the fact that othermethods of crop improvement that result inan increased production of food will requireadditional pest protection for the high yieldsto be fully realized. For example, new, low-growing wheats and rice require consider-ably more weed control than long-stemmedvarieties to prevent intolerable economic pro-duction losses.

However, it is difficult to translate the sav-ings in crop yields that would result from im-proved pest control into economic terms thatreflect the probable distribution of that sav-ings to the population of the country. If thesupply of a particular commodity is increasedin an area as the result of the adoption of im-proved pest control practices, the price ofthat commodity may fall, and the effect of thelower price on small farmers may be severe.For example, nonadopters and late adoptersof improved practices are particularly vul-nerable because their production costs andyields will remain the same while the pricethey receive for their produce will decline.Unless additional concomitant measures aretaken, the incomes and nutritional status ofsuch farmers are likely to deteriorate overthe short term. This prospect puts a special

premium on selecting methods that are suitedfor adoption by small farmers. Over the longterm, however, the economy of the country asa whole and the general welfare of the peoplewill be improved.

Increases in yield are important, but in-creased production stability from year toyear with improved pest control practicescan be equally important. Without a sense ofstability, investments in agriculture are notlikely to be made that require more than onegrowing season for amortization.

The differential effects of successful in-novation in pest control on different economicclasses of agricultural people are the mostdifficult and yet perhaps the most importantto analyze, New pesticides are likely to beadopted only by the wealthier and more pro-gressive farmers because they have betteraccess to credit for purchasing the necessarymaterials and machinery. If the new prac-tices require more labor to be successful,wealthy, capitalized farmers may be at a dis-advantage compared to poorer farmers usinglabor-intensive methods. On the other hand, ifthe new practices require the purchase ofnew machinery or the acquisition of newskills, the wealthier farmers may be at a rela-tive advantage. Biological control, the breed-ing of resistant varieties, and other geneticmethods of control usually will be operationsperformed with a high degree of public sectoreffort, and each will require the farmer tocontribute little in purchases above andbeyond that which is normal for the crop he is

Ch VII—Transfer of North American Crop Protect/on Technology to the Developing World ● 123

raising. Hence these technologies, which de-pend on enlightened levels of government sup-port, have less chance of favoring one class offarmer over another.

When any proposed new technology is as-sessed, a crucial question is its effect on thelabor requirements for agriculture. This isparticularly important in the nonindustrial-ized market economies in which unemploy-ment and underemployment are frequentlyendemic and in which no alternative indus-trial employment possibilities exist.

The emergence of resistance to insecti-cides dramatizes the point that new technol-ogies are not necessarily permanent addi-tions to options in crop protection. There areno theoretical reasons why resistance willnot emerge eventually for any control prac-tices directed against any pest or any crop.Thus, a high premium should be given to im-proved technologies that offer the potential oflonger use before resistance develops.

Innovations in biological control, breedingfor resistant varieties, and other genetic con-trols are not likely to create any direct ad-verse environmental impacts. Elimination of apest like the tsetse fly from Central Africamight create indirect environmental effectsby opening up areas to crop agriculture or tograzing that until now have been unused.

Cultural control will, in general, have littleadverse effect on the environment unless theparticular practices involve cultivation. Insuch cases, soil may be lost through wind orwater erosion. Substituting herbicides fortillage may markedly reduce soil losses dur-ing crop production. In Kenya, herbicidesmay allow continued crop production in areaswhere “slash and burn, ” followed by aban-

donment after several years, is the tradi-tional agricultural practice on small plots inthe jungle.

Herbicides can be used not only to replacecultivation for weed removal but also to re-place plowing for crops such as corn. In addi-tion to savings in labor and energy, the “no-till” practice reduces erosion and increasessoil organic matter, The technology of “no-till” agriculture may be widely applicable inthe developing world where problems of ero-sion are severe.

The use of certain pesticides has had anadverse effect on the environment when thepesticides have entered the food chains ofecosystems or when they had direct toxic ef-fects on nontarget organisms—e.g., birds andfish. Integrated pest control , because i tdepends on chemical pesticides only as asupplement to other means of control, is likelyto have smaller adverse effects on the en-vironment.

The developing world is on the threshold ofa large increase in the use of pesticides. Ifthese pesticide inputs are made unwisely,pest problems can be greatly exacerbatedand there can be adverse effects on the envi-ronment and on agricultural workers. Prop-erly developed pest management systemsusing pesticides as only one component ofmany can help avoid these problems.

Agromedical teams can play an importantrole in encouraging the safe and efficient useof pesticides. Timely education on safe han-dling of pesticides, monitoring of worker andenvironmental safety, and the training ofmedical personnel in developing countries tocope with pesticide-related health problemscan greatly reduce the adverse impacts ofpesticides.

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Education and training must be a core ele-ment in any program to develop improvedpest management in developing countries.

IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Fundamental training will be required in allaspects of pest management and at all levelsto create and strengthen an adequate infra-


structure to receive and adapt pest manage-ment technology. This should involve the deci-sionmaking administrators as well as thelower level technicians. Research, training,and extension, part icularly adaptive re-search and on-the-farm demonstration, willbe required at a significant level to developthe required knowledge base and to imple-ment pest management systems successfullyin the developing world.

A large number of agencies and institu-tions are involved in developing improved

pest management in the developing world.These involve multilateral international agen-cies such as FAO, WHO, OECD, bilateral de-velopment assistance programs of many na-tions, and a number of other institutions. Attimes there has been an unfortunate lack ofcoordination and collaboration among thesebodies. Recently steps have been taken byFAO and OECD to assure more coordination,and this should be reinforced and encour-aged.

U.S. PROGRAMS

The U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment (AID), or its predecessors, have over theyears had extensive and varied programsaimed at strengthening plant protection pro-grams in developing countries. Many of theseprograms are developed in cooperation withU.S. universities, experiment stations, theU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), andother U.S. institutions. Most of these pro-grams are directed toward individual coun-tries and are supported directly by the localU.S. AID missions. AID also provides morethan 25 percent of the funding for the CGIARAgricultural Research and Training Network,whose programs contain considerable plantprotection research.

Since 1971 AID has had a contract with theUniversity of California (UC) for a global proj-ect in pest management and related environ-mental protection. This is a general technicalservices contract intended to develop im-proved pest management in the developingcountries. The objectives of the project are:

●

●

●

to provide resea rch and t echn ica lassistance in AID’s involvement withpesticides,to improve less developed countries’(LDC) regulation and pesticide-monitor-ing capabilities,to develop country- and international-based 1PM and environmental protectionsystems,

●

●

●

to train competent LDC personnel to de-velop scientific skills and pest manage-ment expertise,to assist AID in developing networks ofinstitutions relating to pest managementexpertise, andto assist in the development of a series ofcoordinated pest management researchprojects.

In this project, the University of Californiais cooperating with Oregon State University,University of Hawaii, Texas A&M University,University of Florida, University of Miami,Cornell University, University of Minnesota,and North Carolina State University to pro-vide these services.

Oregon State University has had a re-search project on weed control in developingcountries supported by AID since 1966. Muchof their research has been carried out in de-veloping countries of Latin America, withbackup research in Oregon and Hawaii. Theyhave done outstanding work in producing anddisseminating information of value not only toweed scientists but also to other pest controldisciplines.

The 1975 title XII amendment to the For-eign Assistance Act established a Board forInternational Food and Agricultural Develop-ment (BIFAD). One of the basic objectives of

Ch. VII— Transfer of North American Crop Protect/on Technology to the Developing World ● 125

BIFAD was to involve the U.S. universities In the past 3 or 4 years a large number ofwith AID in sound long-term programs. Re- documents have been developed by the U.S.cently the Joint Research Committee of BIFAD National Academy of Sciences, U.S. AID,identified “crop protection” as a priority OECD, and others which give valuable back-area for a planning grant to develop plans for ground information on the subjects discusseda collaborative research support program. in this report.

OPTIONS FOR CONGRESS TO IMPROVE CROP PROTECTIONIN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Support Education and Training ofLDC Crop Protection Scientists

U.S. experience over the past 35 years ininternational efforts to increase food produc-tion in LDCs clearly indicates that short-termtechnical assistance is not productive. Thekey to success in agriculture is to support ad-vanced education to those who will return tostaff the universities, research institutes, andagricultural ministries in their own countries.Without such in-country scientists and spe-cialists, few long-term improvements can beachieved.

To maintain trained staffs in universitiesand research institutions in LDCs, continuingefforts are required because of the attritionto administration, industry, and internationalorganizations. Because advanced-degreetraining in LDCs is variable and tendstowards inbreeding, i t is important thatoverseas advanced educational programs becontinued.

Congress should ensure that AID in coop-eration with USDA and the land-grant univer-sities supports a program of graduate train-ing adequate to meet the needs of developingcountries. This program should be coordi-nated with those of other nations and institu-tions to provide optimum results with avail-able resources.

In addition to degree training, middle-career scientists need opportunities to haveupdating educational or work experience atan institution where advanced work in pestmanagement is underway. Congress could en-sure that there are adequate fellowships tofulfill these needs.

The two most serious problems encoun-tered in educating and training foreign per-sonnel are: 1) the reluctance of some peopleto return home and 2) learning to do researchin sophisticated, well-equipped laboratories.Both of these problems are alleviated whenscientists are permitted to carry out theirthesis research at home or in a comparablesituation under the direction of appropriatefaculty advisors. This procedure has the ad-vantage of training under realistic conditions,helping to solve local problems, and startingscientists on research that can be continuedafter completion of their advanced degree.

Agromedical Training forIn-Country Personnel

Pesticides, especially insecticides, can bevery hazardous to man, animals, and the envi-ronment. Some very unfortunate experienceshave occurred in some LDCs as a result ofmisuse of pesticides. There is need for educa-tion in pesticide management, including theirproper use, monitoring for residues in foodand the environment, and the recognition andtreatment of pesticide poisoning. The UC/AIDpest management project has sponsored somesuccessful pesticide management workshopsin several parts of the developing world. Thisis an effective approach to reducing thehazards of pesticide use in LDCs.

Integrated Pest ManagementWorkshop

In addition to the education and training oftop-level scientists in the philosophy andmethodology of pest management, there is a


great need to provide practical short-termtraining for agriculturalists who are workingdirectly with farmers in an advisory capacity.Six- to eight-week training workshops spon-sored jointly by in-country institutions andAID with instruction by both local and foreignexperts have proven to be very effective.

Provide the Less-DevelopedCountries With Pest

Management Information

An almost universal problem for crop pro-tection scientists in LDCs is lack of adequatelibraries and up-to-date information. Onesolution may be to provide foreign literatureor to subsidize the preparation and publica-tion of books and bulletins by local scientists.

Establish Research Projects andDevelop Pest Management Systems

The United States has the option of estab-lishing appropriate research projects de-

signed to develop practical pest managementsystems for local and regional situations.These projects could involve local scientistswith cooperative inputs from U.S. scientists.Some projects might be designed for a localproblem; others could involve scientists on aregional or even global basis, Care must beexercised to ensure that such projects arecomplementary with ongoing research incrop protection.

Provide Support for Crop Protectionin the Title XII Program

A most important option is to develop a vig-orous effective program in crop protectionunder the title XII amendment to the ForeignAssistance Act. The reduction of pest-in-duced losses provides one of the most promis-ing approaches to increasing the world’s foodsupply.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agrios, George N., Plant Pathology (New York:Academic Press, 1969).

Anderson, W. P., Weed Science Principles (NewYork: West Publishing Co., 1977).

Angus, T. A., “Bacillus Thuringiensis as a Micro-bial Insecticide,”’ Naturally Occurring insecti-cides, M. Jacobson and D. G., eds. (New York:Marcel Dekker, 1971), p. 463.

Apple, J, L,, and R. F. Smith, eds., Integrated PestManagement (New York and London: PlenumPress, 1976).

Audus, L. J,, cd., Herbicide Physiology, Biochemi-stry, and Ecology (New York: Academic Press,1976),

Baker, K. F., and R, J. Cook, Biological Control ofPlant Pathogens (San Francisco, Calif,: W, H.Freeman and Co., 1974).

Beroza, M., cd., “Pest Management With InsectSex Attractants, ” ACS Symp. Ser. 23, 1976.

Birch, M., cd., Pheromones (Amsterdam: NorthHolland Publishing Co., 1974).

Blake, H. T., P, A. Andrilenas, R. P. Jenkins, T. R.Eichers, and A, S. Fox, Farmers’ Pesticide Ex-penditures in 1966, USDA, ERS, Agric. Econ.Rpt. No. 192,43 pp., 1970,

Borror, D. J,, and D, M. DeLong, Introduction tothe Study of Insects (New York: HoIt, Rinehartand Winston, 1971).

Brown, A. W., T. C, Byerly, M. Gibbs, and A. SanPietro, eds., Crop Productivity—Research Im-peratives (Michigan State University, Agricul-tural Experiment Station and Charles F. Ket-tering Foundation, 1975).

Bruehl, G. W., cd., Biology and Control of Soil-Borne P~ant Pathogens (St. Paul, Minn,: Ameri-can Phytopathological Society, 1975).

California Agriculture, Special Issue: Inte-grated Pest Management, vol. 32, No. 2 (Divi-sion of Agricultural Sciences, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, 1978).

Chapman, R. F., The Insects: Structure and Func-tion (New York: American Elsevier Publ. Co,,1969),

Christie, J. R., Plant Nematodes: Their Bionomicsand Control (University of Florida, 1959).

Clausen, C, P,, cd., Introduced Parasites and Pred-ators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A WorMReport (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agri-cultural Handbook 480, 1977).

Council on Environmental Quality, Integrated PestManagement [Washington, D. C,: U.S. Govern-ment Printing office, 0-464-590, 1972).

Crafts, A. S., Modern Weed Control (Berkeley,Calif.: University of California Press, 1975).

Crosby, D. G,, “The Fate of Pesticides in the Envi-ronment, ’ A n n . R e v . Plant Physiol. 24:467,1973.

Crosby, D. G., chairman, “Pesticides in the En-vironment , Cleaning Our Environment, AChemical Perspective (Washington, D. C.:American Chemical Society, 1978), pp. 320-7.

Day, B. E,, cd., Weed Control, (Washington, D. C,:National Academy of Sciences, 1968).

Day, P. R., Genetics of Host-Parasite Interaction(San Francisco, Calif.: W. H. Freeman and Co.,1974).

DeBach, P,, Biological Control by Natural Enemies(London: Cambridge University Press, 1975).

Djerassi, C,, Shih-Coleman, and J, Diekman, “In-sect Control of the Future: Operational andPolicy Aspects,”’ Science 186:596-607, 1974.

Dustman, E. H., and L, F. Stickel, “The Occur-rence and Significance of Pesticide Residuesin Wild Animals, ” A n n . N.Y. Acad. S c i .160:162, 1969.

Edwards, C. A,, cd., Environmental Pollution byPesticides (London: Plenum Press, 1973).

Eichers, T. R., and P. A. Andrilenas, Evaluation ofPesticide Supplies and Demand for 1978 (U.S.Department of Agriculture, Agr. Econ. Rpt.399, 1978).

Eichers, T. R., P. A, Andrilenas, and T. W. Ander-son, Farmers Use of Pesticides in 1976, USDA,ESCS, Agric. Econ. Rpt. No. 418, 58 pp., 1978.

Ennis, W. B., Jr., W. M. Dowler, and W, Klassen,“Crop Protection to Increase Food Supplies, ”Science 188:593-8, 1975.

Ennis, W, B., Jr., W. C. Shaw, L, L. Danielson, D, L.Klingman, and F. L. Timmons, “Impact ofChemical Weed Control on Farm ManagementPractices, ” Aclv. in Agron. 15:161-210, 1963.

Environmental Protection Agency, Strategy of theEPA for Controlling the Adverse Effects of Pes-ticides (Washington, D. C.: Office of PesticidePrograms, Office of Hazardous Materials,1974).

Flint, M. L., and R. van den Bosch, A Source Bookon Integrated Pest Management (U.S. Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Of-fice of Environmental Education, 1977).

Fowler, D. L., and J, N. Mahan, The Pesticide Fie-view—1972 (Washington, D, C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabiliza-tion and Conservation Service, 1973).

129


Georghiou, G. D., and C. E. Taylor, “Pesticide Re-sistance as an Evolutionary Phenomenon,”’ inProceedings XV International Con,gr. Entomo],,pp. 759-85, 1977.

Glass, E. H., coordinator, Integrated Pest Manage-ment: Rationale, Potential, Needs, and Imple-mentation, Entomol. Soc. Amer. Special Publ.,75-2, 1976.

Goldstein, J., The Least Is Best Pesticide Strategy(Emmaus, Pa.: J. G. Press, 1978).

Good, J., “Integrated Pest Management , . . A LookTo the Future, ” U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Extension Service, ESC 583, 1977.

Good, J. M., et al., Establishing and Operat ingGrower-Owned Organizations for IntegratedPest Management, U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Extension Service, 1977.

Goring, C. A. I., “The Cost of Commercializing Pes-ticides, ‘‘ in Pesticide Management and Insecti-cide Resistance, D. L. Watson and A. W. A.Brown, (eds) (New York: Academic Press,1977), pp. 1-33.

Greider, R, S., D. R, MacKenzie, Z. Smilowitz, andJ. D, Barrington, Potato Diseases, Insects, andWeeds (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsyl-vania State University, 1978).

Hague, R., and V. H. Freed, “Behavior of Pesti-cides in the Environment: EnvironmentalChemodynamics, ’ Residue Rev. 52:89, 1974.

Hedin, P. A., cd., “Host Plant Resistance toPests,” ACS Symp, 62, 1977.

Henrick, C. A., G, B. Staal, and J. B. Siddall, “Alkyl3, 7, I l-trimethyl-2, 4-decadienoates, NewClass of Potent Insect Growth Regulators WithJuvenile Hormone Activity,” J. Agric. FoodChem. 21:354, 1973.

Hills, L. D., Pest Control Without Poisons (Essex,England: Henry Doubleday Res. Assoc., Bock-ing, Braintree, 1964).

Holstun, J. T., cd,, “FAO International Conferenceon Weed Control, ” Weed Sci, Soc. Am., Cham-paign, Ill., 1970.

Horsfall, J., Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops(Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sci-ences, 1972).

Horsfall, J. G., and E. B. Cowling, eds., Plant Dis-ease: An Advanced Treatise, Vol. 1. How Dis-ease is Managed (New York: Academic Press,1977).

Huffaker, C. B., cd,, Biological Control (New York:Plenum Press, 1971),

Huffaker, C. B., and P. S. Messenger, eds., TheTheory and Practice of Biological Control (NewYork: Academic Press, 1977).

Kilgore, W. W., and R. L. Doutt, eds,, Pest Control:

Biological, Physical, and Selected ChemicalMethods (New York: Academic Press, 1967),

Kingsbury, J. M., Poisonous Plants of the UnitedStates and Canada (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice-Hall, 1964).

Klingman, G. C., and F. M, Ashton, Weed SciencePrinciples and Practices (New York: JohnWiley and Sons, 1975).

Knipling, E. F., The Potential Role of the SterilityMethod for Insect Population Control WithSpecial Reference to Combining this MethodWith Conventional Methods, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Agricultural Research Serv-ice, ARS 33-98, 1964.

Krause, R, A,, and L. B. Massie, “Predictive Sys-tems: Modern Approaches to Disease Con-trol, ” Annu. Rev. PhytopathoL 13:31-47, 1975.

Lawless, E. W,, and R, von Rumker, A TechnologyAssessment of Biological Substitutes for Chem-ical Pesticides —Midwes t Research InstituteReport [Washington, D, C.: National ScienceFoundation (RANN), 1976).

Lawless, E. W., R. von Rumker, and T. L. Fergu-son, The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manu-facturing, Technical Studies Report TS-OO-72-04, Office of Water Programs, U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, Washington,D. C,, 1972.

Levin, H. S., and R. L. Rodnitzky, “Behavioral Ef-fects of Organophosphates in Man, ” Clin. Tox-ice]. 9:391-403, 1976.

Mai, W. F., “Worldwide Distribution of Potatoe-Cyst Nematodes and Their Importance in CropProduction, ” J. ~ematology g:S()-Q, lg7i’.

Mai, W. F., Jr,, R. Bloom, and T, A, Chen, Biologyand Ecology of the Plant-Parasitic NematodePratylenchus penetrans, Penn. Agr. Exp, Sta,Bull. 815:7-64, 1977.

Mankau, R., Utilization of Parasites and Predatorsin Nematode Pest Management Ecology Pro-ceedings, Tall Timbers Conference on Ecologi-cal Animal Control by Habitat Management 4,1973.

McEwen, F. L,, “Food Production—The Challengefor Pestidices, ” Bio Science 28:773-6, 1978.

McEwen, F. L,, and G. R. Stephenson, The Use andSignificance of Pesticides in the Environment(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979),

Metcalf, C. L., W. F. Flint, and R. L. Metcalf, De-struct ive and Useful Insects (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1962),

Metcalf, R, L., and W. H. Luckmann, Introductionto Insect Pest Management (New York: Wileyand Sons, lg75).

Metcalf, R. L., and J. J. McKelvey, Jr., eds., The Fu-

Bibliography . 131

ture for Insecticides, Needs and Prospects(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976).

Miller, P, M., and J. F. Ahrens, Marigolds—A 13io-logical Control of Meadow Nematodes in Gar-dens, Connecticut Agricultural ExperimentStation Bulletin 701, 1969.

Miranowski, J. A., U. F. W, Ernst, and F. H. Cum-mings, Crops Insurance and Information Serv-ices to Control Use of Pesticides, U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, EPA-600 /5-74 -O18,1974.

Mock, D. E., Pest Management and the Develop-ment of Field Crop Consulting Services in Kan-sas (Manhattan: Kansas State University,1976).

Mrak, E, M., chairman, Report of the Secretary’sCommission on Pesticides and Their Relation-ship to Environmental Health, U.S. Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969.

Nalewaja, J. D., “Weeds: Coexistence or Control, ”J. Envir. Qua]. 1:344-9, 1972.

National Academy of Sciences, Analytical Studiesfor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Vol. VII: Pesticide Decision Making (Washing-ton, D. C.: 1978).

National Academy of Sciences, Pest Control: AnAssessment of Present and Alternative Tech-nologies, Vol. I—Contemporary Pest ControlPractices and Respects: The Report of the Ex-ecutive Committee [Washington, D. C,: 1975).

National Academy of Sciences, Pest Control: AnAssessment of Present and Alternative Tech-nologies, Vol. 11—Corn/Soybeans Pest Control(Washington, D, C.: 1975).

National Academy of Sciences, Pest Control: AnAssessment of Present and Alternative Tech-nologies, Vol. 111—Cotton Pest Control (Wash-ington, D. C.: 1975).

National Academy of Sciences, Pest Contro~: AnAssessment o.f Present and Alternative Tech-nologies, Vol. IV—Forest Pest Control (Wash-ington, D. C., 1975).

National Academy of Sciences, Pest Control; AnAssessment of Present and Alternative Tech-nologies, VOJ. V—Pest Control and PukdicHealth (Washington, D. C.: 1975),

National Academy of Sciences, Pest Control Strat-egies for the Future (Washington, D. C.: 1972).

National-Academy of Sciences, Principles of Plantand Animal Pest Con trol, Vol. I—P~ant-DiseaseDevelopment and Control (Washington, D. C.:1968),

National Academy of Sciences, Principles of Plantmd Animal Pest Control, Voi, 2—Weed Control(Washington, D. C.: 1968).

National Academy of Sciences, Princip~es of Plantand Anima) Pest Control, Vol. 3—Insect-PestManagement and Control (Washington, D. C.:1969).

National Institute of Occupational Safety andHealth, Occupational Exposure During theManufacture and Formulation of Pesticides,Criteria Document, 1978, pp. 107-10.

National Research Council, Insect-Pest Manage-ment and Control No. 1695 (Washington, D, C.:1969).

Office of Technology Assessment, Pest Manage-ment Strategies, Vol. 11 (Washington, D. C.:1979).

Pimentel, D., Ecological Effects of Pesticides onNon-Target Species, Office of Science andTechnology, Executive Office of the President,Washington, D. C., 1971.

Pimentel, D., “Socioeconomic and Legal Aspectsof Pest Control, Pest Control Strategies (Lon-don, San Francisco, New York: AcademicPress, Inc., 1978), pp. 55-71.

Pimentel, D., cd., World Food, Pest Losses, and theEnvironment (Boulder, Colo: Westview Press,1978).

Pimentel, D., E. C. Terhune, W. Dritschilo, D. Gal-laham, N, Kinner, D. Nafus, R. Peterson, N.Zarch, J. Misiti, and 0, Haber-Shaim, ‘*Pesti-cides, Insects in Foods, and Cosmetic Stand-ards, ” Bio Science 27: 178-85, 1977.

Quraishi, M. S., Biochemical Insect Control, Its Im-pact on Economy, Environment, and NaturalSelection (New York: John Wiley and Sons),

Rabb, R. L,, and F. E. Guthrie, Concepts of PestManagement (Raleigh, N. C.: North CarolinaState University, 1970),

Reed, C. F., Economically Important ForeignWeeds: Potential Problems in the UnitedStates, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agri-cultural Handbook 498, 1977

Rice, E. L., Allelopathy (New York: AcademicPress, Inc., 1974).

Ridgway, R. L., S, B. Vinson, eds., BioJogicu~ Con-troJ by Augmentation of Natural Enemies: In-sect and Mite Control with Parasites and Pred-ators [New York: Plenum Press, 1977).

Roberts, D. A., and C. W. Boothroyd, Fundamen-tals of Plant Pathology (San Francisco, Calif.:W. H, Freeman& Co., 1972),

Shaw, W. C., “The Cost/Benefit Ratio—The PublicView, ” Proceedings Southern Weed ScienceSociety, 1978.

Shaw, W. C., “Weed Control Technology for Agro-ecosystems Management, ” Proceedings ofSymposium on Ecology and Agricultural Pro-


duction (Knoxville, Term.: University of Ten-nessee, July 10-17, 1973).

Shaw, W, C., “Weed Science—Revolution in Agri-cultural Technology, ” Weeds 12:153-62, 1964,

Shaw, W, C., “Weed Science—Revolution in Prog-ress,” Supplement to the Proceedings of theNortheastern Weed Science Society, vol. 30,1976.

Siegel, M. R., and H. D. Sisler, eds., AntifungalCompounds, Vol. 1: Discovery, Development,and Uses (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977).

Smith, E. H., and D. Pimentel, eds,, Pest ControlStrategies (New York: Academic Press, 1978).

Smith, K. M,, Plant Viruses (London: h4ethuen &Co. Ltd., 1968).

Smith, O., Potatoes: Production, Storage, Process-ing (Westport, Corm.: Avi Publ. Co. Inc., 1968).

Smith, W. L., and J. B. Wilson, Market Diseases ofPotatoes, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Handbook 479, 1978.

Society of Nematologists, Committee on CropLosses, Estimated Crop Losses Due to PlantParasitic Nematodes in the U. S., Special Publi-cation No. 1, Society of Nematologists, 1971.

Soil Sci. Soc. of America, Conservation Ti]]age. AHandbook for Farmers (Ankeny, Iowa: SCS,Special Publ. 20, 1973).

Stout, B. A., chairman, Energy Use in Agriculture:Now and for the Future, Council for Agric, Sci.and Tech., Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa,Rept, 68,, 1977.

Summers, M., R. Engler, L. A. Falcon, and P. Vail,eds,, Bacu]oviruses for Insect Pest Control:Safety Considerations (Washington, D. C.:American Society of Microbiology, 1975).

Timmons, F. L., “A History of Weed Control in theUn i t ed S t a t e s and Canada , ” Weed Sci.18:294-307, 1970.

Tucker, W., Bio~ogical Agents for Pest Control,Status and Prospects, U.S. Department of Agri-culture, 1978.

Tucker, W., “Of Mites and Men, ” Harpers,August 1978.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Biological Agentsfor Pest Control: Status and Prospects, Reportof a special study team coordinated by the Of-fice of Environmental Quality Activities, 1978.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Establishing andOperating Grower-Owned Organizations forIntegrated Pest Management, Extension Serv-ice, PA-1 180, 1977,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, SEA, IntegratedPest Management Programs for the State Co-operative Extension Services, a report of theExtension Committee on Organization and Pol-icy, Alabama Cooperative Extension Service,Auburn, Ala., 1979.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Selected Weedsof the United States, Agricultural Handbook366, 1970.

van den Bosch, R., Investigation of the Effects ofFood Standards on Pesticide Use, U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, 1978.

van den Bosch, R., The Pesticide Conspiracy (NewYork: Doubleday Co., 1978).

von Rumker, R., Farmers Pesticides Use Decisionsand Attitudes on Alternative Crop ProtectionMethods, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.

von Rumker, R,, G. A. Carlson, R. D. Lacewell, R.B. Norgaard, and D. W. Parvin, with F. Horay,J. E, Casey, J. Cooper, A. H. Grube, and V.Ulrich, Evaluation of Pest Management Pro-grams for Cotton, Peanuts and Tobacco in theUnited States, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, EPA 540/9-75-031, 1975.

von Rumker, R,, and Gary L. Kelso, A Study of theE~~iciency of the Use of Pesticides in Agricul-ture, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, 1975.

Walker, J. C., Diseases of Vegetable Crops (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1952).

Wallace, H, R., The Biology of Plant ParasiticNematodes (London: Edward Arnold Ltd.,1963).

Webster, J. M., cd., Economic Hematology (NewYork: Academic Press, 1972).

Wechsler, A, E., J, E, Harrison, A. Burg, D. Gib-bons, J. Perwak, and R. Terry, Incentives forResearch and Development in Pest Control,Vol. 1., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,EPA-540/9-77-008, 1976.

Westcott, C., Plant Disease Handbook, 3rd ed.(New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971).

Wiens, F, J., Reactive Organic Gas Emissions ~romPesticide Use in California, Calif. Air Res. Bd.,Sacramento, 1977.

Zuckerman, B. M., W. F. Mai, and R. A. Rohde,eds., Plant Parasitic Nematodes, Vol. I (NewYork: Academic Press, 1971).

u. s. I“ o v E?, IIME ! IT P P I h!T I }JG 13 F FI C E : 1979 0 - 5 1– 788

Pest Management Strategies in Crop Protection

Documents

Transcript of Pest Management Strategies in Crop Protection