The Future of State IPM Programs

1
The Future of State IPM Programs

• Norman C. Leppla

University of Florida, IFAS
2
Lepplas Career

• University of Arizona- Insect Behavior Rearing
  Research (2 yr)
• USDA, ARS- Pest Management Biological Control,
  FL TX (17 yr)
• USDA, APHIS- Methods Development, Washington DC
  International (7 yr)
• University of Florida- Administration
  Integrated Pest Management (12 yr)

3
Current Situation in Agriculture

• Agricultural goals
• Threats to food production
• Reactions to threats
• IPM options
• Sustainability
• Generic IPM program

4
Shared Goal for on-farm production, post-harvest
handling and processing, distribution, retail and
food-service operations-- to provide the safest
possible fresh fruits and vegetables to
consumers-- through wise, consistent, scientific
and industry-wide best practices
5
Potential Threats to Food Crop Production

• Food borne illnesses
• Land availability and use
• Labor and immigration
• Water quality and quantity
• Higher operating costs (fuel)
• New plant pests and diseases

6
Potential Threats to Food Crop Production

• Loss of pesticides
• Offshore competition
• Damaging weather
• Population growth
• Environmentalism
• Government assistance

7

Growers Reaction to Threats
8
Reaction to a New Pest
Alien Invasive Pest

• Resistant Crop
• Competitors
• Natural enemies
• Resistant varieties

Vulnerable Crop

• Integrated pest management program
• Cultural practices
• Scouting, Identification of pests and NE
• Conservation of natural enemies
• Augmentation of natural enemies
• Reduced-risk insecticides
• Resistance management

• Pesticide program
• Application methods
• Resistance management
• New pesticides

9
What is IPM?

• IPM is the coordinated use of pest and
  environmental information and available pest
  control methods.
• to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by
  the most economical means.
• with the least possible hazard to people,
  property and the environment.

10
Agricultural Sustainability Through IPM

• Sustainability
• Cultural Methods
• Biological Control
• Chemical
  Control
• Physical
  Methods

11
Sustainability of Agriculture

• Economic profitability
• Environmental health
• Social and economic well-being

12
IPM System

• REDUCE RISK
• Pest outbreaks disease epidemics
• Environmental contamination
• Human health hazards
• Pest mgmt. costs

• INCREASE
• Reliability
• Sustainability

Chem
Biological Control
Cultural Physical Methods
13
Generic IPM Program

• Biological knowledge
• Monitoring and inspection
• Act to control pests when necessary
• Choose least-risk options
• Long-term, preventative practices
• Evaluation and records
• Pesticide management
• Continual improvement

14
State Extension IPM Programs

• Origin of state IPM programs
• Structure and function of state IPM programs
• Future of state IPM programs

• 1972- "Huffaker Project" 12.5 million (NSF,
  USDA, EPA)
• 1975- CES extension IPM, every state 0.5-1.5 m
  (total)
• 1979- Adkisson Project 3.5 million

15
The USDA, CSREES (NIFA) Extension IPM Program
USDA, CSREES Funding Cooperative Extension
Directors State IPM Coordinators Cooperators

• Previous program formula-funded 1862 land grant
  system (56 states, ca 8.2 million)
• Current program competitively-funded 1862 and
  1890 land grant eligible (75 institutions, ca
  8.4 m)

16
Florida Statewide IPM Program

• Coordination Programs (ca 168,000)
• A. IPM Coordination (25,000)
• B. IPM Collaboration (Req., unfunded)
• C. Areas of Emphasis (Defined EIPM-CS)
• Agronomic Crops (Not req.)
• High Value Crops (100,000)
• Conservation Partnerships (25,559)
• Pest Diagnostics (Req., unf.)
• School IPM (18,000)
• Housing IPM (Req., unfunded)
• Recreational Lands (Req., unf.)
• Consumer/Urban (Not req.)
• Human Pests and Diseases (Not req.)
• Wide-Area Monitoring (Not requested)
• Critical Support
• Impact Evaluation (Not requested)
• Critical Issues (Not requested)

Past
New

• Coordination Programs (ca 168,000)
• A. IPM Coordination (25,000)
• B. IPM Collaboration (Unfunded)
• C. Areas of Emphasis (Selected by State)
• People and Communities
• Ornamentals and Turf
• Vegetables
• Watersheds and River Basins
• Pasture and Forage Crops
• Citrus
• Deciduous and Small Fruit

17
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

• Designated Coordinator..18
• Manage the Smith-Lever 3(d) Funds26
• Obtain Extramural Funding.41
• Adequate Technical Support..24
• Adequate Facilities and Equipment...41
• Program Management Structure...53
• Planning/Priority Setting Process..45
• Assure IPM Program Recognition.53
• Professional Development Opportunities.45

18
PROGRAM DELIVERY

• Communication System (e.g., website)..51
• Grants Program..22
• Produce Extension Materials...49
• Provide IPM Consultation ..34
• Seek Funding for Cooperators.28
• Conduct Education Training Activities.52
• Means of Measuring Benefits...53

19
PROGRAM INVOLVEMENT

• Cooperative Extension Collaboration.....53
• Research Collaboration .52
• Clientele Collaboration..51
• Interdisciplinary Scope..53
• Inter-Institutional Collaboration.. 52
• Statewide Involvement..52
• Regional, National International Liaison.43

20
PROGRAM SUPPORT

• USDA, CSREES ...54
• Regional IPM Center 54
• University Administration....30
• Unit Leader.......30
• Clientele.20

21
Smith-Lever 3(d) Funds
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
EIPM-CS Program Stakeholder lnput

• Funded network of state IPM programs is a great
  value (coordination and infrastructure) (33)
• Leverage additional external funding (20)
• Increase stakeholder involvement (17)
• Fund base functions (12)
• Multi-year funding for continuity (29)
• Improve the review panels and process (22)
• Mini-grants (sub-awards) (5)
• Increase program flexibility (17)
• One application per institution (5)

25
The Future of IPM

• Multi-disciplinary
• Partnerships

• Resources- internet
• Knowledge intensive

Plant Medicine
26
Partnerships
27
(No Transcript)
28
Resource Intensive
29
IPM Education and Training

• Identifying key pest and beneficial organisms
• Understanding the ecology and adaptability of the
  organisms
• Mastering scouting and other monitoring
  techniques
• Applying economic and other action thresholds
• Preventing pest outbreaks through habitat
  manipulation
• Designing systems of mitigation that minimize
  environmental impact
• Experience with the habitat, e.g., crops or
  buildings
• Understanding laws and regulations pertinent to
  pest management
• Familiarity with the safe and appropriate use of
  pesticides
• Exposure to pest management information and
  organizations

30
IPM Competencies

• Education experience. An interdisciplinary
  education in the traditional scientific
  disciplines plus hands-on, practical experience
  are essential.
• Synthesis integration. Education and training
  prepare pest managers to synthesize knowledge
  from across disciplines because plant health
  problems often are not limited to a single cause.
• Problem solving critical thinking. Experience
  is gained in accurately diagnosing and rapidly
  solving plant health problems while minimizing
  environmental impacts and economic losses.
• Speaking writing effectively. Superior
  communication skills, both written and verbal,
  are required to effectively communicate IPM
  principles and practices.

31
IPM3 Training Consortium
University of Minnesota WebVista (Blackboard
Learning System) Core Concepts- 375 for 15
contact hours http/www.umn.edu/ipm3
IPM Core Concepts Module
.

• Unit 1. Introduction to IPM
• Unit 2. IPM Economic Concepts
• Unit 3. Host Plant Resistance
• Unit 4. IPM Tactics
• Unit 5. IPM Tactics?Chemical Control
• Unit 6. IPM Tactics?Physical Control
• Unit 7. IPM Tactics?Cultural Control
• Unit 8. IPM Tactics?Regulatory Control
• Unit 9. Introduction to Invasive Species

Pest Biology Modules
Specialty Modules
32
Opportunities for Sustainable Food Crop Production

• Research innovations
• Technology implementation
• Rapid information exchange
• Education and training
• Biosecurity and trade
• Food safety- supply chain
• Environmental stewardship

33
The Functions, Evolution and Benefits of State
Integrated Pest Management Programs N. C.
Leppla, D. A. Herbert, Jr. and D. D.
Thomas American Entomologist, Winter 2009
A comprehensive and at least stable state IPM
program would benefit every land grant
university, as agriculture, communities and
natural areas are increasingly difficult to
protect from pests and diseases without
unacceptable risks to human health and the
environment.
34
IPM Florida The UF, IFAS Statewide IPM Program
http//ipm.ifas.ufl.edu