Bibliography Tag: diversified weed management ipm
Baker, Brian P., Green, Thomas A., & Loker, Ali J.; “Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems;” Biological Control, 2020, 140; DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104095.
More resilient and sustainable approaches are urgently needed to minimize crop yield losses resulting from pest activity and reduce impacts of pest management on human health and the environment. Increasing implementation of biological approaches, including biological control, biopesticides, biostimulants and pheromones is a mutual high priority for sustainable agriculture leaders and practitioners, including those working in organic agriculture and Integrated Pest Management (IPM). While market and regulatory forces, and pest resistance to conventional pesticides are contributing to growth in implementation of biological approaches, they remain a very small percentage of the overall global crop protection portfolio. Barriers to greater adoption include many of the same barriers to adopting IPM techniques or transitioning to organic. Improved awareness and understanding of the histories and benefits of organic and IPM, goals and priorities shared by organic and IPM proponents and practitioners, and opportunities for accelerating adoption of biological approaches have potential to improve our combined effectiveness in overcoming these barriers. Strategies to speed adoption include increased education and extension on proven, ready-to-use biological control options; full cost and benefit accounting for biologically-based alternatives to chemical controls; and public and private sector policies to encourage biological control and reduce reliance on chemical controls. Both the organic and IPM communities of practice stand to gain from collaboration on common interests and goals. FULL TEXT
LaCanne, C. E., & Lundgren, J. G.; “Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably;” PeerJ, 2018, 6, e4428; DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4428.
Most cropland in the United States is characterized by large monocultures, whose productivity is maintained through a strong reliance on costly tillage, external fertilizers, and pesticides (Schipanski et al., 2016). Despite this, farmers have developed a regenerative model of farm production that promotes soil health and biodiversity, while producing nutrient-dense farm products profitably. Little work has focused on the relative costs and benefits of novel regenerative farming operations, which necessitates studying in situ, farmer-defined best management practices. Here, we evaluate the relative effects of regenerative and conventional corn production systems on pest management services, soil conservation, and farmer profitability and productivity throughout the Northern Plains of the United States. Regenerative farming systems provided greater ecosystem services and profitability for farmers than an input-intensive model of corn production. Pests were 10-fold more abundant in insecticide-treated corn fields than on insecticide-free regenerative farms, indicating that farmers who proactively design pest-resilient food systems outperform farmers that react to pests chemically. Regenerative fields had 29% lower grain production but 78% higher profits over traditional corn production systems. Profit was positively correlated with the particulate organic matter of the soil, not yield. These results provide the basis for dialogue on ecologically based farming systems that could be used to simultaneously produce food while conserving our natural resource base: two factors that are pitted against one another in simplified food production systems. To attain this requires a systems-level shift on the farm; simply applying individual regenerative practices within the current production model will not likely produce the documented results. FULL TEXT
Mariyono, Joko; “Direct and indirect impacts of integrated pest management on pesticide use: a case of rice agriculture in Java, Indonesia;” Pest Management Science, 2008, 64(10), 1069-1073; DOI:10.1002/ps.1602.
BACKGROUND: Integrated pest management (IPM) technology has been disseminated since 1989 in Indonesia to cut down pesticide use, but the adoption and diffusion of the technology are still debated. This study aims to estimate the models of demand for pesticides and to analyse the impact of IPM technology on pesticide use. Aggregate cross-section time series data from 1990-1998 are used.
RESULTS: The results show that IPM technology reduces the use of pesticides by improving the process of rice production, such that pesticides are more efficiently used. In this case, the IPM technology is not a pest control technique.
CONCLUSION There is an indication that IPM technology has been adopted by farmers. This is evidence that the IPM programme in Indonesia was successful in this area. Copyright ? 2008 Society of Chemical Industry
Sharma, Rakesh, & Peshin, Rajinder; “Impact of integrated pest management of vegetables on pesticide use in subtropical Jammu, India;” Crop Protection, 2016, 84, 105-112; DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2016.02.014.
In a study at the subtropical vegetable-growing areas of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), a quasi-experimental research design with a non-equivalent control group was employed to examine the impact of an integrated pest management (IPM) program implemented from 2008 to 2010 on the adoption of non-chemical pest management practices, pesticide use by weight (active ingredient [a.i.]), pesticide use frequency, field use environment impact (FEIQ) and safe handling and application of pesticides by IPM-trained farmers. There was no significant change in adoption of non-chemical practices, other than pheromone traps used by okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench) growers. Growers reduced FEIQ by 17.9 per hectare from 2008 to 2010. Pesticide use (a.i.) did not decrease significantly, and frequency decreased significantly by 72.4% only in cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis). The vegetable growers did not use protective equipment while handling and applying pesticides thus putting themselves at risk. Implementation of IPM thus needs to be reexamined to significantly reduce pesticide use by weight, treatment frequency and FEIQ.
Lamichhane, Jay Ram; “Pesticide use and risk reduction in European farming systems with IPM: An introduction to the special issue;” Crop Protection, 2017, 97, 1-6; DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.01.017.
Epstein, Lynn, & Zhang, Minghua. (2014). The Impact of Integrated Pest Management Programs on Pesticide Use in California, USA. In R. Peshin & D. Pimentel (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management (pp. 173-200): Springer.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is often promoted to farmers as a method that can provide the most economical, sustained disease and pest control, but promoted to the public as a method to reduce agricultural pesticide use. California has a public infrastructure for supporting IPM research and implementation, largely through the University of California IPM program. California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports provide a system to track pesticide use state-wide. In practice, IPM in California is extremely pesticide-dependent, particularly in weed control and in agricultural production systems that rely on soil fumigation, such as strawberries. During our study period between 1993 and 2010, California had a decrease in use of 88 % of the highly-used pesticides listed for regulatory concern for human health. However, most of these pesticides were replaced with other chemicals rather than with non-chemical methods. We feature several case studies that illustrate key issues in California IPM: the limited progress in meeting Montreal Protocol guidelines for methyl bromide phase-out due to critical use exemptions for strawberry producers; a successful IPM program to decrease use of dormant-season organophosphates that are important water pollutants; the increase in use of neonicotinoid insecticides, which might have a role in the current bee colony collapse disorder; and the limited use of all of the commercialized microbial biocontrol agents except for Bacillus thuringiensis. FULL TEXT
Cuyno, L.; “Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: a Philippine case study;” Agricultural Economics, 2001, 25(2-3), 227-233; DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb00203.x.
Health and environmental concerns associated with pesticide use have motivated the development of integrated pest management (IPM) programs around the world. Little empirical work has been completed to estimate the value of the environmental benefits of IPM. This paper provides an approach to evaluate a broad set of such benefits for a vegetable program in the Philippines. Assessments were made of (1) IPM-induced reduction in environmental risks posed by pesticides in onion production in the Central Luzon and (2) willingness to pay to reduce those risks. The latter was based on a contingent valuation (CV) interview survey of 176 farmers. Risks to humans, birds, aquatic species, beneficial insects, and other animals were considered. IPM practices on onions reduced the use of specific pesticides from 25 to 65%, depending on the practice, and the projected adoption of IPM practices varied from 36 to 94%. Estimated economic benefits varied from 231 to 305 pesos per person per cropping season (40 pesos = 1 US$). The aggregate value of environmental benefits for the five villages where the IPM research program was centered was estimated at 150,000 US$ for the 4600 local residents. Assessment of environmental benefits can help in designing public policies and regulations, and in justifying support for publicly funded IPM programs. FULL TEXT
Powles, Stephen B., & Gaines, Todd A.; “Exploring the Potential for a Regulatory Change to Encourage Diversity in Herbicide Use;” Weed Science, 2017, 64(SP1), 649-654; DOI: 10.1614/ws-d-15-00070.1.
An overreliance on herbicides in several important grain- and cotton-producing regions of the world has led to the widespread evolution of herbicide-resistant weed populations. Of particular concern are weed populations that exhibit simultaneous resistance to multiple herbicides (MHR). Too often, herbicides are the only tool used for weed control. We use the term herbicide-only syndrome (HOS) for this quasi-addiction to herbicides. Growers and their advisers focus on herbicide technology, unaware of or ignoring basic evolutionary principles or the necessary diversity provided by other methods of weed control. Diversity in weed control practices disrupts resistance evolution. Significant challenges exist to implementing diversity, including how to address information so that producers choose to alter existing behaviors (HOS) and take calculated risks by attempting new and more complex strategies. Herbicide resistance management in the long term will require creativity in many sectors, including roles for growers, industry, researchers, consultants, retailers, and regulators. There can be creativity in herbicide registration and regulation, as exemplified by the recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program that encourages herbicide registrants to register products in minor crops. We propose one idea for a regulatory incentive to enable herbicide registrants in jurisdictions such as the United States to receive an extended data exclusivity period in exchange for not developing one new herbicide in multiple crops used together in rotation, or for implementing stewardship practices such as robust mixtures or limitations on application frequency. This incentive would provide a mechanism to register herbicides in ways that help to ensure herbicide longevity. Approaches based only on market or financial incentives have contributed to the current situation of widespread MHR. Our suggestion for regulatory creativity is one way to provide both financial and biological benefits to the registering company and to the overall stakeholder community by incentivizing good resistance management. FULL TEXT
Malone, M., & Foster, E.; “A mixed-methods approach to determine how conservation management programs and techniques have affected herbicide use and distribution in the environment over time;” Science of The Total Environment, 2019, 660, 145-157; DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.266.
No-till agriculture has the ability to reduce fuel consumption, increase soil moisture, reduce soil erosion and increase organic matter. However, it remains unclear whether it increases herbicide use overall in the long term for communities that use no-till as their primary source of conservation agriculture. The preponderance of literature suggests that no-till has increased herbicide use, but it is difficult to quantify how much herbicide has increased in a given location and to directly correlate changes in herbicide use to changes in soil and water quality. This paper provides several methods to determine how herbicide use has changed over time in an agricultural community in Oregon that switched over to no-till in the late 1990s and early 2000s. These methods include: spatial analysis of remote sensing satellite imagery of vegetation health along streams; use of a drone fitted with an agricultural camera to detect vegetation health; and soil, sediment, and water sampling for the most commonly used herbicides in the study area. By using these methods, this study shows where stream vegetation health continues to be an issue in the agricultural community, and where concentrations of a commonly used herbicide in the community may be impacting human and ecological health. This study has important implications for impacts to soil and water quality over time in agricultural communities, as many researchers have noted the need to determine the long term effects of conversion to no-till and other forms of conservation agriculture. By providing these methods, communities heavily engaged in multiple forms of conservation agriculture may be able to track herbicide use changes in real time and on shorter decadal time spans in places where conservation agriculture is practiced. FULL TEXT
Beckie, Hugh J.; “Herbicide-Resistant Weeds: Management Tactics and Practices;” Weed Technology, 2017, 20(3), 793-814; DOI: 10.1614/wt-05-084r1.1.
In input-intensive cropping systems around the world, farmers rarely proactively manage weeds to prevent or delay the selection for herbicide resistance. Farmers usually increase the adoption of integrated weed management practices only after herbicide resistance has evolved, although herbicides continue to be the dominant method of weed control. Intergroup herbicide resistance in various weed species has been the main impetus for changes in management practices and adoption of cropping systems that reduce selection for resistance. The effectiveness and adoption of herbicide and nonherbicide tactics and practices for the proactive and reactive management of herbicide-resistant (HR) weeds are reviewed. Herbicide tactics include sequences and rotations, mixtures, application rates, site-specific application, and use of HR crops. Nonherbicide weed-management practices or nonselective herbicides applied preplant or in crop, integrated with less-frequent selective herbicide use in diversified cropping systems, have mitigated the evolution, spread, and economic impact of HR weeds. FULL TEXT