The future of IPM: Whither or wither?

Zalucki, Myron P., Adamson, David and Furlong, Michael J. (2009) The future of IPM: Whither or wither?. Australian Journal of Entomology, 48 2: 85-96. doi:10.1111/j.1440-6055.2009.00690.x

Author Zalucki, Myron P.
Adamson, David
Furlong, Michael J.
Title The future of IPM: Whither or wither?
Journal name Australian Journal of Entomology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0004-9050
Publication date 2009-05
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1440-6055.2009.00690.x
Volume 48
Issue 2
Start page 85
End page 96
Total pages 12
Editor John Matthiessen
Place of publication Richmond, VIC, Australia
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia
Collection year 2010
Language eng
Subject 960413 Control of Plant Pests, Diseases and Exotic Species in Farmland, Arable Cropland and Permanent Cropland Environments
060299 Ecology not elsewhere classified
Formatted abstract
The acronym IPM (integrated pest management) has been around for over 50 years and now not only supposedly guides research and extension in pest management but also markets pesticides, is claimed to be undertaken by many growers, and even resonates with public perceptions and politicians. Whether or not IPM programs are sustainable in the longer term under the conflicting stresses and strains of the modern agricultural environment is debatable. We analyse three case studies of IPM development in Australia: citrus IPM in central Queensland, Brassica IPM in southeast Queensland and Helicoverpa management in cotton in eastern Australia. Many management practices for these pests have changed over time. In the more stable citrus system classical biological control along with changed practices (reduced pesticide use) have effectively controlled imported scale insect pests. In Brassicas and cotton, IPM is predominantly of the sample and spray variety where, increasingly, less broad-spectrum insecticides are used and, in cotton, Helicoverpa management includes the deployment of transgenic plants. We question whether or not IPM principles are always consistent with market forces and whether or not the approach is universally applicable for all pest insects when implemented at the small (field or farm) scale. Farmers will adopt cost-effective approaches that minimise their financial risks. For Australia as a whole over the last 30 years insecticide input costs per hectare have increased faster than the price index, reflecting more costly insecticides, changes to the combinations of crops grown and an increase in the overall area of crops cultivated together with possible concomitant changes in pest abundance. Any pest crisis will ensure rapid changes in practice and adoption of technologies, in order to mitigate the short-term financial stresses caused. However, regression to former practices tends to follow (e.g. in Brassica crops). In most cases, we cannot objectively test if changed management practices are responsible for changes in pest abundance, as is often claimed, or if the latter is simply a consequence of the weather and/or related large-scale landscape features (e.g. area of host plants).We argue that for many systems the future of pest management practice will require a change to landscape or area-wide approaches. We suspect, given how entrenched the acronym has become, whatever the nature of the approach it will be called IPM.
Keyword Area-wide management
Brassica pests
Insecticide costs
Pest management
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 59 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 70 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 03 Sep 2009, 08:07:34 EST by Mr Andrew Martlew on behalf of School of Biological Sciences