Refining and Improving Control Techniques
J
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMEN EFFORTS LEADING
TO BETTER CONTROLL
Richard S. Smith, Jr.-2 /
Abstract: Past research-management cooperation done on
a personal b a s i s has been e f f e c t i v e i n providing u s with t h e
dwarf m i s t l e t o e c o n t r o l s we now use. Recent developments
have brought u s new o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o improve t h e control of
dwarf m i s t l e t o e and o t h e r p e s t s through increased cooperation
between research, extension and management. The current
s t y l i z e d concept of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p among research, extension
s e r v i c e , and management i s inadequate t o meet our f u t u r e needs
because it lacks t h e two-way flow of information, t h e f l e x i b i l i t y , and t h e long-term closeness t h a t w i l l be required i n
t h e f u t u r e . Forest managers, extension s p e c i a l i s t s and
researchers should be encouraged and supported i n long-term
cooperative e f f o r t s i n i n t e g r a t i n g t h e control o f dwarf
m i s t l e t o e l o s s e s with t h e c o n t r o l o f pest-caused losses and
with t h e i n t e n s i v e s i l v i c u l t u r a l management of stands.
INTRODUCTION
Talking about t h e m e r i t s of cooperation
among research, extension s e r v i c e , and f o r e s t
management i s much l i k e p r a i s i n g motherhood
i n t h a t we a l l agree t h a t i t i s good, t h a t i t
i s needed, and t h a t i t has been productive.
And s o I am not going t o t e l l you about t h e
p a s t accomplishments of t h e cooperative e f f o r t s
of r e s e a r c h e r s , extension s p e c i a l i s t s , and
f o r e s t managers t h a t l e d t o t h e dwarf m i s t l e t o e c o n t r o l p r a c t i c e s you now use. Instead,
I would l i k e t o i n d i c a t e where we now a r e i n
t h e a r e a of research-extension-management
cooperation, and what our f u t u r e opportunit i e s and needs a r e , and t o describe some new
ways o r a r e a s i n which such cooperation can be
more productive. And I hope t h a t i n explori n g t h i s s u b j e c t t o g e t h e r , we may a l l be
i n s p i r e d t o cooperate with one another more
o f t e n , i n more ways, leading t o more f r u i t f u l
relationships.
Ñ'~resente a t t h e Symposium on Dwarf Mistlet o e Control Through Forest Management,
Berkeley, C a l i f . , April 11-13, 1978.
L'plant P a t h o l o g i s t , C a l i f o r n i a Region,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agric u l t u r e , San Francisco, C a l i f .
This symposium was o r i g i n a l l y designed
f o r and d i r e c t e d t o f o r e s t managers and f o r e s t
s i l v i c u l t u r i s t s . But i n t a l k i n g about t h e subj e c t of research-extension-management cooperat i o n i t would be inappropriate t o address j u s t
one member of t h e cooperative team. And s i n c e
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of a l l t h r e e groups a r e here,
I am addressing t h i s t a l k t o a l l o f them. I
do s o with t h e thought t h a t a f t e r my presentat i o n , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from research, extension,
and management w i l l respond with t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t s of view s o t h a t we can s t a r t t o
develop more of an understanding of how we
might b e t t e r cooperate with one another t o
achieve our immediate and long-range goals.
Research-extension-management cooperation
i n t h e a r e a o f dwarf m i s t l e t o e c o n t r o l up t o
t h i s p o i n t has r e s u l t e d mainly from t h e e f f o r t s
o f s e v e r a l dedicated persons i n each group.
These e f f o r t s have been very productive, i n
f a c t i n my judgment, they a r e among t h e most
productive of t h e cooperative e f f o r t s i n f o r e s t
d i s e a s e c o n t r o l . The organizations t h e s e
people work f o r have supported t h e s e e f f o r t s
f i n a n c i a l l y and have generally encouraged
cooperation on a personal b a s i s . But they
have usually not become involved t o t h e point
o f s e t t i n g s p e c i f i c organizational goals,
assigning r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and a c c o u n t a b i l i t i e s ,
and evaluating progress toward t h e s e goals.
I believe t h a t these organizations do have r o l e s
i n t h i s a r e a of research-extension-management
cooperation beyond t h e general encouragement
o f such cooperation and t h a t increased organiz a t i o n a l involvement and dedication at a l l
administrative l e v e l s w i l l be needed i f we a r e
t o meet t h e challenges of t h e f u t u r e .
NEED FOR RESEARCH-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION
Reduction In Forest Losses
Several conditions have r e c e n t l y emerged
t h a t , i n my estimation, a r e going t o r e q u i r e
an increased s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , coordination and
cooperation among f o r e s t research, extension
and management i f we a r e t o improve on current
and f u t u r e operational f o r e s t p e s t control
techniques and methods. Central among these
conditions a r e :
Recently our philosophy has undergone a
s l i g h t but fundamental s h i f t t o where our goals
now a r e t o reduce f o r e s t losses t h a t t h e f o r e s t
manager finds unacceptable. Consequently, our
control e f f o r t s must be evaluated on t h e b a s i s
of how e f f e c t i v e l y they reduce l o s s e s -- and
not how e f f e c t i v e l y they control p e s t populat i o n s . Forest losses a r e no more d i f f i c u l t t o
measure than p e s t populations, but changes i n
losses r e s u l t i n g from control operations do
r e q u i r e a longer period of time t o express
themselves. Such evaluations of p e s t losses
must be based upon t h e goals and values of t h e
f o r e s t manager.
Thus, evaluations of p e s t l o s s control must be made over longer periods,
possibly a complete r o t a t i o n and with t h e
cooperation, a s s i s t a n c e and guidance of t h e
f o r e s t manager. And t h e r e f o r e , t h e development,
t e s t i n g and modification of control methods t o
reduce losses must be done with t h e cooperation
of and input from t h e f o r e s t manager. The
f o r e s t manager i s needed t o 1) d e f i n e product i o n goals and losses and 2) manage t h e t e s t
f o r e s t and keep adequate records s o t h a t a
c r e d i t a b l e evaluation of t h e control methods
can be made -- one t h a t w i l l f u l f i l l both
research and management's needs.
1) A change i n our goals from t h a t of cont r o l l i n g p e s t s and p e s t populations t o t h a t
of reducing f o r e s t losses caused by p e s t s .
2) An increase i n i n t e n s i v e f o r e s t management
a c t i v i t i e s and a corresponding increased
emphasis on and a v a i l a b i l i t y of s i l v i c u l t u r a l
control options.
3) The development of t h e dual concepts of
p e s t complexes and i n t e g r a t e d p e s t management.
These new conditions a r e responsible f o r
changes i n t h e operations and needs of f o r e s t
p e s t management systems. And they a r e providing us t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o strengthen our
control methods through t h e coordinated e f f o r t s
of f o r e s t research, extension, and management.
The thought t h a t our goals i n regard t o
f o r e s t p e s t s should be t o reduce t h e losses
they cause i s not a new one. I t i s a concept,
however, t h a t was over-shadowed u n t i l r e c e n t l y
by t h e idea t h a t our goals should be t o reduce
or control p e s t populations. Under t h i s
philosophy our e f f o r t s were u s u a l l y aimed
d i r e c t l y a t c o n t r o l l i n g damaging p e s t s so a s
t o c o n t r o l a current epidemic by eliminating
a l l o r a l a r g e p o r t i o n of t h e p e s t population.
We t a l k e d i n t h e now f a m i l i a r terms of d i r e c t
c o n t r o l , suppression, e r a d i c a t i o n , and, of
course, p e s t c o n t r o l . The success o f ' o u r cont r o l e f f o r t s was measured i n terms of numbers
of p e s t s k i l l e d by o r remaining a f t e r a control
operation. Such evaluations u s u a l l y were made
s h o r t l y (1 t o 3 years) a f t e r t h e control
operation. Some of our e a r l y e f f o r t s i n dwarf
m i s t l e t o e c o n t r o l , i n l i n e with t h i s philosophy,
were aimed d i r e c t l y a t t h i s p e s t i n an e f f o r t
t o e r a d i c a t e i t from stands by pruning and
thinning. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these control
e f f o r t s was based upon t h e number of dwarf
m i s t l e t o e i n f e c t i o n s evident a t t h e next stand
e n t r y a year o r two l a t e r . Often a stand was
worked 3 o r more times i n our e f f o r t s t o
eradicate t h i s pest.
The increased emphasis and g r e a t r e l i a n c e
on s i l v i c u l t u r a l control methods i s going t o
demand a g r e a t e r cooperative e f f o r t between
t h e r e s e a r c h e r s , extension p a t h o l o g i s t s and
f o r e s t managers. The development and t e s t i n g
of s i l v i c u l t u r a l control methods i s u s u a l l y
done i n a few, limited stand types and consequently t h e r e s u l t s of such t e s t s a r e known
t o be applicable t o only those types of stands
within t h e t e s t . Stands vary widely because
of differences i n age, s t r u c t u r e , species
composition, density, s i z e , e t c . , and t h e
i n i t i a l research and operational t e s t i n g of
any control method cannot encompass a l l p o s s i b l e
combinations of t h e s e v a r i a b l e s . The research
organizations have n e i t h e r t h e timenor t h e
resources t o undertake r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
t e s t i n g under so many varied conditions.
Limitations In Evaluation
On t h e o t h e r hand, f o r e s t managers who
u t i l i z e t h e b e s t information a v a i l a b l e and
frequently employ control methods t e s t e d on
o t h e r stand types do not have t h e time o r
resources needed t o take t h e d e t a i l e d informat i o n required t o evaluate f u l l y the control
methods from t h e research o r development
standpoint. Usually what has happened i n t h e
p a s t i s t h a t t h e extension pathologist has
t r i e d t o meet t h e c o n t r o l needs o f t h e f o r e s t
manager by e x t r a p o l a t i n g a s b e s t he can from
t h e a v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h information. Usually
such c o n t r o l recommendations made t o t h e f o r e s t
manager have received only l i m i t e d evaluations
by t h e manager o r t h e recommending p a t h o l o g i s t
o r both t o s e e i f t h e manager's goals a r e
achieved. Researchers and extension s p e c i a l i s t s
who have t r i e d t o evaluate t h e s e operations
some years l a t e r u s u a l l y have found t h a t t h e
kind, amount, and d e t a i l of t h e stand and
p e s t information taken both before and a f t e r
such a c o n t r o l operation has been inadequate
t o meet t h e i r r e s e a r c h and evaluation needs.
I t appears q u i t e l o g i c a l t h a t a cooperat i v e e f f o r t between t h e f o r e s t manager,
extension p a t h o l o g i s t , and t h e research patholo g i s t would go a long way i n solving t h e s e
problems. I am s u r e such cooperation has
been discussed and recommended before. But
it has y e t t o develop t o t h e degree o r i n t h e
amount we need i f we a r e t o do our p a r t i n
developing t h e p e s t c o n t r o l p o r t i o n s o f i n t e n s i v e s i l v i c u l t u r a l management systems. The
cooperation between i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s must
be maintained over long periods f o r t h e
s u c c e s s f u l evaluation of s i l v i c u l t u r a l c o n t r o l
and prevention methods. A l l persons involved
a t a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l s must approve,
support, and organize such cooperation i f i t
i s t o be successful.
Pest Complexes
Within t h e l a s t few years we have become
more aware t h a t our f o r e s t l o s s e s a r e not
caused by s i n g l e p e s t s b u t more o f t e n by two
o r more p e s t s working together t o k i l l a t r e e .
And i n mixed c o n i f e r s t a n d s , t o t a l t r e e
m o r t a l i t y i s t h e r e s u l t of s e v e r a l p e s t complexes working on d i f f e r e n t h o s t t r e e s o r
under d i f f e r e n t conditions. Control e f f o r t s
a g a i n s t t h e s e major p e s t s must be i n t e g r a t e d
with one another and with t h e s i l v i c u l t u r a l
and management goals f o r t h e stand. And again,
s i l v i c u l t u r a l and prevention t y p e controls
a r e t h e most d e s i r a b l e methods we s e e today.
I f t h e long-term control o f any one p e s t
w i l l r e q u i r e cooperation between t h e f o r e s t
manager, t h e extension p a t h o l o g i s t , and t h e
research f o r e s t e r , imagine t h e complexity and
t h e coordination and cooperation required f o r
t h e simultaneous long-term c o n t r o l of s e v e r a l
p e s t s . To me, t h i s w i l l r e q u i r e more i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e work of researchers, extension
s p e c i a l i s t s , and managers than any o f today's
p e s t c o n t r o l methods. I t i s not a goal t h a t
we w i l l reach e a s i l y o r quickly. I t i s one
t h a t w i l l r e q u i r e long periods of study and
restudy a s we attempt t o fine-tune combinations
o f c o n t r o l techniques f o r g r e a t e r e f f e c t i v e ness under varying ecological conditions. To
do t h i s e f f e c t i v e l y , t h e researchers must be
a c t i v e members of t h e planning and pre- and
post-evaluation teams, and t h e f o r e s t manager
must have a strong voice i n t h e d i r e c t i o n and
goals of t h e research program.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH-MANAGEMENT RESOURCES
What a r e t h e resources we have a t our
disposal t o develop a more productive
research-extension-management r e l a t i o n s h i p ?
Broadly speaking, they a r e t h e people and
organizations which have been with us r i g h t
along. They a r e :
1. The f o r e s t managers representing Federal,
S t a t e , and p r i v a t e f o r e s t land managing
agencies, whose jobs a r e t o manage t h e f o r e s t s
t o meet t h e goals of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r organization.
2 . The extension s p e c i a l i s t , including county
agents, u n i v e r s i t y extension p a t h o l o g i s t s ,
S t a t e f o r e s t p e s t c o n t r o l p a t h o l o g i s t s and
Federal Forest Service p a t h o l o g i s t s .
3 . The research p a t h o l o g i s t s and s i l v i c u l t u r i s t s from t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s and colleges
and t h e Forest Service research s t a t i o n s .
As f o r e s t management i n t e n s i f i e s and
concepts change, t h e s e people and t h e i r
organizations can and must f i n d new and more
productive ways t o i n t e r a c t i f dwarf m i s t l e t o e control operations a r e t o be improved on
t h e s c a l e required by t h e f o r e s t manager.
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION
How do we use these resources most e f f e c t i v e l y i n developing cooperative researchextension-management e f f o r t s and systems with
t h e goal of improving dwarf m i s t l e t o e c o n t r o l ?
I am sure t h a t management, extension and
research each have valuable and c o n s t r u c t i v e
suggestions which would help t o do j u s t t h a t .
In f a c t , I might go s o f a r a s t o suggest t h a t
i n each geographic a r e a we do g e t together t o
discuss j u s t how r e s e a r c h and management can
cooperate towards improving dwarf m i s t l e t o e
control and get administrative approval and
support f o r t h e developed cooperative e f f o r t s .
In t h e meantime, I o f f e r t h e s e observations
and suggestions:
F i r s t , t h e current s t y l i z e d model of
research-management cooperation i s inadequate
t o meet f u t u r e needs. I t has n e i t h e r t h e
f l e x i b i l i t y n o r t e n a c i t y t h a t we must have.
This model i s c h i e f l y concerned with informat i o n t r a n s f e r from research t o management and
o f t e n a s n o t p o r t r a y s t h i s t r a n s f e r a s a unid i r e c t i o n a l flow of information from research
t o management ( f i g . 1 ) . This interchange
between r e s e a r c h and management is a l s o viewed
a s temporary. When new research information
i s developed, research and management g e t t o gether t o f i e l d t e s t it cooperatively -- o f t e n
by means o f a p i l o t c o n t r o l p r o j e c t . When t h e
t e s t i s completed, they each go t h e i r own way.
This model may be adequate f o r t h i s t r a n s f e r of c e r t a i n types of research information
i n t o management uses, b u t it does not meet our
needs i n t h e a r e a of s i l v i c u l t u r a l control o f
dwarf m i s t l e t o e s o r o t h e r f o r e s t p e s t problems.
The f u l l i n t e g r a t i o n of s i l v i c u l t u r a l control
information i n t o complex and v a r i a b l e b i o l o g i c a l
systems r e q u i r e s t h e long-term two-way flow of
research and management information. For
example, we cannot hope t o p i l o t - t e s t new
s i l v i c u l t u r a l c o n t r o l methods i n many stands i t e conditions. Using our b e s t judgment, we
w i l l o f t e n be c a l l e d on t o e x t r a p o l a t e and use
t h e s e new incompletely proven controls i n new
s t a n d s and s i t e conditions. There i s a r e a l
need t o get t h e r e s u l t s o f such an a p p l i c a t i o n
back t o researchers i n terms he can use t o
evaluate i t s e f f e c t s . The only way t h i s can
be done e f f e c t i v e l y i s f o r management t o commun i c a t e i t s plan t o r e s e a r c h e r s o t h a t he can
plan and arrange t o g e t t h e f i e l d d a t a required
t o analyze t h e s e e f f e c t s . This c a l l s f o r
c l o s e r long-term t i e s between research and
management i n a system which f o s t e r s and supports
two-way communication and cooperation.
1
I
1
I
Area of Cooperation 1
1
I
Research
Information
I
I
pilot
1
Control 1 Management
4
Project
c a t i o n dependent upon personal contacts must be
frequently re-established; 3) t h e need f o r twoway communication may not be recognized by
e i t h e r t h e research p a t h o l o g i s t o r t h e s i l v i c u l t u r i s t ; 4) recognition and reward f o r cooperat i o n and accomplishments i n t h i s area i s minimal
o r nonexistent; and 5) communication has t o be
extended over long periods of time before t h e
r e s u l t s of s i l v i c u l t u r a l operations a r e known.
Other opportunities f o r productive
research-management cooperation e x i s t . Forest
management organizations a r e r a p i d l y developing
more formalized methods o f s i l v i c u l t u r a l operat i o n combining p e r i o d i c stand inventory, stand
examination, w r i t t e n d e t a i l e d s i l v i c u l t u r a l
p r e s c r i p t i o n and record keeping. In such a
system, t h e stand i s inventoried p e r i o d i c a l l y
(once every 10 y e a r s ) . These d a t a a r e analyzed
f o r basal a r e a , basal a r e a growth, m o r t a l i t y ,
p o t e n t i a l crop t r e e s , e t c . The stand i s
examined f o r o t h e r s i t e and stand f a c t o r s ,
including such p e s t s a s dwarf m i s t l e t o e s , and
e x p e r t s a r e consulted when and where needed.
From t h e inventory and examination, stand
management goals a r e defined and a w r i t t e n
s i l v i c u l t u r a l p r e s c r i p t i o n i s prepared and
implemented. The p r e s c r i p t i o n i s f i l e d f o r
reference s o a t t h e time of t h e next examinat i o n , t h e s i l v i c u l t u r i s t s may evaluate t h e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n against t h e
goals s e t 10 years e a r l i e r .
This appears t o be an i d e a l system i n t o
which, with t h e cooperation o f t h e s i l v i c u l t u r i s t , we could t i e more d e t a i l e d evaluations
of p e s t control operations i n t o a broader
management planning system. The s i l v i c u l t u r i s t
could supply stand productivity information
while t h e p a t h o l o g i s t could supply t h e p e s t and
p e s t c o n t r o l information. Together these two
would make a more complete evaluation of t h e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a control method which would
form a b a s i s f o r f u t u r e stand planning and
management a c t i v i t i e s .
1
Figure 1-- Model of information flow and
cooperation between research and management
E s t a b l i s h i n g Two-way Communication
This system of c o n s i s t e n t two-way communic a t i o n , up t o now, has been d i f f i c u l t t o
e s t a b l i s h except on a personal b a s i s . The
flow of information back t o t h e researcher has
been neglected f o r a number of reasons:
1) The f i e l d of operational s i l v i c u l t u r e i s
dispersed and dwarf m i s t l e t o e control i s only
one o f a s i l v i c u l t u r i s t ' s many concerns;
2 ) personnel turnovers a r e frequent and communi-
Involving Research In Testing
Forest managers often do t e s t i n g on t h e i r
own without involving research. Here i s another
a r e a where cooperation of research i n t h e
planning and evaluating s t a g e s would be very
d e s i r a b l e . A f o r e s t manager i s responsible f o r
a l i v i n g , growing and changing system which
r e q u i r e o r demand t h a t c e r t a i n decisions be
made a t c e r t a i n times using t h e l a t e s t and b e s t
a v a i l a b l e information. Often t h i s b e s t a v a i l a b l e information i s untested under t h e s e condit i o n s but b a s i c research, experience, e x t r a p o l a t i o n from use under o t h e r conditions, and/
o r l o g i c i n d i c a t e s a c e r t a i n option would be
successful i n preventing o r c o n t r o l l i n g a
f o r e s t p e s t . The f o r e s t manager may choose t o
use t h i s unproven c o n t r o l method -- e s p e c i a l l y
i f as i n many s i l v i c u l t u r a l c o n t r o l methods,
t h e c o s t i s minimal and t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e
undesirable.
Here i s a r e c u r r i n g s i t u a t i o n
i n which those involved i n research t e s t i n g
and extension type p i l o t t e s t i n g may e f f e c t i v e l y and economically cooperate with t h e
f o r e s t manager. But a l l t o o o f t e n t h e l i n e s
of communication a r e not open o r have not been
e s t a b l i s h e d and an opportunity i s missed.
i n g operational dwarf m i s t l e t o e c o n t r o l methods.
Several recent changes have brought us new
opportunities t o improve t h e c o n t r o l o f dwarf
m i s t l e t o e and o t h e r p e s t s through increased
cooperation between research, extension, and
management. They include (1) a change i n management goals f o r c o n t r o l l i n g p e s t s t o reducing
l o s s e s , 2) increased o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n i n t e n s i v e
f o r e s t management and t h e s i l v i c u l t u r a l c o n t r o l
o f f o r e s t p e s t s , and 3) t h e development of
t h e concepts o f p e s t complexes and i n t e g r a t e d
p e s t management.
I am s u r e t h a t t h e r e a r e many o t h e r areas
i n which research-management cooperation would
be e f f e c t i v e and productive. The challenge t o
us a s f o r e s t managers, extension p a t h o l o g i s t s ,
r e s e a r c h p a t h o l o g i s t s , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i s
t o support a c t i v e l y and b u i l d vigorously such
cooperation i n a way t h a t w i l l meet our current
and f u t u r e needs.
The c u r r e n t s t y l i z e d concept o f t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p among research, extension s e r v i c e ,
and management i s inadequate t o meet our f u t u r e
needs because it lacks t h e two-way flow of
information, t h e f l e x i b i l i t y , and t h e longterm closeness t h a t w i l l be r e q u i r e d i n t h e
f u t u r e . Instead, t h e f o r e s t managers,
extension s p e c i a l i s t s , and r e s e a r c h e r s should
be encouraged and supported i n t h e i r long-term
cooperative e f f o r t s i n i n t e g r a t i n g t h e control
o f dwarf m i s t l e t o e l o s s e s with t h e c o n t r o l o f
other pest-caused l o s s e s and i n t h e i n t e n s i v e
s i l v i c u l t u r a l management of stands i n a v a r i e t y
of s t a n d - s i t e conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
Cooperation between research and management has been e f f e c t i v e i n t h e p a s t i n develop-