IPM: A conceptual and practical
overview
Paul Jepson
IPPC
Oregon State University
OSU Integrated Plant
Protection Center
http://ipmnet.org/
Describing IPM on your farm
• Prevention
• Prevent introduction to the farm, pest reservoirs, spread between
fields
• Avoidance
• Avoid pest susceptible crops or practices that increase pest losses
• Monitoring
• Monitor and identify pests, manage sites of high pest risk and use
decision support tools
• Suppression
• Cultural, physical, biological and chemical methods of suppressing
pests
IT ALWAYS PAYS TO COMBINE THESE
TACTICS TO MINIMIZE PEST RISKS ON YOUR
FARM
Balsam twig aphid, Giant conifer aphid
Effectiveness
$$
Monitor for populations or signs of honeydew from
early spring; determine if populations are increasing,
and how widespread they are
No economic
thresholds, yet
*
Beauvaria basiana (Mycotrol)
Predator and parasite conservation with
insectary plantings (selective pesticides)
Natural enemy release (lacewings)
*?
**
**
Tactic
Method
Prevention
Unknown (how do they enter fields/ natural hosts are widespread,
derelict plantations?)
Avoidance
Unknown (variation in impact by tree species, site history, nutrition,
management?)
Monitoring &
decision
support
Suppression
(biological)
Suppression
(chemical)
Note restrictions for aerial
application, and SLN
labels for some products
Broad spectrum (toxic to beneficials):
chlorpyrifos (Lorsban), oxydemeton-methyl
(MSR), imidacloprid (Admire, Provado)
Narrow spectrum, selective: pymetrozine
(Endeavor), spirotetramat (Ultor, Movento)
(may be toxic to predatory mites), soaps (Mpede)
? Not tried, but very
effective in
perennial crops
**Worked in 2/3 of
fields MI
**
** (but can promote
outbreaks)
*-**
**, but some new
AI’s
**
Christmas tree aphids: pesticide toxicity to natural enemies
Pesticide
Admire,
Provado
Para adult
Para larva
>75%
Pred bugs
Pred mites
?
?
50-75%
Endeavor
Lorsban
M-pede
?0-10%
?
MSR
M-Pede risks are low, but you would have to check that this works with
your trees and sprayers, and probably use it early, or in low infestations
Try not to use only one chemical type, and try to use a different mode-ofaction to chemicals used against other pests
Resistance management seen as an issue
Douglas fir needle midge (Contarinia spp.)
Tactic
Method
Prevention
Unknown: plenty of sources!
Avoidance
Late budding cultivars avoid damage
Monitoring &
decision
support
Traps used to detect adult emergence: very
important in avoiding serious damage
Suppression
Shearing in low infestations.
Parasitoids: and larval predation in soil
possible
(mechanical,
biological)
Suppression
(chemical)
Broad spectrum (toxic to beneficials):
Acephate (Orthene, Lorsban etc)
Narrow spectrum, selective: none
available
Effectiveness
**
** No economic
$$
*
*
threshold, but a
regulatory pest
**
?
**
** (may cause
*-**
outbreaks of other
pests)
Contarinia spp pesticide toxicity to natural enemies
Pesticide
Orthene
Para adult
Para larva
Pred bugs
Pred mites
>75%
Lorsban
50-75%
1) Only spray when necessary, but, of course: protect your trees
2) Encourage natural enemy populations on your farm, so that they can
reinvade after treatment, and reduce the need for treatment in the long term.
3) May increase the likelihood of an aphid outbreak, if natural enemies are
killed
4) Early sprays may not interfere with later emerging parasitoids – research
needed, late sprays may limit next year’s populations
Fam, Platygastridae; Genus Platygaster
Fam, Pteromalidae; Genus Gastrancistrus
IPPC Degree-Day Models including
Douglas-Fir Needle Midge
(Contarinia spp.)
Len Coop, IPPC, OSU Corvallis
Phenology Models – developed by field data
using lowest error methods
Need at least 3-4 years data from a variety of locations
Doug fir needle midge – mostly from 1 trap/field, more
than 20-47 fields 2009-2011 (provided by D. Silen)
Plus data from OSU Extension 1990
Method is to vary the lower threshold and start date
and use the value that provides lowest error
Phenology Models – developed by field data
using lowest error methods
Here is how version 1 of the model looks w/2012 data:
New interface to DD Models – Douglas-fir needle midge
http://uspest.org/cgi-bin/ddmodel.us?spp=dnm
Google maps for
location selection
Nothing else to do
but click “Calc”
Comparing
output for N.
Keizer and
Aurora, 3rd June,
2013
Note different
timings of
critical events
What the model is telling us:
timing can vary by 5 weeks or more
in cool vs. warm years
Pest Management: Monitoring plays a major role
especially since populations are cyclical
(due to natural enemies perhaps?)
2012: 22 traps in 22 fields, 44 flies total
2011: 23 traps in 22 fields, 206 flies total
2010: 21 traps in 20 fields, 2 flies total
2009: 47 traps in 47 fields, >500 flies total
Box trap
Sticky trap
Parasitic wasps of many pest species require
nectar for energy
Pests and natural enemies in Christmas
trees
Pest
Natural enemy
Aphids
Ladybug, hoverfly, parasitoid, lacewing,
ground beetles, spiders
Midge
Parasitoid
Root weevils
Nematodes
Enhanced by pollen and nectar sources
Planting opportunities
Caneberry row ends
Caneberry in-row
Blueberry riparian habitat
Blueberry in-row
More farm walks in 2011
Blueberries
PLANTS THAT BENEFIT POLLINATORS AND PARASITOIDS
Early blooming
Early Native Shrubs/Trees
* Willows
* Cherries: Prunus
* Red Elderberry: Sambucus racemosa
* Ceonothus
Early Native Forbs
* Lupine: Lupinus polyphyllus
* Sulfur Buckwheat: Erigonum umbellatum
Late blooming
Late Native Shrubs
* Coyote Bush: Baccharis
* Ceonothus
* Douglas Spirea
Late Native Forbs
* Pacific Aster: Aster chiliensis
* Goldenrod: Solidago
* Common Yarrow: Achillea millefolium
* Scarlet Gilia: Ipomopsis aggregate
* Common Gaillardia: Gaillardia aristata
* Evening Primrose: Oenothera
All species shown in the literature to support parasitic Hymenoptera
Arthropod pesticide resistance database includes
>500 species
http://www.pesticideresistance.org/
RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT
• Minimize selection for resistance by one ‘type’ of
insecticide
• Sequences or rotation of ‘Mode of Action’ (MoA) groups
• Apply each MoA group during one stage of crop growth
or pest development
• Avoid treating successive generations of pests with same
MoA group
• Avoid spraying where possible; use IPM
• Predators and parasites do not select for resistance: they
represent a non-specific MoA group
Aphid/midge pesticide mode-of-action for
rotation
Chemical class
Pesticide
Nitroguanidine nicotinoid
Provado, Admire
Pyridine azomethine
Endeavor
Soaps
M-Pede
Teramic acid
Movento, Ultor
Phosphoramidothioate
Aliphatic organothiophosphate
Pyridine organothiophosphate
Orthene
MSR
Lorsban
Orthene and Lorsban are both in the same mode of action group
Lorsban is approved for both aphids and midges
If you spray early against a midge infestation, consider a chemical
from one of the other mode-of-action groups against aphids to avoid
resistance selection, and also avoid a double hit to natural enemies.
Pest Management: other considerations for
needle midge
-Work on larval exit timing in the fall to see if any
remain in needles after harvest
- Economic thresholds are lacking for Christmas tree
pests in general, would be especially helpful for DFNM
- More work should be conducted to distinguish the ID,
biology, phenology, and parasitism of the three or more
Contarinia species
Maximizing Pesticide Application
Efficiency
Drift happens: waste, risky
losses and reduced efficacy
PRINTABLE FACT SHEET AVAILABLE AT
IPMNET.ORG
ENGLISH AND SPANISH VERSIONS AVAILABLE
Seasonal drift risk table
construction
There is a high risk of drift occurring when:
1. Wind drift: Wind speeds > 9mph
2. Thermal drift: Temperatures > 70oF, RH <40%
3. Inversion drift: Stable air, following cool,
cloudless nights in spring and fall
THESE TABLES ARE BASED ON LONG-TERM AVERAGES AND ARE FOR
GUIDANCE ONLY, TO ASSIST DISCUSSIONS ON HOW YOU SHOULD
PLAN YOUR APPLICATION AND DRIFT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN
THE SEASON AHEAD
Calendar of LOW risk, CAUTION and HAZARD for wind,
thermal and inversion drift, Salem
J
F
M
A
Mean wind speed
8
8
8
8
Low wind drift risk
(% <7 mph)
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
7
7
7
8
8
7
7
7
38 38 39 42
45
45
44 46 46 44 36 39
Caution (7-11 mph)
22 25 27 29
30
31
32 27 24 20 25 24
Hazard (11 mph)
22 21 21 15
10
9
9
Mean max temp
47 51 56 61
67
73
80 80 75 64 52 46
RH 10am
84 81 75 70
65
62
57 58 64 76 85 85
RH 4pm
75 68 60 57
53
49
40 40 75 59 77 80
Proportion calm
18 16 14 14
14
14
14 18 21 24 17 17
8
9
10 22 20
IPM with reduced impacts on water quality
SOURCE-REDUCTION
PESTICIDE MITIGATION
• substitute alternatives
for pesticides
• least-risk pesticides
-
biocontrol
cultural
physical & mechanical
host-plant resistance
• minimize amounts
of pesticides applied
- sampling & forecasting
- economic thresholds
- site:pesticide leaching
& runoff potential
- low hazard
to aquatic organisms
• eliminate off-target
pesticide movement
- formulation
- application technology
- buffers
Addressing high surface water loadings:
Hood River, OR
Cultural Practices
Mixing & Loading
Maintenance & Calibration
Spray Application
Education in risks and their management, BMP’s and their implementation
OSU-MCAREC
OSU/DEQ Pesticide Stewardship Partnership:
EDUCATION PROGRAM COMING TO CLACKAMAS
WATERSHED FALL 2013
Early Spring Chlorpyrifos - Lower Neal Creek
Average
Acute WQS
Chronic WQS
Frequency
T Maximum
1.0
0.350
0.8
0.300
0.250
0.6
0.200
0.4
0.150
0.100
0.2
0.050
0.000
0.0
2000
2001
- Not Sampled
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Frequency
Average (ug/l)
0.400
Clackamas PSP
2012 Spring and Fall
Detection Frequency
90
80
*
70
60
50
40
over benchmark
50-100% of benchmark
30
10-50% of benchmark
less than 10% of benchmark
20
* No benchmark
# missing fall data
10
0