APPROACHES AND PRACTICES IN PEST MANAGEMENT

Agri 221.
The Concept of Integrated Pest Management

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an effective

and environmentally sensitive approach to pest
management that relies on a combination of
common-sense practices. IPM programs use current,
comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests
and their interaction with the environment. In
combination with available pest control methods, is
used to manage pest damage by the most
economical means, and with the least possible
hazard to people, property, and the environment.
CONCEPTS OF IPM

1. Not all insects are pests. In the field there

are many flying insects that are not pests
but natural enemies of insect pests. Most
of them prey on insect pests thus
reducing the population of insect pests.
Also, an species is not a pest unless it
exceeds tolerable level.
CONCEPTS OF IPM

2. Management unit of IPM in the

ecosystem. Any intervention or
manipulation will effect not only one
species but the whole community of
organism that live in it. Any disruption is
followed by chain reaction of changes
such as explosion or abruptly increase in
number leading to ecological
imbalance ecological disruption.
 CONCEPTS OF IPM

3. Natural control must be maximized.

Natural control means the suppression of
a population by forces of the
environment that includes physical and
biological factors (predators, parasitoids
and pathogens). There are rich
communities of natural enemies that can
be found inside them ecosystem.
 CONCEPTS OF IPM

4. Management practice should not have a

bad effect to the environment. There are
many practices that can be integrated
and employed in the management of a
particular crop. Selection of these
practices should consider the effect in
the environment.
CONCEPTS OF IPM

5. Management procedures must not

produce undesirable effects like
poisoning of fishes in the rivers, irrigation
canals, and rice paddies, poisoning of
farm animals and humans, disruption of
environment and destruction of natural
enemies.
Management strategies

IPM is an ecosystem-based strategy that

focuses on long-term prevention of pest or
their damage through a combination of
techniques, habitat manipulation,
modification of cultural practices and use of
resistant varieties.
Management rules

IPM is not series a single pest control

method but, rather, a series of pest
management evaluations, decisions and
controls. In practicing IPM, growers who are
aware of the potential for pest infestation
follow a four-tiered approach. The four steps
include:
 Management rules

1. Set Action Thresholds

Before taking any pest control action, IPM first
sets an action threshold, a point at which pest
populations or environmental conditions
indicate that pest control action must be
taken. Sighting a single pest does not always
mean control is needed. The level at which
pests will become an economic threat is
critical to guide future pest control decisions.
Management rules

2. Monitor and Identify Pests

Not all insects, weeds, and other living organisms
require control. Many organisms are innocuous,
and some are even beneficial. IPM programs work
to monitor for pests and identify them accurately,
so that appropriate control decisions can be
made in conjunction with action thresholds. This
monitoring and identification removes the
possibility that pesticides will be used when they
are not really needed or that the wrong kind of
pesticide will be used.
Management rules

3. Prevention
As a first line of pest control, IPM programs work to
manage the crop, lawn, or indoor space to
prevent pests from becoming a threat. In an
agricultural crop, this may mean using cultural
methods, such as rotating between different crops,
selecting pest-resistant varieties, and planting pest-
free rootstock. These control methods can be very
effective and cost-efficient and present little to no
risk to people or the environment.
Management rules

4. Control
Once monitoring, identification, and action thresholds indicate
that pest control is required, and preventive methods are no
longer effective or available, IPM programs then evaluate the
proper control method both for effectiveness and risk.
Effective, less risky pest controls are chosen first, including highly
targeted chemicals, such as pheromones to disrupt pest
mating, or mechanical control, such as trapping or weeding. If
further monitoring, identifications and action thresholds
indicate that less risky controls are not working, then additional
pest control methods would be employed, such as targeted
spraying of pesticides. Broadcast spraying of non-specific
pesticides is a last resort.
Management tactics

The management of insect pests rarely relies on a single

control practice; usually a variety of tactics are integrated
to maintain pests at acceptable levels. The goal of
integrated pest management is not to eliminate all pests;
some pests are tolerable and essential so that their natural
enemies remain in the crop. Rather, the aim is to reduce
pest populations to less than damaging numbers. The
control tactics used in integrated pest management
include pest resistant or tolerant plants, and cultural,
physical, mechanical, biological, and chemical control.
Applying multiple control tactics minimizes the chance
that insects will adapt to any one tactic.
Ecological basis

Integrated pest management requires an

understanding of the ecology of the cropping
system, including that of the pests, their natural
enemies, and the surrounding environment. As
discussed previously, knowledge about the
ecological interrelationships between insects and
their environment is critical to effective pest
management. This guide emphasizes
interrelationships between pest species and their
natural enemies.
Economic threshold and sampling

The decision to use an insecticide, or take some other

action, against an insect infestation requires an
understanding of the level of damage or insect infestation
a crop can tolerate without an unacceptable economic
loss. The level of infestation or damage at which some
action must be taken to prevent an economic loss is
referred to as the "economic or action threshold." Action
thresholds are available for many vegetable crops. Ideally,
these thresholds adjust for changes in market prices, stage
of crop growth, cost of pesticides but in reality most are
based on fixed infestation or damage levels.
 Pest-Resistant Crops

One of the mainstays of integrated pest management is the use of

crop varieties that are resistant or tolerant to insect pests and diseases.
A resistant variety may be less preferred by the insect pest, adversely
affect its normal development and survival, or the plant may tolerate
the damage without an economic loss in yield or quality. Disease-
resistant vegetables are widely used, whereas insect-resistant varieties
are less common but nonetheless important.
Examples include varieties of wheat which have tough stems that
prevent development of the Hessian fly and cucurbits (squash,
cucumbers, melons) that have lower concentrations of feeding
stimulants (cucurbitacins) for cucumber beetles. Commercial corn
lines with increased concentration of a chemical called DIMBOA
display resistance to European corn borer, a major pest throughout the
world.
Features of IPM

IPM is the best combination of different

control measures to manage diseases,
insects, weeds and other pests. It takes into
account all relevant control tactics and
methods that are locally available,
evaluating their potential cost-effectiveness.
 Cultural Control

There are many agricultural practices that make

the environment less favorable to insect pests.
Examples include cultivation of alternate hosts
(e.g., weeds), crop rotation, selection of planting
sites, trap crops, and adjusting the timing of
planting or harvest.
Physical and Mechanical Control

Physical and Mechanical Control of pests, weeds and

diseases (pests) are an integral part of a successful
Integrated Pest Management plan. Mechanical and
physical controls kill a pest directly or make the
environment unsuitable for it.
For example;
traps - for pest animals and insects; mulches - for weed
management; steam sterilization - for soil disease
management; or barriers - such as screens or fences to
keep animals and insects out.
Biological control

Biological control is the use of nature against itself.

This method involves introducing natural enemies
of pests, such as predators, parasites, or disease
organisms, to control pest population. It can be an
effective and eco-friendly approach, specially
when combined with other methods
For instance, ladybugs are well-known aphid
eaters, and introducing them into your yard can
help keep aphid populations in check. You can
also plant species that repel insects, like marigold
and nasturtium.
 Chemical Control

Chemical control is the use of pesticides. In IPM,

pesticides are used only when needed and in
combination with other approaches for more
effective, long-term control. Pesticides are
selected and applied in a way that minimizes their
possible harm to people, nontarget organisms,
and the environment.
Historical Trends in IPM/ PM
 Historical Trends in IPM/ PM
Prior to World War II there was some use of chemicals like heavy
metal compounds (lead, mercury, arsenic) to preserve collections
but experimentation with nerve gasses during World War II gave rise
to a new crop of organic compounds that were found to have
insecticidal qualities including carbamates, organophosphates and
organochlorines such as DDT. We became increasingly reliant on
their use as they increased our food production and removed
insects that carried diseases. But this ultimately lead to a chemical
crisis, where higher and higher doses of chemicals became
necessary as insects became resistant to the chemicals. Rachel
Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, brought awareness of the harm
that chemicals like DDT had created and prompted the start of the
environmental movement culminating in the formation of the EPA in
1970.
 Historical Trends in IPM/ PM

The term Integrated Pest Management was first used in agriculture beginning in
the 1970’s in response to growing knowledge about the negative side-effects of
pesticide overuse. The approach emphasized the integration of pest biology
and cultural practices in controlling insect pests in crops. The first literature on IPM
in non-agricultural settings came in the early 1980’ s with publications by H. and
W. Olkowski (founders of the Bio-Integral Resource Center – BIRC) including a
training manual written for the National Park Service. The term was used soon
after in museums as a replacement for the term “pest control”. New ways of
dealing with pests were promoted partly by the withdrawal of many common
chemicals from use, as well as general trends in health and safety. In cultural
institutions the term IPM also indicated the need to expand the pool of
alternative control methods by “integrating” pest management into collection
care practices.
 History of IPM

 2500 B.C.
Ancient Sumerians used sulfur compounds to kill insects. Earliest
record of insect pest control.
 200 B.C.
Egyptians and Chinese use herbs & oils to control insect pests.
 300 A.D.
Chinese recognize phenology (connection between climate
and periodic biological phenomena) as a science-led to timing
the planting of a crop to avoid pest attacks.
Chinese use natural enemies to control pests, for example ants
on citrus to reduce pest infestations.
History of IPM

 1101 A.D.
The Chinese discover soap as a pesticide.
 1600s
Tobacco infusions (nicotine), herbs and arsenic become the major materials
used for insect pest control.
 1700s
Reaumur publishes on the importance of temperature summation in
determining insect phenology plant resistance to insects discovered.
 1800s
Imperial expansion introduced pests
Colorado potato beetle (Major losses. Leads to inspections, quarantine
procedures, increased interest in pest control)
 History of IPM

 1860s
Paris green (mixture of arsenic and copper sulfate) used for the control of Colorado
potato beetle.
 1800s
Boom in development of insecticide application equipment.
 1920
Pesticides were largely ineffective, expensive, hazardous and somewhat phytotoxic.
 1930s
Trend toward synthesizing new compounds (moth-proofing agents).
 Synthetic Pesticide Era: 1939
Prior to this time, insecticides were formulated from petroleum, coal tar distillates,
plants or inorganic compounds.
History of IPM

 Synthetic Pesticide Era: 1939

Prior to this time, insecticides were formulated from petroleum, coal tar
distillates, plants or inorganic compounds.
 1939 DDT
synthesized by a German graduate student 1873
Paul Muller, (Swiss) discovers insecticidal activity
saves many soldiers' lives during WWII (body lice - typhus)
such an impact on human health that Muller wins 1948 Nobel prize in medicine
During WWII both the Germans and the Allies working on the development of
organophosphates as nerve gases. They discover the insecticidal properties of
these chemicals.
After WWII development of other chlorinated hydrocarbons and
organophosphates as pesticides.
 History of IPM

 1950s early 60s

"The Green Revolution"
Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers "the answer to world hunger"
Trend away from understanding pest phenology, density or damage potential and
toward pure chemical approach.
 1962
“Silent Spring”
Rachel Carson publishes the book "Silent Spring" and brings the issue of pesticide
safety to the attention of the public:
Adverse effects on wildlife, water quality, human health?
DDT found in milk and foods (biomagnification)
Resistance of pests to pesticides ("super bugs" & weeds)
Response to book leads eventually to public policy changes in 1970s.
 History of IPM

 1970s
Serious beginning of research on IPM approaches to pest
control
USDA creates nationwide IPM Program in Land Grant Universities
EPA created & given jurisdiction over pesticide registration &
regulation
Institutes Pesticide Education Programs in Land Grant Universities
 1980s
Increase in IPM research
Beginning of genetic engineering applications in agriculture
History of IPM

 1990s
New genetically engineered Bt crops (corn, potatoes) come into use
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) brings changes to pesticide laws in US
New emphasis on softer, and/or more specifically targeted, low-volume
chemicals Issues of children's health emphasized
 May 3, 1993. former President Fidel V. Ramos launched a revitalized National
IPM Programme through Memorandum Order No. 162. Dubbed as
Kasaganaan ng Sakahan at kalikasan or KASALIKASAN.
 2000 and beyond
Pest management is always changing and we cannot predict the future. In
fact, even in the same time period, people have different ideas about how
pest management should be carried out.
 The “ETL-Based” IPM

The IPM has been evolving over the decades to address the
deleterious impacts of synthetic chemical pesticides on
environment ultimately affecting the interests of the farmers. The
economic threshold level (ETL) was the basis for several decades
but in modern IPM (FAO 2002) emphasis is given to AESA where
farmers take decisions based on larger range of field observations.
The health of a plant is determined by its environment which
includes physical factors (i.e. soil, rain, sunshine hours, wind etc.)
and biological factors (i.e. pests, diseases and weeds). All these
factors can play a role in the balance which exists between
herbivore insects and their natural enemies.
The “ETL-Based” IPM

Decision making in pest management

requires a thorough analysis of the
agro-ecosystem. Farmer has to learn
how to observe the crop, how to
analyze the field situation and how to
make proper decisions for their crop
management.
 The “ETL-Based” IPM

AESA is an approach, which can be gainfully employed by

extension functionaries and farmers to analyze field situations
with regard to pests, defenders, soil conditions, plant health, the
influence of climatic factors and their inter-relationship for
growing healthy crop. Such a critical analysis of the field
situations will help in taking appropriate decision on
management practices. The basic components of AESA are:
 Plant health at different stages
 Built –in-compensation abilities of the plants
 Pest and defender population dynamics
 Soil conditions
 Climatic factors
 Farmer past experience
 The “Package of the Technology” IPM

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a broad-based

approach that integrates a range of practices for economic
control of pests. It aims to suppress pest populations below the
economic injury level (EIL). It includes controlling insects, plant
pathogens and weeds. IPM emphasizes on use of pest control
techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate
measures that discourage the development of pest
populations, encourage natural pest control mechanisms and
keep pesticides to economic levels and reduce or minimize
risks to human health and the environment
 The “Package of the Technology” IPM

Technologies identified to assist local

farmers to minimize crop damage and
improve crop productivity and resilience to
climate change include IPM techniques to
control major pest of field and greenhouse
crops of economic importance (e.g. mites,
melon fly, fruit bats, leaf miner and whitefly).
A few examples of proven technologies
that need to be up scaled includes:
 The “Package of the Technology” IPM

1. Demonstration of tree pruning and use of bird net to reduce

damage by fruit bats
2. Inoculative releases of predators to control population of
Tetranychus urticae a mite causing major damage on
solanaceous crops, roses and strawberry.
3. Release of parasitoids (Encarsia Formosa and Eretmocerus
eremicus) for control of White fly, serious insect pest in greenhouse
production
4. Field Sanitation using field cages (augmentorium), protein bait
and MAT block to attract and suppress melon fly, Bactrocera
cucurbitae, major pest in cucurbits
 Emerging IPM/PM concept

1. IPM has broad application

• Integrates management of all pests.
• Holistic approach; ecologically based.
• Can be applied to any ecosystem.
2. What does IPM integrate?
• Integrates multiple pest management tactics (chemical, biological, cultural,
mechanical).
• Integrates management of multiple pests (insects, weeds, disease pathogens,
nematodes, vertebrates, etc.).
• Integrates pest management tactics on an area-wide basis (many pest control
situations are better handled on a large-scale or regional basis).
Economic concept of Pest
Management (IPM)
Economic concept of IPM

Integrated pest management (IPM), also known as

Integrated pest control (IPC) is a broad-based approach
that integrates both chemical and non-chemical practices
for economic control of pest. IPM aims to suppress pest
populations below the economic injury level (EIL). The UN’s
Food and Agriculture Organization defines IPM as “the
careful consideration of all available pest control
techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate
measures too discourage the development of pest
population and keep pesticides and other interventions to
levels that are economically justified and reduce or
minimize risks to human heath and the environment.
Economic concept of IPM

IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with

the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystem
and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.
Entomologists and ecologists have urged the
adoption of IPM pest control since 1970s. IPM
allows for safe pest control. The introduction and
spread of invasive species can also be managed
with IPM by reducing risks while maximizing
benefits and reducing costs.
 Economic concept of IPM

IPM is the selection and the use of pest control actions that
will ensure favourable economic condition, ecological
and social consequences and is applicable to most
agricultural, public health and amenity pest management
situations. The IPM process starts with monitoring, which
includes inspection and identification, followed by the
establishment of economic injury levels. The economic
injury levels set the economic threshold level. That is the
point when pest damage (and the benefits of treating the
pest) exceed the cost of treatment.
 Economic concept of IPM

Risk assessment usually includes four issues:

1) characterization of biological control agents
Mistaken identification of a pest may result in ineffective actions. E.g.,
plant damage due to over-watering could be mistaken for fungal
infection, since many fungal and viral infections arise under moist
conditions.
2) health risks
Monitoring begins immediately, before the pest's activity becomes
significant. Monitoring of agricultural pests includes tracking soil/planting
media fertility and water quality. Overall plant health and resistance to
pests is greatly influenced by pH, alkalinity, of dissolved mineral and
oxygen reduction potential. Many diseases are waterborne, spread
directly by irrigation water and indirectly by splashing.
Economic concept of IPM

3) environmental risks
Pest-tolerant crops such as soybeans may not
warrant interventions unless the pests are
numerous or rapidly increasing. Intervention is
warranted if the expected cost of damage by the
pest is more than the cost of control. Health
hazards may require intervention that is not
warranted by economic considerations
Economic concept of IPM

4) efficacy
Possible interventions include mechanical/physical,
cultural, biological and chemical. Mechanical/physical
controls include picking pests off plants, or using netting or
other material to exclude pests such
as birds from grapes or rodents from structures. Cultural
controls include keeping an area free of conducive
conditions by removing waste or diseased plants, flooding,
sanding, and the use of disease-resistant crop varieties.
Biological controls are numerous. They include:
conservation of natural predators or augmentation of
natural predators, sterile insect technique (SIT).
Economic concept of IPM

• Economic injury level (EIL) – Is defined as the lowest

number of the insect pest that will cause economic
damage.
• Economic damage – Occur when the value of
damage is greater than the cost of controlling pests.
• Economic threshold level (ETL) – Also called action
threshold which indicate the number of insect
pest(density or intensity) that should trigger
management activity to prevent from reaching EIL.
Ecological concept IPM
Early agriculturalists faced serious pests that decimated
crops. Through trial and error, they implemented practices
that challenged such pests. Successful strategies
predominantly were those that served to maintain the
ecological balance of the region and the natural balance
of agricultural pests and their enemies. This committee
believes that such practices, combined with the
advanced biological technologies now available, are the
most logical approach to developing a profitable, safe,
and durable (long-lasting and self-maintaining) approach
to pest management
The systems, hereafter identified as ecologically based pest
management (EBPM), as outlined by this committee, rely primarily
on inputs of pest biological knowledge and secondarily on physical,
chemical, and biological supplements for pest management. The
EBPM systems will be built on an underlying knowledge of the
managed ecosystem, including the natural processes that suppress
pest populations. It is based on the recognition that many standard
agricultural practices disrupt natural processes that suppress pests.
In contrast to standard practices that disrupt and destabilize the
agroecosystem, agricultural practices recommended by EBPM will
augment natural processes. These practices will be supplemented
by biological-control organisms and products, resistant plants, and
narrow-spectrum
The concept of EBPM builds on the cultural and biological approaches
to pest management that were in use prior to the widespread
application of synthetic chemical pesticides. Many practices, such as
crop rotation, fallowing, intercropping, and incorporation of organic
matter into soils, served to conserve and foster populations and activities
of biological control agents that were indigenous components of
traditional agricultural ecosystems; nevertheless, pest outbreaks and
crop and animal disease epidemics did occur. Through trial and error,
early agriculturalists discovered and used natural substances, beneficial
organisms, and selected resistant plants to their benefit. These early
agriculturalists laid the foundation for pest management based on the
biology of the ecosystem.
The objectives of EBPM are the safe, profitable, and
durable management of pests that plague agricultural
production and forestry. Wide-scale implementation of
EBPM will require generating a substantial ecological
knowledge base of agricultural and forest ecosystems and
development of regulations and oversight consistent with
the risks of the inputs.
The practice of IPM, unfortunately, is not always consistent
with the theory of IPM. The focus of early IPM programs was
devoted to control of insects, setting a precedent for the
focus of IPM on arthropod pest management. In many
cases, this management was limited to pest scouting and
precise applications of insecticides. Consequently, this focus
has been at the expense of IPM of weed and pathogen
pests. The ecological concepts of the IPM framework are
the departure point for this new information-rich
management strategy.
1. Safety - EBPM is a total systems approach designed to have
minimal adverse effects on nontarget species and the
environment because biological controls are limited by their
specificity with respect to the target pest organism or by their
distribution or persistence in the environment. In addition, the
acute and chronic toxicities associated with conventional
chemical pesticides generally have not been found with
biological-control organisms and products, although there can
be risks such as allergenic reactions with multiple exposure.
2. Profitability - For EBPM to be successful, it must also be
profitable for the grower. Growers demand safe,
economical, and effective tools that provide long-term
management of pests; and these needs must be met
before growers will implement EBPM's new tools. Because
producers will implement only those pest control methods
that lower economic risks and enhance profits, they will
insist on assurances that biologically based tools are cost-
effective and provide consistent responses. Alternative
management strategies may indeed be less expensive
than chemically based methods, but information to
determine relative costs is not available and needs to be
researched.
3. Durability - EBPM strategies also must be long-lasting to
have a positive impact on crop protection. Work by crop
breeders to increase cultivar resistance to arthropods and
pathogens is constantly being undone by pests that
overcome the plant's resistance. As new pest-resistant cultivars
are introduced into a cropping system, biotypes of organisms
that overcome this host resistance can predominate. Similarly,
pesticide resistance limits the durable use of chemical
pesticides; and resistance of pests to biological-control
products and organisms can also occur. Decreasing the pest's
rate of development of resistance to new inputs is essential for
the durability of EBPM.
Implementation of EBPM will require more ecological
and economic information than do current pest-
management systems. With conventional pest-
management systems, growers rely primarily on synthetic
chemical inputs to control a broad spectrum of pests.
With EBPM, growers and pest managers depend on
knowledge of pest biology and economic feasibility of
pest control options. Because numerous organisms can
cause crop damage and reduce yields, growers need
information about many pest-management alternatives
to make an informed decision.
Because pest management should be based on knowledge of agricultural
and forest ecosystems, researchers should focus on developing a better
knowledge base of the interacting components and processes that
characterize agricultural and forest ecosystems.
EBPM uses knowledge of interactions among pests and naturally occurring
beneficial organisms to modify cropping and forestry systems in ways that
reduce rather than eliminate damage caused by pests; thus, EBPM is
designed to enhance the inherent ecological strengths of the system.
External inputs—a continuum of biological, physical, and chemical tools—
would be added only if they promote the long-term environmental health of
soil biota, crops, and other organisms of agricultural and forestry production
systems. In contrast to the current approach, which often relies
predominantly on broad-spectrum chemical methods, with EBPM, new
inputs—natural or synthetic—must target specific pests and minimize
disruptions to the managed ecosystem
The complexity of managed ecosystems
necessitates coordinated multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary research to develop and implement
EBPM.
The knowledge needed to build the foundation of
EBPM will come from nearly all disciplines of both the
biological and social sciences and will require
research from molecular to landscape levels. The
committee has identified eight broad research areas
that should receive priority:
1. ecological research of managed ecosystems
2. research of behavioral, physiological, and molecular mechanisms
affecting EBPM
3. identification and conservation of resources necessary for EBPM
4. development of better research and diagnostic techniques
5. development of ecologically based crop protection strategies
6. research on implementation of EBPM
7. research on socioeconomic issues of EBPM
8. development of new institutional approaches to encourage
interdisciplinary cooperation
New methods must be developed to study, monitor, and evaluate
pests and potential biological-control organisms in order to expedite
the acquisition of knowledge needed to implement EBPM. The lack of
effective methodologies to characterize ecological systems hampers
research aimed at generating the conceptual framework of
agricultural and forestry ecosystems on which EBPM will be based. The
development of molecular techniques useful in genetic manipulation
of plants, insects, and microorganisms provide an unprecedented
opportunity for optimization of host plant resistance or biological-
control activity; but these techniques must be amended substantially
to expand their usefulness from model organisms to the diverse groups
of plants and biological-control organisms that will comprise EBPM.
Implementation research is needed to facilitate the transfer of technology
from researchers to pest managers in the field. Experience with IPM
indicates that the complexity of EBPM may become a major limitation to
its implementation. Laboratory discoveries must be moved into
agricultural practice to increase adoption of EBPM. Pest suppression
activities of biological-control organisms can be demonstrated in the field
to growers and pest managers, emphasizing the site-specific nature of
EBPM methods. Scientists must devise strategies to supply growers with
sufficient biological-control inputs and conserve valuable biological-
control resources, thus increasing the longevity of EBPM. Implementation
of EBPM will be advanced only if information is shared among scientists,
suppliers of agricultural products, pest managers, and growers.
In the past, growers relied primarily on cooperative
extension agents to provide pest-management education.
The public sector should continue to play an important role
in training pest-management personnel and consultants.
With increasing knowledge and time requirements needed
to implement EBPM strategies, information will need to be
synthesized to increase its accessibility. Independent
consultants will play a more important role in the transfer
and synthesis of information, and the increase in
automated information sources will facilitate information
transfer at all levels.
Public oversight is required to ensure that potential risks to
human health or the environment are properly assessed and
managed, thereby promoting public acceptance of the use of
biological-control organisms and products or resistant cultivars.
In assessing risk, public agencies must use appropriate criteria
and methods to avoid delays and expedite reviews. In the
same way that public funds are used to obtain registration of
minor use pesticides, there is a need to encourage the
registration of biological-control organisms with limited market
potential.
Humans will come into contact with biological-control organisms,
biological-control products, and resistant cultivars during production
and application and through exposure to organisms or residues that
persist on crops and in the environment. An advantage of the tools of
EBPM is that many have negligible toxicity to humans; nevertheless,
their potential risks to human health must be assessed. Large-scale
production of biological-control organisms and products should
minimize human exposure to bacteria, fungal spores, proteins, and
other reactive materials. Resistant cultivars, altered by classical
breeding or genetic engineering, may affect human health if greater
amounts of toxic metabolites are produced in the edible portion of the
plant. Similarly, biological-control products and metabolites produced
by biological-control organisms should be evaluated for human
toxicity.
Knowledge of their origin in the biosphere provides an
appropriate experience base for most biological
organisms and molecules. For all EBPM candidate
organisms or products, this experience base should be
combined with experimentally derived data as well as
data about organisms that are closely related
taxonomically or functionally as evidence to assess risk. The
evidence should be organized so as to address the
potential risk criteria specific to the organism, product, or
plant and its deployment. Experience with these
manifestations of risk will be useful in evaluating EBPM
strategies.
Inconsistencies in the existing laws and regulations are barriers to
effective, efficient oversight of biological-control organisms,
products, and resistant plants. Complexities and anomalies of the
current regulatory system may be attributed to the overlapping
jurisdiction of several agencies, the diversity of organisms to be
regulated, and the attempt to make the decision-making
''template" developed for registration of conventional chemical
pesticides applicable to biological controls. It is essential that
regulatory agencies assess risk using criteria and protocols that are
appropriate to biological tools in contrast to broad-spectrum
synthetic chemical pesticides. This will provide an appropriate level
of oversight and minimize costs imposed by duplication of oversight
and reporting requirements.
This committee believes that it is necessary to refocus
objectives from pest control to pest management based
on maintaining natural ecological balances. The problems
of consumer and societal acceptance, safety, pest
resistance, and economic cost dictate the need for
immediate change in current pest-management practices
that rely on short-term, broad spectrum solutions to solve
major pest problems. There needs to be a paradigm shift in
pest-management theory from managing components or
individual organisms to an approach that examines
processes, flows, and relationships among organisms.
Human Behavior and
Decision-making
Concepts
 Human Behavior and Decision-
making Concepts

Human behavior- It refers to the array of every physical

action and observable emotion associated with
individuals. Human behavior is experienced throughout an
individual’s entire lifetime and it includes the
way they act based on different factors:
• Social norms
• Core faith
• Attitude
• Culture
 Decision-making Concept
A decision is an act of choice, wherein an executive form a
conclusion of what must be done in a given situation.
 Decision making can be regarded as a problem-solving
activity terminated by a solution deemed to be satisfactory.
 Every action of a manager is definitely an outcome of a
decision.
 “It is a solution selected after examining several alternatives
chosen because the decider foresees that the course of
action, he selects will do more than the others to further his
goals and will be accompanied by the fewest possible
objectionable consequences.
 Decision Analysis
Pest management decision making is determined by three factors:
1. • The nature of pest attack and the damage is causes;
2. • The range of protection measures and information available
to the farmers
3. • The farmers’ objectives
The pest management decision problems can be tackled by
means of two stage analysis:
1. • Determining the best strategy to adopt for any dimension of
attack.
2. • Estimating the dimension of attack faced at a particular time
and place.
 Decision Analysis
In making an analysis, however, additional
information is required:
• The damage function – relating to the level of
attack to crop loss.
• The control function – relates to the reduction in
attack to the control strategy applied.
• The estimated price of the crop.
• The cost of the chemical and its application
Farm level decision making

For an IPM strategy to be successful, it must enter

the farm level decision making process and be
adopted as the course of action. Adoption will
occur because a strategy ranks highest within a
possible set of actions. An IPM strategy will be
adopted, then, either because of profitability or
because of constraints imposed. IPM strategies
must be defined with this in mind.
Regulatory
Control
 Regulatory control
Regulatory Control: preventing the entry and
establishment of foreign plant and animal pests in
a country or area and eradication or suppression
of pests established in a limited area.
Plant Quarantine: Legal restriction of movements
of plants and plant materials between countries
and between states within the country to prevent
introduction and spread of pests and diseases
where they do not exist.
 Government agency involved in
Quarantine

PQS (The Plant Quarantine Service of the Bureau

of Plant Industry) is the regulatory arm of the
Philippine Department of Agriculture when it
comes to matters of import, export, domestic
movement as well as market access of plants and
plant products. It aims to prevent the entry of
foreign pests into the country, prevent spread of
pests already existing in the country and comply
with the international standards.
 Government agency involved in
Quarantine
Under the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI)
 Member of International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
 National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of the Philippines
 By the virtue of PD No. 1433, known as the “Plant Quarantine of 1978”
 PQS has thirteen (13) regional offices nationwide (central office is located at 692 San Andres
St., Malate, Manila). Some of the PQS stations are:
 Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA)- Pasay City ▪
 Manila International Container Post- Tondo, Manila ▪
 South harbor- Manila Pier ▪
 Port of Batangas- Sta. Clara Pier, Batangas▪
 Port of Mindoro- Calapan City ▪
 Port of Quezon- Lucena City▪
 Port of Palawan- Rizal Ave., PPC, Palawan▪
 Categories of Legislation
 Government agency involved in
Quarantine
 Foreign quarantine
 It is the legislation to prevent the introduction of new pests from other countries
 Prevents introduction of pests from foreign countries
 Takes care of pests of quarantine concern
 Restricts or prohibits import of plant materials e.g. sugarcane sets from
 Philippines; rubber seed from South America
 Restrictions on import of plant materials. Scientists can obtain the seeds with
 permission from the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
 Plant Materials should be imported only with import permits
 The consignment should be accompanied by phytosanitary certificate from the
country of origin
 Quarantine inspection of materials is made at notified sea and airports
 Fumigation of imported plant materials is also done based on need
 Genetic manipulation
Genetic manipulation is a process where the gene for a
particular character is introduced inside the chromosome
of a cell. When a gene of a particular character was
introduced in a plant cell, a transgenic plant is produced.
These transgenic plants exhibit characters governed by
the newly introduced gene.
Genetic manipulation helps in the following:
 Improving crop variety
 Ensures food security and insect resistant crops
 Improves the quality of the yield of the crop
 Genetic Engineering/Genetic
modification

This is a direct manipulation of an organism’s

genome using biotechnology. It is a set of
technologies used to change the genetic
makeup of cells including the transfer of genes
within and across species boundaries to produce
improved or novel organisms.
 Genetic Engineering/Genetic
modification
1. Genetically modified crops (GMCS, GM Crops, or biotech crops).
These are plants used in Agriculture, the DNA of which, has been
modified using genetic engineering techniques in most cases, the
aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur
naturally in species. The first genetically-modified crop was
produced in 1982, antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. Examples in
food crops:
 Resistance to certain pests, diseases, or environmental conditions
 Reduction of spoilage
 Resistance to chemical treatments (e.g. resistant to herbicides)
 Improving the nutrient profile of the crop
 Genetic Engineering/Genetic
modification
2. Plant tissue culture. A collection of techniques used to
maintain or grow plant cells, tissues or organs, under
sterile conditions on a nutrient culture medium of known
composition. Plant tissue culture and deliberate
mutations have enabled humans to alter makeup of
plant genomes. Plant tissue culture is done to:
 Produce exact copies of plants that produced good
flowers, fruits, or have other desirable traits.
 Quickly produce mature plants.
 Genetic Engineering/Genetic
modification
 Produce multiple of plants in the absence of seeds or
necessary pollinators to produce seeds.
 Regenerate whole plant from plant cells that were genetically
modified
 Produce plants in sterile containers that allows them to be
moved with greatly reduced chances of transmitting diseases,
pests, and pathogens.
 Produce plants from seeds that otherwise have low chances of
germinating and growing (e.g. orchids, Nepenthes).
 Clean particular plants of viral and other infections to quickly
multiply these plants as ‘cleaned stock’ for horticulture and
agriculture
 Genetic Engineering Techniques

1. Gene gun. Also known as “biolistic”, shoot direct high energy

particles or radiation against target genes into plant cell. This is a
common method. DNA is bound to tiny particles of gold or
tungsten which are subsequently shot into plant tissue or single
plant cells under high pressure.
2. Electroporation. Is used when the plant tissue does not contain
cell walls. In these techniques, DNA enters into the plant cells’
miniature pores which are temporarily caused by electric pulses.
3. Microinjection. Directly injects the gene into the DNA.
 Genetic Engineering Techniques

4. Agrobacteria tumefaciens. Agrobacteria are natural plant parasites and

their natural ability to transfer genes provides another engineering method.
To create a suitable environment for themselves, Agrobacteria insert their
genes into plant hosts, resulting in proliferation of modified plant cells near
the soil level.
5. CRISPR. Clustered regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats are
segments of prokaryotic DNA containing short repetitions of base sequences.
CRISPR has enormous potential application including altering the germline of
humans, animals and other organisms, manipulating the genes.
6. TALEN. Transcription activator-like effector nuclease has TALE proteins that
composed of central domain responsible for DNA binding, a nuclear
localization signal, and a domain that activates the target gene
transcription. The capability of these protein to bind to DNA was first
described in 2007.
 Types of Modifications:
1. Transgenic. Plants have genes inserted to them that derived
from other species. The inserted genes can come from the same
kingdom.
2. Cisgenic. Plants are made using genes found within the same
species or closely related one, where conventional plant
breeding occur.
3. Subgenic. In 2014, Chinese researcher Gao Caixia filed patents
on the creation of a strain of wheat that is resistant to mildew. The
strain lacks gene that encodes proteins that repress defenses
against mildew. Gao used editing tools without adding nor
changing any genes. No field trials were immediately planned.
 Types of Modifications:
4 Host Plant Resistance. Plant species which are fed upon by insects are called host
plants. The inability of an insect to attack a non-host plant is termed immunity. A host
plant showing lesser damage is called resistant while a host plant that showed more
damage is called susceptible. Below are the meaning of Host plant resistance defined
by different scholars:
 Host plant resistance is any inherited characteristics of a host that lessens the effect
of the attack.
 Plant resistance to insects is “a quality that enables a plant to avoid, tolerate, or
recover from the effect of oviposition or feeding that would cause damage to other
genotypes of the same species under similar environment conditions (Snelling, 1941)
 The relative amount of heritable qualities possessed by the plant that influenced the
ultimate degree of damage done by insects (Painter, 1957).
 The inheritable property that enables a plant to retain the growth of insect
populations or to recover from injury caused by the populations (Kogan, 1994).
 Types of Modifications:
Character of resistance:
 Heritable
 Relative
 Measurable
 Variable
Types of Resistance
 Ecological or pseudo resistance
 Genetic or true resistance
 Ecological resistance: No heritable
trait is involved.

 Host evasion: A host may pass through the most

susceptible stage quickly or at a time when number of
insects is less (early maturing varieties).
 Host escape: Absence of an infestation or injury to the
host plant because of transitory circumstances such as
incomplete infestation.
 Induced resistance: increase in resistance temporarily as
a result of some changed conditions of plants or
environment such as change in the amount of water or
nutrient status of the soil or plant (low N, high K, etc.)
 Genetic or true resistance
A. Based on number of genes
 Monogenic resistance: Resistance is controlled by a single gene.
 Oligogenic resistance: Resistance is controlled by few genes.
 Polygenic resistance: Resistance is controlled by many genes.
B. Based on biotype reaction:
 Vertical resistance: Resistance is specific to a given biotype (less stable).
 Horizontal resistance: Resistant against all known biotypes of insect; also called non-
specific resistance.
C. Miscellaneous categories
 Cross resistance: When a variety with resistance to a particular pest may confer
resistance to another pest.
 Multiple resistance: Ability of a variety to resist variety of environmental stresses like
insects, diseases, nematodes, etc
 Mechanisms of Resistance
1. Non-preference or Antixenosis. The term antixenosis
was coined by Kogan and Ortman (1978). Xenosis
means “guest” in Greek. Antixenosis refers to the “the
resistance mechanism employed by host plant to
deter or reduce colonization of insects”. Antixenosis
may result from certain morphological characteristics
or the presence of allelochemicals in the host plant,
which adversely affect oviposition, rate of
development, death and reproduction.
 Mechanisms of Resistance
2. Antibiosis. Refers to the “adverse effect of the host plant on
the biology (survival, development, and reproduction) of the
insect and their progeny infesting it”. The adverse effect may
be due to the presence of toxic substances insufficient
amount of minerals, presence of antimetabolites and
enzymes, which adversely affect food digestion and utilization
of nutrients. The symptoms of insect affected by antibiosis are:
death of immature; reduce growth rate; disruption in
conversion of ingested food; decline n size and weight of
larvae; prolongation of larval period; failure to pupate; death
in pupal stage; abnormal adults; reduced fecundity;
restlessness and abnormal behavior.
Mechanisms of Resistance

3. Tolerance. It refers to “the ability of the host

plant to withstand an insect population sufficient
to damage severely the susceptible plants”. It is
generally attributed to plant vigour, regrowth of
damage tissues, resistance to lodging, ability to
produce additional branches and compensation
by neighboring Plants.
 Bases of Resistance
1. Biophysical base. The morphological and
anatomical characteristics of a plant like color, shape,
size, thick cuticle, trichomes, surface waxes, silica
deposits, glandular hair, tight leaf sheath, compact
panicle and tightness of husks influences insect’s
preference. The resistance mechanisms related to
morphological or structural plant features altogether is
called ‘phenetic resistance’. Phenetic resistance
causes reduced or impaired feeding or oviposition and
contribute on the action of other mortality factors.
 Bases of Resistance
2. Biochemical bases. Several inorganic chemicals impart resistance to
a wide variety of insects. Examples:
Nutrients:
• Asparagine in Mudgo rice variety – brown plant hopper
• Low carbohydrates – Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna varivestis)
• Low amino acids – Pea apid (Acyrthrosiphon pisum)
Allelochemicals
• DIMBOA – European corn borer (Ostrinia nubialis)
• Cucurbitacins – many cucurbits pests esp. (Epilachna sp.)
• Gossypol in cotton – Helicoverpa zea
• Pentadecanal in TKM 6 rice – Stem borer
 Host Plant Resistance in Pest
Management
Until 1960, the host plant resistance as a method of insect pest
control received little attention except in few cases. However, the
growing awareness of the limitations of pesticides in the recent
years has caused an upsurge of interest in this approach in insect
pest control through developing resistant varieties. Methods of
developing resistant varieties include:
1. Screening of available germplasm in sown lines under natural
field conditions.
2. Selective screening of elite entries under natural infestation
through replicated trials.
3. Selective screening of elite entries under bombarded conditions
in cages.
 Advantages of Host Pant
Resistance
 Selective – against a particular pest thus, no adverse effects on other
insects or non-target organisms.
 Cumulative – effect continuous against successive generations.
 Persistence – durable for long period
 Eco-friendly – no pollution or deleterious effects
 Easily adaptable – does not require other costs and easy to adopt by
farmers; effective under all conditons
 Compatible – compatible with other pest control approaches.
Activities of insecticide and natural enemies are on resistant varieties.
 Reduces pesticide application
 Useful for low value crop
 Disadvantages of Host Plant
Resistance

 Time consuming
 High initial cost
 Biotype selection – Biotypes are discrete populations capable of utilizing
and damaging the plant genotypes resistant to other population of the
same species. These biotypes are developeddue to the selection pressure
when resistant cultivars are grown widely. These biotypes can be
overcome by polygenic resistance.
 Conflicting resistant factors – some plant traits confer resistant to one pest
but enhance susceptibility to others. For example, pubescent cotton
varieties resistant to leaf hoppers are susceptible to bollworms. Frego bract
in cotton mediates resistance to American boll weevil but magnifies
susceptibility to plant bugs
Behavioural
Control
 Behavioral Control

Behavioral control refers to the disturbance of the normal

mating behavior of male insect so that they cannot find
female ones by dispensing a large of amount of sex
pheromone within a crop. It utilizes some chemicals to
modify insect pest behavior and control pest without the
use of toxins thereby playing an important role in area-
wide control system. At present, behavioral method have
been used to confuse or trap male populations.
 Pheromones – chemical released by an organism into its
environment enabling it to communicate with other
members of its own species.
 Methods of Behavioral
Control/Insect Monitoring

1. Monitoring with attractant. Pheromones are widely used in pest

monitoring due to specificity, longevity, selectivity, and mainly
not affecting the health of the workers and the environment.
Food attractants can also be used for monitoring pest. in
horticulture, the technique is widely used to monitor fruit flies. In
this case, food baits are used to trapped insects and pests.
2. Mating disruption. This method consists of distributing a large
amount of synthetic sex pheromones in the field, aiming to
prevent the male to find a female, disrupting mating. Therefore,
new pest generation do not occur on the treated area.
 Methods of Behavioral
Control/Insect Monitoring
3. Attract and Kill System (A&K) System. This strategy is a new pest
management technique, an extension of mating disruption, which is
characterized by an inclusion of an insecticide in addition to the
pheromone to achieve the same control method of that mating
disruptions.
4. The Push-Pull Strategy. “Push-Pull”, also called stimulo-deterrent
diversion involves “pushing” the insects away from the harvestable,
economic crops, and “pull” onto trap crops where their population is
reduced by biological control agents specific, but low-acting
insecticides. The benefits of ‘’push-pull’ strategy include a lower
requirement for broad spectrum pesticides, saving these materials for
a fire-fighting role. There is less risk of producing of producing
population resistant pests.
 Methods of Behavioral
Control/Insect Monitoring
5. Mass Trapping. The purpose of this method is to reduce the
number of individuals of the next generation removing only
males of both sexes in the area. If this is not enough to control
pest, it can be used with other methods of pest control within
the philosophy of integrated pest management.
6. Attractive lures and toxic lures. The use of secondary plant
substances that play on the role of feeding of polyphagous
and monophagous insects. These substances are used in
insect behavioral and biology studies such as
attraction/repellence, feeding and oviposition deterrence.
BIOLOGICAL
CONTROL
STRATEGIES IN
INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT
(IPM) PROGRAMS
 Classical Biological Control

Classical biological control refers to the practice of introducing

one or a group of natural enemy species of foreign origin to
control a pest that many times is also foreign in origin (called
exotic, introduced, or invasive). Often, the natural enemies are
found in the home range of the invasive pest. Because of the
long, rigorous, and costly process of finding, testing, quarantining,
and rearing these natural enemies, classical biological control
programs are typically conducted by scientists at governmental
agencies or universities with public funding. Modern classical
biological control programs mandate extensive testing of the
natural enemy host ranges before introduction so that the
selected natural enemies attack only the intended target pest
and do not cause harm to other non-target organisms.
 Biological Control

Consumers are becoming more concerned about

pesticide usage on the fruits and vegetables they eat. Not
only are the negative heaths and environmental risks of
pesticides of concern but also the impacts of
neonicotinoids and other broad-spectrum pesticides on
pollinators and other beneficial organisms. Growers and
green industry professionals are searching for alternative
pest management tactics to satisfy consumer demands
and the desire for sustainability and operational flexibility.
Many are considering biological control.
 What is Biological Control?

In nature, organism populations suffer frequent attacks

and high mortality rates from predators, parasites,
parasitoids, and diseases, collectively called “natural
enemies.” Biological control tactics use natural enemies or
agents (some practitioners call them “beneficial”) to
manage pests. The ultimate goal of biological control is to
suppress pest population and damage without pesticide
or with reduced pesticide use. Natural enemies are utilized
differently depending on the target pest, host,
environmental condition, and pest life cycle. There are
three general approaches to biological control.
 Classical Biological Control

Fortuitous or adventive biological control is a variant of

classical biological control where natural enemies arrive
from elsewhere by their own means and control the exotic
pest population. These adventive natural enemies may
have arrived with the pest or at a later time without
introduction.
 Augmentative Biological Control

 Augmentative biological control refers to the practice of

releasing biological control agents(often mass-reared in
insectaries) into an area where natural enemies are not
present or present at a number too low to suppress a pest
population.
The goal of augmentative biological control is to increase the
number or the effectiveness of natural enemies in an area to
a level high enough to control the pest population. Biological
control agents mass-produced by insectaries are often host-
specific (i.e., they only attack one or two kinds of pests).
Therefore, practitioners need to identify the pest species
accurately so that the correct natural enemy species can be
purchased for release.
 Augmentative Biological Control

Depending on the pest and biological control agent species, as

well as the environment and production practices,
augmentative biological control can be achieved through
inoculative releases or innundative releases.
 Inoculative releases, the biological control agents are
released in small numbers to establish population that
provides long-term and sustained suppression of the pest
population.
 Innundative releases, the biological control agents are
released in large numbers to quickly overwhelm the pest
population without the expectation of propagating the
biological control agent population or continuing the
suppression of the pest population.
 Conservation Biological Control

Conservation biological control refers to a collection of methods and

approaches in manipulating the habitat, plant diversity, production practice,
and pest management practice to increase the population and effectiveness
of natural enemies. An area with more complex and diverse plant and animal
communities is known to have a greater diversity of natural enemies and a lower
abundance of pests. Conservation biological control practitioners often start
with manipulating the farm scape or landscape, such as growing insectary
plants (i.e., plant species that can attract and retain natural enemies or provide
natural enemies with food and shelter).Natural enemy diversity, abundance,
and effectiveness increase as plant diversity and resources provided increase.
Other conservation biological control practices seek to minimize impacts of
habitat manipulation or farming practices on natural enemies.
For example, growers or landscape care professionals may use mulch to provide
shelters for ground beetles, or reduce pesticide use, or use pesticides that have
minimal impacts on the natural enemies (i.e., compatible pesticides).
 Biological Control Agents

 Natural enemies are animals that attack and feed on

other animals such as an insect (e.g ladybird beetle),
bird or spider feeding on pest insects. The natural
enemies of plant pests are considered as farmers'
friends. There are various beneficial organisms that can
help the farmer to keep pests(and some diseases) under
control and prevent them from causing economic
damage.
 The types of natural enemies are:

1. Predators
These are organisms that prey and feed on other
organisms. They often feed on various stages of the host
(pest): eggs, larvae, pupae and adult. Each predator kills
and feed on a number of prey individuals during their
development (larvae to adult). Most adults are also
predators.
For example: ladybird beetles, dragonflies, predatory
mites, predatory bugs, predatory wasps and spiders.
 The types of natural enemies

2. Parasitoids
Organisms that during the larval stages feed on pests
(external parasitoids) or in the pest(internal parasitoids).
They complete their development on a single host, killing it.
In their adult stages they are mostly free-living (with few
exceptions) and feed on pollen and nectar or other sugary
substances such as honeydew.
The most common parasitoids are parasitic wasps and flies.
 The types of natural enemies

3. Pathogens
Organisms that can cause diseases of pests. They include fungi,
bacteria, viruses and nematodes. They can be important in controlling
pest populations in agricultural systems. However, naturally occurring
pathogens often are too rare to serve as important control agents or
occur when the damage has already been done.
Some pathogens such as the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and
the fungus Trichoderma viride are commercially available in many
countries.
Other fungi such as Zoophthora, Verticillium and Entomophthora can
be readily found in the field at particular times of the year, infecting
aphids, beetles, caterpillars, grasshoppers and Whiteflies.
 ADVANTAGES OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

1. Biological control is a very specific strategy. The vast majority of the time,
whatever predator is introduced will only control the population of the pest
they are meant to target, making it a green alternative to chemical or
mechanical control methods.
2. Natural enemies introduced to the environment are capable of sustaining
themselves, often by reducing whatever pest population they are supposed
to manage. This means that after the initial introduction, very little effort is
required to keep the system running fluidly. It also means that biological
control can be kept in place for a much longer time than other methods of
pest control.
3. Biological control can be cost-effective in the long run. Although it may
cost a bit to introduce a new species to an environment, it's a tactic that only
needs to be applied once due to itself-perpetuating nature.
 ADVANTAGES OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

4. Most important of all, it's effective. Whatever pest population

you want controlled will no doubt be controlled because the
predator introduced will be naturally inclined to target the pests.
5. Biological pest control does not have adverse effect on the
human health or the environment. It is self-sustaining. It can be
cost effective.
6. The biological control is the attractive alternative to the
agrochemicals. The use of environmentally friendly alternatives
to the chemical pesticides is absolutely required in agriculture.
No chemicals are used, so, there’s less pollution, disruption of the
food chain &risk to the people eating the food that has been
sprayed.
 DISADVANTAGES OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

1. Biological control can be fickle. Ultimately, you can't control

whatever natural enemy you set loose in an ecosystem. While it's
supposed to manage one pest, there is always the possibility that
your predator will switch to a different target - they might decide
eating your crops instead of the insects infesting them. Not only
that, but introducing a new species to an environment runs the
risk of disrupting the natural food chain.
2. It's a slow process. It takes a lot of time and patience for the
biological agents to work their magic on a pest population,
whereas other methods like pesticides work provide immediate
results. The upside to this is the long-term effect biological control
provides.
 DISADVANTAGES OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

3. If you're looking to completely wipe out a pest,

biological control is not the right choice. Predators can
only survive if there is something to eat, so destroying their
food population would risk their own safety. Therefore, they
can only reduce the number of harmful pests.
4. While it is cheap in the long run, the process of actually
setting up a biological control system is a costly endeavor.
A lot of planning and money goes into developing a
successful system.
 Genetic
Manipulation of Pests
 Genetic Manipulation of Pests

Genetic manipulation of pests refers to the reducing of the

fitness of the pest whether directly or indirectly in order to
decrease or eradicate the population.
Sterile insect technique (SIT) is the mass rearing of the target
male insects. Sterilization is done through ionizing radiation or
chemo sterile ant. Sterile insects are released in large numbers
enough to reduce the probability of successful mating in the
wild population
Edward F. Knippling: First described the SIT. Knippling is best
known for his work to eradicate screw worm flies in Texas.
Screwworms were eliminated in a span of seven weeks, saving
domestic goat herds that were a source of meat and milk for
the island people (1954).
 Genetic Manipulation of Pests

Some of the insects that were applied with SIT and was eradicated were:
• Screw worm fly (Cochliomyia hominivorax) – eradicated from the United
States (1950s-90s); Netherlands (Curacao, 1954); and Libya (1990-1992).
• Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens) – eradicated from most of northern
Mexico
• Tsetse fly (Glossina morsitans) – eradicated from Zanzibar (1970-1990s)
• Sweet potato weevil (Cylas furmicarius) – eradicated from Kumi Island,
Okinawa, Japan (1994-1999)Sexier sterile techniques
➢ A technique that gives sterile male insects more sex appeal.
➢ Prof. Boaz Yuval of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem noted the process of
rearing millions of male insects, sterilizing them and transporting them to the
release site can severely affect their sexual competitiveness, so he studies the
behavior and psychology of fruit fly and mosquito.
 Limitation of SIT

1. Geography. The eradication zone must have either

natural barriers (e.g. oceans, deserts, mountains)
or defensible borders to prevent or reduce the immigration
of the target pests from outside.
2. Resistance. Native females may be able to recognize
and refuse to mate with sterile males.
3. Economics. Cost of rearing, sterilizing, and releasing of
large numbers of insect can be very high and needs to be
justified (EIL).
 Limitation of SIT

4. Desirability of sterile males. The lab-reared sterilized males

must be equally of more competitive than
the native males in mating with native females. They may
become less desirable after many generations and need
renewal.
5. Knowledge about the pest. Reproductive behavior,
population dynamics, dispersal, and ecology of insect.
6. Timing. The development of lab-reared colony must be
synchronous with that of the wild population.
 Inherited/delayed sterility

 An alternative genetic strategy to SIT

 Requires fewer insects
 Requires lower doses of radiation
 Released insects are fertile but their progeny is sterile
 Genetic alterations induced by low dose radiation
 Reciprocal translocations
 Genetic transformation with conditional lethal trait
 Advance of SIT

 Creates inverse density-dependent feedback, making it more efficient as

the wild population decreases
 The only PM tactic whose fundamental objective is to drive a wild
population to extinction.
 Specific
 Environment friendly (does not contaminate natural food chain; no threat
so far on the human health has been reported)
Dominant conditional lethal mutation – release of genetically modified insects
with dominant, conditional, lethal trait.
 Chemical
Control and
Bio-Pesticides
 Chemical Control and Bio-Peticides

Chemical crop protection products (pesticides) are biologically

active chemicals that control a range of insect and vertebrate
pests, diseases and weeds. They are often the most cost-
effective way of controlling infestations are part of an IPM
strategy. To get the most out of these products, they must be
applied correctly. Responsible use and good handling
practices limit potential pesticides residues in crop and the
environment as well as help avoid pest resurgence and
resistance.
 Chemical Control and Bio-Peticides

Improved application techniques and equipment, such as reduced drift

nozzles and spot spraying, help farmers protect untreated refuges (e.g.,
hedgerows and field margins) and natural habitats for wildlife and pest
enemies. The timing of treatment (season and time of days) as well as the
types of the products used are also critical factors. are certain types of
pesticides derived from natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria
and certain minerals.
For example, canola oil and baking soda have pesticidal applications and
considered biopesticides. As of April 2016, there are 299 registered
biopesticide active ingredients and 1,401 active biopesticide product
registrations. To use biopesticides effectively (and safely), however, users
need to know a great deal about managing pests and must carefully follow
all label directions.
 Classes of Bio-Pesticides

Bio pesticides fall into three major classes:

1. Biochemical pesticides – are naturally occurring substances
that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms. Conventional
pesticides, by contrast, are generally synthetic materials that
directly kill or inactivate the pest. Biochemical pesticides
include substances that interfere with mating, such as insects
pheromones, as well as various scented plant extracts that
attract insect pests to traps. Because it is sometimes difficult to
determine whether a substance meets the criteria for
classification as a biochemical pesticide, EPA (Environment
Protection Authority) has established a special committee to
make such decisions.
 Classes of Bio-Pesticides

2. Microbial pesticides consist of a microorganism (e.g., a

bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as the active
ingredient. Microbial pesticides can control many different
kinds of pests, although each separate active ingredient is
relatively specific for its target pest[s]. For example, there
are fungi that control certain weeds and other fungi that
kill specific insects
 Classes of Biopesticides

3. Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs) are pesticidal

substances that plants produce from genetic material that
has been added to the plant. For example, scientists can
take the gene for the Bt pesticidal protein and introduce
the gene into the plant's own genetic material. Then the
plant, instead of the Btbacterium, manufactures the
substance that destroys the pest. The protein and its
genetic material, but not the plant itself, are regulated by
EPA.
 Classes of Bio-Pesticides

The most widely used microbial pesticides are subspecies

and strains of Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. Each strain of this
bacterium produces a different mix of proteins and
specifically kills one or a few related species of insect
larvae. While some Bt ingredients control moth larvae
found on plants, other Bt ingredients are specific for larvae
of flies and mosquitoes. The target insect species are
determined by whether the particular Bt produces a
protein that can bind to a larval gut receptor, thereby
causing the insect larvae to starve.
 Advantage of Biopesticiedes

 Biopesticides are usually inherently less toxic than conventional

pesticides.
 Biopesticides generally affect only the target pest and closely
related organisms, in contrast to broad spectrum, conventional
pesticides that may affect organisms as different as birds, insects
and mammals.
 Biopesticides often are effective in very small quantities and often
decompose quickly, resulting in lower exposures and largely
avoiding the pollution problems caused by conventional pesticides.
 When used as a component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
programs, biopesticides can greatly reduce the use of
conventional pesticides, while crop yields remain high.
 Mechanical and Physical Control

The objective of physical control is to reduce pest and disease

population. Physical control methods reduce the need to rely on
pesticide. Physical methods include:
1. Application of heat: Hot water treatment; Exposing of infested grain
to sun; super heating of empty go downs at 50oC to kill hibernating
stored grain pests.
2. Manipulation of moisture: Reduction of moisture content of grains
helps to prevent from the attack of stored grain pests.
3. Energy (light trap): Mechanical control used to repel some bird and
mammal pests has a limited IPM value. Frightening devices that have
been used are acetylene explosive barriers, flashing lights and other
scintillating objects. Some methods include hand destruction, exclusion
by barriers and use of traps
 Cultural Control and Agro-Ecology
The objective for cultural practices is to optimize crop production. Cultural practices emphasize having
healthy crops. Several cultural practices influence the agro-ecosystem so that conditions are less
favorable for pest presence. It is the most effective and oldest method of pest control which include:
 strategic scheduling of plantings- the planting plan gives you the opportunity to identify what you
want from your garden and then reflect that in the style of planting.
 tillage- the preparation of soil for planting and the cultivation of soil after planting.
 irrigation- the supply of water to land or crops to help growth, typically by means of channels.
 harvesting- the activity of picking and collecting crops, or of collecting plants, animals, or fish as food
 fertilizer application- generally restricted to irrigated plantations and varies between regions and
even among farmers.
 crop rotation- the practice of planting different crops sequentially on the same plot of land to
improve soil health, optimize nutrients in the soil, and combat pest and weed pressure.
 destruction of wild plants harboring pests that migrate to crops; and
 use of pest-free seed planting stock
Farmers are most familiar with cultural practices. Farmers learn about how to have the greatest
advantage from these practices.
 Selected
Cases of
IPM/PM
Programs in
the Philippines
 International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) IPM Farmer Participatory Research

 Farmer participatory research (FPR) is an approach, which involves

encouraging farmers to engage in experiments in their own fields so
that they can learn, adopt new technologies and spread them to
other farmers. With the scientist acting as facilitator, farmers and
scientists closely work together from initial design of the research
project to data gathering, analysis, final conclusions, and follow-up
actions. This step, sometimes known as “innovation evaluation” is
essential for communication as well as for initiating diffusion. The main
advantage of this approach is that farmers “learn by doing” and
decision rules are modified on the basis of direct experience. To shape
learning, interpretations of experience must provide information about
what happened, why it happened and whether what happened was
satisfactory or unsatisfactory. New information, technologies and
concepts may be better communicated to farmers through the FPR
approach.
 How is FPR carried out?

1. Planning meeting. Initiate participatory experiments in collaboration with the

local agricultural extension technician and the village head. In each village or
district, invite 10 to 25 farmers.
2. Laying out experiment. Each participating farmer would mark out an area of
about 100 m2 in his or her field that would not receive any insecticide treatment
in the first 30 days after transplanting.
3. Support materials. Provide participating farmers with support materials.
4. Monitoring. Talk to farmers about their problems, practices, costs and
perceptions.
5. Farmer experience sharing workshop. At the end of the season, organize a
workshop where farmers will report their experimental results.
6. Farmer-to-farmer spread. To monitor diffusion, ask farmers in a monitoring
survey for names and addresses of other farmers with whom they had directly
shared the results of their experiments. “Farmer to farmer” is one of the most
common modes of information dissemination.
7. Upscaling. With the help of media, such as newspapers, radio and television,
spread may be further enhanced. The use of these approaches may be
explored in the future
 Food and Agriculture (FAO) Farmer’s Field School

 Farmer Field School is a form of adult education, which evolved

from the concept that farmers learn optimally from field
observation and experimentation. It was developed to help
farmers tailor their Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices
to diverse and dynamic ecological conditions.
 In regular sessions from planting till harvest, groups of neighboring
farmers observe and discuss dynamics of the crop’s ecosystem.
Simple experimentation helps farmers further improve their
understanding of functional relationships (e.g. pests-natural
enemy population dynamics and crop damage yield
relationships). In this cyclical learning process, farmers develop the
expertise that enables them to make their own crop
management decisions. Special group activities encourage
learning from peers, and strengthen communicative skills and
group building.
 Food and Agriculture (FAO) Farmer’s Field School

The IPM farmer field school has become a

model approach for farmer education in Asia
and many parts of Africa and Latin America.
The approach has been used with a wide
range of crops including cotton, tea, coffee,
cacao, pepper, vegetables, small grains,
and legumes. The FFS has proven effective at
involving a wide range of people in the
learning process, from school kids to the
handicapped.
 Food and Agriculture (FAO) Farmer’s Field School
The following is a list of rice IPM farmer field school basics:
• The IPM school is field-based and lasts for a full cropping season.
• A rice FFS meets once a week with a total number of meetings that range from at
least 10 up to 16.
• The primary learning material at a farmer field school is the rice field.
• The field school meeting place is close to the farming plots, often in a farmer's home
and sometimes beneath a convenient tree.
• FFS educational methods are experiential, participatory and learnercentred.
• Each FFS meeting includes at least three activities: the agro-ecosystem analysis, a
special topic and a group dynamics activity.
• In every FFS participants conduct a study comparing IPM with non-IPM treated plots.
• An FFS often includes several additional field studies depending on local field
problems.
• Between 25 and 30 farmers participate in an FFS. Participants learn together in small
groups of five to maximize participation.
Food and Agriculture (FAO) Farmer’s Field School

• All FFSs include a field day in which farmers make

presentations about IPM and the results of their studies.
• A pre- and post-test are conducted as part of every field
school for diagnostic purposes and for determining follow-up
activities.
• The facilitators of FFSs undergo intensive season-long
residential training to prepare them for organizing and
conducting field schools.
• Preparation meetings precede an FFS to determine needs,
recruit participants and develop a learning contract.
• Final meetings of the FFS often include planning for follow-up
activities
 Community IPM
Community IPM is the conceptual framework in
which field schools are now being conducted by
national IPM programmes in the member countries
of the FAO regional programme. In fact, the name
of the regional programme has been changed to
FAO community IPM programme to reflect this.
Community IPM is a strategy in which the field school
is a first step in the development of the sustainable
management by a community of its shared
agricultural and ecological resources. The goal of
this strategy is to institutionalize IPM at the local level
 Community IPM
Community IPM is a strategy for sustainable agriculture development where farmers:
 act upon their own initiative and analysis;
 identify and resolve relevant problems;
 conduct their own local IPM programmes that include research and educational
activities;
 elicit the support of local institutions;
 establish or adapt local organizations that enhance the influence of farmers in
local decision making;
 employ problem-solving and decision-making processes that are open and
egalitarian;
 create opportunities for all farmers in their communities to develop themselves
and benefit from their IPM activities; and
 Promote a sustainable agricultural system.
 IPM in Cabbage
Major Pests of Cabbage - Primary concerns are
diseases, insects, and weeds.In many aspects, pest
management on this crop and other vegetable
crops is still dependent on the use of pesticides.
Biocontrol of some insect pests of vegetables like
tomato, cabbage, pechay and others are still in the
laboratory stage and some are being tested under
field conditions. However, control of nematode pests
can now be done by biological control agent like
fungus Paecilomyces lilacinus and is now
commercially available.
 IPM in Corn

The tactics involved sre the use of

resistant varieties against downey
mildew; biocontrol using Trichogramma
spp. for corn borer control; chemical
control for insects, weeds, and rats;
mechanical control using a datasseling
technique to reduce corn borer
infestation.
 IPM in Mango
Mangoes are prone to insect infestation and disease infection at any stage of their
development. Without proper pest management program, quality fruits may not
be produced.
The current control measures for pests’ attacking mango still relies on the use of
pesticides. Most insecticides and fungicides are applied as calendar spray in an
excessive manner resulting to pest resistance, elevation of minor pests to major
ones, destruction of natural enemies and contamination of environment. In
addition, pesticides are expensive and have caused in increased production
inputs.
Many of these problems can be minimized though Integrated Pest Management
(IPM). This involves these of alternative measures in combination, to minimize pests.
The IPM strategies make use of cultural management (pruning, cultivation,
sanitation, proper nutrition to enhance vigor and fruit bagging) conservation of
beneficial insects (pollinators and bio-con agents) and proper pesticide
management
Research, Extension and
Policy Needs in IPM/PM
 Bbt-Technology and IPM/PM
In industrial countries, there is an increasing
emphasis on reducing the reliance on the use of
conventional pesticides using BBTs such as
biological control, microbial control, pest behavior
modifying chemicals, genetic manipulation of pest
populations, plant immunizations, plant breeding
and enhanced resistance to pests. Assessment
(1995) completed a study examining the current
and potential role of
BBTs for pest control. Notable points are:
 Bbt-Technology and IPM/PM
 There is a significant investment in the area of BBTs by the US Federal
government – somewhere between US$150 million and US$200
million/year.
 The major use of BBTs at the moment is on insect pests of arable
agricultural, forestry, and aquatic environments. The least use is on weed
control in agriculture, even though herbicides account for 57% ofthe US
chemical expenditures.
 BBTs are being adopted when conventional pesticides are unavailable,
unacceptable, as in environmentally sensitive habitats, or where
conventional pesticides are economically not feasible because costs are
high relative to the value of resource.
 Increased knowledge of pests and ecological systems will hasten the
transition from the current levels of pesticide use to BBTs.
Bbt-Technology and IPM/PM

The biotechnology related applications

of importance to ecologically based
pest management include: use of
transgenic crops for insect and disease
resistance, molecular markers for host
plant resistance breeding, diagnostic
tools, and the use of conventional and
novel biological control agents
 Towards an ecology-based IPM (EBIPM)

“The idea was to shift the IPM paradigm from focusing on pest management
strategies relying on pesticide management to a system approach relying
primarily on biological knowledge of pests and on their interaction with the
crops” This suggests that EBIPM programmes should represent ‘a sustainable
approach to manage pests combining biological, chemical, physical and
cultural tools to ensure favorable economic, ecological and sociological
consequences’ (Kennedy and Sutton, 2000), i.e. a system based on the
underlying knowledge of the managed ecosystem, including natural
processes that suppress pest populations. These practices are integrated with
biological control organisms and products, resistant host plants, cultural
practices and narrow-spectrum pesticides. It has been shown that IPM and
integrated cropping systems can control pests effectively, which can
contribute to the build-up of beneficial organisms and to the subsequent
decrease in soil-borne pests. However, some key issues that need to be
highlighted are as follows:
 Towards an ecology-based IPM (EBIPM)

1. In EBIPM, programmes should emphasize an

understanding of the ecological relationships between the
host plant and the management practices like cultural
control, biological control and host plant resistance.
2. Integration of management practices involves biological
(e.g. parasites, predators and fungi), chemical (e.g.
selective pesticides and pheromones), cultural (e.g. crop
rotation, planting date and soil fertility) and physical
aspects (e.g. tillage and aeration). These ecological
factors regulate the system.
 Towards an ecology-based IPM (EBIPM)

3. Sustainability implies durability over time. This is the true test for a
management system.
4. EBIPM programmes should minimize economic, environmental and health
risks (National Research Council, 1996).
Various studies in the USA and Europe have shown that IPM or integrated
cropping systems can control pests effectively and can contribute to the
build-up of beneficial organisms and suppression of soil-bornepests. This has
helped in developing sustainable cropping systems. Furthermore, deployment
of EBIPM can contribute to long-term restoration ecology by facilitating
recovery of degraded lands (Dobson et al., 1997). To achieve the ecological
goals of sustainable agriculture, crop and pest management practices need
to be directed at: (i) suppressing incidence and intensity of a wide range of
crop pests; (ii) increasing soil organic matter; and (iii) enhancing soil and crop
health.
 Can we teach farmers to do IPM?
Although there are many issues, farmers are gaining faith in IPM and try
to adopt IPM tactics and techniques; they are going to be the leaders
in calling for new research and technology transfer programmes. IPM
continuum that farmers should implement based on information from a
multitude of disciplines. The requirement is to focus on the
implementation needs of the farmer, and that should be the goal of
research and extension education.
To be successful in implementing IPM, thinking only of pest control is not
the answer. Implementation requires the partnership of economists,
sociologists, ecologists, horticulturists, agronomists, agricultural
engineers, geographic information specialists, soil scientists, food
processors, crop consultants, pesticide applicators, regulatory
agencies, computer scientists, consumers, public policy interest groups
and again,most importantly, farmers.
 IPM Succeeds when FARMERS’ MAKE their own
decisions

 Farmers want practical information about crop

production and crop protection.
 Farmers cautiously follow recommendations that
have potential risks for their crop yield.
 Farmers want examples on how to do their own
experimentation and trials.
 Farmers benefit when they regularly exchange
information with other farmers.
 Information for your consideration:

IPM extension activities emphasize that farmers will only change their
conventional pest control
practices when they are convinced about the alternative practices.
 Farmers want to know the risks
 Farmers want to know the resources required.
 Farmers want to know the benefits and the time necessary to gain the
benefit.
 Farmers want to know the facts and the procedures that guide their IPM
practices.
 Farmers want to know how to do their own small-scale trials.
 Farmers need sufficient opportunities to learn by doing, IPM extension
activities help farmers see, hear and touch