IPM is the development of a set of practices that maintain pest populations (insects, pathogens, weeds) at levels below those which cause economically significant losses; it emphasizes minimal intervention - particularly with synthetic biocides - and husbandry of natural regulating mechanisms be they biological or cultural, manipulation of predators, parasitoids and pathogens, exploitation of host resistance, the use of behaviour modifying chemicals and a search for crop configurations/livestock systems less susceptible to pest attack.
In the case of crops, IPM involves all aspects of the crop cycle from site selection and land preparation to harvest. Similar concerns apply to livestock systems.
It is generally accepted that IPM is an approach that takes account of interactions between all biological agents that cause loss as well as an appropriate mix of control technologies.
IPM demands an understanding of systems and the parameters that govern their dynamics far beyond that required to kill pests. Recognizing the importance of policy-makers, researchers, extension workers and farmers within any system, it must successfully involve each group in the development and implementation of integrated technologies for crop and animal protection.
If the pace of IPM implementation is to be increased, more resources must be committed over a longer time-frame and there must be much improved coordination accompanied by functional specialization amongst both donors and research instititutions.
IPM is firmly rooted in biology and ecology. It seeks to harness indigenous regulatory mechanisms for pest population control and exploit physiological and behavioural characteristics of pest species in their management. It also emphasizes the adaptation of indigenous 'well-adapted' or 'robust' cropping/livestock systems in the development of more productive agriculture. Such an approach demands a detailed understanding of characteristics of agro-ecosystems and their dynamics in response to intervention.
Increasing concern is now being expressed about our ability to characterize pest organisms. As methods of control become more specific and sophisticated, it becomes more important to distinguish variability in order to ensure that the appropriate method is applied. The rationale is clear for management of host resistance and pesticide resistance. The adaptation of research outputs from molecular biology to provide accurate, simple field diagnostics for plant diseases is a high priority.
Biological control is an important area of IPM. The term is used here to cover the use of all biological or biologically derived agents. Classical biocontrol based on the release of exotic or supplementation of indigenous natural enemies has had striking successes but is heavily constrained as an IPM component by problems of rearing and supply, particularly for parasitoids and predators of insect pests. Bacteria, viruses and their toxins have presented similar difficulties compounded by problems of formulation, application, persistence and potential side effects. One exception is those products based on the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, e.g. Dipel(R).
The use of behaviour-modifying chemicals has found wide application, particularly with insect pheromones, as a tool of great importance in a number of pest management systems.
Farmers need to be able to make reactive decisions in order to respond to and solve a particular problem. The good practices of one farmer can be undone by a neighbour employing more traditional pest control practices (e.g. preventative application of pesticides).
IPM is inherently an inter-disciplinary, multi-functional approach to solving pest problems. Current institutional structures in both developed and developing countries do little to simplify the task of the farmer practioner. Components of the problem, in both disciplinary and operational terms, are commonly abstracted to form the principal axis for the organization of public sector institutions. The management of research, extension and technical support services are frequently operated independently of one another, centred in different institutions and often with conflicting goals and interests. These activities are almost always under-resourced and unable to compete with the commercial sector.
For more information contact the coordinator of the IPM network for the wider Caribbean, Dr. Janice Reid, Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute, University Campus, Box 113, Mona, Kingston 7, Jamaica or the author of this page, Dr. L.E. Chinnery.
Return to Sustainable Agriculture Page
This page last updated 07 May 2003