Ecological and Economic Concept in relation to

management decisions

Defining and Implementing Ecologically Based Pest Management

There is a need to develop new pest-management systems that are long-term,

cost-effective, solve unmet needs, and protect human and environmental health.
conventional, chemically based pest-management strategies encourage short-term
solutions that can be harmful to the environment and to human health. Broad-spectrum
chemicals also are ineffective against some pest problems. Future pest-management
systems will be based on a broad knowledge of the agroecosystem and will seek to
manage rather than eliminate pests. Agricultural practices that augment natural
processes that suppress pests, where available, will replace existing practices that
disrupt natural processes; and these practices will be supplemented with the judicious
use of biological-control organisms and products, target-specific chemical pesticides,
and pest-resistant plants. It will also be necessary to reopen and develop channels of
communication at all levels that increase the flow of information and cooperative action,
subsequently lowering risk to users, fostering interdisciplinary interaction, and improving
the profitability of alternative pest-control methods.

GOALS OF ECOLOGICALLY BASED PEST MANAGEMENT

The fundamental goals of EBPM are
(1) safety
(2) profitability
(3) durability

 Pest-management systems must be safe for growers and workers who use them,
and for consumers of the food produced. Minimizing health risks must be a
primary criterion of acceptability of novel management systems.
 Pest control strategies must be cost-effective as well as effective, easy to
implement, and readily integrated with other crop-production practices. Economic
factors involving cost-effectiveness include crop prices, costs and availability of
labor, land, equipment, and other production inputs.
 Pest-management programs must ensure that pests in the agroecosystem can
be managed over the long-term without adverse environmental, economic, or
safety consequences. Current pest-management strategies that rely on repeated
applications of conventional broad-spectrum pesticides encourage the
development of resistant species. In new ecologically based approaches,
addressing potential development of pest resistance will be important.

EBPM promotes the economic and environmental viability of agriculture by using

knowledge of interactions between crops, pests, and naturally occurring pest-control
organisms to modify cropping systems in ways that reduce damage associated with
pests. Ecologically based management relies on a comprehensive knowledge of the
ecosystem, including the natural biological interactions that suppress pest populations. It
is based on the recognition that many conventional agricultural practices disrupt natural
processes that suppress pests. Agricultural practices recommended by EBPM will

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

1
augment natural processes, supplemented by biological-control organisms and products,
resistant plants, and targeted pesticides.

An ecosystem is dynamic with interacting physical, chemical, and biological

processes. The coexisting crops, herbivores, predators, pathogens, weeds, and other
organisms interact with one another and respond to their environment. Each organism
has developed a repertoire of offensive and defensive maneuvers in response to
changes in the behavior of other organisms in the cropping system. This web of
interrelated interactions also confers stability on the system; while a population
increases and decreases, it is subject to the checks and balances imposed by
populations of the other organisms.

Stability (i.e., low variance in density of pests over time) is an essential feature of
successful pest management. When effective predators, parasites, pathogens, or
competitors of potentially destructive pests are present in the managed ecosystem, pest
populations are suppressed and held in check. In natural systems, biological-control
organisms are often quite diverse, leading to stable, low pest populations.

Activity of most biological organisms is density dependent—i.e., when pest

density is low, density of, and hence suppressive activity of control organisms tends to
be low, and vice versa. Negative feedback related to population density keeps both pest
and control organism from both glut and extinction. Because neither pesticides nor host-
plant resistance methods are responsive to feedback, achieving stability and balance
within the agroecosystem is not possible with those systems, but is a fundamental goal
of EBPM. EBPM is founded on the importance of natural processes inherent within
agricultural and forest production systems. To this is added, in a complementary way,
other technologies for managing pest problems.

Ecological balance is more difficult to attain in a highly modified agricultural

environment, such as a large-scale monoculture farm, where the goal is to maximize
production of one crop species exclusively. In this monoculture ecosystem, biological-
control organisms that depend on other plant species for growth and reproduction may
suffer tremendous population reductions. On the other hand, a pest adapted to utilizing
the primary crop has an unlimited resource at hand, resulting in a pest population
explosion.

The National Research Council report on alternative agriculture describes

alternative systems to manage pests, crop nutrients, soil erosion, and livestock
production (National Research Council, 1989b). The goal of alternative agriculture—
profitable, safe, and healthy ecosystems achieved by integrating individual practices into
an overall farm management system—are consistent with the goals of EBPM.

EBPM should be viewed in the context of whole-farming systems. Pest-

management methods cannot be isolated from other components of agronomic systems
such as fertilization, cultivation, cropping patterns, and farm economics (National
Research Council, 1989b, 1991). These physical, biological, and chemical practices are
interrelated; changing one system component will impact another entity. For example,
choosing a particular rotating crop can augment suppression of soil-borne plant
pathogens and affect levels of soil nitrogen. Such natural processes of interdependence
are augmented and exploited by ecologically based pest-management systems.
Biological and ecological processes are fundamental to pest control even in the most
intensively managed ecosystems; EBPM builds on and supplements them, rather than
impeding or replacing them.

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

2
 SUPPLEMENTS TO NATURAL PROCESSES

A major premise of EBPM is that most potential pest species are held in check by
naturally occurring beneficial organisms. Supplemental inputs, either natural or synthetic,
must not suppress either the populations or activities of these indigenous beneficial
organisms. It is therefore essential that the use of supplemental inputs be based on an
understanding of target organisms so that the potential for development of resistance,
disruption of natural and biological processes of control, and unintended effects on
nontarget organisms or ecosystems are minimized. Supplemental inputs that meet the
criteria of safety, profitability, and durability are valuable and, quite possibly, finite
resources. Their use should be accompanied by sophisticated diagnostic and monitoring
tools and methods of deployment that prolong their effect. Lasting solutions require
anticipation of potential disruptions and evolutionary responses that could result from
pest-management practices (Gould, 1991).

Integrating Components of a Managed Ecosystem: Cover Crops

Cover crops are an excellent example of an innovative strategy to integrate multiple

components of a managed ecosystem. These non-crop plant species, such as vetch and
clover, are grown as ground cover to manage pests, provide nitrogen for subsequent
crops, increase soil organic matter, and reduce soil erosion (National Research Council,
1989b). Because cover crops increase ecosystem biodiversity which, in turn, affects
multiple biological interactions involving pest management, soil fertility, and plant
nutrition, ecosystem interactions should be carefully considered when integrating a cover
crop into a pest-management strategy. Since the long-term impacts of cover crops are
not well known, additional research can provide a greater understanding of their role in
crop production (Hanna et al., 1995).

Pests

Cover crops can provide habitat and a food source for biological-control organisms.
California vineyard managers plant clover and other legume ground covers to attract
beneficial wasps and spiders; their abundance is associated with decreases in
leafhopper pests (Hanna et al., 1995; National Research Council, 1989a). Some cover
crops produce allelopathic compounds that can suppress plant parasitic nematodes.
Ground covers also can delay weed emergence, giving a competitive edge to the
primary crop.

However, interactions of a cover crop with other ecosystem components can lead to
undesirable effects; a cover crop species that is optimal for biological control of
arthropod pests may not be competitive with a troublesome weed (Ingels, 1995). Thus,
considerable knowledge of ecosystem processes is necessary to successfully manage
pests in cover-cropping systems.

Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition

Cover crops can increase soil fertility and plant nutrition; legumes such as vetch and
clovers exhibit powerful nitrogen-supplying capabilities. Symbiotic bacteria initiate
nodules on the roots of legumes, which transform atmospheric nitrogen into a useful
nitrogen source for plant growth (nitrogen fixation). This complex nitrogen-transformation
process is influenced by numerous factors including soil microorganisms, cover crop
species, tillage, and water (National Research Council, 1989b).

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

3
Since cover crops may also remove nutrients from the soil, nutrient status of a primary
crop needs to be monitored. Thus, growers need to weigh the benefits and
disadvantages of using cover crops to increase soil fertility and plant nutrition.

Biological-Control Organisms

Biological-control organisms are living organisms that can be used to manage

arthropod (mites and insects), weed, and plant (bacteria, fungi, viruses, and nematodes)
pests and pathogens. Generally, control organisms do not immediately alleviate disease
or prevent or curtail attack; they also do not immediately reduce the pest population.
Rather, control is generally achieved over a period of several generations. Biological
control organisms commonly interacting with their hosts at low population densities,
preventing pests from reproducing to economically important population levels. Control
organisms are themselves arthropods, plants, and pathogens and are as diverse as the
pests (Ferris, 1992; Flint, 1992; Schroth et al., 1992; Turner, 1992):

 arthropods that prey on or parasitize other arthropods

 arthropods that prey on or parasitize plants
 pathogens of plant pests
 bacterial or fungal antagonists of plant pathogens
 beneficial nematodes that parasitize arthropods
 mild strains of plant pathogens, and
 other beneficial organisms that parasitize or prey on plant pathogens or
nematodes.

Predatory arthropods can be very host specific, depending on their ability to

locate, consume, and utilize a particular prey species for growth and reproduction;
however, environmental factors and habitat may modify prey specificity. A predator
invariably consumes more than one individual during its life span and, if conditions are
favorable, some arthropod organisms kill hundreds of host individuals during their
development. Arthropod parasitoids attack and disarm the arthropod host species and
subsequently deposit one or more eggs within or on the host organism. Parasitoid larvae
then feed on and complete development on a host individual, and in the process, kill the
host. Parasitic organisms are usually highly host and habitat specific. Arthropod
herbivores that prefer feeding on weed plants can be used as controls, feeding on
foliage, roots, stems, flowers, fruit, or seeds of weeds.

Viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and other microbes that cause disease in
arthropods, plant pathogens, or weeds are also used as biological-control organisms.
Under favorable conditions, they infect their hosts and can cause epidemics that can
lead to a marked decline in the pest population. Certain of these persist on the plant, in
the pest, or in the environment, causing recurring infections in their hosts.

Microbial antagonists can suppress plant pathogens by producing antibiotics or by

means of competition—producing larger populations, and thus occupying and competing
for the same ecological niche. A competitor will challenge the pathogen for infection
sites, nourishment, or other resources and, in the process, reduce the population size of
the plant pathogen. Microbial antagonists can produce toxins active against arthropods,
plant pathogens, or weeds, or compete with plant pathogens for nutrients or preferred
sites on plant surfaces. Mild strains of plant pathogens that cause little or no disease can
induce resistance responses in the plant or otherwise provide protection from disease.

Biological-Control Products
Genes or gene products derived from living organisms that kill, disable, or
otherwise regulate the behavior of plant pests are biological-control products. Examples

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

4
include the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, delivered by a killed microbe, and
pheromones or other semiochemicals used to kill or disrupt the reproduction of
arthropod pests.

It must be noted that genes or gene products are derived from living organisms, but they
are not inherently more suitable supplements than synthetic products. Indeed, certain
synthetic products can be less detrimental to environmental balances than some
products derived from organisms; some natural plant products used to formulate
botanical insecticides such as rotenone and pyrethrum have broad-spectrum activity and
can be highly toxic to beneficial organisms. It is the spectrum and activity of products
used in ecologically based pest management that are of primary importance rather than
the source of the products. The most useful biological-control products are those that
have minimal impact on all components of the agroecosystem—except for the target
pest.

Synthetic Chemicals
Narrow-spectrum synthetic pesticides that meet the criteria of safety, profitability,
and durability are suitable supplements for EBPM. For example, the synthetic insecticide
pirimicarb is highly selective for one group of pest arthropods, aphids, and does not
adversely affect most biological-control organisms.

Resistant Plants
Plants that have developed resistance against pests will be important
components of EBPM. Plant breeders have successfully identified and deployed genes
for disease and arthropod resistance in numerous crops; in the future, molecular genetic
methods will become more important as a means to producing pest-resistant plants. At
present, resistance is the predominant defense against many plant diseases, such as
rust diseases, that would otherwise severely limit cereal

Pirimicarb: The Saga of a Selective Pesticide

The insecticide pirimicarb is a selective aphicide; it controls many of the most damaging
aphid pests but has little if any effect on most other arthropods. Because it does not
directly interfere with beneficial predatory and parasitic arthropods, it fits well in
alternative pest-management programs that rely on biological control. However,
pirimicarb had a relatively short early history in the United States; it was first registered
in 1974 but was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in 1981 because of regulatory and
marketing problems.

Pirimicarb was registered only on specialty crops, specifically potato and greenhouse
crops, where aphids are serious pests. After initial registration, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) requested additional metabolism and residue information that
would have been very expensive to gather. Also during this time, the synthetic pyrethroid
insecticides were coming on the market, and many pest managers preferred products
such as these that had broad-spectrum activity. Faced with the economics of clearing
regulatory hurdles as well as facing competition from the new pyrethroids, it was decided
to withdraw registration of pirimicarb in the United States, even though the product
continued to be used in Canada and Europe.

Over the past 20 years, the climate in the United States has improved to favor the use of
selective products that provide effective and economic alternatives to more broad-
spectrum pesticides. Pirimicarb is currently undergoing reregistration review in Europe.
Data required for this review will satisfy some of the EPA requirements; therefore the
parent company intends to once again submit pirimicarb for registration in the United
States.

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

5
Had a mechanism been in place in the 1970s to foster the development of specific
pesticides by helping companies meet regulatory requirements, pirimicarb and other
selective pesticides would likely be more widely used in agriculture today.

To date, resistant plants have been developed almost entirely through plant breeding.
Future breeding programs will continue to rely on diverse wild germplasm as a source of
resistance genes but will also incorporate resistance genes identified in research
programs. These investigations will enhance the plant's inherent strength to survive in its
environment. There is good reason to believe, based on the tremendous recent progress
in identifying pest-resistance genes, that numerous genes identified by these
approaches will be incorporated into crop plants in the future. The promise of durable
resistance can only be reached, however, if breeding programs also strive to enhance,
rather than diminish, the genetic diversity of plants grown in forest or agricultural
ecosystems. Stable and long-lasting pest management will depend on the availability of
crop plants with broad bases of genetic variability.

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ECOLOGICALLY BASED PEST MANAGEMENT

EBPM
EBPM will be implemented on a farm level and must be profitable for the grower.
Adoption of an alternative pest-management strategy depends on its relative profitability,
risk, public policies, and the information and education available to the grower. The
realistic potential of EBPM systems will, in large part, depend on how feasible those
systems appear to the individuals who must implement the systems. Management
systems that effectively suppress pest populations but suffer from poor profits, high
risks, discouragement by public policy, or lack of available information for the grower will
not be implemented.

The economic feasibility of pest management must be determined by examining

the economic factors a grower might consider when considering adoption of EBPM
strategies. It should be noted that a larger knowledge base is necessary to make
economic comparisons of EBPM strategies.

Economic Feasibility of Pest Management

Economic feasibility, as defined by Reichelderfer (1981), refers to the likelihood that a

management system will bring net returns greater or equal to that of any other
management system being considered by a grower. A grower will be encouraged to
adopt an ecologically based technology if it results in net profit at least as great as does
the system the grower is currently using. Relative profit is a great incentive to adoption.
Indeed, if the profit margin is great enough, growers may even be induced to alter their
management styles in order to take advantage of the new opportunity.

Economic feasibility does not consider social costs and benefits, but it is the starting
point for broader analysis of the desirability of a pest-management system (Headly,
1985; Reichelderfer, 1985). Reichelderfer (1981) and Carlson (1988) identified several
factors which determine economic feasibility. These factors can be grouped either as
pest control factors or economic factors. The interrelationships between these two
factors indicate how difficult it is to achieve economic feasibility, and the need for
biological and social scientists to cooperate in research, development, and distribution of
ecologically based management systems (Headly, 1985; Reichelderfer, 1981).

Pest-Control Factors
Three pest-control factors that have important effects on the economic feasibility of a
pest-management system are (1) the severity of pest-induced losses, (2) the variability

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

6
of pest populations, and (3) the technical efficacy of the management system. These
factors are defined in the discussion below.

A pest-management approach is economically feasible only if it reduces an important

pest population to an extent that it no longer limits profitability. If even low population
densities of the pest can cause serious damage, economic losses may remain too high
after the management system is implemented and the relative economic benefits from
the management system will decrease (Carlson, 1988; Reichelderfer, 1981). Hence, the
economic feasibility of an ecologically based pest-management system will depend on
how much damage the steady-state population of the pest can cause. Economically
feasible, ecologically based control may be easier to effect for pests that can be
tolerated at moderate populations without economic damage.

The variability of the pest population over time and space can also affect economic
feasibility of a management system. If the pest is only a problem every few years, then
an economically rational decision would be to wait until the pest surpassed an economic
threshold before treating it. Waiting to employ a biological-control organism until the pest
problem becomes severe, however, may not be feasible for all biological-control
organisms and depends on their method of deployment. Inoculating the crop to prevent
a pest problem that occurs only infrequently will result in unnecessary expenses in some
or perhaps most years. In cases where the pest problem occurs frequently and
predictably, routine inoculation with biological-control organisms may be economically
feasible (Carlson, 1988; Reichelderfer, 1981). In contrast, some augmentative or
classical biological control can provide permanent population reduction below economic
levels, i.e., prevent the pest from becoming a pest. This is an advantage in many
cases—classical biological control using organisms is preventative rather than
therapeutic.

Technical efficacy of an ecologically based management system refers to the ability of

the system to prevent or reduce damage caused by pest populations. As the
management system becomes more efficacious, it becomes more economically feasible,
assuming there is no change in other factors such as the cost of other production inputs,
the prices of commodities, or the effectiveness of alternative management systems
(Reichelderfer, 1981).

Economic Factors

Economic factors such as crop price and yield, costs of alternate management methods,
and implementation costs determine the economic return a grower realizes from use of
an alternative pest control system.

Crop price and yield determine the gross return a grower receives per hectare. As the
gross return goes up, so does the value per unit of pest damage, which in turn increases
the value of management systems that decrease the damage (Carlson, 1988;
Reichelderfer, 1981). Crops that produce large gross returns per hectare create strong
incentives to invest in pest-management systems. Growers will, in general, be more
willing to invest in alternative pest control systems when the value per hectare of the
crop they are producing is large. Ecologically based management systems that solve
pest problems that cannot be solved with current systems will be immediately attractive
to growers, particularly if the cost of current pest damage is high.

New, ecologically based management strategies will compete for adoption and
implementation with the systems currently used by growers. In most cases, the current
system is based on the use of broad-spectrum, conventional pesticides to kill pests. The
costs of an alternative management system include the costs of (1) pesticide, biological-

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

7
control organism, biological-control product, or other supplemental input, (2) capital
investment of machinery, (3) machinery operation, (4) management time, and (5) labor
(Carlson, 1988).

Some ecologically based methods are much cheaper than current systems.
Reichelderfer (1981) and Cate and Hinkle (1993) for example, noted the cost
advantages of classical biological-control methods over pesticides. The benefits of
permanent, successful pest management achieved with a one-time introduction of a
biological-control organism will, over time, be more cost-effective than annual pesticide
applications. Costs of seasonal releases of a biological-control organism may be
competitive with pesticidal alternatives (Reichelderfer, 1985).

Implementation costs are the costs imposed by switching to and learning a new
management system. These costs also include the time and money the grower must
invest in physical and human capital to be able to use the new management system.
Switching to a new system may require training or the purchase of equipment and
retirement of current equipment. Initially, more labor and presumably more management
for an indefinite time period would be required to learn and integrate the management
system into the farming system. Any effects of a new pest-management system on farm
program eligibility, off-farm employment, or other factors affecting income are also
included in implementation costs.

Implementation costs are very important considerations for growers deciding to

implement alternative pest-management systems. The more similar the new
management system is to the current system, the less likely new machinery will be
needed, and the easier it will be to learn the new system—all resulting in low
implementation costs. Biological-control organisms formulated as seed treatments, for
example, may be readily integrated into current agricultural practices and require no
specialized equipment for implementation.

Plant breeding for arthropod and disease resistance is an excellent example of an

ecologically based approach that has been easily integrated into current production
systems. Growers regularly substitute one resistant variety for another with very low
implementation costs. Indeed, the ongoing development of new resistant varieties is the
primary line of defense against important plant diseases such as wheat rusts that
annually spread into the United States from Mexico.

The potential of ecologically based management systems may depend as much on how
well they meet the economic criteria of those who use them, as on their direct effect on
pest populations.

Economic Feasibility and Risk

Risk plays a large role in a grower's decision to adopt a new pest-management system.
In the case of growers, the value of controlling a pest, whose incidence varies in an
uncertain way, is greater than the average loss caused to them by the pest. Risk-averse
growers are willing to pay a premium or insurance charge to reduce the risk of
uncertainty they face (Tisdell et al., 1984: p. 172).

In other words, growers are interested in minimizing the variability surrounding returns
and yields as well as the absolute return or yield achieved (Headly, 1985).

There are tradeoffs between expected net returns and year-to-year variability of returns
(Kramer et al., 1983; Reichelderfer, 1981). Kramer et al. (1983) found that profit
maximization and risk aversion were the most important criteria determining the choice
of soil conservation technologies. Even when required to meet reduction standards, risk-

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

8
averse growers chose the more erosive systems to guarantee less net return variability;
risk-neutral growers adopted more practices optimizing soil conservation.

Growers have been quick to adopt pesticides because of the certainty pesticides bring to
production and profitability, and increased uncertainty about pest damage results in
increased use of pesticides. Too much variability in net returns from year to year may
induce a risk-averse grower to select a pest-management system that produces more
certain results even if average returns are lower (Headly, 1985; Tisdell et al., 1984).
Risk-averse growers with tight cash flows may decide to use a production system that
brings a lower average return but has less income variability than a production system
that is more variable but has a higher average return. This also could speak to
technology systems where the returns over the life of the investment are high but initial
returns are low.

Uncertainty about the efficacy of ecologically based management systems is a major

source of concern for growers. Uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness and
consistency of alternative pest-management systems has been a barrier to the adoption
of IPM practices. Fernandez-Cornejo et al. (1992), for example, found that adopters of
IPM technologies were less risk-averse than those who did not adopt IPM. Risk-averse
growers were more likely to rely on a conventional pesticide system (Fernandez-Cornejo
et al., 1992) and placed more value on immediate reduction of the pest (Reichelderfer,
1985). Risk averse growers may be reluctant to forgo application of a pesticide while
waiting for uncertain results from an ecologically based system.

Risk also depends on the stability and supply of the biological-control organisms,
biological-control products, or other supplemental inputs to ecologically based systems.
A steady supply of biological-control organisms or other inputs to the system or
knowledge is essential to insure that growers can find what they need, when they need
it. Though supply shortages can also occur in conventional pest-management systems,
uncertainty about the availability or use of an essential component of an ecologically
based system increases the risk to the grower of using that system.

The interaction of economic feasibility and risk largely determines the likelihood that an
ecologically based management system will be adopted or implemented by growers.
Economic feasibility and risk can create both barriers to or opportunities for the
implementation of ecologically based management systems. A national initiative to
develop and implement ecologically based systems should focus on those strategic
opportunities where the economic feasibility and risk characteristics increase the
likelihood of eventual adoption and implementation by growers.

Safety, profitability, and durability are not mutually exclusive, but the public interest in
reducing risk to human and environmental health may outweigh private considerations of
economic feasibility. Directing investments toward ecologically based systems that are
economically feasible and less risky for growers will help ensure that the systems are
profitable and at least economically durable. Growers, however, cannot consider all the
social and environmental costs of alternative management systems when they make
their decisions. For instance, society needs to consider costs to monitor for potential
development of resistance of EBPM solutions implemented in managed agricultural and
forest ecosystems. The public at large also benefits from effective, long-term solutions to
pest problems that minimize environmental and health risks. Strategic opportunities to
encourage grower adoption and minimize the ecological and human health risks should
also be explicitly identified as part of the planning for a national initiative to implement
ecologically based management systems.

As a first step, an ecologically based management initiative should be directed to

systems that initially promise to reduce risks to human or environmental health posed by

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

9
current management practices, promise to achieve lasting solutions to pest problems,
solve pest problems that have no feasible pesticide solution, are less expensive than
conventional pesticides or are applicable to high-value crops, require minimal changes in
current production systems, and promise to reduce the risk and variability of annual
returns to the grower.

Ecologically based systems that meet one of these criteria are targets for investment of
public resources; systems that meet several of these investment criteria are the most
promising targets.

Growers are likely to adopt EBPM systems that generate lower risks and higher profits.
There is always perceived risk in embracing new technologies; the greater the
divergence from previous practices, the greater the perceived risk. The value of
information is that it reduces the pest manager's uncertainty about pest control decision
making (Lawson, 1982), thereby increasing the likelihood of acceptance of a new
practice. The public at large has an opportunity to invest in new knowledge and tools
that will help the grower successfully implement ecologically based pest-management
systems.

REFERENCES:

1.Alston, D. G. (2011). Pest Management Decision-Making : The Economic-Injury Level

Concept. Utah State University Extension, Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory,.

2. Rao, C. S. (2015). Insect Ecology & Integrated Pest Management

3. Trainee Manual: Introduction to Integrated Pest Management. Revised January 2011.

Crop Life International

Crop Protection 2: Approaches and Practices in Pest Management

10