Integrated pest management at the crossroads: Science, politics, or business (as usual)?

Arthropod-Plant Interactions, Oct 2015

Heikki M. T. Hokkanen

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11829-015-9403-y.pdf

Integrated pest management at the crossroads: Science, politics, or business (as usual)?

Integrated pest management at the crossroads: Science, politics, or business (as usual)? Heikki M. T. Hokkanen 0 Springer Science 0 Business Media Dordrecht 0 0 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki , Box 27, 00014 Helsinki , Finland Integrated pest management (IPM) arose as a solution to problems associated with the indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides to control pests, diseases and weeds, more than 50 years ago. Elegant solutions have been found to the majority of problems, based on meticulous scientific work and discoveries related to pest (sensu lato) biological properties, ecology, ecosystem function, and technological innovations. Uptake of these methods and application by growers has lagged far behind, despite ambitious government programmes to reduce pesticide use, and political support to IPM. The European Union has taken this support to a new level by passing a directive (2009/128/EC), which effectively requires Member States to ensure that all professional growers follow the principles of IPM, as of 1 January 2014. Are we finally adopting the principles of IPM in plant protection? - Reality gap in IPM The current reality does not generate confidence, if we consider the gap between the traditional IPM principles, as expressed in the ‘‘IPM pyramid’’, and the actual situation in mainstream pest management (Fig. 1). Ideally, pest management is based to a large extent on avoidance, and the use of chemical pesticides is just a small tip of the pyramid. In current reality the pyramid is upside down, where most of the actual pest management is conducted through the use of chemical pesticides. It becomes obvious that this method of pest management will neither be stable nor sustainable. Will science help to close the reality gap, and facilitate adoption of effective IPM throughout all crops, concerning their major pests, diseases and weeds? It is clear that only science can provide the information needed to close the gap, but the real question is whether there are the resources available to conduct all the research needed to support the transition to IPM. An example of research needs is the requirement for scientifically sound economic thresholds for pests; this is critical to both implementing IPM and for use by any decision support system to help growers assess whether control measures are needed. Practically all existing thresholds have been established decades ago— most in the 1970s—while currently, we have completely different crop varieties, cropping systems and technology, and commodity prices. In today’s competitive funding situation for a vast majority of researchers, it is difficult to believe that grant applications addressing establishment of economic thresholds would be successful at any funding agency. Scientists wishing to pursue an academic career will not be easily promoted if their major publications focus on establishing valid economic thresholds for IPM. Academic excellence requires innovations and advances in theories and understanding of fundamental biological and ecological mechanisms. Scientific discoveries are needed for advancing IPM, but clearly are not sufficient for establishing IPM in the field. Fig. 1 The ‘‘reality gap’’ in pest management: ideal IPM as promoted for [50 years (left), and current reality in mainstream pest management (right) Although the political ‘macro’-climate has become favourable to IPM at least in some parts of the world, other political interests may swamp the efforts to make IPM work, or even prevent the first steps towards IPM. A case in point might be the temporary ban on some neonicotinoids in the EU. While the ban was established for the growing seasons of 2014 and 2015, in several countries (e.g., Finland) in both years growers were allowed to use neonicotinoid seed dressing in rapeseed growing via emergency exemption (McGrath 2014). Another example: politics restrict the choices of potential IPM tools, such as growing genetically modified (GM) crops in most European countries. Business (as usual) As a rule, growers are hard pressed by economic and business realities, and seldom have a real choice in selecting the pest management options. That IPM is not taken up by growers to a larger extent is usually not their own choice, but a decision dictated by the markets within the existing legal frame—imposed by politics and in the end, the society at large. A clear example of ‘business as usual’ are the GM crops, and the way they have been handled. GM crops have been taken up by growers at a phenomenal rate, with about 70–80 % of global plantings of some main crops (soya, cotton) being GM (James 2014). The promise of the first generation GM crops has been to provide (1) more efficient pest, disease and weed control, (2) lower use of pesticides, (3) improved biological control, and (4) improved possibility for IPM. Theoretically, most GM crops and their new traits have the potential to significantly improve crop produ (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11829-015-9403-y.pdf

Heikki M. T. Hokkanen. Integrated pest management at the crossroads: Science, politics, or business (as usual)?, Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 2015, pp. 543-545, Volume 9, Issue 6, DOI: 10.1007/s11829-015-9403-y