Background

The central challenge of this national program is the economical and sustainable management of insect, mite, and weed pests in U.S. agriculture, while minimizing negative consequences to the environment.  Crop losses in the United States due to insects, diseases and weeds have been estimated at between 33% and 37% in recent decades, figures that have changed little from the 31%-34% range of the 1940’s and 1950’s.  A substantial reliance on chemical pesticides throughout this period has called into question the potential negative impacts of pesticides on the environment and on the public.  These concerns were highlighted in Silent Spring, published by Rachel Carson in 1962, and have been raised repeatedly since that time.  A need for alternatives to sole reliance on pesticides led to increased attention to the use of “Integrated Control,” or “Integrated Pest Management,” as it is now called, and commonly referred to as “IPM.”   IPM was defined by R. van den Bosch in 1971 as a pest management system that utilizes all suitable techniques to reduce or maintain pest populations at levels below those that cause economic injury.  IPM development and implementation are complex and require a more complete understanding of both the pests and the ecosystem in which they are located than is generally considered.  Furthermore, IPM does not inherently exclude pesticides, but calls for a comprehensive pest management program that minimizes reliance on chemicals.  A analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 1997 by W. J. Lewis and colleagues makes a case for “a total system approach to sustainable pest management.”  These authors argue that a search for “silver bullets” inevitably leads to disappointment, as the complex ecosystem reacts with countermoves and adjustments to the system.  For sustainable pest management to be achieved, farming practices and pest control measures must be compatible with both natural and crop ecosystems.

In addition to environmental issues, the potential impact of pesticides on human health has been a concern and has led to enactment of The Food Quality and Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, which builds on a National Research Council report, “Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children” in 1993.  The FQPA takes into account the cumulative exposure to multiple chemicals that act though a common mechanism and sets a 10-fold extra margin of safety for exposure to pesticides.  In spite of these considerations, U.S. agriculture remains dependent upon chemical pesticides, a situation that was recently reviewed by the National Research Council in “The Future Role of Pesticides in U.S. Agriculture” in 2000.  This report recognizes the importance of “maintaining a diversity of tools for maximizing flexibility, precision, and stability of pest management,” and recommends that the public sector focus its research on a number of problem areas including “pest biology and ecology, integration of several pest management tools in managed and natural ecosystems, and targeted applications of pesticides.”

The response of the private sector to these challenges has included the discovery and development of pesticides that are more specifically designed for control of pests, with reduced impact on non-target organisms (including humans) and the environment.  At the same time, the advent of biotechnology has provided genetically modified crops that are protected against some insect pests, as well as being able to withstand herbicides that are applied for weed control.  However, with both biologically rational pesticides and the new products of biotechnology, the development of resistance by these pests remains of paramount concern.  No matter how advanced the techniques of pest management become, the fundamental biological principles of genetic variation and selection pressure will inevitably lead to the development of resistance in target pests.  Therefore, it is necessary to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the biology and ecology of these pests, the crop systems that they attack, and the natural ecosystem that provides their environmental context.  Only then, can new technologies for the pest management tool box be developed and employed in an integrated, sustainable system.  

These considerations apply to both arthropod (i.e., insects, mites) and weed pests.  Weeds, as well as insects, are present in virtually every ecosystem and require a variety of management techniques.  A number of specific biological characteristics distinguish weeds from other plants, and it is important to understand the particular biology of weeds so that new methods of control may be developed.  A thorough knowledge of the biology and ecology of weeds, pest insects and mites, and particularly invasive plant and arthropod species, is necessary for their interdiction and management in agricultural and natural ecosystems.

These issues reflect the concerns expressed by our customers, stakeholders, and partners at planning workshops designed to solicit their input.  This document, in turn, describes the research needed to address these issues, which have been incorporated into the Crop Protection and Quarantine National Program components summarized below.  Crop protection in this context is defined broadly to include row crops, vegetables, fruit and nuts, greenhouse production systems, horticulture, ornamentals, and postharvest concerns.

Component I:  Identification and Classification of Insects and Mites

Research on systematics (taxonomy) of arthropods is necessary to solve the problems caused by invasive species.  The focus will be on developing comprehensive studies of entire groups of arthropod pests that include current or potential invasive species.  In concert with these studies, a multidisciplinary approach will be used to develop on-line, easy-to-use identification systems for pest arthropod and beneficial species, that will provide an early warning system for effective pest management of invasive and emerging pest species.

Component II:  Biology of Pests and Natural Enemies (Microbes)

The development of effective IPM strategies depends upon an in-depth knowledge of the biology and ecology of pests and their natural enemies.  For IPM to be successful, it is necessary to investigate the biology for each major arthropod pest and its natural enemies for each cropping system, including physiology, nutrition, mating, fecundity, life tables, and developmental processes that impact ecological interactions.

Component III:  Plant, Pest, and Natural Enemy Interactions and Ecology

It is critical for successful use of biologically-based control, as part of IPM, to increase our knowledge of insect and mite population dynamics and ecology, as well as multi-trophic interactions among the biotic components of agricultural production systems.  Research is needed to define the ecology of pest complexes and to determine the impact of pest-plant-natural enemy interactions on the effectiveness of IPM systems, and to apply this knowledge to improve estimates of economic and action thresholds.  In addition, this knowledge may be used to develop plant varieties that combine pest resistance while promoting natural enemy activity.

Component IV:  Postharvest, Pest Exclusion, and Quarantine Treatment

Threats from exotic insect pests come from throughout the world and are of increasing importance because of the increase in global trade.  A major thrust of the research in this component is aimed at stopping the geographical spread of exotic insect pests; providing for the safe movement of commercial agricultural commodities out of areas already invaded; reducing costs and damage to agriculture in those invaded areas; and developing environmentally acceptable and economically feasible systems to eradicate established populations.  A second major thrust is the protection of postharvest commodities from pests, which requires sensitive systems for the detection and identification of pests.  This is particularly important when commodities are being imported or destined for export and when rigorous quarantine regulations must be considered.  Quarantine treatments that do not require methyl bromide must be developed and optimized.  Research is needed to improve pest insect detection and control in milling, processing, packaging and transport of commodities.

Component V:  Pest Control Technologies

Successful IPM depends upon the availability of an array of component technologies that can be effectively combined to achieve environmentally-safe pest management.  Research areas that will be emphasized to achieve this goal include (1) sampling, monitoring, detection, and validation of pest populations, (2) efficient production, delivery and utilization of beneficial organisms used in biological control, (3) response measures to control emerging and invasive pests, (4) development of selective chemical control strategies including those for minor crops, and (5) alternative control tactics such as resistant varieties and cultural measures, and other biologically-based strategies.

Component VI:  Integrated Pest Management Systems and Areawide Suppression Programs

The implementation of IPM and areawide pest management programs will provide producers with safe and economical food production systems, reduce environmental risk, conserve our natural resources, and increase the competitiveness of producers.  Emphasis will be placed on the implementation of practical integrated crop protection and production systems that are suitable for widespread use by growers on multiple scales in traditional or specialized production systems.

Component VII:  Weed Biology and Ecology

The biology and ecology of weeds and potentially invasive plants must be investigated in order to understand the adaptive mechanisms that allow these species to succeed in a variety of ecosystems and cause decreased production of food and fiber while, at the same time, degrading our natural environment.  Research on the biology and ecology of serious weeds and other invasive plants will result in effective interdiction and control and will benefit many sectors of the economy and the public at large.

Component VIII:  Chemical Control of Weeds

There is a continuing need for environmentally friendly herbicides, as non-chemical controls have not proven effective for many important weeds.  There is a need for research to ensure the continued effectiveness of existing herbicides, as well as the evaluation of new herbicides.  This is especially true for minor crops that provide a smaller economic incentive for the private sector to develop new compounds for weed control than is the case for crops that command larger acreage.

Component IX:  Biological Control of Weeds 

Biological control of weeds has already been proven effective for particular species, but much greater research is needed for effective biological control of a greater range of weed species.  Increased understanding of the affected ecosystems and the nature and source of a particular weed is necessary in order to determine whether classical biological control, augmentation or conservation would be the most effective strategy for non-chemical control in a given situation.  Research is needed on a variety of biological control alternatives including insects, fungi, bacteria, nematodes and viruses in order to evaluate them for application in biological control programs.

Component X:  Weed Management Systems 

Weed management that focuses on specific techniques such as the use of herbicides, tillage or biological control may result in the development of weed populations that escape control and threaten the ecosystem.  Research is needed on systems strategies that use multiple approaches to develop a comprehensive management program that will be effective in the long term and which include both preventive strategies and control approaches.  Increased research is needed on the biology and population dynamics of weeds in response to crop and soil management systems.

Vision

Pest management for a sustainable agriculture 

Mission

To provide technology to manage pest populations below economic damage thresholds by the integration of environmentally compatible technologies that are based on increased understanding of the biology, ecology and impacts of insect, mite and weed pests.

Planning Process and Plan Development

ARS scientists and administrators met with customers, stakeholders, and partners at a series of workshops that were designed to discuss major issues and priorities for the Crop Protection and Quarantine National Program.  These workshops were as follows:  Stored Product Insects, Manhattan, Kansas, October, 1999; Exotic Pests, Honolulu, Hawaii, January, 2000; Weed Science, Dulles, Virginia, July 2000; and Crop Protection and Quarantine, San Diego, California, October, 2000.  Based on these in-depth exchanges, the research components summarized above were identified for this National Program.

Writing teams composed of ARS scientists and members of the National Program Staff were formed to develop planning documents that will provide a framework for ARS research.  The writing team used input from the workshop, their own knowledge of the subject matter area, and input from ARS scientists and their cooperators to identify researchable problems that will be addressed.  This planning document provides background information about the overall action plan, its components and related problem areas.  It explains why a particular research area is important, how it will be addressed, and the benefits of conducting the research.  Many ARS projects are associated with more than one National Program because their objectives are broad enough to encompass more than one area, and because National Programs overlap in order to address broad problems of U.S. agriculture.  Individual research projects associated with this National Program are listed at the end of each component.  These projects may address more than one component and more than one problem area, but are categorized under the component reflecting the primary research thrust of the project.  After a public comment period this planning document will be revised, and the implementation phase of the process will begin.  During the implementation phase, specific research areas will be identified, locations and projects involved will be determined, anticipated products or information generated by the research will be identified, and time lines and milestones for measuring progress toward achieving the goals will be developed.  This approach will result in coordinated, multi-location research projects, conducted by ARS scientists and their cooperators, to address high priority regional and national research needs.  All projects associated with the Crop Protection and Quarantine National Program will be evaluated for scientific quality by an external peer panel in 2004.