8.2 Principles and Steps of Integrated Pest Management

8.1 Principles and Steps of Integrated Pest Management

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) represents an ecologically sound, comprehensive approach to pest control that combines multiple pest management tools and strategies. Rather than attempting to eradicate all pests through scheduled, prophylactic chemical applications—a practice that historical experience has proven unsustainable due to secondary pest outbreaks, environmental contamination, and accelerated pesticide resistance—IPM focuses on long-term prevention and targeted suppression.

Under New York State policy and modern agronomic standards, pesticide applicators are expected to understand and implement IPM principles across all operational settings, including agricultural crops, commercial turf and ornamentals, structural pest control, and sensitive public facilities.

---

1. The Foundational Philosophy of IPM

IPM is defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as 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.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                     CORE PHILOSOPHICAL TENETS OF IPM                    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  1. Suppression, Not Eradication: Maintain pests below damaging levels  |
|  2. Ecological Decision-Making: Consider natural enemy-to-pest ratios   |
|  3. Multi-Tactic Integration: Combine Cultural, Physical, & Biological  |
|  4. Chemical as Targeted Last Resort: Use selective, biorational tools   |
|  5. Site-Specific Flexibility: Adapt to microclimates and land-use goals|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Key Philosophical Distinctions

• Suppression vs. Eradication: Complete elimination (eradication) of a pest population is rarely feasible, economically justifiable, or ecologically desirable outside of strict public health quarantines or exotic invasive species introductions. Eradication eliminates the food source for resident natural predators and parasitoids, leaving the ecosystem vulnerable to catastrophic pest resurgence. IPM aims for suppression—maintaining pest population density below the level where intolerable economic, aesthetic, or health damage occurs.
• Proactive Prevention vs. Reactive Spraying: Traditional pest control applied chemicals on a rigid calendar schedule regardless of pest presence. IPM prioritizes cultural and physical prevention, reserving chemical intervention for verified threshold breaches.
• Ecosystem Integration: IPM views the managed site (crop field, greenhouse, golf green, school lawn, commercial warehouse) as a dynamic ecosystem where plant vigor, soil biology, weather patterns, and beneficial organisms interact.

---

2. The 5 Sequential Steps of an IPM Program

Every successful IPM program follows a structured, five-step decision loop. Bypassing any step leads to misdiagnoses, wasted resources, unnecessary chemical exposure, and control failures.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                    THE 5 SEQUENTIAL STEPS OF IPM                        |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                         |
|   [STEP 1] Proper Pest Identification                                   |
|            - Morphology, biology, life cycle stage, host symptoms       |
|                                   |                                     |
|                                   v                                     |
|   [STEP 2] Monitoring and Scouting                                      |
|            - Systematic sampling, sticky cards, pheromones, GDD models  |
|                                   |                                     |
|                                   v                                     |
|   [STEP 3] Establishing Action Thresholds                               |
|            - Economic Injury Level (EIL) vs Economic Threshold (ET)     |
|            - Aesthetic and public health thresholds                     |
|                                   |                                     |
|                                   v                                     |
|   [STEP 4] Implementing Multi-Tactic Controls                           |
|            - Cultural -> Physical/Mechanical -> Biological -> Chemical  |
|                                   |                                     |
|                                   v                                     |
|   [STEP 5] Evaluation and Recordkeeping                                 |
|            - Efficacy assessment, population trends, NYS compliance     |
|                                                                         |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Step 1: Proper Pest Identification

Accurate identification is the non-negotiable foundation of all pest management. An applicator cannot design an effective control strategy without knowing precisely what organism is causing the observed symptoms.

1. Biological Specificity: Different pest species—even those within the same genus—vary dramatically in their susceptibility to specific control tactics, developmental timing, and feeding habits.
2. Targeting Vulnerable Life Stages: Most pests are susceptible to control only during specific windows in their life cycle. For example:
   • Scale insects are highly vulnerable to horticultural oils and contact insecticides during their mobile crawler stage, but almost completely immune once they secrete their protective waxy cover.
   • White grubs (Popillia japonica, Rhizotrogus majalis) in turfgrass are easily controlled when young (1st and 2nd instars in late summer), but highly tolerant as mature 3rd instars in spring.
   • Weed seedlings are readily killed by selective post-emergence herbicides at the 2-to-4 leaf stage, but develop thick cuticles and deep root reserves as mature plants.
3. Distinguishing Pests from Beneficial Organisms: Untrained observers frequently mistake predatory organisms for pests. For example, predatory lady beetle larvae resemble tiny spiny alligators and are voracious aphid predators, but are often misidentified as pests and sprayed with broad-spectrum insecticides.
4. Distinguishing Biotic Damage from Abiotic Disorders: Applicators must differentiate pest-induced injury from abiotic environmental stresses such as drought stress, fertilizer burn, soil compaction, frost damage, poor drainage, or road salt injury. Applying pesticides to abiotic damage wastes money and adds environmental stress to already compromised plants.

Step 2: Monitoring, Scouting, and Phenological Modeling

Monitoring involves systematic, routine inspection of the management site to detect pest presence, determine population density, track developmental progress, and evaluate natural enemy activity.

Sampling Techniques and Tools

• Visual Inspection: Systematic field transects using standardized sampling patterns (e.g., zigzag, "W" pattern, or grid sampling) to inspect specific plant parts (leaf undersides, stem bases, crown tissue).
• Knockdown and Beating Trays: Shaking branches over a white tray or cloth to dislodge and count tiny arthropods such as spider mites, thrips, and predatory bugs.
• Trapping Devices:
  • Sticky Cards: Yellow sticky cards attract and capture winged aphids, whiteflies, fungus gnats, and leafhoppers; blue sticky cards are optimized for western flower thrips.
  • Pheromone Traps: Baited with synthetic female sex pheromones to monitor adult male flight periods for pests like codling moth, peachtree borer, and oriental fruit moth. Traps indicate when adults emerge and mate, allowing precise timing of ovicide or larvicide sprays.
  • Pitfall Traps: Cups sunk flush into soil to monitor ground-dwelling beetles, billbugs, and weevils.

Phenological Modeling and Growing Degree Days (GDD)

Pests do not develop according to calendar dates; their developmental rates are dictated by temperature (physiological time). Phenology is the study of recurring biological events in relation to weather and climate.

Applicators utilize Growing Degree Day (GDD) models to accurately predict insect emergence, egg hatch, and weed seed germination. A Growing Degree Day represents the accumulation of heat units above a specific developmental baseline temperature ($T_{\text{base}}$) over a 24-hour period.

$\text{GDD} = \frac{T_{\max} + T_{\min}}{2} - T_{\text{base}}$

• Where $T_{\max}$ is the daily maximum temperature (°F or °C).
• Where $T_{\min}$ is the daily minimum temperature (°F or °C).
• Where $T_{\text{base}}$ is the base threshold temperature below which metabolic development ceases (typically $50^\circ\text{F}$ or $10^\circ\text{C}$ for most warm-season insects and turf weeds; $40^\circ\text{F}$ for cool-season organisms).

[!NOTE] Operational Rule for GDD Calculation: If the calculated average daily temperature $\frac{T_{\max} + T_{\min}}{2}$ is less than or equal to $T_{\text{base}}$, zero GDDs are accumulated for that day (GDD cannot be a negative value). Furthermore, if $T_{\max}$ exceeds an upper developmental cutoff (typically $86^\circ\text{F}$ or $30^\circ\text{C}$ for many species), $T_{\max}$ is set to the cutoff value in modified sine-wave calculations.

Phenological Indicator Plants: In addition to mathematical GDD tracking, applicators monitor blooming sequences of common landscape plants that share heat accumulation requirements with target pests. For example:

• Forsythia full bloom (~35–50 GDD Base 50°F) coincides with the start of smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum) germination and Eastern tent caterpillar egg hatch.
• Full bloom of Syringa vulgaris (common lilac, ~150–200 GDD) coincides with pine needle scale crawler emergence.

Step 3: Establishing Action Thresholds

The presence of a pest does not automatically justify pesticide application. In an IPM program, control measures are initiated only when the pest population reaches a predetermined Action Threshold.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                 ECONOMIC INJURY LEVEL & THRESHOLD DYNAMICS              |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                         |
|  PEST POPULATION                                                        |
|       ^                                                                 |
|       |                                                                 |
|       |                      /---\        <-- PEST OUTBREAK             |
|       |                     /     \                                     |
|  EIL -+--------------------/-------\---------------------------------   |
|       |                   /         \                                   |
|   ET -+------------------/           \--- <-- MANAGEMENT ACTION TAKEN   |
|       |                 /                                               |
|       |                /                      (Pest population declines |
|       |    /\    /\   /                        before reaching EIL)     |
|       |---/--\--/--\-/----------------------------------------------    |
|       +------------------------------------------------------------>    |
|                                   TIME                                  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

1. Economic Injury Level (EIL)

The Economic Injury Level (EIL) is the lowest pest population density that will cause economic damage equal to the cost of applying pest control measures. Below the EIL, the financial cost of applying a pesticide exceeds the value of the crop yield saved.

The mathematical model for EIL is expressed as:

$\text{EIL} = \frac{C}{V \times I \times D \times K}$

• $C$ = Cost of management per production unit (e.g., $ / acre for chemical + labor + equipment fuel).
• $V$ = Market value per unit of yield (e.g., $ / bushel, $ / crate, $ / ton).
• $I$ = Injury per pest density (e.g., percentage leaf area defoliated per insect per plant).
• $D$ = Damage per unit injury (e.g., yield loss per unit of defoliated leaf area).
• $K$ = Proportionate reduction in pest population achieved by the treatment (treatment efficacy, typically 0.80 to 0.98).

Economic Dynamics of EIL:

• If Crop Value ($V$) increases, the EIL decreases (growers can afford to treat lower pest densities because saved crop is worth more).
• If Management Cost ($C$) increases, the EIL increases (growers must tolerate higher pest densities before treatment becomes financially viable).

2. Economic Threshold (ET / Action Threshold)

The Economic Threshold (ET), also termed the Action Threshold, is the pest population density at which management action must be initiated to prevent an increasing pest population from reaching the Economic Injury Level.

• The ET is always set below the EIL.
• The gap between ET and EIL provides the critical operational lead time required to order products, schedule equipment, make applications, and allow the control tactic to suppress the pest before economic losses occur.

3. Aesthetic Thresholds

In landscape management, commercial turfgrass, golf courses, and interior plantscapes, pest damage does not result in measurable crop yield loss. Instead, damage is evaluated by human visual perception and client tolerance. An Aesthetic Threshold is the pest density or damage level that visibly diminishes the appearance or functional quality of the plant or turf below acceptable standards.

4. Public Health and Medical Thresholds

When managing pests that transmit human or animal pathogens (disease vectors), economic and aesthetic calculations are replaced by health thresholds. In many public health contexts, thresholds approach zero tolerance:

• Bed bugs (Cimex lectularius): Zero tolerance in hotels, schools, and healthcare facilities.
• Blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis): Very low threshold in high-use school grounds and public parks due to Lyme disease and babesiosis transmission risk.
• Rodents (Rattus norvegicus, Mus musculus): Zero tolerance in food processing plants, commercial kitchens, and hospitals.

Step 4: Implementing Multi-Tactic Controls

When monitoring reveals that pest populations have reached the action threshold, applicators select and deploy a coordinated combination of control tactics, prioritizing non-chemical methods and selecting targeted, low-toxicity chemistries when pesticides are required.

Step 5: Evaluation, Documentation, and Recordkeeping

The final step of IPM assesses whether the implemented tactic achieved the desired level of pest suppression while protecting non-target organisms.

• Post-Treatment Scouting: Conduct follow-up scouting 24 hours to 7 days post-application to determine percentage mortality and verify that population density has dropped below the action threshold.
• Evaluating Non-Target Impacts: Check for signs of crop phytotoxicity, beneficial predator mortality, or secondary pest flare.
• Long-Term Trend Analysis: Maintain historical logs to identify seasonal pest hotspots, recurring weed escapes, and emerging resistance patterns.
• Regulatory Compliance: Under New York 6 NYCRR § 325.25, commercial applicators must record all application parameters and retain records for at least 3 years.

3. Comparative Frameworks: Thresholds and IPM Decision Matrix

Understanding the operational distinctions between different threshold classifications and following the sequential decision matrix are critical for passing the NY Core Exam.

Comparison of Pest Action Threshold Classifications

---

5-Step IPM Sequential Decision Matrix

---

4. Regulatory Context: IPM Mandates in New York State

New York State has enacted some of the nation's most progressive statutes integrating IPM into public policy:

1. The Child Safe Playing Fields Act (ECL § 33-0303 & Education Law § 409-k):
   • Prohibits the application of all EPA-registered chemical pesticides on the grounds of public, private, and charter schools, as well as licensed daycare centers, covering turf, athletic fields, playgrounds, and ornamental plantings.
   • Only non-chemical cultural practices (aeration, overseeding, high mowing), mechanical weeding, EPA Section 25(b) minimum risk products (registered with NYSDEC), and biopesticides are permitted under routine maintenance.
   • Synthetic chemical pesticides may be applied on school grounds only under a formal Emergency Exemption granted by the local school board in consultation with local health departments or the NYSDEC to protect against imminent threats to public health (e.g., stinging wasp nests near entrances, severe tick infestations).
2. New York State Agency Environmental Executive Orders:
   • State agencies, public authorities, and state-funded facilities are mandated to adopt formal IPM policies, prioritize organic and non-chemical pest suppression, and reduce overall pesticide volume annually.
3. New York State IPM Program (Cornell University):
   • Established by the NYS Legislature in 1985, the Cornell NYS IPM Program develops and disseminates science-based IPM protocols across community, agricultural, and school environments statewide.