|
It has long been my contention, that we have been approaching the pest problem in the wrong way. The reason I, believe, is that we have been trying to start to late in the game. Almost all entomologists, and pest professionals agree that we create most of our own pest problems. Why we have not used that as a starting point, is unclear. Integrated pest management has been a dumping ground for half baked ideas , and adhoc methods, a sort of strange alchemic recipe, that comes to us only partially cooked, and unsatisfying. The over use of pesticides, is at least, a perceived problem, and every year it seems that some are removed from the market, due to miss use.
It is time for a new model. A model that starts earlier, and deals with potential problems before they arise. For this new model, I thought it best to use a single pest as an example, but the principles apply to all pests, including vegetative pests, such as hydrilla, kubzu, johnsongrass, and other non natives as well as native pest problems.
A brief example, is the sandbur. If we wanted to avoid them altogether, it would be best, not to incorporate into our lawns, areas, where they are likely to occur, ie, sunny, overly sand, low maintenance areas. Having already made one of these areas a part of our environment, the next step, would be to use a re-engineering solution, such as incorporating organic matter, and changing our cultural practices such as fertilizing, mowing, and irrigation. In this example, re-engineering works well, particularly since this plant pest, cannot live with almost any competition. If anything else grows there, it will become a thing of the past. With some organic matter, well tilled into the soil, some grass seed, some irrigation, and good mowing practices, they will disappear!
Unfortunately, this is rarely done. What usually happens is that chemicals are used as the first step. This can be useful, but it will not solve the problem, but only treats the symptoms. like giving an aspirin to a person with a fever. It may cause the fever to subside, but the infection still exists. We can give this individual antibiotics, to get rid of the cause, but if this person is living in an environment where infection is likely to recur, the problem will return.
Beginning at the beginning:
First we start with a nice piece of property, which sets several million miles from a big ball of burning gas, populate it with a lot of varieties of life, and you have our planet.
Now let's say we want to build something on this property. Where do we locate it? Next to a swamp, great idea! Mosquitoes have to eat too! We can build a school in that more arid location 5 miles away, and do some earth work in preparation , those low spots won't matter, water will just flow right out of them, the blueprint says so!
Sound far fetched? It's not, it happens all the time! I recently read an article, which said, that the official story is not to be believed, that IPM is a failure! The sad thing is, that the guy was right! IPM, as we are defining and using it at this time, will not solve the problems we want it to. It wasn't designed to. It has been gradually built up from an incomplete model, which starts with the assumption that all insect problems are a result of what nature does, by nature. We can fish all day in that hole, but we will not catch dinner. Every botanist and entomologist I have ever spoken with, knows, that most of the problems with insects, are a result of something we have done, or, are doing.
I propose that we build a new model, and that it start with prevention.
IPM: Building a Prevention Model
Face it, we live in a world with a lot of problems that we will never be able to solve. We can, however, exercise a certain amount of control over these troubles, by using the tools we have developed over time. At some point, we should begin to see patterns to the problems, and try to trace these back to a cause.
I know the temptation is to deal with the problem at hand, and forget about it until the next time it arises. It is the "fireman" approach to problems. I once worked with an organization that existed by this method. The results were not favorable.
My question in that situation, was: "Why not PREVENT the fires to begin with?" The answer always involved details of why it would have cost too much to have done it right to begin with. They really thought that saving a few bucks in the early stages was more cost effective than doing it right, and saving the added expense of attempting to "maintain it out" through the coming years!
Our standard definitions of IPM fall into the "fireman" category. We should be in the prevention mode, but we are just treating symptoms.
The time has come to create a new model, a prevention model.
We have problems with pests in schools, parks and homes, in most cases, because we create them by our actions. Not that the pests are not already there, but that we provide habitats for them and increase their numbers. We are far enough along in entomology, to know what our pests like to eat, where they like to live, and what types of cover they prefer, yet, we create environments favorable to them, and are astonished when they move in! This is true of all pests, including weeds and grassy weeds. We have difficulty with "goose grass", because we are trying to have a lawn where a hard-scape should exist, and the compaction resulting from foot traffic prevents anything else from growing there. We have sand burrs, because we have incorporated an area with low fertility where nothing else will grow, and they spring up as a result of poor design, or poor cultural practices. Plant scientists, and entomologists, have long known that we create most of our problems where pests are involved.
There are far too many pests to attempt to write out each case individually, So I have chosen one of the more devastating ones from the perspective of disease and health care, the mosquito, to serve as our model, logical extensions to dealing with other pests by using the prevention model should simply be a matter of transferring the concepts.
Outline:
A new model for IPM, using the mosquito control model as a baseline example.
Our outline will begin with 3 simple phrases, on which we will build:
I. Prevention: Stopping the problem before it starts.
II. Solutions: Solving the problems created by ignoring part one, by re-engineering.
III. Treatment: This is where other definitions start, the fusing of different methods, when you have done everything else wrong.
The Mosquito Model:
The mosquito is a member of the culicidae family of flies. The female gains sustenance for reproduction from penetrating and withdrawing blood from it's victim with it's long needle like proboscis, and is a carrier of many diseases, including malaria, the worlds largest, deadliest, disease killer, West Nile virus, encephalitis, yellow fever and others. As diseases mutate, we can expect to see more of them using mosquitoes as hosts and transfer agents.
Mosquitoes exist, they will never go away, we cannot eradicate them, and even if we could, it would, most likely cause an an ecological disaster. We have to deal with them. We use large quantities of pesticide to kill them, that is the band aid on the bullet hole, and may be making matters worse. So, how do we avoid the problem?
The first thing I would say, is stop building next door to swamps! Certainly, they can be drained, but will they be drained? How effective will it be, and how expensive? This can, and in many cases, should be done, but it is better to avoid building a school or park, or home in the vicinity to begin with.
Second, stop building things which will cause swamps to develop, or, at least, stop building things in ways that would cause swamps to develop.
This would seem to be as self evident as the fact that water is wet, but every day, I see it happening in construction sites and lawns in my area. I have observed as people with horticultural related degrees, draw up plans , and implement them, when the results should be obvious, but the extension from project to problem, is rarely made. The same is true of architects and engineers, some of whom have apparently come to believe that their blueprint can actually make water defy the laws of gravity. This is where we must begin.
Building a Framework:
We need a frame work for what we will consider, so let's start with an ancient concept, let's start with the 4 elements: Earth, Wind, Fire and Water. I am not looking at this in some mystical way. We will look at them as:
1. Soil.
2. Water.
3. Temperature/Light
4. Air.
How and where each of these elements are incorporated will determine your place on the IPM map.
Stage 1:
If you build a new home in a wet area (Water), with no provision for drainage (Soil), with very little wind (Air), and very little sunshine (Temperature/Light), then you are building in an area ripe for a mosquito invasion. You have options. You can choose a new place to build. You can make adjustments to your current location, by changing a few things.
1. Since the water is a constant, the soil would be the next place to start. You can provide for surface drainage by sloping the area, or you can improve sub surface drainage, or both.
2. If the lack of sunlight is a result of buildings around you, or you live in Seattle, there will not be much you can do about the sunlight, but if your limited solar penetration is a result of a grove of trees that you own, you might be able to allow some light in by selective thinning of the canopy (pruning) or thinning the grove by removing some, particularly on the Southern side.
3. Air circulation will be a problem for the same reason as light penetration, and has pretty much the same options.
If you have an existing home in an area like the one described, you have the same options.
Now, let's put this on a smaller more manageable scale. You want to build a new outbuilding to house your garden tools and mowing equipment. You should ask yourself 2 questions for each of the four elements. How will this be affected by each element? How will this effect each element?
Water:
1. Will the irrigation water cause problems with my structure?
2. Will this structure cause a problem with drainage and irrigation? If you are building a wooden building, or an open building, will the irrigation cause problems with the wood, or spray directly on the equipment if it is an open shed?
Will this block irrigation, blocking out water to part of my lawn? Will it cause water to build up somewhere else in the yard causing a potential mosquito problem?
Light:
1. Will the direct sunlight make the building uninhabitable during the day while you are sharpening your mower blades?
2. Will the reflective heat from the building cause nearby shrubs to roast, or weaken them, making them insect and disease susceptible? Will the shade the building provides, "shade out" some of your prized plants or lawn?
Air:
1. Will this new structure block the natural air flow through the area, causing potential evaporation problems,and leading to fungus and insect problems?
2. Does the airflow cause a potential problem with the structure? Will the building be able to get adequate breeze?
Then we ask, how we can re-engineer the project to avoid potential problems.
Using the same two question process for all of the elements, should lead to a nearly problem free project. This will not guarantee a pest free existence, but it will lessen the probability of a serious infestation. We are not trying to have an insect free world, that would be an ecological disaster, only trying to keep them at a distance.
One of the "better than normal" IPM models, this is a step in the right direction.
Copyright 2007 James Burns |
