Department of Agricultural Education & Studies

Got a question?

Graduate Programs: Greg Miller 515-294-2583 / Undergraduate Programs: Mike Retallick 515-294-4810

Return to List

Graduate Student Scholarly Work

 

Pilcher, C.L. (2001). Integrated pest management: An evaluation of adoption in field crop production. Doctoral dissertation.

The objectives of this research coincide with the research papers presented in this document. The objective for the first paper was to identify the essential themes and elements of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and to develop a foundational framework of IPM. The objective for the second paper was to identify the current educational materials being used to disseminate information on Integrated Pest Management. The objective for the third paper was to evaluate existing measurement devices to develop an appropriate tool with field level applicability.

The methods employed included: (1) a literature search and examination of IPM definitions, (2) a pilot test with Iowa corn/soybean producers, and (3) a survey of Iowa corn/soybean producers and Texas cotton producers.

Some conclusions were: The process of developing and utilizing an IPM program must start with information gathering (monitoring). The most common individual elements include: keeping records and considering the source of information. Bioeconomics (consideration of costs of control and thresholds) determine the need for management. The most common management tools include: pesticides, biological control, ecological management, and resistant varieties. In addition, a system approach advocates the examination of general nutrient management through fertilizer recommendations and soil testing.

Both respondents designated as “Individuals Practicing IPM” and respondents designated as “Individuals Not Practicing IPM” claimed Extension sources of information were useful for making IPM decision. Participants responded favorably to the variety of Extension programs offered. Even though consideration of the source of information is an important factor for understanding the adoption of a new technology, it was not a variable that could be used to designate the difference between IPM practitioners and IPM non-practitioners to predict adoption of IPM in this study. The measurement tool successfully delineated the difference between IPM users and non-IPM users. Elements of the tool included: scouting, using economic thresholds, record keeping, using resistant varieties, testing soil, following local pests reports, treating fields on an individual basis, and using pheromone on sticky traps. In addition, a scale was developed to further characterize four levels of IPM adoption (low, moderate, high and very high).