GREENHOUSE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND 



So Much to Do... 

 So Little Time! 



]ames Boone, Michael Brownbridge, ]ames F. Dill, 

 Alan T. Eaton. Bruce L. Parker, and Margaret Skinner 



Integrated pest management (IPM) is a multi-faceted 

 approach for managing pests to maximize suppres 

 sion wfiile reducing growers' reliance on cfiemical 

 pesticides. The Northern New England Greenhouse IPM 

 implementation Program, a tri-state research/education 

 initiative between Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, 

 was started in 1995 with support from the U.S. Dept. of 

 Agriculture. The long-term goal of this program is to en- 

 courage growers to use 1PM for production of green- 

 house ornamentals, helping them to improve pest man- 

 agement efficiency and reduce chemical pesticide use. 

 A Research Advisory Group was established, made up 

 of researchers, extension specialists and growers from 

 the three states to guide grower outreach activities. The 

 group's first accomplishment was a survey of current 

 IPM practices and pesticide use. 



Summary of Survey Results 



PEST PROBLEMS. Growers were asked to rank the se- 

 verity of their pest problems over the past three years 

 Among the insects, fungus gnats and aphids were rated 

 highest — as extreme or major pests by 15-17% of the 

 growers. Seven percent considered thrips to be a major 

 or extreme problem and 4% ranked whiteflies in these 

 categories. All of the insects listed were rated at least 

 as minor pests by 17% of the growers. In contrast, less 

 than 3% of the growers considered diseases to be ex- 

 treme problems. Botrytis, damping off, and powdery 

 mildew were rated as moderate problems by about 15% 

 of the growers and about 19% considered virus a minor 

 problem. 



SCOUTING. Most growers (96%) indicated that they try 

 to identify their pest problems. About half use a hand 

 lens and obtain assistance with identification from Ex- 

 tension or state experts. When asked which pests their 

 scouts could identify, over 60% could identify the adult 

 stages of all major pests on the plant, but less than 

 50% could recognize the immatures. Less than 50% 

 could identify the pests on a sticky card. Between 60- 

 70% of the growers could not identify bacterial diseases, 

 virus, nutrient deficiencies, or salt toxicity. 



Almost 50% of the growers said they scout their 



plants daily for pests, and 30% scout weekly. About half 

 use yellow sticky cards, and 31% check them daily; 19% 

 weekly. Though traps were commonly inspected, most 

 growers only checked for pest presence or absence. 

 Though many growers scout their crops, only about 10% 

 maintain records of what was found. About 60% use in- 

 formation from scouting or sticky cards all or most of 

 the time when making management decisions; 10% 

 never use such information. 



USE OF IPM. The table below lists IPM practices cur- 

 rently used by growers. The most commonly used prac- 

 tices (by over 50% of growers) include: scouting, sticky 

 cards, inspecting plant shipments, chemical pesticides, 

 spot pesticide treatments, disinfection of growing area, 

 using new or clean containers, and weed control About 

 14% felt the greatest factor limiting adoption of 1PM was 

 a lack of knowledge on the subject and 8% couldn't risk 

 the economic loss. When asked why implementing IPM 

 was important, about 23% listed that it was cost-effec- 

 tive in the long run and reduced the risk of environ- 

 mental pollution. 



PESTICIDES AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL. Most growers 

 (76%) use hand-operated pump sprayers; a few use mo- 

 torized hydraulic or electrostatic sprayers. When decid- 

 ing what pesticides to use, most growers (74%) rely on 

 past experience Less commonly, they use recommen- 

 dations by Extension or state specialists or other grow- 

 ers, the New England Greenhouse Pest Management 

 Guide, grower magazines, or advice of a company rep. 

 Many growers (51%) evaluate the effectiveness of pesti- 

 cide applications based on routine scouting; 13% in- 

 spect flagged plants before and after application. Forty- 

 seven percent of the growers noted that in the past 

 three years, chemical pesticides failed to achieve satis- 

 factory control sometimes; 17% said chemical pesticides 

 had never failed them. Low consumer tolerance for 

 damage or insect infestation was the most important 

 factor limiting the reduction in chemical pesticide use. 

 Fourteen percent cited a lack of knowledge about alter- 

 natives as the most important factor and 1 1% felt the 

 risk of economic loss as the most important. 



About 72% of the growers have never used any form 



DECEMBER 1997 & JANUARY 1998 



27 



