Whatever Happened to IPM?

Why are we even asking this question? Integrated pest management (IPM) is a term well known. It is used liberally by scientists and other practitioners without the need for definition. It is a major success story for society in the realms of agriculture, applied ecology, urban management, and public health (GAO 2001, Farrar et al. 2015). It has arguably penetrated the social consciousness more than any other applied ecological science, serves as a model for sustainable agriculture, and is consequently viewed as a rousing success (Kogan and Jepson 2007). But is this really true? Although IPM is a widely recognized term, there are numerous IPM success stories, and people far and wide claim to practice it, we argue that it has lost its way. Many authors, including the authors of this paper, have discussed problems with the practice of IPM and the lack of adherence to its conceptual foundations (Pedigo et al. 1986, Pedigo and Higley 1992, Higley and Pedigo 1993, Higley and Pedigo 1996b, NRC 1996, Kogan 1998, Ratcliffe and Gray 2004, Gray et al. 2009, Higley and Peterson 2009, Neve et al. 2009, Menalled et al. 2016). So why are we belaboring this point now? First, there has been little formal discussion of IPM theory and its status over approximately the past 10 years. Second, the overwhelmingly successful adoption of prophylactic pest control tactics in the form of transgenic crops and seed treatments over the past 20 years has challenged the continuing development of IPM. This is especially true for major global food and fiber crops, for which scale and convenience are driving the adoption of prophylactic pest control as relatively inexpensive insurance. Third, the recent attention on using evolutionary biology in environmental and public health management should cause us to pause and revisit the foundations of IPM, but, more importantly, to also look deeply at its conceptual aspects and future development.