Literature DB >> 19856383

History of IPM in California pears--50 years of pesticide use and the transition to biologically intensive IPM.

Patrick W Weddle1, Stephen C Welter, Don Thomson.   

Abstract

During the 1960s, the California pear industry, on a per acre basis, was among the heaviest users of pesticides. Each season, multiple sprays of up to 14 active ingredients (chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates and carbamates) were typically applied for control of insects and mites. The cost of control escalated while damage from arthropod pests increased owing to greater pest resistance and more pest resurgence. The pear industry suffered classic symptoms of the 'pesticide treadmill'. By the late 1960s, key pear industry leaders demanded action. Simultaneously, newly emerging concepts of IPM were being developed and funded. With public awareness and environmental activism on the rise in the wake of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, the stage was set for change. This paper elucidates how pear growers, university researchers and extension agents, environmentalists, government regulators, private consultants, farm chemical suppliers and others contributed to the reduction in insecticide use in California pear orchards. Today, arthropod IPM in pears is characterized as relatively low input, biologically intensive and very successful. For example, in 2008 many pear growers only applied between three and five active ingredients (mainly organically certified) per season for control of arthropods. (c) 2009 Society of Chemical Industry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19856383     DOI: 10.1002/ps.1865

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pest Manag Sci        ISSN: 1526-498X            Impact factor:   4.845


  7 in total

1.  Applied ecology: How to get even with pests.

Authors:  Lindsay A Turnbull; Andy Hector
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 2.  Sex pheromones and their impact on pest management.

Authors:  Peter Witzgall; Philipp Kirsch; Alan Cork
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 2.626

3.  Exposure to sublethal doses of fipronil and thiacloprid highly increases mortality of honeybees previously infected by Nosema ceranae.

Authors:  Cyril Vidau; Marie Diogon; Julie Aufauvre; Régis Fontbonne; Bernard Viguès; Jean-Luc Brunet; Catherine Texier; David G Biron; Nicolas Blot; Hicham El Alaoui; Luc P Belzunces; Frédéric Delbac
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Lessons from agriculture for the sustainable management of malaria vectors.

Authors:  Matthew B Thomas; H Charles J Godfray; Andrew F Read; Henk van den Berg; Bruce E Tabashnik; Joop C van Lenteren; Jeff K Waage; Willem Takken
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 5.  Integrated Fruit Production and Pest Management in Europe: The Apple Case Study and How Far We Are From the Original Concept?

Authors:  Petros Damos; Lucía-Adriana Escudero Colomar; Claudio Ioriatti
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 2.769

6.  Multidecadal, county-level analysis of the effects of land use, Bt cotton, and weather on cotton pests in China.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Yanhui Lu; Wopke van der Werf; Jikun Huang; Feng Wu; Ke Zhou; Xiangzheng Deng; Yuying Jiang; Kongming Wu; Mark W Rosegrant
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Trichoderma gamsii affected herbivore feeding behaviour on Arabidopsis thaliana by modifying the leaf metabolome and phytohormones.

Authors:  Dongmei Zhou; Xing-Feng Huang; Jianhua Guo; Marcia L Dos-Santos; Jorge M Vivanco
Journal:  Microb Biotechnol       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 5.813

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.