Overview of Areawide Management of Insects l

Laurence D. Chandler and Robert M. Faust2

Northern Grain insects Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS2923 Medary Avenue

Brookings, South Dakota 57006 USA

J. Agric. Entomol. 15(4); 319-325 (October 1998)ABSTRACT In 1995 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),Agricultural Research Service (ARS) implemented a new areawide pestmanagement initiative. This program, targeted at key pests across theUnited States, has resulted in renewed discussion of the pros and cons of thisintegrated-pest-management-related control tactic. This introduction to anareawide pest management symposium presented at the 1997 EntomologicalSociety of America Annual Meeting provides information on the developmentof areawide pest management as we know it today. Additionally, acomparison of areawide management to conventional pest control strategies,as well as examples of historic and current programs are presented.

KEY WORDS Heliothis, Helicoverpa, codling moth, boll weevil, pinkbollworm, areawide pest management. !PM, pest suppression

With the initiation of four Agricultural-Research-Service (ARS)-supportedareawide pest management programs since 1995, a debate on the merits of theselarge-scale management activities has been rekindled throughout the UnitedStates. Areawide management of insects is certainly not a new concept.Depending upon how one defines areawide pest management, however, the useof the term can produce visions of total pest management, eradication,mandatory control, various integrated management tactics, or even classicalbiological control. All of these management approaches have at some time inthe past been implemented over broad geographical areas with varying degreesof success. Suffice it to say that areawide pest management has developed asubstantial following of persons interested in this approach for management ofkey insect pests.

The recent resurgence of interest in areawide pest management has itsorigins in the 1960s and 1970s. Many renowned entomologists, including E. F.Knipling, have embraced the idea as an effective method to manage pests of

IAccepted for publication 3] August 1998.2USDA-ARS National Program Staff, Bldg. 005, Room 33B, BlillC-West, Beltsville, Maryland 29705

USA.

319

320 J. Agric. Entomo!. Vo!. 15, No.4 (1998)

economic importance by using an organized and coordinated attack On pest pop­ulations over large areas rather than through the use of a field-by-fieldapproach CKnipling 1978, 1979). Knipling (1980) even suggested that virtuallyall insect pests of major importance to agriculture in the 1950s were still impor­tant pests 30 yr later due to the "unorganized farm-to-farm and crop-to-cropmethod of controlling pests ouly when and where necessary." In 1993-1994 theUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Integrated Pest Management(IPM) Working Group developed a framework for collaborative activities andredefined the areawide management concept. A briefing paper was developedfollowing a meeting of key pest management representatives from USDA, uni­versity research and extension, and state Departments of Agriculture thatclearly outlined goals and expectations of the 1990s USDA areawide manage­ment programs (Coppedge et al. 1993). The result of these activities was thedevelopment of the current U8DA-ARS areawide management initiative.Based On the discussion held by the IPM Working Group we currently definearea,vide pest management as the systematic reduction of a target key pest(s)to predetermined levels through the use of uniformly applied pest mitigationmeasures over geographical areas clearly defined by biologically based criteria.

This introductory paper focuses on the characteristics and advantages ofareawide pest management compared with conventional strategies. provideshistoric examples of areawide management programs, and summarizes brieflythe current areawide management programs being conducted worldwide. Italso serves to set the stage for related papers on current areawide managementprograms being conducted in the United States. Each location that is conduct­ing areawide management activities (Yakima, Brookings, etc.) has developed oris developing its own website. One example is the Areawide Pest ManagementResearch Unit in College Station, Texas, at http://USDA-APMRU.TAMU.EDUI.The ARS homepage at http://www.ars.usda.gov/ will link to each areawide man­agement site as it becomes available.

Areawide Management Characteristics and Advantages

Kogan (1995) stated that area'vide suppression of key pests rests on a set ofprinciples that differ substantially from tbe tenets of IPM. Kogan (1998)recently put forth the following as a refined definition of IPM: "!PM is a deci­sion support system for the selection and use of pest control tactics. singly orharmoniously coordinated into a management strategy, based on cost-benefitanalyses that take into account the interests of and impacts on producers. soci­ety, and the environment." Areawide management, although closely related toIPM, has distinct characteristics that, at times, can make it uniquely different.Three key characteristics currently serve as guideposts for development of ARSareawide management programs.

First, the program must be conducted over large geographical areas that aredelineated by biological criteria associated with pest colonization and dispersalpotential. Kogan (1995) states that the operational unit of an areawide man­agement program should be defined by some geographic entity that encompass­es individual farms as well as all other nonfarm components of the landscape.

CHANDLER & FAUST: Overview ofAreawide Management 321

Second, areav.-ide management programs should be coordinated by organiza­tions (groups of key participants) rather than individuals. It is important toinvolve as many stakeholders (commodity groups, farm organizations, agribusi­nesses, local extension agents, growers, and rural residents other than growers)as possible in the fonnative stages of any program development. Acceptance ofthe concept by participants is a key component for the program to be successful.Naturally, grower support and guidance is the primary foundation for theentire process. Without the organized efforts of this key group 'within an areathere would be little possibility of developing an effective program. After all,the producers will he the parties who in all likelihood will pay for either puttingareawide programs in place or continuing those started by ARS and universitypartners. Implementation of areawide pest management requires exceptionallevels of coordination of all phases of program conduct. The site coordinator(s)and their teams will become the spokesperson(s) for the project and must beable to select appropriate control tactics, monitoring procedures, educationalopportunities, and assessment methods. Additionally, coordinated oversight ofbudgets and personnel is needed to ensure that programs move forward toaddress important issues and maintain the common goals of the group.

And third, programs should focus on reducing and maintaining a pest popu­lation at an acceptably low density. CWTently, ARS-supported areawide man­agement programs target suppression of key pests rather than eradication.Suppression of a pest can be accomplished using natural control tactics (e.g.,biological control agents, weather) or augmentative suppression measures thatare developed using current agricultural research (e.g., mating disruption,insecticides, host-plant resistance). Prevention of significant economic damagecan be more easily attained by maintaining pests at a low density.

Based on these characteristics it is readily apparent how areawide pest man­agement could be viewed as different from IPM. As described previously,areawide management focuses on only a single or small group of pests over alarge region, whereas rPM incorporates all pests within an agroecosystem intoa management program that is primarily conducted on a farm-to-farm basis.Recently, however, areawide management proponents in the United Stateshave started using the term areawide IPM to more accurately describe pro­grams cWTently being conducted. Areawide programs now not only monitorand attempt to manage a key pest(s) but also evaluate and address secondarypests and other nontargets, including beneficial arthropods, in an attempt tobetter understand and manage all pests across the landscape. Thus, the termareawide IPM provides a more accurate depiction of current managementstrategies.

Lively discussions have often been conducted to determine the merits ofusing areawide pest management for control of numerous pests. From thesediscussions, six advantages or benefits have been identified: (1) areawide pestmanagement, when interfaced with IPM systems, offers a long-term solution tothe pest problem as opposed to quick-fix solutions on small acreages; (2) whenproperly implemented, areawide pest management can prevent major pest out­breaks and provide a more sustainable management procedure for pests; (3)area..vide pest management permits the use of the best and most environmen­tally benign management techniques; (4) once fully implemented, areawide pest

322 J. Agric. Entomol. Vol. 15, No.4 (1998)

management can be more cost effective than managing pests on an individualrann basis; (5) areawide pest management permits the use of biorational man­agement strategies for secondary and other key pests; and (6) the basis of anareawide pest management program is an effective monitoring program and areduction in prophylactic control treatments.

Historic Examples of Areawide Pest Management Programs

A thorough search of the entomological literature can provide numerousexamples of large-scale, coordinated programs that can be loosely classified asexamples of areawide pest management programs. One of the earliest docu­mented examples of a program that specifically targeted a key pest over a ,,~de

geographic region is that of the grape phylloxera, Daktulosphaira uitifoliae(Fitch). Suppression of this pest occurred in Europe during the 1870s and1880s. This prime example of a successful host-plant resistance programresulted in resistant grapevines being distributed throughout France and otherEuropean and Mediterranean countries. The pest was completely controlled by1890 (Balachowsky 1951) and saved the French wine industry (Kogan 1982).

A classical biological control program often used as an example for mostentomology IPM students is that of the cottony cushion scale, Icerya purchasiMaskell. This pest was accidentally introduced into California in the 1860s(DeBach et al. 1971) and rapidly became a significant pest of citrus. By the late1880s the infestation threatened the existence of the California citrus industry.To combat the infestation two biological control agents were introduced fromAustralia: the vedalia ladybeetle, Rodolia cardinalis (Mulsant), and the para­sitic fly Cryptochaetum iceryae (Williston). The vedalia ladybeetle quicklybecame the foremost biocontrol agent in southern California and brought aboutthe complete suppression of this scale insect by the end of 1889 (Doutt 1958).This example can readily be related to areawide pest management due to thebroad and coordinated efforts used to distribute the biocontrol agents.

One of the most striking early successes in an areawide eradication effortinvolves the cattle ticks, Boophilus annulatus (Say), and Boophilus annulatusvar. microplus (Canestrini), which were eliminated from most of the UnitedStates by the 1950s (Cole & MacKeHer 1956). A cooperative federal and statecattle-dipping campaign began in 1906 across 15 southern and southwesternstates. Knipling (1979) attributed the success of this effort to a well-organizedprogram involving animal health agencies and livestock growers.

The bigWy successful eradication of the new world screwworm, CochliomyiaIwminouorax (Coquerel), from the United States, Mexico, and portions of Cen­tral America has become a classical example of areawide pest managementbased on the sterile male technique. Busbland & Hopkins (951) conducted ini­tial laboratory studies demonstrating the utility of sterile males for insect con­trol. A sterile-male release program was initiated in Florida and other south­eastern states in 1958 and was successfully completed in 1959 (Knipling 1979).In 1962 a similar program was initiated in the southwestern United States andMexico (Scruggs 1975). By 1966 self-sustaining screwworm populations wereeliminated from the entirety of the United States and a barrier zone of sterileflies was set up along the United States-Mexico border to prevent reinfestation.

CHA1\TDLER & FAUST: Overview of Areawide Management 323

In 1972 the United States-Mexico Joint Commission was formed with the goalof eliminating the pest from Mexico. In 1991 Mexico was declared free of screw­worms. Since that time, the pest has been eliminated from Belize (1994),Guatemala (1994), El Salvador (1995), and Honduras (1995) (USDA-APHIS1998). This program, which has been jointly financed by various governmentsand portions of livestock industries, remains a prime example of the coordina­tion necessary to achieve success in an important program over an expansivegeographic area.

Current Areawide Pest Management Programs

Numerous areawide insect management programs are currently being con­ducted throughout the world. Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) sterile insecttechnique programs are being conducted in Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica,Greece, Guatemala, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Thailand,and the United States (Hendrichs & Ortiz 1996). These programs are coordi­nated by grower associations and government agencies to prevent major eco­nomic damage to numerous frnits and vegetables. The sterile insect techniqueprogram also is being nsed to eradicate tsetse flies, Glossina spp., from Zanz­ibar (Feldman et al. 1996).

In the United States several key insects are currently being managed nsingvarious areawide-related techniques. Pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella(Saunders), has been the target of numerous suppression programs since the1960s. An areawide management program for this pest has been in place in theSan Joaquin Valley of California continuously since 1968 (Henneberry 1996).Most of the current pink bollworm suppression programs that are establishedor under development use sterile insect releases. cotton plant destruction, mat­ing disruption, and trapping for management of the pest. Likewise, two otherkey lepidopteran pests of cotton, the tobacco bndworm [Heliothis virescem; (F.)],and the bollworm [Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)] have been targeted for an areawidesuppression program by using aerial application of a baculovirus across theMississippi Delta (Hardee & Bell 1996). The ongoing boll weevil (Anthonomusgrandis grandis Boheman> eradication program, which was initiated in NorthCarolina, South Carolina, and Virginia in 1977, is another example of a suc­cessful, highly coordinated management program (Coppedge 1996). Most fund­ing for this program, currently being conducted in portions of Alabama, Missis­sippi, Tennessee, and Texas, comes from the cotton producers within eachregion.

In 1995 the first formal USDA-ARS areawide pest management partnershipprogram was implemented in the northwestern United States against thecodling moth, Cydia pomonella L. (Calkins et al. 1997). The codling moth is thekey pest of pome fruit in the western United States and, if not controlled, caus­es the majority of damage to the product. The goal of the areawide suppressionprogram for codling moth is to marshal a western-regional. multi-institutionalprogram to assess, test, and implement an integrated strategy for the manage­ment of codling moth populations on fruit orchards that will alleviate theimpact of neurotoxic pesticides on natural enemies and will open the opportuni­ty for use of more environmentally friendly control tactics for secondary pests

324 J. Agric. Entomol. Vol. 15, No.4 (19981

(Calkins et aI. 1997). This multistate effort (California, Oregon, and Washing­ton) has been highly successful, continues to expand, and has reduced insecti­cide use targeted at codling moth in each management site.

The corn rootworm areawide management program was implemented in1996 and was the second ARS-coordinated program conducted under the cur­rent areawide management initiative. This program is being conducted at sin­gle sites in Kansas, Illinois and Indiana, Iowa, South Dakota, and Texas and istargeted at managing western, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte; northern,Diabrotica barberi Smith & Lawrence; and Mexican, Diabrotica virgifera zeaeKrysan & Smith corn rootworms by using semiochemical insecticide baits. Themission of this program is successful establishment and implementation of anareawide demonstration program that is the result of a partnership of growers;private consultants; applicators and suppliers; research and extension person­nel; and local, state, and federal agencies who have a stake in the developmentand adoption of improved crop management technologies, and that clearlydemonstrates advantages of enhanced grower profits, reduced risks, enhancedenvironmental compatibility, and superiority of IPM approaches compared withcurrent pest control approaches (Chandler et al. 1998). To date, this programhas effectively reduced adult corn rootworm numbers and holds promise forimproved population management of this important pest complex.

Two additional ARB-coordinated areawide management programs, leafyspurge (Euphorbia esula L.) and stored grain insects, were initiated in 1997.These promising programs will be conducted through 2001 and are examples ofnew and exciting directions taken by researchers who have embraced theareawide management concept.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank the organizers of this symposium for the opportunity toparticipate and share their views on the current state of areawide pest management.

References Cited

Balachowsky, A.. S. 1951. La lutte contre les insectes. Payot, Paris.Bushland, R. C. & D. E. Hopkins. 1951. Experiments .../ith screw-worm flies sterilized

by x-rays. J. Econ. Entomol. 44: 725--731.Calkins, C. 0., R. M. Faust, J. R. Coppedge, L. D. Chandler, D. D. Hardee, M. R.

Bell & J. F. Brunner. 1997. Areawide IPM as a tool for the future, pp. 154-158. InS. Lynch, C. Greene & C. Kramer-LeBlanc [Eds.], Proceedings, 3rd National IPMSymposiumIWorkshop Broadening Support for 21st Century IPr...!, USDA-ERS Misc.Pub!. #1542.

Chandler, L. D., J. R. Coppedge, C. R. Edwards, J. J. Tollefson & G. E. Wilde.1998. Corn rootwonn areawide management across the United States. In Proceed·ings, FAOIIAEA International Conference on Area-wide Control of Insect Pests Inte­grating the Sterile Insect and Related Nuclear and Other Techniques, Penang,Malaysia (in press).

Cole, T. W. & W. M. MacKeller. 1956. Cattle tick fever, pp. 310-313. In Animal dis­eases. U. S. Dept. Agric. Yearbook 1956.

CHANDLER & FAUST: Overview of Areawide Management 325

Coppedge, J. R. 1996. Eradication of the boll weevil in the United States through anareawide approach, paper #22-022, p. 704. In Proceedings XX International Congressof Entomology, Florence, Italy.

Coppedge, J., M. Fitzner, J. Fowler & R. Riley. 1993. Areawide pest managementsystems. USDA, CSREES Draft Doc., Washington, D.C.

DeBach, P., D. Rosen & C. E. Kennett. 1971. Biological control of coccids by intro­duced natural enemies, pp. 165-194. In C. B. Huffaker [Ed.l, Biological control.Plenum, New York.

Doutt, R. L. 1958. Vice, virtue and the vedalia. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 4: 119-123.Feldman, U., E. Opiyo & J. Hendrichs. 1996. Integration of the sterile insect tech·

nique (SIT) into sub-regional tsetse and trypanosomosis management campaigns,paper #22·032, p. 707. In Proceedings XX International Congress of Entomology, Flo­rence, Italy.

Hardee, D. D. & 1\1.. R. Bell. 1996. Area·wide management of tobacco budwonn and cot­ton bollworm with aerially-applied insect viruses in the United States, paper #22-028,p.706. In Proceedings XX International Congress of Entomology, Florence, Italy.

Hendrichs, J. & G. Ortiz. 1996. Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) area-wide integratedmanagement programmes in progress in the world, paper #22-025, p. 705. In Pro­ceedings XX International Congress of Entomology, Florence, Italy.

Henneberry, T. J. 1996. Pink bollworm areawide management, paper #22-029, p. 706.In Proceedings XX International Congress of Entomology, Florence, Italy.

Knipling, E. F. 1978. Eradication of plant pest - pro: advances in technology for insect­population eradication and suppression. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 24: 44-52.

-----:c:c. 1979. The basic principles of insect population suppression and manage­ment. U.s. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook no. 512.

_----:-:-__. 1980. Areawide pest suppression and other innovative concepts to copewith our more important insect pest problems, pp. 68-97. Minutes of the AnnualMeetings of the National Plant Board, Sacramento.

Kogan, M. 1982. Plant resistance in pest management, pp. 93-134. In R. L. Metcalf & W.H. Luckman [Eds.], Introduction to insect pest management, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.

_-::-----:__- 1995. Areawide management of major pests: is the concept applicable to theBemisia complex?, pp. 643-657. In D. Gerling & R. T. Mayer [Eds.], Bemisia: 1995taxonomy, biology, damage, control and management. Intercept, Andover, UK

_---,_:-. 1998. Integrated pest management: historical perspectives and contemporarydevelopments. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43: 243-270.

Scruggs, C. G. 1975. The peaceful atom and the deadly fly. The Pemberton Press,Austin.

[USDA-APIDSl. United States Department of Agriculture-Animal Plant HealthInspection Service. 1998. Eradicating screwworms from North America. APHISWebsite (www.aphis.usda.gov/OA/screwwonn.html).