The ipmPIPE: Overview, Lessons, Opportunities, and Challenges

1,2 3 4 4 James R. VanKirk, Scott A. Isard, Kitty F. Cardwell, AND Martin A. Draper 1Center for IPM, North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Dr. Suite 110, Raleigh NC 27607. 2Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]. 3Departments of Plant Pathology and Meteorology, Penn State University, 205 Buckhout Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802. 4United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Stop 2201, Washington, DC 20250-2201.

J. Integ. Pest Mngmt. 3(2): 2012; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/IPM11015

ABSTRACT. The ipmPIPE (Integrated Pest Management Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education) was first developed as a response to the threat of soybean rust (SBR), caused by the pathogen Phakopsora pachyrhizi. Since that time the ipmPIPE portfolio has grown to include “PIPEs” for soybean aphid Aphis glycines Matsumura (now discontinued), legume diseases, cucurbit downy mildew caused by the pathogen Pseudoperonospora cubensis (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Rostovzev, pecan nut casebearer Acrobasis nuxvorella Neunzig with pecan scab caused by Cladosporium caryigenum (Ellis & Langl.) (Gottwald forecasting in development), Southern corn rust caused by Puccinia polysora Underw., and onion pests. In addition, the Western Specialty Crops ipmPIPE, the North Central ipmPIPE, and the Pennsylvania PIPE each address multiple pest situations found within defined geographic boundaries and a PIPE is in development for ornamentals that will address multiple pathogens on multiple hosts. This report explains the general concept of the ipmPIPE approach

and discusses common elements of most PIPEs. It provides a brief history of funding and development. Finally, it addresses crosscutting Downloaded from issues including suitability of this approach to different pest and crop combinations and sustainability.

Key Words: ipmPIPE, soybean rust, cucurbit downy mildew, pecan nut casebearer, legume http://jipm.oxfordjournals.org/ The Integrated Pest Management-Pest Information Platform for Edu- The ipmPIPE approach adds capabilities afforded by modern com- cation and Extension (ipmPIPE) is an information and communica- puting and communication technologies to the traditional IPM ap- tions management system to support integrated pest management proach used for decades. Integrated pest management (IPM) has (IPM) for selected agricultural pests (Isard et al. 2006). The approach always required collection of pertinent field data (pest, crop, weather), supplements traditional IPM with Internet and information technology at least to the extent of regular field observations. The ipmPIPE (IT) capabilities to optimize implementation. For a given crop-pest supports collection of these data from many fields across the produc- combination, the system gathers pertinent data (e.g., crop develop- tion area in standardized formats and collection of pertinent environ- ment, pest monitoring) from across the crop’s production area, applies mental data from a variety of providers including meteorological descriptive and predictive models to those data, facilitates expert information from the National Weather Service. IPM analytical tech- by guest on June 5, 2016 interpretation, and communicates near-real-time output including niques have long been known to add value to pest monitoring data by management guidelines to stakeholders. This integrated strategy is applying known relationships like degree-day models (Zalom et al. particularly well suited to pests of high consequence, where substan- 1983) and economic thresholds (Stern et al. 1959, Higley and Peterson tial losses may occur over a wide area. The ipmPIPE was first 2009); the ipmPIPE drives descriptive and predictive models with near implemented in 2005 in response to the threat posed by the initial real-time field observations as well as current and forecast weather introduction of soybean rust (SBR). The ipmPIPE portfolio now data. IPM advisors including Extension specialists have always shared comprises several projects, herein called “PIPEs”, each of which results but have been limited to doing so through grower visits and addresses a particular pest-crop combination. Initially highly central- meetings, phone calls and faxes, morning radio shows and other ized in terms of funding, leadership, administration, and delivery, the cumbersome methods. Sharing data across state lines has been fraught ipmPIPE now consists of a decentralized array of PIPEs. This paper with other challenges because specialists state to state may not com- presents an overview of the ipmPIPE, discussing common elements of municate on regular intervals. The ipmPIPE nearly instantaneously PIPEs, a brief history of administration and funding, impacts, and generates and displays maps reporting pest and crop development on both opportunities and challenges to further development. A com- the World Wide Web along with expert commentary that is accessible plementary series of publications address several individual PIPEs by anyone with an Internet connection. The IPM approach has always in detail. Hershman et al. (2011) discusses the SBR PIPE (soybean entailed learning from today’s experience to inform tomorrow’s man- rust P. pachyrhizi), Ojiambo et al. (2010) addresses the CDM PIPE agement decision. In the ipmPIPE, all data are collated and archived [cucurbit downy mildew Pseudoperonospora cubensis (Berk. & for use in adjusting procedures, validating models, and documenting M.A. Curtis) Rostovzev], and Langham et al. (2011) presents the Legume PIPE (several diseases of legumes). Calixto et al. (2011) impacts. Finally, just as with the traditional IPM approach, the addresses the Pecan PIPE (pecan nut casebearer Acrobasis nux- ipmPIPE rests on a knowledge base of unbiased research-derived vorella Neunzig). Birt et al. (2012) addresses how information information such as that provided by land grant scientists. technology is harnessed by the ipmPIPE to bring science to agri- A simplified schematic of common ipmPIPE components appears culture over the Internet. in Fig. 2. With the possible exception of the “Input” and “Output” Overview of Common Structures and Functions. The ipmPIPE is an cells this diagram could also be used to describe most traditional IPM information management system that includes functions of data col- programs. The “Observations” cell represents collection of pertinent lection and management, modeling, integration, analysis, interpreta- field data needed to produce good IPM decisions. In the simplest tion, and dissemination (Fig. 1). The individual PIPEs address these scenario this includes crop development and pest presence. More elements in different ways as is appropriate to the biology of the sophisticated PIPEs can include extensive information on the crop host-pest system. (e.g., variety, planting date, and density), the pest (severity or density), 2 JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT VOL. 3, NO. 2

using easy to use analysis and mapping tools and provide detailed and timely commentary for stakeholders. Growers and their advisors are the primary stakeholders but the information is also useful to research- ers, agribusiness, and state and federal agencies. The crop insurance industry and USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) also benefit from the maps and expert commentary, which helps them to document pest risk and good pest management practices. The cornerstone of output is the Internet, but options for email or text alerts are also available. Information is usually presented as a map, often with optional overlays for information such as pest presence and severity, crop development, weather predictions, and pest risk estimates. Maps are initially displayed at the national or continental scale but can be adjusted by the user for granularity to the county scale. Data are intentionally presented such that the identity of a particular producer cannot be determined, so any publically displayed data are limited to county-level resolution. Maps are regenerated and displayed with each new page view, and are updated at least daily with current and forecast weather data. New field data entries lead to instant updates. One example of ipmPIPE output showing maps and other tools to analyze risk is shown in Fig. 4, a screen shot of the default SBR PIPE web page. Downloaded from The “Decisions” cell represents the same types of decisions that we always think about in IPM, the practical management choices that are made in everyday plant protection and crop production. Growers and Fig. 1. Simple conceptual schematic of an information management other practitioners use information delivered via the ipmPIPE to system for IPM. decide whether or not a control intervention is called for, and if so

which specific action to take and when to take it. They may use the http://jipm.oxfordjournals.org/ management inputs (e.g., pesticide applications, irrigation schedules), ipmPIPE to document their decisions for crop insurance purposes. Of and beneficial species (presence and density). course ipmPIPE information may be used to drive other types of The standardization of field observations (“Input”) is central to the decisions as well: researchers decide which question areas to address ipmPIPE paradigm because it enables modeling as well as subsequent next, Extension specialists decide how future outreach and education integration, analysis and interpretation. Online and smartphone data programs should be tailored, chemical suppliers estimate stocking entry using standard terms and formats, agreed upon in advance by needs, and policymakers prioritize funding. participants, is the most obvious manifestation of standardization. Privacy Issues. A Federal Law protects personally identifiable in- Most PIPEs also collect more types of data than traditional systems, formation (PII) that is sensitive to an individual. PII includes social for instance Global Positioning Coordinates of the sample site to security number, medical records, and accounts details. Crop, pest and by guest on June 5, 2016 enable spatial modeling. Finally, meteorological data, once entered disease information could fall under the ‘sensitive’ label, and therefore manually and gathered with relatively primitive devices including the identity of the owner of the crop must be protected. Specific max/min thermometers and hygrothermographs, is automatically ac- coordinates can be used to identify a farm, and therefore its owner. cessed from the National Weather Service or other providers using Thus, the ipmPIPE visualization and mapping tools are designed to standard computer-based communications protocols. present only levels of granularity, usually “county”, that are coarse “Analysis”, the component perhaps most readily identified as an enough to avoid identifying any individual grower. ipmPIPE innovation, includes modeling, observation and model out- Development, Expansion, and Funding. The ipmPIPE approach put integration, and mapping. The ipmPIPE enables users to build and was first devised as described by Isard et al. (2006) in response to the run models on a common Internet platform using near real-time field imminent threat of soybean rust in the United States. A USDA- observations and both current and forecast environmental data. Mod- CSREES National Research Initiative Plant Biosecurity program grant els vary, but some are quite sophisticated as demonstrated by Fig. 3, awarded to Isard and the Pennsylvania State University facilitated the which shows the conceptual framework for the aerobiological model development of the early models and visualization tools for tracking used to assess risk of SBR spread. soybean rust before it reached the United States. The National Plant The “Output” cell (Fig. 2) represents interpretation and transfer of Diagnostic Network first detector training prepared extension special- resulting knowledge to interested stakeholders. Experts such as state ists to identify infection as early models predicted that the threat of Extension specialists interpret field observation and model output arrival was imminent. Therefore, when the disease was found in late

Fig. 2. Simplified flow chart for ipmPIPE, adapted from Isard, et al. 2006. JUNE 2012 VANKIRK ET AL.: THE IPMPIPE: OVERVIEW, LESSONS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES 3 Downloaded from http://jipm.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on June 5, 2016

Fig. 3. Conceptual framework for the aerobiological model used to assess risk of SBR spread.

2004, the initial tools were in place to build the soybean rust tracking funding as the national and regional boards. The IT infrastructure of system that became the SBR PIPE. Many collaborators contributed the SBR PIPE was developed and continues to be hosted by ZedX, funding and/or research during the developmental period. These in- Inc. with substantive and ongoing input from stakeholder groups. clude the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Agricultural During the 2007 season (with FY 2006 funds), ipmPIPE was again Plant Health Information Service (APHIS), Cooperative State Re- supported by RMA (approximately $3.5 million) supplemented with search Education and Extension Service (CSREES), and the Soybean Soybean Check off funding. In addition to the SBR PIPE, the program Check-off. The Land Grant university system provided funding, re- also initiated development of the Soybean Aphid (SBA) PIPE and the search and Extension content during the developmental period. Legume PIPE. The soybean aphid Aphis glycines Matsamura, occurs USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) assumed primary re- primarily in the states of the upper Midwest but in some years affects sponsibility for ipmPIPE funding in late 2005 and USDA leadership states farther from the primary production region. The SBA PIPE was for the program was assigned to the National Institute of Food and led initially by Amanda Hodges of the Southern Plant Diagnostic Agriculture (NIFA, known then as CSREES). Funds were adminis- Network at the University of Florida, and later led jointly by Eileen tered through a series of tripartite agreements among RMA, NIFA, Cullen (University of Wisconsin) and Ames Herbert (Virginia Poly- and the NSF Center for IPM (CIPM) at North Carolina State Univer- technic Institute and State University). The Legume PIPE addresses sity (NCSU). The first project for $2.3 million supported further several diseases of beans (several species) in states participating in the development of the SBR PIPE infrastructure and supported a moni- SBR PIPE as well as other states not previously covered. Howard toring network in the 2006 season that covered all major soybean Schwartz of Colorado State University and Marie Langham of South production states. The National Soybean Checkoff, which includes Dakota State University provide programmatic leadership for the both the United Soybean Board and the North Central Soybean Re- Legume PIPE. Both new modules were added to the existing SBR IT search Program, also provided significant funding support for the infrastructure on the ZedX servers. monitoring network. State soybean check-off boards have also con- FY 2007 saw the largest RMA outlay to date, $5 million. The tributed funds to support state-level activities of the SBR PIPE, project continued with the SBR, SBA and Legume PIPEs and added primarily for field monitoring. In 2007, an informal poll of Extension a competition to identify new PIPE modules. As a result the Cucurbit Specialists showed that some state boards contributed at least as much Downy Mildew (CDM) PIPE and the Pecan PIPE were initiated. 4 JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT VOL. 3, NO. 2 Downloaded from http://jipm.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on June 5, 2016

Fig. 4. Screen shot of the SBR PIPE display for Aug 10, 2010, an example of ipmPIPE output.

CDM is caused by the pathogen Pseudoperonospora cubensis. The was supported primarily with National Soybean Checkoff funds CDM PIPE, now led by Peter Ojiambo of NCSU, addresses CDM in (about $350,000 annually), supplemented by state and Land Grant most states in the eastern half of the United States, in California, and University in-kind efforts and by state grower associations in some in Ontario, Canada. The CDM PIPE primarily uses IT infrastructure at states. The Legume PIPE contracted somewhat but continues to ad- the North Carolina Climate Center at NCSU. The Pecan PIPE is active dress legume disease issues in several states, with funding of approx- across the pecan production belt from New Mexico to Georgia. Led by imately $350,000 in each of FY 2008 and 2009. Marvin Harris at Texas A&M University and housed at Texas A&M, The Southern Corn Rust (SCR) PIPE was initiated in 2010 to it originally addressed the pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella address the disease caused by Puccinia polysora Underw. The SCR Neunzig and has since expanded to address pecan scab, a disease PIPE is led by Bob Kemerait at the University of Georgia and Carl caused by the pathogen Cladosporium caryigenum (Ellis & Langl.) Bradley at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is Gottwald. active in states from the Gulf Coast through the midwestern corn belt. Funding from RMA tapered after FY 2008, and program growth State commodity boards and USDA NIFA provided initial funding, slowed accordingly. Extension entomologists decided to discontinue with monitoring and data entry provided as in-kind contributions by the SBA PIPE before the 2010 season. Optimization of the SBR Extension specialists. monitoring network continued and resulted eventually in a monitoring A new funding source, the NIFA Specialty Crops Research Initia- focus on southern states where the disease can overwinter. This work tive, was tapped and a new PIPE was initiated when a group led by JUNE 2012 VANKIRK ET AL.: THE IPMPIPE: OVERVIEW, LESSONS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES 5

Howard Schwartz at Colorado State University successfully funded tion efficiencies for producers but also reduces unnecessary exposure the Onion PIPE in 2010. That project deals with both disease and of workers, consumers and the environment. insect pests on onions in major production states. IT infrastructure is Harris et al. (2009) surveyed Pecan PIPE users soon after that provided by a combination of Plantalytics, Inc., Multigrain Corpora- system’s first operational season. Half of respondents reported using tion, and the University of Georgia’s Bugwood Network. the system to aid their decision-making. Improved timing of necessary In 2010, RMA provided $1.5 million, with $500,000 for support of insecticide treatments were reported by 18% of respondents. Respond- continued development of existing ipmPIPE projects and $1 million to ing to another question, 18% reported that the system aided in deci- initiate the Western Specialty Crops PIPE (WSC PIPE) led by Paul sions to forego insecticide applications. Nine respondents (26% of Jepson of Oregon State University. The latter will focus initially on the those who report using the system) ascribed a dollar value to the spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii Matsumura and the light information provided by the Pecan PIPE, with that benefit averaging brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana Walker, two invasive insect $95 per acre. Extrapolating this result to just the 170,000 acres of pests that attack multiple fruit and vegetable crops. improved pecans in Texas (Smith et al. 2002) would show annual The North Central ipmPIPE and the Pennsylvania PIPE (PA-PIPE) statewide savings from $4.2 million (26% of system users reporting are two PIPEs each arranged around a geographic paradigm rather benefit ϫ 170,000a ϫ $95/a) to $16.15 million (if 100% of users than focusing on a particular crop/pest setting. The North Central attain reported benefit of $95/a). Texas is responsible for Ϸ30% of ipmPIPE was released online in 2010 and serves the north central national pecan production (Guillebeau 2001). region with multiple crop-pest related maps, currently displaying Impact data are not yet available for newer PIPEs, but clearly the information on black cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel); brown potential for economic impact through both avoiding unnecessary pest marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Stål); and western bean management interventions and through properly timing required in- cutworm, Striacosta albicosta (Smith). NC ipmPIPE is led by Daren terventions will be common to all PIPEs. Other beneficial impacts, to the environment and human health, may be difficult to quantify but

Mueller at Iowa State University and is funded through grants from Downloaded from EPA and the North Central IPM Center. The PA-PIPE provides online must nonetheless be acknowledged. As the ipmPIPE portfolio ex- access to crop, insect, disease, weather and weed models pertinent to pands, these benefits can only increase as well. Pennsylvania, and was developed collaboratively by Pennsylvania Lessons Learned, Opportunities, and Challenges. The ipmPIPE has State University Extension, PA Department of Agriculture, and ZedX, developed since mid-decade to now address several unique crop/pest Inc. situations and to involve most of the states in the continental United

Leadership and coordination of the ipmPIPE has evolved over the States. With this experience, leadership can now posit some crosscut- http://jipm.oxfordjournals.org/ years. The national ipmPIPE Steering Committee, established in 2006 ting lessons learned that may be useful in directing and facilitating and funded as part of the RMA projects, comprises a broad range of future development. These lessons fall under the broad headings of suitability, growth potential, sustainability, and future development. stakeholders. It has developed operating principles, sets policy, and Although the provides oversight. When the ipmPIPE portfolio consisted solely of Suitability: Where the ipmPIPE Should be Useful. potential uses for the ipmPIPE approach have certainly not been projects funded through one mechanism, the Steering Committee’s exhausted, experience to date implies that it is more suitable in some authority was clear. Now that major projects have been funded in other applications than in others. Especially suitable situations include the ways, the implementation of national leadership and the existing following: committee’s appropriate role are being evaluated.

Impact. The proven beneficial impact of existing ipmPIPE projects 1) Situations in which key events (such as pest migration) recur each by guest on June 5, 2016 is impressive, and the potential for future impacts is astounding. By year, and the system can provide real-time knowledge of those 2005, developmental and implementation costs for the SBR PIPE events so that pest managers can make optimal and timely were reported at $2.6 to $5 million, but soybean growers using the decisions. system saved between $11 million and $299 million dollars in that 2) Situations in which a pest spreads rapidly through the air in such season alone by avoiding unnecessary fungicide treatments (Roberts et a way that information on pest presence/severity and IPM practices al. 2006). Thus, the return on investment for one season was at least at one geographic location can inform decision making at other 220%, and as much as 11,500%. Soybean growers throughout the locations. major production states of the Midwest have saved similar amounts in 3) Situations in which running models, doing analysis/maps, and the 5 yr since, as the disease has not yet progressed into those states creating expert interpretation of pest risk for many locations are while the crop is still susceptible. Moreover, growers in Gulf Coast driven by environmental (weather) data, provided by other orga- states, where the pathogen can overwinter and infect crops at early, nizations/agencies (e.g., NWS) that is expensive in that it requires susceptible stages, have benefited from yield protection, using the expertise to quality control, manage and archive. SBR PIPE to properly time fungicide applications. Hershman (2009) 4) Situations in which knowledge of a pest and its management in the estimates savings to U.S. soybean producers of at least $209 million United States is low (recently introduced pest) so that it is impor- per year. tant for Extension specialists to share knowledge and experiences Ojiambo (2010) provides impact data on the CDM PIPE, including in near real-time to give the best advice possible to growers. the distribution of 9,156 alerts during the 2010 growing season to 5) Situations in which the costs to the crop insurance industry and the growers, industry personnel, and crop consultants. One third of survey RMA are reduced by real-time documentation of Extension spe- respondents indicated that using the system helped them prevent yield cialists’ assessments and communications to growers of pest risk losses, and two thirds reported that the website helped them identify and good management practices. CDM. Fully 57% of respondents credited the CDM PIPE as “very 6) Situations in which demand for the system is driven primarily by useful” in their efforts to control the disease. Georgia, NC and Mich- the crop production sector(i.e., growers and their advisors). igan specialists report that in 2009 alone growers saved 2–3 fungicide Suitability: Applications That May Not Be Suitable. The ipmPIPE applications because of information posted on the CDM PIPE. With approach is less useful, or at least its value has not been proven yet, Ϸ122,000 acres of cucurbits in three states, that translates into more in the following: than $6 M in savings. These three states account for about one-fourth 1) Situations in which we are as yet unable to make useful predictions of the U.S. cucurbit production, and a single fungicide application to based on observations. Providing capability of massive data col- all of the cucurbit acres in the United States would cost about $11 M. lection and analysis, this system clearly offers great potential to the Avoiding unnecessary fungicide applications not only creates produc- research community. The driving force for developing and sus- 6 JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT VOL. 3, NO. 2

taining infrastructure, however, is near-term practical benefit to Crops Research Initiative and to the AFRI Program Delivery and producers. Implementation of Wide-area Pest Monitoring program. 2) Situations in which the display resolution required to protect pri- The PIPE approach is not limited only to programs with “PIPE” in vacy is lower than the display resolution required to provide the title. One example is the “Pestwatch” program that has provided management value. For instance, county-level display of soybean sweet corn IPM information for years (PSU 2011). rust data and predictions is adequate to provide valuable manage- Sustainability. Reliable support for core infrastructure is a critical ment information to soybean growers, because our understanding challenge. The ipmPIPE was first conceived as a monolithic structure, of risk corresponds to county-level decisions (i.e., if any field in a with core financial support from the Federal government, costs shared county is at a given risk, all fields in that county are at the same with industry support and amortized across many components. From risk). However, field-by-field data drives predictions and manage- 2004 through 2007, Federal support grew steadily, but since then ment of soybean aphid, so the constraints of protecting grower Federal support has been inconsistent (Fig. 5). Federal support was the privacy render PIPE maps less useful for this insect pest. highest in 2010, but 62% of that amount represents a competitive grant The soybean aphid PIPE is of interest as the only PIPE that was from the Specialty Crops Research Initiative for the Onion PIPE. discontinued. As described above, the necessary display resolution of RMA’s mission is to “provide and support cost-effective means of useful information (field level) was higher than the resolution of managing risk for agricultural producers to improve the economic information that could legally be displayed. Also, information from stability of agriculture” (RMA 2000). To do this they operate the the ipmPIPE is most useful when it can be applied to mitigate Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, as well as a number of other uncertainty. Soybean aphid infestation occurs routinely across most of programs. RMA benefits from effective pest monitoring and manage- the midwestern soybean belt, so uncertainty there is relatively low. ment because good programs can decrease administrative complexity Uncertainty about annual soybean aphid infestation is high only in and costs of documentation. Indemnities paid for pest-related loss states (including Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and Tennessee)

claims should also be reduced as useful tools like the ipmPIPE are Downloaded from outside the primary soybean production area. The soybean aphid PIPE adopted by more growers. The integration of the traditional IPM simply may not have offered enough valuable information to a large approach with modern computing and communications technologies enough segment of the soybean production area. This situation con- trasts with the SBR PIPE. Although soybean rust rarely infests fields has the capability of yielding tremendous potential savings for the in the primary production area (and has not yet caused major eco- RMA in this area. At the same time, effective IPM programs support nomic damage there), the uncertainty of infestation occurs every RMA’s mission to strengthen the economic stability of U.S. agricul- http://jipm.oxfordjournals.org/ season. By mitigating uncertainty and helping stakeholders make tural producers by reducing pest management costs. more effective risk management decisions, the SBR PIPE provides The national structure of the ipmPIPE has devolved so that PIPEs real value to growers even in areas where the disease has never been are now distributed across multiple funding sources, multiple univer- found. sities, and both the public and private sectors. This devolution from Growth Potential. The ipmPIPE approach is clearly applicable to the original concept may prove beneficial in terms of long-term many additional situations. The rapid growth of ipmPIPE since its sustainability in a “diversified portfolio” sort of strategy. Risks, how- inception in 2006 attests to the applicability of this approach. From a ever, include the potential that projects will deteriorate and fail as start as only one PIPE (for soybean rust), the ipmPIPE portfolio now initial developmental funds are depleted, that project leaders will be includes seven distinct PIPEs, with five of those addressing multiple diverted from research and extension to chase competitive funds for pests. Of the PIPEs that were initiated, only one, the soybean aphid support, and that efficiency on a national scale will suffer as each by guest on June 5, 2016 PIPE for reasons mentioned in the previous section, has been project has to reproduce what otherwise could be common support discontinued. structures. Other PIPEs have been proposed but not yet funded. The 2008 Although growers benefit directly through input savings, crop competition that resulted in initiation of the CDM PIPE and the Pecan protection, or both, many of the benefits to this system are to society PIPE received 14 proposals. Furthermore, multiple unsuccessful pro- (environment, human health, food prices) in general. If “government” posals have been submitted in recent years to the USDA’s Specialty does not pay for programs that benefit the common good, who does?

Fig. 5. Approximate USDA funding for ipmPIPE support by Fiscal Year. JUNE 2012 VANKIRK ET AL.: THE IPMPIPE: OVERVIEW, LESSONS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES 7

Can and will growers, who realize only a portion of the benefits, 4th National Soybean Rust Symposium, 21 December 2009, New Orleans, LA. afford to carry the entire load? American Phytopathological Society. (http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/ Future Development. Just as ipmPIPE now uses the speed and infocenter/topic/soybeanrust/2009/presentations/Hershman.pdf). power of technology that we might not have foreseen a decade ago, Hershman, D. E., E. J. Sikora, and L. J. Giesler. 2011. Soybean rust PIPE: past, 1 present and future. Journal of Integrated Pest Management 2(2): technology will almost certainly continue to offer increased efficien- D1–D7. cies. Already, for instance, expense of monitoring SBR has drastically Higley, L. G., and R.K.D. Peterson. 2009. Economic decision rules for IPM, declined as we learned to 1) focus field monitoring where the patho- pp. 25–32. In E. B. Radcliffe, W. D. Hutchison, and R. E. Cancelado (eds.), gen can overwinter and where early season development will drive the Integrated pest management concepts, tactics, strategies and case studies. models; and 2) refine, validate, and trust the models. Furthermore, Cambridge University Press, New York. discovery and developmental costs have already been incurred, and [IAS] Iowa State University. 2011. North Central ipmPIPE. (http://apps.csi. costs of continued and expanded use might be expected to diminish iastate.edu/pipe/). over time. Isard, S. A., J. M. Russo, and E. D. DeWolf. 2006. The establishment of a national pest information platform for extension and education. Plant Health Over the course of just a few years the ubiquity of smartphones, Progress. doi:10.1094/PHP-2006–0915-01-RV. tablets, and other tools will likely render moot the old Extension Langham, M.A.C., H. F. Schwartz, S. A. Tolin, J. Golod, J. LaForest, and K. F. debate about whether or not farmers use the Internet. The 2008 Census Cardwell. 2011. Legume ipmPIPE: A new option for generating, summa- of Agriculture (USDA-NASS) indicated that Ϸ52% of the rural pop- rizing and disseminating real-time pest data to stakeholders. Journal of ulation had access to Internet in 2002, improving by 5% by 2007. At Integrated Pest Management 2(2): E1–E5. that time a baseline was set for 33% of the rural population with access Ojiambo, P. S., G. J. Holmes, W. Britton, T. Keever, M. L. Adams, M. to broadband Internet service. The tools and the expectations continue Babadoost, S. C. Bost, R. Boyles, M. Brooks, J. Damicone, et al. 2011. Cu- curbit downy mildew ipmPIPE: a next generation web-based interactive tool to evolve. Cell phone connectivity is becoming progressively more for disease management and extension outreach. Plant Health Progress important in providing information. Modern growers now have access doi:10.1094/PHP-2011–0411-01-RV. Downloaded from to tools that make communications almost instantaneous between [PSU] the Pennsylvania State University. 2011. PestWatch. (http://www.pestwatch. themselves and their advisors. Handheld device “apps” that integrate psu.edu/). ipmPIPE could dramatically increase our ability to gather and inte- [RMA] U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency. 2000. Risk grate data from the field as well as to distribute results and recom- Management Agency strategic plan for FY 2000–2005. (http://www.rma.usda. mendations to the field. However, wireless access to information gov/aboutrma/what/00-05_stratplan.pdf). through handheld devices is still dependent on broadband infrastruc- Roberts, M. J., D. Schimmelpfennig, E. Ashley, and M. Livingston. 2006. The value of plant disease early-warning systems: a case study of U.S. Department of http://jipm.oxfordjournals.org/ ture on the ground. Agriculture’s soybean rust coordinated framework. U.S. Department of Agriculture, References Cited Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 18. (http:// www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err18/ err18fm.pdf). Birt, A. G., A. Calixto, M. Tchakerian, A. Dean, R. N. Coulson, and M. K. Smith, D., M. Harris, T. Lee, G. McEachern, and W. Ree. 2001. Crop profile for Harris. 2012. Harnessing information technology (IT) for use in production agriculture. Journal of Integrated Pest Management 3(1): D1–D8. pecans in Georgia. (http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/txpecans. Calixto, A., A. Birt, N. Lee, A. Dean, B. Ree, and M. K. Harris. 2011. Pecan pdf). ipmPIPE: harnessing the Internet for stakeholders in production agriculture. Stern, V. M., R. F. Smith, R. van den Bosch, and K. S. Hagen. 1959. The Journal of Integrated Pest Management 2(2): F1–F6. integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29: 81–101. Guillebeau, P. 2001. Crop profile for pecans in Georgia. (http://www.ipmcenters. Zalom, F. G., P. B. Goodell, L. T. Wilson, W. W. Barnett, and W. J. Bentley. 1983. Degree-days: the calculation and use of heat units in pest org/cropprofiles/docs/GApecans.pdf). by guest on June 5, 2016 Harris, M., A. Knutson, and B. Ree. 2009. Pecan ipmPIPE: pecan producers management. University of California DANR Leaflet 21373. provide feedback. Pecan South 42: 23–33. Hershman, D. E. 2009. Changes in the 2010 Sentinel Plot System. Proceedings of the Received 5 May 2011; accepted 27 January 2012.