The Ipmpipe: Overview, Lessons, Opportunities, and Challenges
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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