History of integrated control and IPM

In early 20th century biocontrol flourished in California with insect ecology emerging as applied entomology foundation. Chemical controls were gaining popularity among growers and entomologists even before the DDT era. Advent of DDT accelerated decline in support for and research effort in biocontrol. Insect ecologists perceived the risks associated with excessive use of insecticides. Concurrently, spread of the boll weevil in Texas and failure of its control with existing insecticides lead entomologists to propose effective multi-tactical control programs. With such background Michelbacher and Bacon (1952) introduced the concept of INTEGRATED CONTROL, further developed by the four authors of the paper we celebrate today. The full expression INTEGRATED PEST CONTROL appears in early 1960s’ in papers by Smith and collaborators. In 1961 ecologists Geier and Clark introduced “PROTECTIVE POPULATION MANAGEMENT” later PEST MANAGEMENT. Entomologists were divided in use of the two expressions. A synthesis was achieved with INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) that first appeared in1968. IPM gained popularity, mainly among entomologists, but less so among plant pathologists and weed scientists. Lack of consensus on a definition of IPM for all plant protection disciplines, vagueness in what was integrated in IPM, and a weak research foundation in community and ecosystems ecology, combined with weakness in extant IPM programs for many crops, and continued pressure of the pesticide industry, contributed to slow adoption of IPM. Critics of IPM proposed new expressions to qualify or replace IPM e.g. Biointensive, Biorational, Ecological, and Ecologically Based Pest Management. These were not new paradigms; they just detracted from the fact that -INTEGRATED – is key to the IPM expression. IPM provides the most robust framework for decision making in pest control. The concepts of EIL and ET ushered in in the paper by Stern, Smith, van den Bosh and Hagen are an integral part of that framework.