Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T18:24:09.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 29 - IPM in structural habitats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

Edward B. Radcliffe
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
William D. Hutchison
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access

Summary

Over the past 30+ years, there has developed a sizeable complement of knowledge about structural pests, as well as the devices and methods for detecting and controlling these pests. Despite existing knowledge, there is still much to learn about implementing this knowledge into IPM programs that are robust in ability to prevent or reduce pest infestations, provide opportunities for decision making and result in continued successes or directed improvement. IPM programs for residential, institutional, commercial and industrial structures are largely undeveloped and fragile in operation; there are considerable challenges involved in adopting the IPM philosophy and practices for these different structures. Some urban structures have established programs typically mandated by regulations (e.g. public schools and government buildings), while others employ programs using industry-developed standards (e.g. food processing). Overall, structural IPM practices typically resemble modified conventional practices compared to how practices should operate under a true IPM program.

In the current state of developing IPM programs for structures, insects can be monitored, excluded, cleaned up, or controlled with least-toxic products, but how these elements are delivered in a program is subject to the type of structure, past experiences and opinion of the practitioner, and forces of competition by companies that provide pest management services. Structural IPM programs are in a fragile state, readily discarded when things go wrong, resulting in a “knee-jerk reaction” return to recognized and convenient “conventional” methods of control. In many cases, IPM programs become “conventionalized” because of control failure resulting from incomplete or inconsistent IPM processes (e.g.inaccurate monitoring, technical decision not to spray in an area, lack of training), and seldom do IPM programs become re-established after such failure.

Type
Chapter
Information
Integrated Pest Management
Concepts, Tactics, Strategies and Case Studies
, pp. 378 - 389
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, F. H. (2000). Impact of accumulated food on survival of Tribolium castaneum on concrete treated with cyfluthrin wettable powder. Journal of Stored Products Research, 36, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Food Production. Washington, DC: USEnvironmental Protection Agency. Available at www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ipm.htm.Google Scholar
,Environmental Protection Agency (2006). Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Schools: Protecting Children in Schools from Pests and Pesticides. Washington, DC: USEnvironmental Protection Agency. Available at www.epa.gov/pesticides/ipm/.Google Scholar
Greene, A. & Breisch, N. L. (2002). Measuring pest management programs for public buildings. Journal of Economic Entomology, 95, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heaps, J. W. (2006). Insect Management for Food Storage and Processing. St. Paul, MN: American Association of Cereal Chemists International.Google Scholar
Kells, S. A. (2006). Bedbugs: a systemic pest within society. American Entomologist, 52, 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. D. (2004). Integrated pest management. In Mallis' Handbook of Pest Control, 9th edn, eds. Hedges, S. A. & Moreland, D., pp. 1311–1337. Cleveland, OH: GIE Media.Google Scholar
Miller, D. M. & Meek, F. (2004). Cost and efficacy comparison of integrated pest management strategies with monthly spray insecticide applications for German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) control in public housing. Journal of Economic Entomology, 97, 559–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platt, R. R., Cuperus, G. W., Payton, M. E., Bonjour, E. L. & Pinkston, K. N. (1998). Integrated pest management perceptions and practices and insect populations in grocery stores in south-central United States. Journal of Stored Product Research, 34, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, W. H. (1995). Perspective on IPM a critical review. Pest Control Technology, 23, 34, 39–42.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. H. (1996). Integrated pest management in the urban environment. American Entomologist, 42, 76–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. M., Appel, A. G., Mack, T. P., Keever, G. J. & Benson, E. P. (1995). Comparative effectiveness of an integrated pest management system and an insecticide perimeter spray for control of smokybrown cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 88, 907–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripp, J. M., Suiter, D. R., Bennett, G. W., Klotz, J. H. & Reid, B. L. (2000). Evaluation of control measures for black carpenter ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 93, 1493–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C. & Bennett, G. W. (2006). Comparative study of integrated pest management and baiting for German cockroach management in public housing. Journal of Economic Entomology, 99, 879–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, G. M., Linker, H. M., Waldvogel, M. G., Leidy, R. B. & Schal, C. (2005). Comparison of conventional and integrated pest management programs in public schools. Journal of Economic Entomology, 98, 1275–1283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, F. E., Robinson, W. H., Kraft, S. K. & Zungoli, P. A. (1981). Survey of attitudes and knowledge of public housing residents toward cockroaches. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 27, 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zungoli, P. A. & Robinson, W. H. (1984). Feasibility of establishing an aesthetic injury level for German cockroach pest management programs. Environmental Entomology, 13, 1453–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×