ASSESSING THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, U.S., LANDSCAPE COMPANIES

Journal of Arboriculture, Jul 2004 by Sellmer, James C, Ostiguy, Nancy, Kelley, Kathleen M, Hoover, Kelli

Abstract. A mail survey was conducted in 2000 to determine awareness and use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices by landscape companies in Pennsylvania, U.S. Participants answered questions pertaining to awareness of common practices, the frequency at which IPM practices were employed, and aspects of monitoring and pest management decision-making processes. Three distinct IPM practitioner segments were identified and labeled "IPM savvy" (companies more likely to employ IPM practices), "part-time IPMers" (companies that employed some IPM strategies), and "reluctant IPMers" (companies least likely to employ IPM strategies). The "part-time IPMers" and "reluctant IPMers" segments represented a substantial part of the industry (68%). Overall, Pennsylvania landscape companies are aware of IPM practices and monitor for insects and mites, diseases, and weeds. However, confidence in identification of specific pests, site analyses, use of diagnostic and monitoring tools, employing beneficial organisms, and maintaining permanent records of pests and management strategies employed remain low. Continued education is warranted to enhance pest monitoring skills, diagnostic tools, pest identification, treatment options, and record keeping. The results of this survey clearly show that landscape companies still have need of demonstrable evidence that the implementation of IPM practices is cost effective and offers marketing benefits to their company.

Key Words. Integrated Pest Management; Plant Health Care; survey; cluster analysis; segmentation.

Landscape Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and its key components have been actively discussed, employed, and reviewed in the scientific and trade journals since the 1980s (Raupp and Noland 1984; Raupp 1985; Rhoads 1985; Nielsen 1990). Within these discussions, the reasons for adopting IPM practices in the landscape have been well described and include potential health and safety hazards of pesticide use in urban and suburban communities, increased pest resistance with repeated pesticide use, and indiscriminate use of cover sprays without consideration of biology or the economics of the application (Raupp and Noland 1984; Smith and Raupp 1986). Smith and Raupp (1986) demonstrated that through scouting, record keeping, targeted control activities involving conventional and biopesticides, and mechanical control practices (e.g., pruning) on large community properties, spray reductions of 87% and 79% could be achieved in consecutive years after implementation of the IPM program. In addition, cost reductions of 31% and 12% were also recorded during the IPM program time period.

Many papers have discussed the components of an IPM program (Raupp 1985; Nielsen 1990). Four key components of IPM are (1) site analysis to identify pest and cultural problems, including key plants and key pests; (2) scouting a minimum of four times a year with a maximum scouting interval of every 2 weeks during the growing season for insects, weeds, diseases, rodents, and cultural problems utilizing visual inspection and traps (for insects); (3) permanent record keeping that documents pests and affected plants, environmental conditions, liming of the problem, and control methods employed; and (4) following treatment, periodically evaluating the effect of control.

There is a great deal of information available on the rationale lor and benefits of implementing IPM in the landscape, prompting many groups, including arborists, extension educators, landscape managers, trade associations, and citizen groups, to adopt IPM strategies and promote IPM training. IPM education is conveyed through numerous forums, including organized educational programs, newsletters, Web sites, and industry publications.

In 1999, Pennsylvania, U.S., ranked seventh in the nation in the number of landscape service establishments, with 3,011 licensed firms, and fifth nationally in the number of employees working in the industry (14,040) (Willits and Shields 2001). The Pennsylvania nursery industry includes certified nursery growers and dealers. Nursery dealers are defined as businesses engaged primarily in buying and selling nursery stock. In 2000, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) listed 4,380 certified dealers in the stale consisting of chain stores, collectors, distributors, greenhouse producers, hobbyists, mail order companies, seedling dealers, landscape contractors, landscape nurseries, and garden centers (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2000). Of these 4,380 certified dealers, 2,247 were represented by landscape contractors, landscape nurseries, and garden centers. The largest concentration of landscape contracting, nursery, and garden center operations is in southeastern Pennsylvania, followed by the southwestern and south-central regions of the state. In all cases, landscape companies are concentrated around the major metropolitan areas of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg. Willits and Shields (2001) reported that 82% of gross income of landscape contractors in Pennsylvania was generated by design, installation, and maintenance activities, while 17% of garden centers' income was associated with design and installation and 8% with maintenance.