How many letters do we need to understand Integrated Pest Management?

Apparently, one of the most relevant existential questions for pest control professionals is the definition of what they do or should do in their work. A bit jokingly, hiding some truth, there are those who claim that pest control or, more specifically, IPM, is an art; Well, everyone interprets it in their own way and convenience. In a previous article (LATAMPLAGAS, No. 15, April 2023) I set out to explain aspects such as management, control and management of pests, under the general scheme of IPM or

We also made a very brief historical overview of the events that shaped the concept of IPM, from the so-called exterminators to the present day. However, there is still much confusion about what integrated pest management is. Also, in another issue of the magazine (LATAMPLAGAS, No. 16, July 2024) we talk about

what we call in it “The method of the three triads”, which is not intended to replace IPM, but rather to facilitate the understanding of the classic question “Why is a pest a pest?”, which brings us to the focus of IPM itself, the pest. This article becomes part of this conceptual trilogy seeking a better understanding of this important work in favor of health, society, the environment and the economy. DEFINITION OF IPM As is usually done, let's start at the beginning, the definitions. In the middle of the 20th century, trying to counteract the excessive use of pesticides by calendar, what was known as “Supervised Insect Control” was proposed, in which cooperation was established between the academic sector and applicators, establishing pesticide application plans based on the monitoring of pest populations, the

use of their natural enemies and their protection (Smith and Smith, 1949). Subsequently, a similar system called IPM has been applied, but different from what we normally refer to, rather it is “Integrated Pesticide Management”, which has been criticized because it focuses on a “fixed mentality of quick solutions” (Ehler, 2006). It can be traced as the origin of the concept to the work of Stern, Smith, van der Bosch and Hagen, at the University of California, Berkeley, ten years later, in which they express concern about the way in which pest control is applied in those days:

errors of the past and avoid similar ones in the future" (Stern, et al, 1959), establishing in a certain sense the bases of the definition of IPM with a sustainable perspective. In this work they define what could be considered the 3 basic pillars of IPM: 1, the adequate management of resources (including chemical control); 2, the presence of the organism does not imply the pest situation and; 3, the evaluation of all possible options before acting or, in other words, correct prior planning. In a meeting In Rome, a FAO panel of experts on integrated pest control defined IPM as “A pest management system that, in the context of the associated environmental and population dynamics of pest species, uses all appropriate techniques and methods in the most compatible manner possible and maintains the pest population at levels below those that cause economic damage” (FAO, 1968). Table 1 presents some of the many definitions of IPM that can be found in different sources, some more complex than that. others. MISUNDERSTOOD IPM For a correct application of an integrated pest management plan, it is necessary to understand what IPM means. This has been one of the barriers to the true implementation of IPM (Jean-Philippe Deguine, et al., 2021), given the large number of definitions that can be found in different sources. After its introduction, IPM became a buzzword in conferences, journals, and academic discussions for research grants. There are more than 77 definitions listed on the IPM Resource Database website alone." In relatively recent years, and as part of the search for a better understanding for the corresponding application of an IPM plan, various alternatives have been proposed, either as a complement, new approaches, or even as a substitute for the original. PAMS Towards the end of the last century, just over two or a half decades ago, the USDA and EPA were unable to adopt a definition of IPM, due to confusion on the part of policy makers. for its implementation (Bottrell and Ehler, 2000), so in 1998 the USDA established an alternative system, the PAMS, “Prevention, Suppression, Monitoring and Suppression”, in which at least 3 of the 4 components of the system should be applied to be qualified as “IPM”.

focuses on preventing possible pest organisms from reaching the site; Cancellation or avoidance is about reducing the impact that the organisms already present; Monitoring is responsible for monitoring both the presence of possible pests and their effects and, finally; Suppression seeks to compensate for what the first two elements do not achieve, eliminating the organisms (Ehler, 2006). The problem that this system represents is that it does not consider the integration of tactics, it does not represent a true system, so sometimes incompatibilities may arise that can aggravate the problem. EBPM Since 1975, IPM was established as a framework for different systems, with a focus on prevention and the implementation of integrated control. Subsequently, there is talk of a first generation of IPM, from 1981 to 1985, based on an economic threshold and on biological and physical methods, focused on pest organisms. A second generation of IPM, from 1986 to 1990, focused on the sites or effects of damage, incorporating natural control systems between 1991 and 1995. Towards the beginning of the 20th century, a third generation of ecosystem-focused IPM is supposed to take place (Peshin et al., 2009, cited by Abrol and Shankar, 2012). From this point we start for the so-called “Ecologically Based Pest Management”, or ecologically supported pest management (or MEP), in which a management system is proposed without affecting the “balance of nature”. The foundations are: first, the understanding of the relationships between the environment and practices, both cultural, biological and vulnerability; second, the integration of all components, biological, chemical, cultural and physical; and third, economic, environmental and health risks must be minimized. IRM In Spanish, MIR, is based exclusively on resistance management, an annex to the chemical strategies part of IPM. It is a holistic approach to managing pest populations and reducing pesticide resistance (Philips, Graves and Luttrell, 1989). It was born from the emergence of pyrethroids, in the 70s of the 20th century, which at that time were considered “the silver bullet” in pest control and

The intention of their approach was to maintain the susceptibility of pests to this family of insecticides. Organizations such as the Pyrethroid Efficacy Group (PEG), made up of the major chemical companies producing pyrethroids, and the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC), which represents virtually all chemical companies, have advocated for IRM around the world. IUPM It is common to treat

IPM, which can be considered valid in some aspects, although not in general. While systems for IPM were being developed in the agricultural sector, in areas occupied by humans and their secondary and tertiary activities, pest control was still very rudimentary and there was no thought of applying the principles of IPM in urban and suburban areas. In 1978, Olkowski and Olkowski (1978), derived from a study they carried out with trees in urban areas, proposed the adaptation of IPM to cities and adjacent areas. They detected that the way to evaluate existing urban pest control activities was to examine pesticide use patterns, identifying that urban and suburban chemical users were essentially homeowners, public and private institutions, and commercial establishments, which represented a special complexity to communicate IPM concepts given that they were not familiar with agricultural work, which implied the development of new models under the same principles. The recommendation in the IUPM is to adequately measure the damage that an organism can cause, since not in all situations the population size can be taken as a reference. GPP The so-called “preventive pest management” is perhaps one of the most mentioned and least understood of our times. For some, it is simply another name for integrated pest management, while for others it is a modernized version. First of all, we must separate it from what is “IPM management” (LATAMPLAGAS No. 15), which refers to the administration and execution of an IPM plan. The key to the definition is the word “preventive”, which takes us to two points of IPM: on the one hand, to the actions necessary to prevent the pest from occurring and, second, to the ideal point after containing the damage, moving on to the surveillance phase; that is, at the extremes of the IPM. Directly aligned with quality control and risk management, so it is applicable to accounts auditable by various standards, such as the food industry. The GPP addresses the risk management of

formally, considering susceptibility, probability (sometimes measured from the frequency in previous observations and records) and impact (or severity), and criticality as a factor (LATAMPLAGAS No. 16, third triad), so that progress or setbacks in the IPM plan can be measured. IPM Integrated Pest Management has been understood as an IPM with a “broad focus”, more holistic than IPM, assuming that IPM focuses only on pests or damage. However, the difference lies essentially in the translation of the word “management”, which in Spanish is usually translated equally as management or management (see LATAMPLAGAS No. 15). APM In 2018, Faith-Oi and collaborators (2018) from the University of Florida, propose a system to, in their opinion, facilitate the evaluation and decision-making in a pest control plan, APM or Pest Management

based on Evaluation, based on an idea from one of the authors, Dini Miller (2019). The objective of the APM is to offer a simple method to be used by low-level contract Pest Management Professionals, in which the technician does not have enough time to make a formal evaluation, since it is not required of them as is the case with the so-called auditable accounts. A little on the other side of the GPP. The method basically consists of different levels ranging from A to D. starting with pest monitoring, including long-term monitoring; which includes the strategic use of monitoring devices, especially in vulnerable areas. To do this, they suggest using the so-called traditional “survival triangle” that includes the famous triad of water + shelter + food. It proposes, as a chemical part, reduced exposure treatments, such as baits and IGRs (growth regulators), as well as appropriate formulations. A key aspect is the use of the same baits to monitor,

according to consumption. In the aforementioned publication, it apparently falls into the contradiction of recommending the application of pesticides according to monitoring results, but also recommends a monthly rotation calendar, perhaps seeking the easiest adoption by the low-profile Pest Management Professional. As can be seen, APM, contrary to what has been suggested recently, is in no way a real alternative to IPM, but rather a way of explaining a part of the original IPM, the evaluation of the pest population based on monitoring results. However, presenting a simplified form of evaluation for the non-expert Pest Management Professional is appreciated. UNDERSTANDING IPM One might think that understanding the concept of Integrated Pest Management is less important than applying it, as some Pest Management Professionals express, which is definitely nonsense. Among the aspects that Deguine (2021) and Ehler

TABLE 1. SOME DEFINITIONS OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) Stern, et al.,

(Integrated control). Applied pest control that combines and integrates biological and chemical control. Integrated control can make use of natural biological control, as well as biological control carried out by manipulated or introduced biotic agents.

Flint and van den Bosch, 1981

Integrated pest management is a comprehensive long-term program based on knowledge of an ecosystem that weighs the economic, environmental and social consequences of interventions.

Lewis et al., 1997

It is a philosophy that involves managing a pest rather than controlling or eradicating a pest. Requires greater knowledge of the pest and the environment. Their strategy focuses on taking advantage of inherent strengths within ecosystems and driving pest populations toward acceptable limits rather than eliminating them. This strategy avoids undesirable effects in the short and long term and will guarantee a sustainable future.

FAO

Careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and the subsequent integration of appropriate measures that reduce the development of pest populations and maintain the use of pesticides and other interventions at economically justified levels and that minimize risks to human health and the environment.

US EPA

Effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that is based on a combination of common sense practices. IPM programs use up-to-date and complete information on pest life cycles and their interaction with the environment. This information, in combination with available pest control methods, is used to control pest damage by the most economical means and with the least possible danger to people, property and the environment.

USDA (7 U.S.C. § 136r)

Science-based decision-making process that combines tools and strategies to identify and manage pests. It is a sustainable approach to pest management by combining biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks.

PAN (Pesticide Action Network)

Approach to pest management in which chemical pesticides are used only as a last resort, if at all. It addresses pests and diseases by using a combination of different control methods, based on cultural practices, physical methods, biological control, supported by effective pest surveillance strategies.

CDC

A common sense, science-based approach to reducing public health pest and disease vector populations. IPM uses a variety of pest management techniques that focus on pest prevention, pest reduction, and elimination of conditions that lead to pest infestations.

University of California. IPM program.

IPM is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on the long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices and the use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are necessary according to established guidelines, and treatments are performed with the goal of eliminating only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and non-target organisms, and the environment.

Bennet, et al., 2012 (Truman Guide)

Integrated system of preventive and corrective measures to prevent pests from causing significant problems... these objectives must be achieved at the lowest possible cost, with the minimum risk or danger to customers and to the valued elements of their environment.

Rabb, 1974

Pest management is applied science without single principles. The goal of all pest management programs is to erode the homeostatic capacity of pest populations, that is, to reduce the equilibrium position of populations (K) spatially and temporally, so that the frequency and duration of fluctuation above economic thresholds are reduced or eliminated. Tactics (ecological manipulations) and strategies (pest management, decision-making processes) distinguish pest management (IPM) from unilateral approaches. Pest management is the selection, integration and implementation of pest control strategies based on the anticipated economic, ecological and sociological consequences.

(2000), with their collaborators, describe as keys to the misunderstanding of Integrated Pest Management, we have the limited training that professionals have had on topics such as ecology and sustainability, the strong dependence on the use of pesticides promoted by the pesticide manufacturing industry, the little interest in investing in the development of alternatives and, as we have already commented, the great confusion generated by the constant publication of ad hoc definitions, which in the desire to frame the concept in a particular objective. They add too many elements to supposedly “explain it better” (as can be seen in Table 1) or, on the other hand, oversimplify it to give validity to new proposals that are presented as alternatives that are actually procedures part of the same scheme. This often leads to the error of thinking about adopting or taking sides with the most convenient concept for our understanding or way of working, leading us to a confirmation bias, blocking a broader view. The development of methods and procedures that facilitate adequate integrated pest management are always welcome, no matter if they come from other sectors. We cannot forget that, in its origin, it emerged from the agricultural field and its bases are not foreign to the urban area, although the organizations and problems are different. For example, deciding on GPP or APM, depending on the market and profile of the pest control company, can facilitate providing the optimal result to clients and, at the same time, enter a cycle of continuous improvement in its services through an internal audit system, which I consider both methods to be a valuable contribution, if they are not presented as a replacement for IPM or with too much focus on chemical control.

Also, the emergence of new approaches must help the progress of IPM through increased knowledge and paradigm shifts. It is clear that one of the least developed, but urgent, aspects is addressing the pest problem from an ecological perspective (which is not the same as ecological). On the other hand, it is also necessary to change the vision towards strong sustainability, prioritizing the environment, then society and closing with the economy, contrary to how it is traditionally done. DEFINITION OF IPM It is important that we understand IPM, not as a simple list of instructions, but as a stable, robust and predictive framework, that is, one that can be enriched with advances in science and can incorporate new techniques or tools that reinforce processes and procedures towards better results with a preventive vision. IPM can also be viewed as a philosophy, as described by Ehi-Eromosele et al. (2013) in which we talk about an integrated process in which each action is not only complementary and coherent, but also synergistic with the others; an approach that considers not only the potentially pest organism, but other living, environmental and social factors that can lead to such a situation; the use of pesticides as a last resort and not as a first line of defense focused on only mitigating symptoms; and the understanding that it is a dynamic and constant activity, which requires monitoring and surveillance as a basis for decision-making, rather than a routine task tied to a schedule of pesticide applications.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Abrol, D P & Shankar, Uma. (2012). History, overview and principles of ecologically-based pest management. Integrated Pest Management: Principles and practice. 1-26.
Bennett, Gary W et al. (2012) Truman's Scientific Guide to Pest Control Operations. 7th Edition. Purdue University, Advanstar. Cleveland, Ohio
Deguine, JP., Aubertot, JN., Flor, R.J. et al. (2021). Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 38.
Ehi-Eromosele, Cyril, O.C. Nwinyi and O.O. Ajani (2013). Integrated Pest Management. In: Solonezki, S and M. L. Larramendy (eds.) Weed and Pest Control. Conventional and New Challenges.
Ehler, L. E. (2006). Integrated pest management (IPM): definition, historical development and implementation, and the other IPM. Pest management science, 62(9), 787-789.
Ehler, L. E. and D. G. Bottrell (2000). The Illusion of Integrated Pest Management. Issues in Science and Technology 16, no. 3
Faith Oi, Emma N. I. Weeks, J Jonovich and D. Miller. 2018. Assessment-based Pest Management of German Cockroaches: ENY989/IN1190, 12/2017. Vol. 2018 No. 1. IFASW Ext. University of Florida.
Ferrario, R. (2025) Comprehensive Pest Management. Ed. Dunken, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Flint, M. L. and R. van der Bosch. (1981). Introduction to Integrated Pest Management. Plenum, Press. NY.
Hill, D.S. (1997). Pest Definitions. In: The Economic Importance of Insects. Springer, Dordrecht.
Kogan, Marcos. (2009). History of integrated control and IPM. Conference: Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting 2009
Miller, Dini M. and Smith, Eric P. (2019) Quantifying the Efficacy of an Assessment-Based Pest Management (APM) Program for German Cockroach (L.) (Blattodea: Blattellidae) Control in Low-Income Public Housing Units. Journal of Economic Entomology, Volume 113, Issue 1, February 2020, Pages 375–384.
Olkowski, W., & Olkowski, H. (1978). Urban integrated pest management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF), 4(11), 241-246.
Phillips, J. R., J. B. Graves, R. G. Luttrell (1989) Insecticide resistance management: Relationship to integrated pest management. Pest Management Science, Volume27, Issue 4, Pages 459-464
Rabb, R. L., R. E. Stinner, and G. A. Carlson. (1974). Ecological principles as a basis for pest management in the agroecosystem. In: Proceedings of the Summer Institute on Biological Control of Plant Insects and Diseases, F. G. Maxwell and F. A. Harris, editors, pp. 19-45. Univ. Press of Mississippi.
Radcliffe, Edward B. Introduction to Population Ecology. In: Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook. https://ipmworld.umn.edu/ (accessed July 18, 2025)
Radcliffe, E. B., W. D. Hutchinnson and R. E. Cancelado (Eds.) (2009). Integrated Pest Management. Concepts, tactics, strategies and case studies. Cambridge Unv. Press.
Smith, R, and G Smith. 1949. “Supervised Control of Insects: Utilizes Parasites and Predators and Makes Chemical Control More Efficient.” California Agriculture 3 (5): 3–12.
Stern V M, Smith R F, van den Bosch K & Ragen K S. (1959). The integration of chemical and biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid: the integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81-101.
The Pesticide Stewardship. The PAMS Approach. Center for Integrated Pest Management. https://pesticidestewardship.org/ ipm/the-pams-approach/ (accessed July 18, 2025)