Abstract

Community IPM decreases risks from pests and pest management practices in urban, suburban, and rural communities.

Issue

New Yorkers are demanding a safe environment where they live, work and play. It has become clear that pesticide-restrictive legislation is affecting many communities. In order to address these concerns, risks from both pests and the methods used to control them must be considered. For example, parents want children to be safe from stinging insects, but the public does not want pesticides used in schools. Similar examples can be drawn from the pest management of parks, golf courses, homes, municipalities, hospitals, and office buildings. Professional pest managers are willing to use lower-risk alternatives to pesticides, or to minimize their pesticide use if methods are proven effective. However, research to discover and develop these techniques, and extension to train managers are needed for change to occur. At the same time, the general public needs to learn more about environmentally-friendly options for managing pests. This knowledge is used for decisions such as preventing and managing pest problems at home, selecting a lawn care service, choosing food products in the grocery store, and forming opinions about farmers in the community.

Response

The Community IPM effort was initiated in the mid-1990s to extend the New York State IPM Program's successful work of minimizing negative effects of pests and pest control methods on human health and the environment, to non-agricultural settings. Settings include schools, homes, offices, parks and golf courses. Teaching alternative practices that are effective and economically feasible are a major thrust of Community IPM. The extension programming draws from science-based information developed at Cornell and other educational institutions. We train school personnel IPM methods of managing school buildings and grounds. We also instruct them how to comply with the state's 48-hour pre-notification law. Golf course superintendents, lawn care professionals, landscapers, and structural pest control operators are also being trained. Supporting this effort are research projects comparing golf course management strategies (including traditional, IPM and non-chemical approaches), investigating alternative strategies for managing school grounds, and developing non-toxic ways to handle stinging insect problems. Finally, we are targeting the general public to raise general awareness of IPM, and specific IPM practices for the home. To this end, we have produced nine brochures and 22 public service announcements, and provided information on the IPM website.

Impact

We trained employees from 125 school districts, and distributed our IPM Workbook for New York State schools to all 702 school districts in New York. We helped schools solve specific problems with mice, ants, lice, stinging insects, weeds and more and taught them how to handle the problem themselves next time. We partnered with state agencies to conduct a comprehensive survey of pest management practices in schools. Results help us target current extension and research activities, and provide a baseline to assess future progress.

For pest management in municipal settings, we created and distributed IPM for Municipal Buildings, a manual and educational CD. We assisted facilities managers in less-toxic ways to manage pest problems in office buildings, jails, athletic fields, golf courses, and a county farm. The state's turfgrass industry has greatly benefited from the IPM Program, with over 20 IPM training opportunities available annually. Golf course research showed that IPM putting greens could be maintained with 30 to 54 percent fewer pesticide applications, and up to 72 percent less environmental impact, than conventionally managed greens. We provided turf managers with alternative techniques, and strongly influenced management of the New York's 3.5 million acres of turf. Homeowner awareness of IPM has increased, as shown by surveys in the last 20 years. With nine brochures, one booklet, and 22 public service announcements, we are also encouraging homeowners to adopt IPM techniques at home.

Funding Sources

• Federal Formula Funds - Extension (e.g., Smith Lever, RREA)
• Private (e.g., commodity groups, foundations, companies)
• Other USDA (e.g., Water Quality, Special Grants, NRI)
• State funding

Collaborators

• Lynn Braband, NYS IPM Program
• Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann, NYS IPM Program
• Jana Lamboy, NYS IPM Program
• Gary Couch, NYS IPM Program
• Claudia Coen, NYS IPM Program
• Carrie Koplinka-Loehr, NYS IPM Program
• Mary Woodsen, NYS IPM Program
• Jill Shultz, NYS IPM Program
• Frank Rossi, Cornell Univ. Horticulture Dept.
• Joyce Rodler, CCE Suffolk Cty.
• Brian Eshenaur CCE Monroe Cty.
• Walt Nelson CCE Chemung Cty.
• Tamson Yeh CCE Nassau Cty.
• Paula Shrewsbury, Univ. of Maryland

Key Personnel

• Jennifer Grant, NYS IPM Program, Geneva, New York