IPM Network – Measuring Capacity, Framing the Future: Webinar

Integrated pest management (IPM) currently has a solid foundation with programs in all 50 states and 3 US territories. Each region of the United States also has an IPM center that is focused on insect, disease, and weed issues in that particular region. Dr. Daren Mueller, professor and extension plant pathologist at Iowa State University,  summarizes results of the 2023 survey including the current state of IPM in the United States, along with opportunities for improvement and future activities.

Funding for IPM programs in the United States has been coming from programs within the US Department of Agriculture. While funding has been awarded to every state, the funding has been competitive for the last 16 years. So some states receive more than others and this does lead to differences between programs. There are advantages and disadvantages of this strategy. Also it is worth noting that total IPM funding has been relatively consistent. While major cuts have been avoided, this also means that funding has not increased to keep up with rising inflation, often requiring programs to do more with less.

Currently, a strength of IPM is that there is an established, robust network that includes over 1,000 IPM specialists throughout the country. These networks include university programs like pesticide safety education programs, plant diagnostic clinics, master gardeners, master naturalists; society-based programs like certified crop advisers; and USDA-NIFA funded programs like IR-4 and SARE. These programs includes pest surveillance tools and pest forecast systems, which helps farmers prepare for and manage pest outbreaks. However, most university programs lack staff in supporting roles; 70% of programs do not include communicators and 80% do not have evaluators.  

IPM provides essential support when new invasive pests threaten farm profits or human health. The network and infrastructure is in place for quick and effective action, which includes promotion, creation of resources and training. However, increased funding would strengthen IPM organization, collaboration and coordination of efforts, especially if there could be IPM leadership or communication at a national level. Other opportunities for improving IPM, include building partnerships with new stakeholders, leveraging collaborations across other networks, and using technology to broaden impacts.

A paper describing the IPM survey methods and results in detail is available.

A strategic plan related to IPM is also in progress, and an overview was provided. IPM priorities and stakeholders from the last 16 years have been reviewed. This plan describes potential strategic goals for moving toward the future of IPM:

• Provide research and extension education to protect people from diseases, weeds and insects and pesticides
• Deliver timely and relevant information to agencies, stakeholders and policy makers
• Enhance engagement and collaboration
• Leverage and share resources
• Increase IPM awareness
• Expand IPM beyond traditional pest-focused disciplines

Presenter