Northeast Region IPM Grants
|
|
| States: | Maryland, New York |
| Investigators: | Shrewsbury, P., M. Raupp, C. Stewart, P. Dernoeden,
B. Thorne, J. Grant |
| Institutions: | University of Maryland |
| Project Type: | Research and Extension |
| Award*: | $143,246 |
| Term: | 36 months beginning 4/02 |
|
Crop: |
schools |
*Award shown is total amount to be used over the course of the project term.
The problem we address is not unique to the Northeast Region but is one common throughout the United States. It is the issue of children exposed to pesticides in schools. Concerns over pesticide use and the health and safety of students and staff have resulted in a plethora of legislative actions in the Northeast region and nationwide. Regulatory actions, both mandatory and voluntary, intended to decrease children's pesticide exposure are either already in place or are being considered in more than 30 states. The perceived benefits of IPM have resulted in several states adopting legislation that requires school systems to have IPM plans. Nationwide, 13 states have either mandatory or voluntary "IPM in Schools" laws. Most of these regulations advocate the use of least toxic approaches such as alternatives to pesticides or pesticides with reduced risk.The problem is with the exception of a limited number of reports summarizing impacts of IPM programs for indoor pests there are very few comparative studies that examine the feasibility of implementing IPM programs emphasizing the use of least toxic tactics for turf, landscape,and public health pests in public school systems despite the fact that these programs are being strongly promoted and in some cases mandated by law.
The objectives of this proposal are to determine the efficacy and cost effectiveness (feasibility) of "least toxic" control tactics and strategies for managing weed, insect, and disease pests in public school sites in Maryland and New York. Alternative least toxic tactics will be evaluated and demonstrated for three model systems:
Evaluations will include the economic and environmental changes associated with the implementation of a Least Toxic IPM approach. Comparisons will be made of non-pesticidal alternatives at demonstration schools under "Least Toxic" IPM programs with types and quantities of materials used at schools under "Conventional"IPM programs. Our extension goals are to summarize findings, produce educational materials, and deliver information via traditional sources such as print and electronic media. We will provide regional training to school administrators, IPM practitioners, and Extension Specialists and Educators in the Northeast
Findings from the proposed works should be relevant to public schools throughout the Northeast region and the nation and assist in the implementation of feasible pest management programs based on sound, research based information.
Research Objectives
1) Efficacy of least toxic tactics: to test the efficacy of least toxic tactics for weed, disease, and insect control.
2) Cost effectiveness of least toxic IPM tactics and approach: to evaluate cost effectiveness by comparing the costs (labor, equipment, materials) of implementing a Least Toxic IPM approach to a Conventional IPM approach.
3) Environmental impact of least toxic approach: to evaluate environmental impacts by comparing types and quantities of pesticidal materials used in Conventional IPM schools to Least Toxic IPM schools
Extension Objectives
1)To inform and educate school administrators on what IPM is and what are feasible expectations for public schools.
2) To summarize findings and deliver information and technical training to IPM practitioners.
3) to educate Extension Specialists and Educators throughout the Northeast region so they can return to their states and educate their stakeholders.
|
2002 Northeast IPM Funded Projects |
Home |
IPM Efforts |
What Is It?: |
|