Northeast Region IPM Grants
|
|
| States: | New York |
| Project Directors: | Michael Hoffmann |
| Institutions: | Cornell University |
| Project Type: | Extension |
| Award*: | $ 49,997 |
| Term: | 24 months |
| Setting: |
home and community |
*Award shown is total amount to be used over the course of the project term.
Three-fourths of the households in the Northeast region use pesticides to manage pests in their homes, lawns, and gardens. Some of these applications could be avoided. Good sources of information about alternatives to pesticides exist, but these are not synthesized, indexed, and packaged in ways that homeowners in the Northeast or even Extension educators, Master Gardeners, and other multipliers can use. An existing set of guidelines, produced by Cornell University, has the potential to be an extremely useful resource. Our plan is to substantially revise it by creating a team of subject matter experts from nine Northeastern states; hiring a project coordinator/writer who will integrate two separate volumes into a printed document called IPM in and around the home—Northeast guidelines; producing, marketing, and distributing the printed version to Northeast audiences; hiring a webmaster to create, post, and advertise a web-based version that users can access for free; assessing the effectiveness of the project; and helping to ensure its sustainability in the Northeast.
The broad-reaching goals are to provide educators, homeowners, retailers, and other multipliers with clear, current, and reliable information on pests and pest management on a continuum from nonpesticidal tactics to conventional (nonrestricted) pesticides; build consumers’ ability to make informed choices confidently about weed-, insect-, disease-, and wildlife management; increase use of IPM methods among NE consumers; and decrease the negative environmental impacts of conventional pest management by helping to educate the 54 million people in the aforementioned part of the Northeast Region to be environmentally aware and responsible.
1. With participation from nine Northeastern states (NJ and PA north to Maine), integrate two separate volumes of information about pest management around the home into one comprehensive document.
2. Plan an interactive website based on IPM in and around the home: Northeast guidelines that is aesthetically appealing, comprehensive, and easy to use.
Year Two
1. Produce, market, and distribute the printed version of IPM in and around the home: Northeast guidelines to Northeast audiences.
2. Create, post, and advertise a web-based version of IPM in and around the home: Northeast guidelines that users can access for free.
3. Assess the effectiveness of the project and help to ensure its sustainability in the Northeast.
About 75% of American households have a yard or garden. Nationwide, 47% of home gardeners polled recently said they would use chemical products or a combination of chemical and organic products to address insect problems. According to the EPA, 90 million pounds of conventional-pesticide active ingredients were applied to homes and gardens in the United States in 2001-2002. In New York, 12,540 products are registered for residential use (804 for the home garden, 1,223 for household use, 720 for turf areas, and 292 for structures). A recent survey of urban apartment dwellers by the New York State Attorney General’s Office found that, statewide, 69% of respondents applied pesticides in their own homes and 33% did so at least once a week.
Adverse health effects of pesticides on humans are still being discovered. The Natural Resources Defense Council claims that at least 107 different active ingredients in pesticides have been found to cause cancer in animals or humans (Curtis & Profeta 1993). The repeated use of pesticides is known to cause pesticide resistance in weeds, insects, and diseases. According to Stapleton (2000), at least 535 insects have demonstrated resistance to insecticides.
Water sources contaminated by pesticides are well documented. According to the USGS “decades of pesticide use have resulted in their widespread occurrence in streams and ground water.” Residential neighborhoods can be a major source of non-point source pollution when pesticides and fertilizers are washed from parks, lawns, driveways, and roads into waterways; research has shown that widely-used pesticides migrate to many bodies of water.
Consumers in the Northeast need concise information about home pest management. The document we plan to update, integrate, and make available to residents in the Northeast is currently a set, prepared with input from 20 Cornell faculty members in 7 departments and described by the webmaster of a related site as “the only comprehensive source of printed information for home gardeners. Nowhere else do we list all the cultural controls and pesticides available.” Rachel Maccini (UNH) relies on the current guidelines and said she “most definitely” would use a Northeast version in printed and web formats.Project addresses stakeholder-identified priorities
This proposal addresses six of the 10 priorities identified by the Community IPM Working Group on the NE Center website (http://northeastipm.org/work_commpriority.cfm):2) Develop outreach to homeowners, retailers of homeowner pest management products, and ‘multipliers’ (e.g., libraries, teachers).
3) Address priorities identified by the Turf IPM Work Group (notably, user-friendly ways to implement latest research; comprehensive WWW treatment of turf IPM; and timely IPM updates via a variety of media).
4) Research, develop, and outreach methods for low-input landscape and turf maintenance strategies, including development and distribution of a pocket field guide for the pest management of landscapes and turf.
6) Catalog general use pesticides available to the public.
7) Develop new IPM definitions (as elements, guidelines) that fill existing gaps.
8) Research and outreach on wildlife pest management, including landscaping “Do’s and don’ts.”Of the five national priorities set by USDA–CSREES, objective 5.2 is “To increase the capacity of communities, families, and individuals to improve their own quality of life.” By providing community members with opportunities to learn about pests and integrated pest management, we are increasing their capacity to improve their personal health, the health of their yards and neighborhoods, and, ultimately, their quality of life.
The USDA has begun to acknowledge Community IPM, which encompasses pest management for homes, as evidenced by its acceptance of the Community IPM White Paper. The tremendous needs for consumer information, identified in this white paper, could be addressed in large part by our proposed comprehensive guidelines.How the proposed guidelines fit the priorities of NE IPM
IPM in and around the home: Northeast guidelines, in both print and web formats, would cover pests of structures, houseplants, trees, shrubs, small-fruits, vegetables, turfgrass, annuals, and perennials. The setting would be residential and noncommercial. The guidelines would be modeled after recent projects supported by NE IPM that integrate, by pest, multiple tactics into one place (e.g., “Vegetable guidelines” funded in 1997 and 1998). Strengths of the guidelines:Free internet accessibility. A vital component of this project is to post the new guidelines on the web as an integral part of the project. The guidelines would be generated from a database of information that would serve both printed and electronic formats. This database technology would allow web pages to be created on-demand and updated rapidly, in contrast with older technology that required individual page revisions wherever information was repeated. The New York State IPM Program has used this methodology successfully in reconstructing its website (for example, see www.fieldcrops.org).
The guidelines website would be highly interactive, allowing viewers to learn more about specific topics by clicking on images, text, and links that connect to additional IPM knowledge. Visitors to the site would also be able to print sections of the guidelines as needed, or possibly request sections from a quick-print service provider.Multistate involvement. The proposed guidelines will be created with input from NH, VT, ME, MA, NY, NJ, CT, RI, and PA. IPM programs, state network projects, governmental entities, Extension programs, and private establishments would be involved in the outcome. Already, Massachusetts (Bob Childs) and Pennsylvania (Ed Rajotte), have committed to cooperating; New Jersey (George Hamilton), New Hampshire (Rachel Maccini), and five other Cooperative Extension entities have written letters of support. Ann Hazelrigg in Vermont sees it as a “wonderful idea,” is willing to help, and thinks the effort would be “well worth it” (personal communication 11/4/04). Other states very interested in the product are Maine (Jim Dill; Kelly Bourdeau) and Connecticut—(Rob Durgy and Leanne Pundt).
We expect to connect participants via telephone and conference calls, web-based technology (such as SharePoint) that enables individuals to view, comment on, and edit common documents; and meetings (e.g., alongside the NE IPM Conference in March).Non-pesticidal tactics. The new guidelines would provide readers with clear, current, and reliable information on pests and pest management. Information on an continuum, shown in tables, would begin with nonpesticidal tactics. We would detail scouting tips, identification, fertility practices, resistant varieties, natural enemies, site selection, thresholds, rotation, and other successful alternatives to pesticides.
Environmental stewardship and risk management. The new guidelines would convey information about assessing risks of pest management alternatives, empowering citizens to make informed decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities to reduce unreasonable adverse environmental and human health effects. For example, when recommending pesticides, we would include least-toxic choices: insecticidal soaps, horticultural oils, biopesticides, and some botanical and mineral pesticides. Of the synthetic chemical pesticides, our recommendations would focus on those labeled CAUTION (slightly toxic to relatively nontoxic); we would not include highly toxic pesticides (DANGER label) or restricted pesticides.
Likely implementation. Every state in the Northeast has a system in place for disseminating information, with people who help consumers. We plan to work with these systems, encouraging participation early in the project so the outcome is agreeable to all, and so we reach our goal of educating the public about IPM methods in and around the home.
| |
home page |
|