The 2011 ASHS Annual Conference

The southern nursery integrated pest management (SNIPM) working group sent a web-only survey to ornamental nursery stock growers in Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee to determine pest management practices between June 2009 and March 2010.  The survey contained questions about monitoring practices for insects, diseases, and weeds, prevention techniques, intervention decisions, concerns about IPM including perceptions of what limits the use of IPM practices, and preferred methods of receiving information.  A link to the survey website was sent by electronic mail (e-mail) using the e-mail listserves of all nursery and landscape trade commodity groups of each state.  Follow-up e-mails were sent monthly.  One-hundred twenty-four completed surveys were used for an estimated response rate of 7.7%.  Three pest management groups were defined among the respondents using cluster analysis.  Respondents in Group 1 (G1) (8% of 124 respondents) used a standardized sampling plan to scout deliberately for pests rather than while performing other tasks.  Group 1 monitored for pests using sticky cards, kept records from previous years, and took pictures of pests to aid identification; they also submitted more insect and disease samples to a plant diagnostic clinic compared with the other two groups.  Respondents in G2 (32% of 124 respondents) scouted frequently and at high levels and were especially vigilant in confirming and naming insects and diseases.  They submitted fewer clinic samples than G1 but used clinic recommendations when deciding pest management strategies.  Monitoring techniques consisted of phenology of host plants and growing degree days.  Respondents in G3 (60% of 124 respondents) primarily waited for a pest or its damage to appear prior to scouting but did try to identify pests once present.  Group 3 did not use other monitoring techniques and underutilized the services of diagnostic clinics.  Few respondents in the study used traps or lures to monitor insect populations.  Less than half counted insects present or tried to identify natural enemies.  Almost no one released beneficial insects or predators, or used biological controls when managing pests.  Most growers thought IPM effective and beneficial for both the environment and their employees, but many had concerns about the ability of natural enemies to control insect pests and questioned the effectiveness of alternatives to chemical controls.  Groups 2 and 3 utilized cooperative extension almost exclusively, while G1 used a more diverse information stream including resources from outside their state.