The primary goal of Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) is to provide guidelines and options for the effective management of pests and beneficial organisms in an ecological context. The flexibility and environmental compatibility of a BIPM strategy make it useful in all types of cropping systems. BIPM would likely decrease chemical use and costs even further.
An important difference between conventional and BIPM is that the emphasis of the latter is on proactive measures to redesign the agricultural ecosystem to the disadvantage of a pest and to the advantage of its parasite and predator complex. At the same time, BIPM shares many of the same components as conventional IPM, including monitoring, use of economic thresholds, record keeping, and planning.
BIPM options may be considered as proactive or reactive. Proactive options, such as crop rotations and creation of habitat for beneficial organisms, permanently lower the carrying capacity of the farm for the pest. The carrying capacity is determined by the factors like food, shelter, natural enemy complex and weather, which affect the reproduction and survival of a pest species. Cultural control practices are generally considered to be proactive strategies. Proactive practices include crop rotation, resistant crop cultivars including transgenic plants, disease-free seed and plants, crop sanitation, spacing of plants, altering planting dates, mulches, etc. The reactive options mean that the grower responds to a situation, such as an economically damaging population of pests, with some type of short-term suppressive action. Reactive methods generally include inundative releases of biological control agents, mechanical and physical controls, botanical pesticides and chemical controls.
KeywordsIntegrate Pest Management Pest Population Integrate Pest Management Programme Beneficial Organism Reactive Option
- Adams, S. (1997). Seein’ red: Colored mulch starves nematodes. Agricultural Research, October, 18.Google Scholar
- Benbrook, C. M. (1996). Pest management at the crossroads (272 pages). Consumers Union, Yonkers.Google Scholar
- Clive James. (2011). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011. ISAAA Briefs No. 43, ISAAA, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
- Couch, G. J. (1994). The use of growing degree days and plant phenology in scheduling pest management activities. Yankee Nursery Quarterly, Fall, 12–17.Google Scholar
- Krishna Moorthy, P. N., & Krishna Kumar, P. N. (2002). Advances in the use of botanicals for the IPM of major vegetable pests. Proceedings of the international conference on vegetables, Bangalore. Dr. Prem Nath Agricultural Science Foundation, Bangalore, pp. 262–272.Google Scholar
- Mani, M. (2001). Biological control of fruit crop pests. In P. P. Reddy, A. Verghese, & N. K. Krishna Kumar (Eds.), Integrated pest management in horticultural ecosystems (pp. 93–107). Capital Publishing Co., New Delhi.Google Scholar
- Reddy, P. P., Rao, M. S., & Nagesh, M. (2002). Integrated management of burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) using endomycorrhiza (Glomus mosseae) and oil cakes. In H. P. Singh & K. L. Chadha (Eds.), Banana (pp. 344–348). AIPUB, Trichy.Google Scholar
- Reichert, S. E., & Leslie, B. (1989). Prey control by an assemblage of generalist predators: Spiders in garden test systems. Ecology. Fall, 1441–1450.Google Scholar
- Swaminathan, M. S. (2000). For an evergreen revolution. The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, 2000, 9–15.Google Scholar