|
|
Research and IPM
Analysis of UC IPM Research Results: 1989-1999, Tables
"Products of UC IPM Research—A Survey of Funded
Projects (1989-1999)" examines the 194 research grants funded by the UC
Statewide IPM Project during that period. The paper is authored by Karen Klonsky, Ben Shouse, and Frank
Zalom. Below are tables from that report:
TABLE 1. Distribution of IPM projects according to commodity or site.
| Commodity or site |
Distribution among
all funded projects (n=194)
|
Distribution among projects
in survey response (n=153)
|
| |
Number
|
Percent
|
Number
|
Percent
|
|
Field crops
|
44
|
23
|
37 |
24 |
|
Fruit and nut crops
|
66 |
34 |
46 |
30 |
|
Livestock
|
6 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
| Nursery and flower crops
|
12 |
6 |
11 |
7 |
| Vegetable crops
|
26 |
13 |
21 |
14 |
| Landscape and structures
|
11 |
6 |
9 |
6 |
| Unspecified
|
29 |
15 |
23 |
15 |
TABLE 2. Distribution of IPM projects according
to the principal investigators' academic specialization.
| Academic specialization |
Distribution among all funded projects (n=194)
|
Distribution among projects in survey response (n=153)
|
| |
Number
|
Percent
|
Number
|
Percent
|
| Entomology
|
88 |
45 |
65 |
42 |
| Nematology
|
15 |
8 |
13 |
8 |
| Plant pathology
|
41 |
21 |
34 |
22 |
| Plant sciences
|
7 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
| Weed science
|
18 |
9 |
14 |
9 |
| Interdisciplinary
|
17 |
9 |
14 |
9 |
| Other
|
8 |
4 |
7 |
5 |
TABLE 3. Distribution of IPM projects by principal investigators'
institutional affiliation.
Institution
|
Distribution among all funded projects (n=194)
|
Distribution among projects in survey response
(n=153) |
| |
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
| Cross-institution *
|
49 |
25 |
40 |
26 |
| UC Berkeley |
32 |
17 |
20 |
13 |
| UC Davis |
60 |
31 |
48 |
31 |
| UC Rive rside |
41 |
21 |
36 |
24 |
| Cooper ative Extension |
11 |
6 |
8 |
5 |
| USDA |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
TABLE 4. Assistance provided by individuals
and institutions at various stages of the research process in terms
of number of projects and percent of all projects (in parentheses)
(n=153).
|
Person(s) assisting
|
Develop proposal
|
Provide field trial space
|
Manage field trial
|
Collect data
|
Interpret results
|
| Grower
|
20 (10) |
106 (55) |
51 (26) |
13 (7) |
10 (5) |
| Commodity group representative
|
41 (21) |
7 (4) |
9 (5) |
3 (2) |
5 (3) |
| Public agency representative
|
16 (8) |
8 (4) |
8 (4) |
7 (4) |
7 (4) |
| Pest control advisor (PCA)
|
23 (12) |
15 (8) |
17 (9) |
9 (5) |
5 (3) |
| UCCE Farm Advisor
|
75 (39) |
37 (19) |
56 (29) |
50 (26) |
43 (22) |
| UCCE IPM Advisor or UC IPM staff
|
25 (13) |
7 (4) |
13 (7) |
15 (8) |
19 (10) |
| UC Senate faculty
|
54 (28) |
10 (5) |
12 (6) |
20 (10) |
42 (22) |
| UCCE Specialist
|
42 (22) |
4 (2) |
12 (6) |
21 (11) |
30 (15) |
TABLE 5. Products of UC IPM research projects.
|
Products
|
Projects
|
| |
Number
|
Percent
|
| Published papers
|
97 |
63 |
| Refereed journal papers
|
57 |
37 |
| Databases
|
11 |
7 |
| Other Web-based publications
|
15 |
10 |
| Decision-making procedures
|
41 |
27 |
| Nonchemical pest control procedures
|
46 |
30 |
| Sampling procedures
|
30 |
19 |
| Computer programs
|
4 |
3 |
| Chemical pest-control procedures
|
12 |
8 |
| Equipment
|
6 |
4 |
TABLE 6. Utilization of the UC IPM research
results.
|
Use of Project Results
|
Projects
|
| |
Number
|
Percent
|
| In-field use by growers
|
77 |
50 |
| In-field use by PCAs
|
67 |
44 |
| Support in obtaining subsequent funding
|
74 |
48 |
| Support in conducting subsequent research
|
91 |
59 |
TABLE 7. Pest management approaches addressed by IPM research
projects.
| Pest management approach |
Projects |
| |
Number |
Percent |
| Prevention |
30 |
19 |
| Avoidance |
31 |
20 |
| Monitoring |
52 |
34 |
| Suppression |
119 |
77 |
| Natural enemies/biocontrol |
59 |
38 |
| Chemical pesticide |
22 |
14 |
| Microbial or botanical pesticides |
20 |
13 |
| Physical controls (e.g,. barriers, flooding,
burning) |
16 |
10 |
| Physical controls (e.g,. barriers, flooding,
burning) |
16 |
10 |
| Spot/precision application |
16 |
10 |
| Reduced-risk pesticide |
13 |
8 |
| Cultivation and related techniques |
11 |
7 |
| Planting density/interplanting |
4 |
3 |
| Pheromone mating disruption |
3 |
2 |
| Antibiotics |
1 |
1 |
| Genetic engineering |
1 |
1 |
| Other |
8 |
5 |
TABLE 8. Anticipated impacts of UC IPM
research projects as identified by principal investigators.
| Impact
|
Number
|
Percent
|
| Reduced pesticide use
|
112 |
73 |
| Improved pest control |
103 |
67 |
| Lower cost of pest control
|
71 |
46 |
| Increased social acceptability of pest control systems
|
70 |
46 |
| Increased use of natural pest control
|
59 |
39 |
| Pest management methods for organic production
|
59 |
39 |
| Improved pest outbreak prediction
|
42 |
27 |
| Addresses Food Quality and Protection Act (FQPA) concerns
|
40 |
26 |
| Improved pesticide resistance management
|
29 |
19 |
| Alternative to methyl bromide
|
25 |
16 |
| Addresses water quality concerns
|
25 |
16 |
| Reduced pesticide drift
|
22 |
14 |
| Management of recently introduced pest
|
21 |
14 |
| Reduced risk to farmworkers
|
10 |
7
|
|
