**2. History of terminology and definition of IPM**

ble habitats and adapt to seasonal changes. Direct damage of the larvae of this noctuid pest to flowering and fruiting structures together with extensive insecticide spraying resulted in

Different methods have been applied to control *H. armigera* in order to improve the quality and quantity of soybean production in cropping systems of this oil seed crop. However, syn‐ thetic insecticides including organophosphates, synthetic pyrethroids and biorational com‐ pounds are the main method for *H. armigera* control in different parts of the world. This wide use of pesticides is of environmental concern and has repeatedly led to the develop‐ ment of pesticide resistance in this pest. Furthermore, the deleterious effects of insecticides on nontarget organisms including natural enemies are among the major causes of pest out‐ breaks. It is therefore necessary to develop a novel strategy to manage population of *H. armi‐*

The common trend towards reducing reliance on synthetic insecticides for control of insect pests in agriculture, forestry, and human health has renewed worldwide interest in integrat‐ ed pest management (IPM) programmes. IPM is the component of sustainable agriculture with the most robust ecological foundation [15]. IPM not only contributes to the sustainabili‐ ty of agriculture, it also serves as a model for the practical application of ecological theory and provides a paradigm for the development of other agricultural system components. The concept of IPM is becoming a practicable and acceptable approach among the entomologists in recent past all over the world and focuses on the history, concepts, and the integration of available control methods into integrated programmes. However, this approach advocates an integration of all possible or at least some of the known natural means of control with or without insecticides so that the best pest management in terms of economics and mainte‐

Fundamental of effective IPM programmes is the development of appropriate pest manage‐ ment strategies and tactics that best interface with cropping system-pest situations. Depend‐ ing on the type of pest, however, some of the primary management strategies could be selected. In the case of *H. armigera*, several management tactics should be considered to im‐ plement a comprehensive integrated management. Potential of some of the control tactics to reduce population density of *H. armigera* in different cropping systems were evaluated by several researchers and attempts have been made to develop integrated management ap‐ proach for *H. armigera* using host plant resistance [2, 4, 6, 11] including transgenic Bt crops [16], biological control (predators and parasitoids) [17], interference methods including sex pheromones [18], biopesticides (especially commercial formulations of *Bacillus thuringiensis*) [19], cultural practices (including appropriate crop rotations, trap crops, planting date and habitat complexity) [20] and selective insecticides [21]. Likewise there remains a need for on‐ going research to develop a suite of control tactics and integrate them into IPM systems for sustainable management of *H. armigera* in cropping systems. Keeping this in view, integra‐ tion of these methods based on the ecological data especially thermal requirements of this pest and its crucial role in forecasting programme of *H. armigera* could lead a successful inte‐

low crop yield and high costs of production [14].

232 Soybean - Pest Resistance

*gera* and reduce the hazardous of synthetic chemicals.

nance of pest population below economic injury level (EIL) is achieved.

grated management for this pest in soybean cropping systems.

Although many IPM programmes were initiated in the late 1960s and early 1970s in several parts of the world, it was only in the late 1970s that IPM gained momentum [26]. Through‐ out the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in the absence of powerful pesticides, crop protec‐ tion specialists relied on knowledge of pest biology and cultural practices to produce multi tactical control strategies that, in some instances, were precursors of modern IPM systems [27]. That stance changed in the early 1940s with the advent of organosynthetic insecticides when protection specialists began to focus on testing chemicals, to the detriment of studying pest biology and non-insecticidal methods of control [15]. The period from the late 1940s through the mid-1960s has been called the dark ages of pest control. By the late 1950s, how‐ ever, warnings about the risks of the preponderance of insecticides in pest control began to be heard. The publication of the book "Silent Spring" by Rachael Carson in 1962 ignited widespread debate on the real and potential hazards of pesticides. This still ongoing dia‐ logue includes scientists in many disciplines, environmentalists, and policy makers. Howev‐ er, "Silent Spring" contributed much to the development of alternatives to pesticides for pest management purposes, augmented global interests in developing cropping systems that limit crop pests, and added much to the environmental movement [26]. In fact, wide‐ spread concerns about the detrimental impact of pesticides on the environment and related health issues were responsible in large part for the development of the concept of IPM.

The seed of the idea of integrated control appears in a paper by Hoskins *et al.* [28]. Conceiva‐ bly, "integrated control" was uttered by entomologists long before formally appearing in a publication. However, it was the series of papers starting with Smith and Allen [29] that es‐ tablished integrated control as a new trend in economic entomology. Towards the end of the 1960s, integrated control was well entrenched both in the scientific literature and in the prac‐ tice of pest control, although by then "pest management" as a sibling concept was gaining popularity [30]. However, in subsequent publications, integrated control was more narrow‐ ly defined as "applied pest control which combines and integrates biological and chemical control", a definition that stood through much of the late 1950s and the early 1960s but be‐ gan to change again in the early 1960s as the concept of pest management gained acceptance among crop protection specialists [15, 26].

Several authors have come close to meeting the criteria for a good definition, but a consen‐ sus is yet to be reached. Accordingly, some of the IPM definitions were listed in Table 1. A broader definition was adopted by the FAO Panel of Experts [35]: "Integrated Pest Control is a pest management system that, in the context of the associated environment and the pop‐ ulation dynamics of the pest species, utilizes all suitable techniques and methods in as com‐ patible a manner as possible and maintains the pest population at levels below those causing economic injury." This definition has been cited frequently and has served as a tem‐ plate for others. However, based on an analysis of definitions spanning the past 35 years, the following is offered in an attempt to synthesize what seems to be the current thought: "IPM is a decision support system for the selection and use of pest control tactics, singly or harmo‐ niously coordinated into a management strategy, based on cost/benefit analyses that take in‐ to account the interests of and impacts on producers, society, and the environment" [15].

Integrated Management of *Helicoverpa armigera* in Soybean Cropping Systems

**Definition Reference**

[36]

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54522

235

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[15]

[43]

[The authors of this chapter]

IPM refers to an ecological approach in pest management in which all available necessary techniques are consolidated in a unified programme, so that pest populations can be managed in such a manner that economic damage is avoided and adverse side effects are minimized.

IPM is a multidisciplinary ecological approach to the management of pest populations, which utilizes a variety of control tactics compatibly in a single coordinated pest-management system. In its operation, integrated pest control is a multi-tactical approach that encourages the fullest use of natural mortality factors, complemented, when necessary, by artificial means of pest management.

IPM is a pest population management system utilizes all suitable techniques in a compatible manner to reduce pest populations and maintain them at levels below those causing economic

IPM is a systematic approach to crop protection that uses increased information and improved decision-making paradigms to reduce purchased inputs and improve economic, social and

IPM is a comprehensive approach to pest control that uses combined means to reduce the status of

IPM is an intelligent selection and use of pest-control tactics that will ensure favourable economic,

IPM is a sustainable approach that combines the use of prevention, avoidance, monitoring and suppression strategies in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks.

IPM is a dynamic and constantly evolving approach to crop protection in which all the suitable management tactics and available surveillance and forecasting information are utilized to develop a

IPM is a systemic approach in which interacting components (mainly control measures) act together

IPM is a decision support system for the selection and use of pest control tactics, singly or harmoniously coordinated into a management strategy, based on cost/benefit analyses that take

into account the interests of and impacts on producers, society, and the environment.

holistic management programme as part of a sustainable crop production technology.

to maximize the advantages (mainly producing a profitable crop yield) and minimize the disadvantages (mainly causing risk to human and environment) of pest control programmes.

environment conditions on the farm and in society.

ecological and sociological consequences.

**Table 1.** Some of the proposed definitions for IPM

pests to tolerable levels while maintaining a quality environment.

injury.

The concept of "protective population management", later shortened to "pest management", gained considerable exposure at the twelfth International Congress of Entomology, London [31]. The Australian ecologists who coined the expression contended that "control", as in pest control, subsumes the effect of elements that act independently of human interference. Popula‐ tions are naturally controlled by biotic and abiotic factors, even if at levels intolerable to hu‐ mans. Management, on the other hand, implies human interference. Although the concept of pest management rapidly captured the attention of the scientific community, in 1966 Geier seemed to minimize the semantic argument that favored "pest management" by stating that the term had no other value than that of a convenient label coined to convey the idea of intelli‐ gent manipulation of nature for humans' lasting benefit, as in "wildlife management" [32].

Not until 1972, however, were "integrated pest management" and its acronym IPM incorporat‐ ed into the English literature and accepted by the scientific community. In creating the synthe‐ sis between "integrated control" and "pest management", no obvious attempt was made to advance a new paradigm. Much of the debate had been exhausted during the 1960s and by then there was substantial agreement that: (*a*) "integration" meant the harmonious use of multiple methods to control single pests as well as the impacts of multiple pests; (*b*) "pests" were any or‐ ganism detrimental to humans, including invertebrate and vertebrate animals, pathogens, and weeds; (*c*) "management" referred to a set of decision rules based on ecological principles and economic/social considerations and (*d*) "IPM" was a multidisciplinary endeavor.

The search for a perfect definition of IPM has endured since integrated control was first de‐ fined. A survey recorded 65 definitions of integrated control, pest management, or integrat‐ ed pest management [26]. Unfortunately, most of them perpetuate the perception of an entomological bias in IPM because of the emphasis on pest populations and economic injury levels, of which the former is not always applicable to plant pathogens, and the latter is usu‐ ally attached to the notion of an action threshold often incompatible with pathogen epidemi‐ ology or many weed management systems [33]. Furthermore, most definitions stress the use of combination of multiple control methods, ignoring informed inaction that in some cases can be a better IPM option for arthropod pest management [15]. It was, however, in 1972 that the term 'integrated pest management' was accepted by the scientific community, after the publication of a report under the above title by the Council on Environmental Quality [34]. Much of the debate had already taken place during the 1960s and by then there was substantial agreement on the following issues [15]: (*a*) the appropriate selection of pest con‐ trol methods, used singly or in combination; (*b*) the economic benefits to growers and to so‐ ciety; (*c*) the benefits to the environment; (*d*) the decision rules that guide the selection of the control action and (*e*) the need to consider impacts of multiple pests.

Several authors have come close to meeting the criteria for a good definition, but a consen‐ sus is yet to be reached. Accordingly, some of the IPM definitions were listed in Table 1. A broader definition was adopted by the FAO Panel of Experts [35]: "Integrated Pest Control is a pest management system that, in the context of the associated environment and the pop‐ ulation dynamics of the pest species, utilizes all suitable techniques and methods in as com‐ patible a manner as possible and maintains the pest population at levels below those causing economic injury." This definition has been cited frequently and has served as a tem‐ plate for others. However, based on an analysis of definitions spanning the past 35 years, the following is offered in an attempt to synthesize what seems to be the current thought: "IPM is a decision support system for the selection and use of pest control tactics, singly or harmo‐ niously coordinated into a management strategy, based on cost/benefit analyses that take in‐ to account the interests of and impacts on producers, society, and the environment" [15].


**Table 1.** Some of the proposed definitions for IPM

tice of pest control, although by then "pest management" as a sibling concept was gaining popularity [30]. However, in subsequent publications, integrated control was more narrow‐ ly defined as "applied pest control which combines and integrates biological and chemical control", a definition that stood through much of the late 1950s and the early 1960s but be‐ gan to change again in the early 1960s as the concept of pest management gained acceptance

The concept of "protective population management", later shortened to "pest management", gained considerable exposure at the twelfth International Congress of Entomology, London [31]. The Australian ecologists who coined the expression contended that "control", as in pest control, subsumes the effect of elements that act independently of human interference. Popula‐ tions are naturally controlled by biotic and abiotic factors, even if at levels intolerable to hu‐ mans. Management, on the other hand, implies human interference. Although the concept of pest management rapidly captured the attention of the scientific community, in 1966 Geier seemed to minimize the semantic argument that favored "pest management" by stating that the term had no other value than that of a convenient label coined to convey the idea of intelli‐ gent manipulation of nature for humans' lasting benefit, as in "wildlife management" [32].

Not until 1972, however, were "integrated pest management" and its acronym IPM incorporat‐ ed into the English literature and accepted by the scientific community. In creating the synthe‐ sis between "integrated control" and "pest management", no obvious attempt was made to advance a new paradigm. Much of the debate had been exhausted during the 1960s and by then there was substantial agreement that: (*a*) "integration" meant the harmonious use of multiple methods to control single pests as well as the impacts of multiple pests; (*b*) "pests" were any or‐ ganism detrimental to humans, including invertebrate and vertebrate animals, pathogens, and weeds; (*c*) "management" referred to a set of decision rules based on ecological principles and

The search for a perfect definition of IPM has endured since integrated control was first de‐ fined. A survey recorded 65 definitions of integrated control, pest management, or integrat‐ ed pest management [26]. Unfortunately, most of them perpetuate the perception of an entomological bias in IPM because of the emphasis on pest populations and economic injury levels, of which the former is not always applicable to plant pathogens, and the latter is usu‐ ally attached to the notion of an action threshold often incompatible with pathogen epidemi‐ ology or many weed management systems [33]. Furthermore, most definitions stress the use of combination of multiple control methods, ignoring informed inaction that in some cases can be a better IPM option for arthropod pest management [15]. It was, however, in 1972 that the term 'integrated pest management' was accepted by the scientific community, after the publication of a report under the above title by the Council on Environmental Quality [34]. Much of the debate had already taken place during the 1960s and by then there was substantial agreement on the following issues [15]: (*a*) the appropriate selection of pest con‐ trol methods, used singly or in combination; (*b*) the economic benefits to growers and to so‐ ciety; (*c*) the benefits to the environment; (*d*) the decision rules that guide the selection of the

economic/social considerations and (*d*) "IPM" was a multidisciplinary endeavor.

control action and (*e*) the need to consider impacts of multiple pests.

among crop protection specialists [15, 26].

234 Soybean - Pest Resistance
