START: 15 APR 2002 TERM: 14 APR 2005 FY: 2003 GRANT YR: 2002
GRANT AMT: $107,149
INVESTIGATOR: Shrewsbury, P. M.; Raupp, M. J.; Stewart, C. D.; Thorne, B. L.; Dernoeden, P. H.; Grant, J. A.
PERFORMING INSTITUTION:
ENTOMOLOGY
UNIV OF MARYLAND
COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20742
FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING LEAST TOXIC ALTERNATIVES AS COMPONENTS OF AN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE NE
NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY: The issue is children exposed to pesticides in schools. The problem is there are very few comparative studies that examine the feasibility of implementing IPM programs emphasizing the use of least toxic tactics for turf, landscape, and public health pests in public school systems, despite the fact that these programs are being strongly promoted and in some cases mandated by law. The purpose of this proposal is to determine the efficacy and cost effectiveness (feasibility) of ?least toxic? control tactics and strategies for managing weed, insect, and disease pests in public school sites and to provide regional training on this topic.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this proposal are to determine the efficacy and cost effectiveness (feasibility) of ?least toxic? control tactics and strategies for managing weed, insect, and disease pests in public school sites in Maryland and New York. Alternative least toxic tactics will be evaluated and demonstrated for three model systems 1) human health - head lice infestations on students and staff, 2) athletic fields and lawns, and 3) landscape beds and hardscapes. Evaluations will include the economic and environmental changes associated with the implementation of a Least Toxic IPM approach. Comparisons will be made of alternative materials and tactics and costs at demonstration schools under ?Least Toxic? IPM programs with costs and types and quantities of materials used at schools under ?Conventional? IPM programs. Our extension goals are to summarize findings, produce educational materials, and deliver information via traditional sources such as print and electronic media. We will provide regional training to school administrators, IPM practitioners, and Extension Specialists and Educators in the Northeast.
APPROACH: Research and Demonstration for Three Model Systems - 1.) Human Health - Head Lice: The UMD lice comb (U.S. Patent Number 6,006,758) provides a non-pesticidal alternative tactic that involves use of a specially designed comb and a simple method that allows for hair de-tangling and easy removal of lice at all stages of development. The technique targets the lice themselves, not their eggs (?nits?). By removing the lice, one removes egg-layers, and catches newly hatched lice before they mature. With attentive combing, over time, an infestation can be eliminated. Comparisons will be made between the efficacy of the UMD lice comb and currently available lice combs. Cost comparisons will be made between combs and current chemical control measures. 2.) Athletic Fields and Lawns and 3.) Landscape Beds and Hardscapes: Working with replicated public school sites in MD and NY, we will set up research and demonstration programs to evaluate and compare ?conventional? pest management approaches to ?least toxic? approaches. We will select 12 public schools in MD and 6 in NY where we will implement a ?Conventional? IPM approach and a ?Least Toxic? IPM approach. Currently practiced pest management approach will be used as the ?Conventional? IPM approach (treatment 1). The ?Least Toxic? IPM approach (treatment 2) will use similar practices and thresholds as the Conventional IPM approach, but will not include the use of ?conventional pesticides? and will implement ?least toxic? approaches for managing pests. These include tactics such as cultural, biological, physical, and low risk products presently being recommended by various regulatory, extension, and environmental groups for managing weed, disease, and insect. Comparisons will be made between efficacy and cost effectiveness of the two approaches. Extension / Education - The Extension / Education phase of this project will target three audiences: 1) school administrators in MD and NY, 2) IPM practitioners (school grounds staff, health staff) in MD and NY, and 3) Extension Specialists and Educators throughout the Northeast region. To reach school administrators and public health officials, presentations will be given at school board and professional association meetings. To reach IPM practitioners several training sessions will be conducted. To reach Extension Specialists/ Educators in the NE Region (and ultimately public school stakeholders throughout the region) a two-day in-service workshop will be conducted. To further reach our stakeholders throughout the NE region, presentations at professional and re-certification conferences will be given and articles in professional newsletters and refereed journals will be published.
PROGRESS: 2003/01 TO 2003/12
In Maryland, we have 6 conventional IPM and 6 alternative (least toxic) cooperating
schools. Detailed scouting maps and plant inventories were completed for each
school and used to implement a scouting program. We are in the process of developing
an electronic data collection method that can be used in the field. Two studies
are underway on school athletic fields in Maryland. First, pest activity was
compared where alternative (Best Management Practices BMP, no herbicides) and
conventional (BMP, herbicides) practices were implemented. Second, a study compares
three treatments that include: BMP only; BMP and corn gluten (weed suppression)
applications in the spring; and BMP with heavy, weekly over-seeding in the fall.
These fields were monitored for pest activity. Studies comparing the effectiveness
of conventional (Roundup) and alternative (Burnout; concentrated vinegar) herbicides
to control weed growth in hardscapes were conducted. We continued to compare
conventional and alternative practices in landscape beds. Results of these studies
are presently being evaluated. In New York, 3 pairs of schools are being compared
for conventional and alternative management practices of athletic fields, lawns,
ornamental beds, building edges, fences, sidewalks and curbs. IN 2003, the most
promising alternative IPM practice to date is a machine using hot water for
weed control in hardscape areas. Data show superior control with this method
compared to weed trimming along fence lines and building edges. Measurements
taken on October 2003 show a clear delineation of weed-free strips where the
hot water machine was last used in May of 2003, next to an area that was maintained
by manual weeding and trimming. The conventional and alternative approaches
are being analyzed for differences in labor time required. Other practices in
New York included the use of chemical herbicides and insecticides on conventional
athletic fields; and the use of compost topdressing, increased aeration and
fertilization on alternative fields. Alternative ornamental bed management has
included the use of horticultural oil; removal of inappropriate plants and replacement
with resistant, low maintenance plants; hot water treatment of weeds; hand weeding
and mulching. In the fall of 2003, we began a heavy, weekly over-seeding program,
similar to MD, for athletic fields in the alternative IPM treatments. All practices
are being evaluated for their impact on quality, and the costs to perform them.
For the head lice component of this project, we have established a broad linkage
of interested school districts in MA, NY, PA, IN, and MD. We are on call in
those districts: if they have a head lice infestation we will go on site and
conduct detection and treatment trials. These districts have received samples
of the comb and our Information and Instruction Booklet , as well as the consent
forms that will have to be signed if we go into action. The project was approved
by the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects
Research through May, 2004. Two posters relating to this project were presented
at the National IPM Symposium held in April of 2003.
IMPACT: 2003/01 TO 2003/12
In 1998, IPM programs became mandatory for all public schools in Maryland. This
mandate is likely to be implemented in most public schools throughout the nation.
While many school systems advocate the use of alternative (least toxic) approaches,
such as alternatives to pesticides or pesticides with reduced risk, to conventional
IPM approaches there are few studies that critically compare least toxic approaches
to conventional ones. Specific information from these studies suggest that when
implementing alternative (least toxic) approaches, public schools must be prepared
to pay more, perhaps twice as much, for lower levels of control. This will result
in serious constraints on limited budgets and educational challenges as expectations
of school appearance are adjusted. However, in situations where budgets permit
we have documented that there are some effective alternative pest management
tactics to implement, such as the hot-water weed machine. Impact from our project
is noted by the fact that the cooperating school district in NY just purchased
their own hot-water weed machine (approx. $18,000).
PUBLICATIONS: 2003/01 TO 2003/12
No publications reported this period
PROJECT CONTACT:
Name: Shrewsbury, P. M.
Phone: 301-405-7664
Fax: 301-314-9290
Email: ps161@umail.umd.edu