Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a topic that has received a lot of attention in recent years – however there seems to be some confusion surrounding the term and what constitutes IPM practice.

It is a sustainable approach to managing pests (defined as any harmful organisms so includes pests, weeds and diseases) by combining an optimal mix of biological, cultural, physical and chemical methods in a way that minimises economic, health, and environmental risks.

IPM programmes aim to reduce the need for interventions, in the form of pesticides, by integrating multiple preventative pest control measures. When pesticides are required to protect profits – for crop yield and quality – the aim is to use as them little as possible but as much as necessary, while always employing an anti-resistance strategy.

Broadly speaking, IPM represents best practice. So, while many growers may not consider themselves to be practicing IPM, they are most likely to be practicing some degree of IPM.

Considering insect pest, disease and weed control management practices within rotations; selecting varieties; and adjusting your pesticide programme based on crop monitoring data and predicted risk, are all considered to be IPM practices when combined in an optimal manner.

Strategies such as this must often consider multiple pests. For example, this year there has been very little threat of rhynchosporium reaching economically damaging levels in spring barley. However, while leaving out a T2 fungicide might have reduced your fungicide spend and workload at a busy time of year, it may have left you open to attack from late season ramularia.

For some diseases it is quite feasible to integrate multiple practices to reduce risk. For example, delaying drilling and sowing resistant varieties can significantly reduce your fungicide requirement to control septoria of wheat.

But, for other diseases, the tools in our IPM ‘toolbox’ may be few and far between. For example, the only tool we currently have to control ramularia in barley is a multi-site fungicide (chlorothalonil) applied at awns peeping (T2).

Due to the vulnerability of only having one effective control measure for this particular disease, researchers at Scotland’s Rural College are studying the fungus to understand what triggers it to produce the visual symptoms which reduce green leaf area. This is in the hope that we can identify targets for fungicides and plant breeding.

Simultaneously, we are also investigating alternatives to chlorothalonil, including other fungicides and elicitors, or substances that trigger plant defence responses.

SRUC research has indicated that for some diseases they can be used effectively in conjunction with fungicides in an IPM programme to control various crop diseases such as rhynchosporium and powdery mildew. Therefore, it is important to understand which control measures are effective for the target diseases so that appropriate measures can be implemented in a cost-effective manner.

Understanding the biology of economically important insect pests and disease causing fungi allows us to select potential methods that may interrupt their life cycles. Ultimately, this will put us in a position to recommend appropriate control measures that are likely to be effective for Scottish growers.