Results of an IPM Survey in the Southern Region:
Collaboration Is Key to Successful Implementation
 
Results of a July 1998 study of 37 IPM projects funded during the period 1990-1995 demonstrate that successful implementation involved collaboration among IPM researchers, Extension faculty, agribusiness companies and a diverse clientele.
    Interdisciplinary cooperation was strong,with 138 facultyfrom entomology (48 percent), plant pathology (24 percent), horticulture (nine percent), crop science (seven percent), and weed science (four percent) working together to solve pest problems.
    Reasons for collaboration included the chance to evaluate the effectiveness of IPM strategies in other parts of the region, avoiding duplication of efforts, achieving cost effectiveness, and having an avenue for exchanging ideas.
    Interstate collaboration was also significant. Principal investigators and cooperators shared expertise, funding, and implementation strategies for 38 percent of the projects. Other results of the survey follow:

Projects Were Varied, Impact Broad- The projects had impact on 4.1 million acres of crops including small grains, cotton, corn, peanuts, fruits, and vegetables; on turfgrass;and on homeowners and livestock producers. Due to research and Extension projects, 19,387 growers and 65 urban pest control operators increased their use of IPM strategies.

Information Delivered in Variety of Ways- IPM information was delivered to clients through 18 Extension publications and 80 journal articles. Clients also received up-to-date information on IPM strategies,the Food Quality Protection Act, and regulations for pesticide use and farm worker protection through seminars, workshops, commodity meetings, farmer schools, the World Wide Web, field days, farm demonstrations, and television and radio programs.

Students Trained in IPM- Another important outcome was the training of undergraduate and graduate students in various aspects of IPM. During the period covered by this study, 60 undergraduate and 40 graduate students received IPM instruction (Table 1).

Funding Essential to Success- The level of success in implementing the 37 IPM projects in this study would not have been achieved without grant support from Southern Region IPM (SRIPM),which provided 73 percent of the $3.5 million allocated.Other sources of funds were 20 percent from state programs; four percent from other government agencies (the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA] Agricultural Research Service, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service);and three percent from commodity and agricultural companies (Table 2). A majority of principle investigators stated that without SRIPM support, these projects would not have been possible.

For additional information contoct Mike Linker, IPM coordinator, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620 (919) 515-5644.
 
 
Table 1: Number of Undergraduate and Graduate Students Trained 
State 
Undergraduate
Graduate
 Total
Alabama
8
10
18
Arkansas
2
4
6
Florida
-
5
5
Georgia
27
1
28
Kentucky
-
2
2
Louisiana
-
1
1
North Carolina
4
9
13
Texas
16
7
23
Virginia
3
1
4
TOTALS
60
40
100
 		 Table 2: Sources of Funding for 
Southern Region IPM Projects 
in This Study 
Source of Funding
Amount ($)
Percent of Total
SRIPM Grants
2,616,457
73
State Programs
713,794
20
Government Agencies
139,700
4
Commodity/ 
Agricultural Companies
126,000
3
TOTALS
3,595,951
100