UC IPM Online UC ANR home page UC IPM home page

UC IPM Home

SKIP navigation

 

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
*Defined as more than one UC campus or Cooperative Extension office or more than one academic department on the same campus.
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

Statewide IPM Program, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California
All contents copyright © 2014 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

For noncommercial purposes only, any Web site may link directly to this page. FOR ALL OTHER USES or more information, read Legal Notices. Unfortunately, we cannot provide individual solutions to specific pest problems. See our Home page, or in the U.S., contact your local Cooperative Extension office for assistance.

Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California

Accessibility   /IPMPROJECT/researchtables.html revised: July 10, 2014. Contact webmaster.