IPM Systems: Tools & Techniques to Consider how Systems Behave 1 Ray D. William, Paul Jepson, and Molly Engle Oregon State University Integrated Pest Management (IPM) functions as a system with pests, interactions, and feedback loops designed to achieve desired outcomes. In contrast, pest managers and specialists identify pests and problems with limited reference to how these factors behave within the system. This report summarizes a workshop sponsored by The Western IPM Coordinating Committee (WERA-069) and The Western IPM Center to “Connect IPM Practices, Priorities, and Strategic Directions” using systems tools and techniques. Workshop objectives included quickly drawing IPM systems by identifying pests, loops, and behaviors based on conversations with blueberry, nursery, and vegetable growers in Oregon. Attendees considered value-added if systems diagrams were included in Pest Management Strategic Plans 2 (PMSP’s) and the national IPM Roadmap 3 . Methods: As blueberry, nursery, and vegetable growers described their crop and pest management systems, workshop attendees identified IPM factors or components, loops, and leverage or critical places in the system where change may occur. This technique or ActionGram represents steps that people use to consider systems with initial drafts completed in 10-minutes (William, 2002). Attendees synthesized drawings by tracing feedback loops so they make sense, defining behaviors such as growth, equilibrium, decline, oscillation, or cycles (Sterman, et al) and renewal systems (Holling and Gunderson, 2002). Identifying primary drivers or leverage was considered critical. Groups considered possible benefits of adding systems drawings to complement PMSP’s and other IPM documents. Results: Blueberry growers described sale of premium quality fruit to Japan, thereby ensuring pollination, fruit set, and yield with no bugs, no birds, and no residues (Fig. 1). Pest practices were chosen for low bee toxicology while pre-harvest intervals (PHI’s) were doubled to ensure food safety. The primary feedback loop or driver controlling this system was selling quality fruit in Japan for a premium price. Specimen tree production required four years; first to develop a root system, second, to bud and grow a straight trunk, third, to develop branches, and fourth, to finish the tree (Fig. 2). IPM practices were selected to ensure near perfect growth at key stages such as controlling leaf-feeding insects that destroy terminal trunk growth and development the second year. Converting irrigation from overhead to drip required a couple years to adjust pest practices since the system was buffered with multiple sub-loops. Primary drivers were selling specimen quality trees with a phyto-sanitary certificate at time of sale. 1 Workshop sponsored by WERA069, Western IPM Center, and OSU Integrated Plant Protection Center held in Wilsonville, OR. April 2005. 2 Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSP’s) http://www.wrpmc.ucdavis.edu/CropProfiles/index.html 3 National Roadmap for Integrated Pest Management, http://northeastipm.org/whatis_ipmroadmap.pdf