This article focuses on the integration of pest management practices and techniques into structural pest control programs. It is part of an ongoing dialogue on urban integrated pest management and is not meant as a prescription for urban IPM programs. It is intended to foster rethinking, not redefining, of urban integrated pest management and the concepts surrounding pest control in residential and commercial settings.
Monitoring for pests is becoming a widely used practice in structural pest control programs. The use of sticky traps, pheromone traps, light traps, rodent glue boards and live traps is now considered routine. Regular monitoring for pests and the use of "action thresholds" are a central part of an agricultural integrated pest management (IPM) program. However, in urban IPM programs, monitoring has been a contentious and often debated issue and has not been fully implemented as part of structural IPM programs.
A MANAGEMENT TOOL. Monitoring can be a valuable tool in any pest management program. At the very least it can be used to determine whether a pesticide treatment was effective or not. As part of a more integrated approach to pest management, monitoring can provide useful information on the types of pests in a structure, their location and their relative abundance. In addition, monitoring can be used to focus control actions, to identify maintenance and housekeeping deficiencies, to support quality assurance operations and sometimes to resolve customer com-plaints.
Variable and arbitrary monitoring procedures have resulted in some confusion and skepticism among those who use and those who do not use monitoring as part of their pest control service. Field studies have been performed on the application of monitoring methods (Story, 1986), but many monitoring practices for structural pests are still applied through trial and error. Some of the issues surrounding monitoring are how to monitor for pests and how to incorporate monitoring into the pest management program.
There are three basic methods used for monitoring pests: visual inspections, trapping and interviews. Each of these may play a role in a monitoring program. Over the years, new technologies, such as improved flashlights, fiber-optic scopes, listening devices and moisture meters have been added to the tool bag of the pest management technician. All of these may be part of a modern monitoring program. However, thorough visual inspections are still the mainstay of the pest control industry, and probably will remain so for some time.
Visual Inspections. In the past, visual inspections were used to guide the pest management professional to the general area of pest activity, usually for the purpose of applying a general use insecticide. Nonspecific complaints about "crawling insects" could be resolved temporarily with such a treatment. However, if the general application of an insecticide is inappropriate, it is important for the technician to be able to identify the pests, to locate the source of the problem and apply control to a specific site. This may require a very careful visual inspection of the infested area.
The effectiveness of any visual inspection is dependent upon the technician's knowledge of pest identification and biology. For example, the source of fruit flies is usually different from that of drain flies, so proper identification is important to locating the site of infestation and control. Without correct identification and knowledge of the pest's life history, monitoring by visual inspection may not be effective and can even become a long, unsuccessful process.
Trapping. As the use of traps has become more prevalent in the pest control industry, especially the use of sticky traps in cockroach control programs (Owens, 1995), the manner in which traps are used should be examined more carefully. For example, when traps are placed, they should be dated, numbered, initialed by the technician, and identified as to the location they were placed. But to develop an effective monitoring program with traps, placement becomes very important, because sticky traps only catch what walks or flies into them.
Monitoring with sticky traps requires knowledge (biology and behavior) of the pests that are commonly found in the area, and planning a practical and effective strategy for detecting these pests. Some areas cannot be monitored with sticky traps because they are damp, dusty or washed regularly. Some people may object to the use of traps because small children are present, for aesthetic reasons, and in the case of rodents, traps may be perceived as inhumane. These obstacles are to be expected and the technician must be able to make decisions in the field regarding trap placement, which trap to use, how many traps to use, etc.
As with all other IPM program activities, monitoring with traps is not a random process. It should be part of an established pest management plan that can be used by technicians and quality assurance personnel. A plan will designate areas where traps are to be placed, the type of trap to be used, how traps will be identified and procedures for placing new traps and disposing of old traps. This planning requires an understanding of what the primary and potential pests are in a given area, and the use of the building and its impact on monitoring.
Traps can play another role in a monitoring program. The presence of traps can demonstrate the service performance to customers who do not come in contact with the technician during their regular visits. The presence of traps can provide additional information to the customer and add value to the service. Conversely, the customer must understand that traps will not control pests, but are part of a more comprehensive approach to pest management.
Interviews. Communication plays an important role in an IPM monitoring program by connecting the service directly to the customer. In the past, effective pest control service was often associated with the smell of pesticides. Today, many pest control products have little or no odor, and, what is more important, chemical odors are becoming less acceptable to the public. The pest management technician must personally provide the presence of service that the lingering odor of pesticides provided years ago. The visibility of a technician, placing, and reading traps can fill this gap.
The days of the "stealth exterminator" are over, and now there is every reason for technicians to be visible and accessible to the customer while monitoring. A pest management technician must be able to explain the role monitoring plays in the pest management service being provided, and to obtain input and information from the customer.
DEVELOPING MONITORING PROGRAMS.
A monitoring schedule can be developed using the same criteria as a treatment schedule in a traditional pest control program. Begin by assessing the conditions in the account and ask such questions as:
* What is the primary use of the building?
* Are pests evident? If so, what and where are they?
* What are the customer's primary concerns and expectations of the program?
* What is the level of sanitation, maintenance and clutter? What are the conditions outside the building and in the surrounding area?
* Will the client cooperate with the technician's recommendations?
* Is the client willing to pay for the time necessary to perform IPM services that include monitoring?
These factors are no different from those considered for traditional pest control services. It is important that the goals of a monitoring program are made clear to the client. Monitoring requires additional time, work and thought, and the service technicians providing IPM-based service must be experienced and well trained. Clients should be informed that monitoring alone is not going to control pest problems, but is one facet of an integrated service for controlling pests. If factors such as cost, environmental conditions, and low levels of cooperation or indifference prohibit or obstruct proper monitoring procedures, then IPM may not be the best approach for pest control in that account.
As a comprehensive program, IPM can provide effective pest control and additional benefits beyond that of a traditional pest control program. The goal of monitoring in an integrated pest management program is to contribute to the control of pests. The information gained from monitoring may contribute to the broader "environmental management" concept of IPM by revealing the location and abundance of pests and the environmental conditions that may be contributing to pest problems. Monitoring not only contributes to controlling pests but also to managing the environment where pests live.
CONCLUSION. There is a growing need for urban structural pest management to move beyond glue traps and continue research and development on monitoring methods, and to expand the base of technical expertise currently available to the industry. The industry must also start to integrate information from other interrelated services, such as housekeeping and building maintenance, solid waste disposal, health department standards, warehousing standards, etc. into the training and practices of the pest management personnel to make IPM a more comprehensive and valuable service.
Herbert B. Jacobi is chief of the Pest Management Unit with the Division of Safety of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. Dr. William H. Robinson is a professor with the Urban Pest Control Research Center in the Department of Entomology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va.
REFERENCES
Story, K.O. 1987. Diagnosis, pest population monitoring, and consultation in urban pest management, pp. 69-94. In: G. Bennett and J. Owens [eds.], Advances in Urban Pest Management. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y.
Owens, John M. 1995. Detection and Monitoring, pp. 93-108. In: M. Rust, J. Owens, and D. Reierson [eds.], Understanding and Controlling the German Cockroach. Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y.