Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:27:16.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of a Mobile Pest: The Imported Fire Ant*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Gerald A. Carlson
Gerald A. Carlson*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Entomologists and other pest control specialists recognize that pest mobility creates difficulties when control is left to individual property owners. Control of mobile weeds, insects or contagious diseases has characteristics of a public good with high exclusion costs and near equal availability to all people in the affected area. If abatement benefits for areas to which the pest is spreading are not considered, there will be under production of abatement. Cooperatives, county abatement districts or state and federal agencies are often set up to administer area-wide abatement efforts. Economies of scale in pesticide treatments, coordination of efforts to limit spatial spread of the pest (quarantine activities) and scale economies in technology to reduce adverse side effects of pesticides are given as justifications for public or large-scale pest control programs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , December 1975 , pp. 35 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Paper No. 4733 of the Journal series of the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station of the products named nor criticisms of similar ones not mentioned. Without implicating them the assistance of Fred Arnold, Dick Axtell, Dave Hyman and Tom Johnson is acknowledged.

References

[1] Allied Chemical Company. Sales Records, unpublished, 1973.Google Scholar
[2] Blake, G.H., et. al. Residual Effectiveness of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons for Control of the Imported Fire Ant, Journal of Economic Entomology, 52:1–3, February 1959.Google Scholar
[3] Borcherding, T.E. and Deacon, R.T.. The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments, American Economic Review, LXII:891–901, 1972.Google Scholar
[4] Buchanan, James. An Economic Theory of Clubs, Economica, 32:1–14, 1965.Google Scholar
[5] DeBord, D.V., et. al. Demand for and Cost of Coastal Salt Marsh Mosquito Abatement, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. 232, Raleigh, North Carolina, March, 1975.Google Scholar
[6] Environmental Protection Agency. Report of the Mirex Advisory Committee, March 1972, 70 pages.Google Scholar
[7] Environmental Protection Agency. Economic Analysis - Imported Fire Ant, 1973.Google Scholar
[8] Hotelling, H. Differential Equations Subject to Error and Population Estimates, Journal of American Statistical Association, 22:283, 1927.Google Scholar
[9] Lacewell, R., et. al. Economic Implications of Discounting the Texas High Plains Boll Weevil Suppression Program, Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 6:33–40, 1974.Google Scholar
[10] Tintner, G. Econometrics, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.Google Scholar
[11] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Report of the Survey of County Agents on the Imported Fire Ant, ARS Staff Report, 1968.Google Scholar
[12] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Evaluation of Ongoing Fire Ant Control Program, Unpublished Progress Report, APHS, USDA, Spring 1972.Google Scholar
[13] Van der Plank, J.E. Plant Diseases: Epidemics and Control, New York: Academic Press, 1963.Google Scholar