Pests in the collection: What’s normal?

In putting together an updated IPM strategy for the Frost Entomological Museum we wondered how our practices and environmental conditions compared to other entomological collections. The most recent surveys we found were published by Edwards, Bell, and King (1980) and Linnie (1994). Clearly a lot(!) has changed in the last 23 years, as we now use fewer chemicals in our IPM and have more knowledge generally about best practices. We hope this survey, the results of which will be presented at ECN in Denver (November 2017), will inform our strategy going forward. We also hope the accumulated numbers, facts, figures, and recommendations (i.e., DATA) will help us and others argue for more infrastructure investment. This survey was approved by Penn State's IRB ( https://www.research.psu.edu/irb - study ID STUDY00008081)

为弗罗斯特昆虫博物馆（Frost Entomological Museum）制定更新后的有害生物综合管理（Integrated Pest Management, IPM）策略时，我们希望了解自身操作规范与环境条件同其他昆虫馆藏机构之间的差异。我们目前可获取的最新相关调研成果，分别由Edwards、Bell与King（1980年）及Linnie（1994年）发表。显然，过去23年间行业已发生诸多变化：如今我们在IPM工作中使用的化学药剂更少，且对最优操作规范的认知也更为全面。我们期望本次调研的结果能于2017年11月在丹佛举办的ECN会议上展示，并为我们后续的策略制定提供参考。此外，我们希望本次调研积累的各类数据、事实、统计结果与建议（即DATA），能够助力我们与其他机构争取更多基础设施建设投入。本次调研已通过宾夕法尼亚州立大学（Penn State）的机构审查委员会（Institutional Review Board, IRB）审批，审批链接为https://www.research.psu.edu/irb，研究编号为STUDY00008081