@article{magarey_trexler_2021, title={Correction: Information: a missing component in understanding and mitigating social epidemics}, url={https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00690-w}, DOI={10.1057/s41599-020-00690-w}, abstractNote={A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00690-w}, journal={Humanities and Social Sciences Communications}, author={Magarey, Roger D. and Trexler, Christina M.}, year={2021}, month={Dec} } @article{magarey_trexler_2020, title={Information: a missing component in understanding and mitigating social epidemics}, volume={7}, url={https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00620-w}, DOI={10.1057/s41599-020-00620-w}, abstractNote={AbstractSocial epidemics or behaviorally based non-communicable diseases are becoming an increasingly important problem in developed countries including the United States. It is the aim of our paper to propose a previously understudied aspect of the spread of social epidemics, the role of information in both causing and mitigating social epidemics. In this paper, we ask, can information be harmful, contagious, and a causal factor in social epidemics? In the spread of biological epidemics, the causal agents are biological pathogens such as bacteria or viruses. We propose that in the spread of social epidemics, one of the causal agents is harmful information, which is increasing exponentially in the age of the internet. We ground our idea in the concept of the meme and define the concept of an infopathogen as harmful information that can spread or intensify a social epidemic. Second, we ask, what are the best tools to understand the role of information in the spread of social epidemics? The epidemiological triad that includes a host, agents (and vectors), and the environment is extended into a quad by including information agents. The quad includes the role of information technologies as vectors and the impact of the social environment. The “life cycles” of pathogens in biological epidemics and infopathogens in social epidemics are compared, along with mitigations suggested by the epidemiological quad. Challenges to the theory of infopathogens, including the complexities associated with the spread of memes and the role of behavior in the spread of epidemics are discussed. Implications of the theory including the classification of harmfulness, the freedom of speech, and the treatment of infected individuals are also considered. We believe the application of the epidemiological quad provides insights into social epidemics and potential mitigations. Finally, we stress that infopathogens are only part of social epidemic development; susceptible hosts, a favorable environment, and availability of physical agents are all also required.}, number={1}, journal={Humanities and Social Sciences Communications}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Magarey, Roger D. and Trexler, Christina M.}, year={2020}, month={Dec} } @article{magarey_klammer_chappell_trexler_pallipparambil_hain_2019, title={Eco-efficiency as a strategy for optimizing the sustainability of pest management}, volume={75}, ISSN={["1526-4998"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5560}, DOI={10.1002/ps.5560}, abstractNote={AbstractAgricultural industrialization and the subsequent reliance on pesticides has resulted in numerous unintended consequences, such as impacts upon the environment and by extension human health. Eco‐efficiency is a strategy for sustainably increasing production, while simultaneously decreasing these externalities on ecological systems. Eco‐efficiency is defined as the ratio of production to environmental impacts. It has been widely adopted to improve chemical production, but we investigate the challenges of applying eco‐efficiency to pesticide use. Eco‐efficiency strategies include technological innovation, investment in research and development, improvement of business processes, and accounting for market forces. These components are often part of integrated pest management (IPM) systems that include alternatives to pesticides, but its implementation is often thwarted by commercial realities and technical challenges. We propose the creation and adoption of an eco‐efficiency index for pesticide use so that the broad benefits of eco‐efficient strategies such as IPM can be more readily quantified. We propose an index based upon the ratio of crop yield to a risk quotient (RQ) calculated from pesticide toxicity. Eco‐efficiency is an operational basis for optimizing pest management for sustainability. It naturally favors adoption of IPM and should be considered by regulators, researchers, and practitioners involved in pest management. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry}, number={12}, journal={PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Magarey, Roger D. and Klammer, Sarah S. H. and Chappell, Thomas M. and Trexler, Christina M. and Pallipparambil, Godshen R. and Hain, Ernie F.}, year={2019}, month={Dec}, pages={3129–3134} } @article{chappell_magarey_kurtz_trexler_pallipparambil_hain_2019, title={Perspective: service-based business models to incentivize the efficient use of pesticides in crop protection}, volume={75}, ISSN={["1526-4998"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5523}, DOI={10.1002/ps.5523}, abstractNote={AbstractSeveral problems limit the productivity and acceptance of crop protection, including pesticide overuse, pesticide resistance, poor adoption of integrated pest management (IPM), declining funding for research and extension, and inefficiencies of scale. We discuss the proposition that alternative business models for crop protection can address these problems by incentivizing and benefiting from efficiency of pesticide use. Currently, business models are not linked to the adoption of IPM and are sometimes at odds with IPM practices. We explore a business model based on the provision of pest management adequacy through services rather than the sale of pesticide products. Specifically, we advocate for establishment of crop protection adequacy standards that would allow a market system to maximize efficiency. Changing some of the relationships between agricultural companies and producers from one based on products to one based on services is an idea worthy of debate and evaluation for improving the efficiency of pest management. Contemporary information technology enhancing monitoring and coordination warrants attention in this debate. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry}, number={11}, journal={PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Chappell, Thomas M. and Magarey, Roger D. and Kurtz, Ryan W. and Trexler, Christina M. and Pallipparambil, Godshen R. and Hain, Ernie F.}, year={2019}, month={Nov}, pages={2865–2872} } @article{magarey_chappell_trexler_pallipparambil_hain_2019, title={Social Ecological System Tools for Improving Crop Pest Management}, volume={10}, ISSN={["2155-7470"]}, DOI={10.1093/jipm/pmz004}, abstractNote={AbstractIntegrated pest management (IPM) is a valuable tool for reducing pesticide use and for pesticide resistance management. Despite the success of IPM over the last 50 yr, significant challenges remain to improving IPM delivery and adoption. We believe that insights can be obtained from the field of Social Ecological Systems (SES). We first describe the complexity of crop pest management and how various social actors influence grower decision making, including adoption of IPM. Second, we discuss how crop pest management fits the definition of an SES, including such factors as scale, dynamic complexities, critical resources, and important social–ecological interactions. Third, we describe heuristics and simulation models as tools to understand complex SES and develop new strategies. Finally, we conclude with a brief discussion of how social processes and SES techniques could improve crop pest management in the future, including the delivery of IPM, while reducing negative social and environmental impacts.}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Magarey, Roger D. and Chappell, Thomas M. and Trexler, Christina M. and Pallipparambil, Godshen R. and Hain, Ernie F.}, year={2019}, month={Feb} } @article{jenkins_brescacin_duxbury_elliott_evans_grablow_hillegass_lyon_metzger_olandese_et al._2007, title={Does size matter for dispersal distance?}, volume={16}, DOI={10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00312.x}, abstractNote={ABSTRACTAim  The aim of this study is to answer the questions: (1) do small organisms disperse farther than large, or vice versa; and (2) does the observed pattern differ for passive and active dispersers? These questions are central to several themes in biogeography (including microbial biogeography), macroecology, metacommunity ecology and conservation biology.Location  The meta‐analysis was conducted using published data collected worldwide.Methods  We collected and analysed 795 data values in the peer‐reviewed literature for direct observations of both maximal dispersal distance and mass of the dispersing organisms (e.g. seeds, not trees). Analysed taxa ranged in size from bacteria to whales. We applied macroecology analyses based on null models (using Monte Carlo randomizations) to test patterns relative to specific hypotheses.Results  Collected dispersal distance and mass data spanned 9 and 21 orders of magnitude, respectively. Active dispersers dispersed significantly farther (P < 0.001) and were significantly greater in mass (P < 0.001) than passive dispersers. Overall, size matters: larger active dispersers attained greater maximum observed dispersal distances than smaller active dispersers. In contrast, passive‐disperser distances were random with respect to propagule mass, but not uniformly random, in part due to sparse data available for tiny propagules.Conclusions  Size is important to maximal dispersal distance for active dispersers, but not for passive dispersers. Claims that microbes disperse widely cannot be tested by current data based on direct observations of dispersal: indirect approaches will need to be applied. Distance–mass relationships should contribute to a resolution of neutral and niche‐based metacommunity theories by helping scale expectations for dispersal limitation. Also, distance–mass relationships should inform analyses of latitudinal species richness and conservation biology topics such as fragmentation, umbrella species and taxonomic homogenization.}, number={4}, journal={Global Ecology and Biogeography}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Jenkins, David G. and Brescacin, Camille R. and Duxbury, Craig V. and Elliott, Jennifer A. and Evans, Jennafer A. and Grablow, Katherine R. and Hillegass, Melissa and Lyon, Boyd N. and Metzger, Genevieve A. and Olandese, Michelle L. and et al.}, year={2007}, month={Jul}, pages={415–425} }