Skip to main content
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2024 Sep 28;9(40):41130–41147. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.4c06628

Integrated Pest Management: An Update on the Sustainability Approach to Crop Protection

Wentao Zhou , Yashwanth Arcot , Raul F Medina , Julio Bernal , Luis Cisneros-Zevallos §,*, Mustafa E S Akbulut †,∥,*
PMCID: PMC11465254  PMID: 39398119

Abstract

graphic file with name ao4c06628_0007.jpg

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) emerged as a pest control framework promoting sustainable intensification of agriculture, by adopting a combined strategy to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides while improving crop productivity and ecosystem health. This critical review synthesizes the most recent advances in IPM research and practice, mostly focusing on studies published within the past five years. The Review discusses the key components of IPM, including cultural practices, biological control, genetic pest control, and targeted pesticide application, with a particular emphasis on the significant advancements made in biological control and targeted pesticide delivery systems. Recent findings highlight the growing importance of genetic control and conservation biological control, which involves the management of agricultural landscapes to promote natural enemy populations. Furthermore, the recent discovery of novel biopesticides, including microbial agents and plant-derived compounds, has expanded the arsenal of tools available for eco-friendly pest management. Substantial progress has recently also been made in the development of targeted pesticide delivery systems, such as nanoemulsions and controlled-release formulations, which can minimize the environmental impact of pesticides while maintaining their efficacy. The Review also analyzes the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of IPM adoption, showcasing its potential to promote biodiversity conservation and ensure food safety. Case studies from various agroecological contexts demonstrate the successful implementation of IPM programs, highlighting the importance of participatory approaches and effective knowledge exchange among stakeholders. The Review also identifies the main challenges and opportunities for the widespread adoption of IPM, including the need for transdisciplinary research, capacity building, and policy support. In conclusion, this critical review discusses the essential role of IPM components in achieving the sustainable intensification of agriculture, as it seeks to optimize crop production while minimizing adverse environmental impacts and enhancing the resilience of agricultural systems to global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss.

I. Introduction

Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which is a thorough, ecological approach to managing pests in agricultural systems, involves the strategic integration of multiple control methods, including cultural, biological, and chemical tactics, to maintain pest populations below economically damaging levels while minimizing risks to the environment and public health.1 IPM emphasizes the employment of preventive measures, monitoring, and decision-making based on established thresholds, rather than relying solely on reactive pesticide applications.2,3 The fundamental principles of IPM include preventing pest problems through cultural practices, such as crop rotation and sanitation; monitoring pest populations and their natural enemies; using economic thresholds to guide management decisions; employing a blend of biological, physical, and chemical control methods; and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions.4,5 Through the incorporation of multidisciplinary knowledge and a systems-based approach, IPM is aimed at optimizing agricultural productivity while preserving ecosystem services and mitigating the detrimental consequences of conventional pesticide reliance.6,7

Sustainable pest control practices, within an IPM framework, are important for addressing the challenges posed by the increasing global demand for food, the necessity to conserve national bioresources, and the urgency to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.8,9 Conventional pest control practices, characterized by the intensive application of pesticides, have caused a multitude of ecological, economic, and societal challenges. These include the appearance of pesticide resistance, the disruption of beneficial arthropod communities, the contamination of soil and water, and the potential exposure of agricultural workers and consumers to hazardous chemicals.10,11 Conversely, IPM presents a more sustainable model for pest control by restricting pesticide treatment to economically and ecologically justifiable thresholds. By curtailing overall chemical pesticide reliance, IPM fosters biodiversity conservation, safeguards ecosystem services, and strengthens the stability of agricultural systems. Furthermore, the utilization of IPM procedures can yield economic benefits for farmers through reduced input costs and enhanced crop yields, whereas simultaneously promoting food safety and produce quality for consumers.12

In essence, given the pressing necessity to develop more sustainable and robust agricultural frameworks in the light of mounting global challenges, the widespread embracing of IPM practices is essential.13,14 IPM not only addresses the direct impacts of pests on crop production but also backs the broader objectives of sustainable development, including the conservation of natural resources, the protection of public health, and the promotion of social and economic well-being.

This review mostly presents the most recent advances in IPM in the past five years after briefly summarizing the traditional IPM basics. It is organized in several sections including recent updates on IPM components (i.e., cultural, monitoring, biological and chemical), sustainability benefits of IPM (i.e., environmental, economic and social), challenges and opportunities, research gaps and priorities and an overall summary of the review outcome.

II. Components of IPM

Figure 1 illustrates the key components of an IPM program, which is a thorough approach to managing pests in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner. As shown in the figure, IPM relies upon a blend of strategies, including prevention and cultural control methods, monitoring and decision-making tools, biological control, and chemical control. Prevention and cultural control methods involve methods such as sanitation, crop rotation, intercropping, and the utilization of resistant varieties to create conditions that are less favorable for pest populations to develop. Monitoring and decision-making tools (i.e., economic injury levels, action thresholds, scouting, and sampling techniques) help farmers to assess pest populations and determine when intervention is necessary. Biological control methods, including the employment of natural enemies, conservation and augmentation of beneficial insects, genetic control, and classical biological control (CBC), harness the power of predators/parasites to keep pest populations in check. Lastly, chemical inactivation methods, including biopesticides, selective/targeted pesticide utilization, and nanotechnology, are used judiciously to control pests when other methods are inadequate. By integrating these diverse strategies, IPM can successfully manage pests by shrinking risks to public health and the environment.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Key components of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program.

II.A. Prevention and Cultural Control Methods

Crop rotation, a cornerstone of preventive pest management within the IPM framework, entails the sequential cultivation of dissimilar crops on a given field across multiple growing seasons.15 The efficacy of crop rotation for suppressing pest populations is attributable to several mechanisms, including the spatiotemporal separation of host crops, the incorporation of nonhost crops that function as barriers or trap crops, and the fostering of beneficial beings via enhanced biodiversity.16 The effectiveness of crop rotation as a IPM strategy is contingent upon the judicious selection and organization of crops in a temporal sequence, the diversity of crops included in the rotation scheme, the length of the rotation cycle, and the strategic incorporation of cover crops or green manures.15 These factors should be carefully evaluated and optimized to maximize the potential benefits of crop rotation in suppressing pest populations and mitigating the associated crop damage.17 The alternation of nonhost crops, exemplified by cereals, with host crops, such as vegetables, in a strategic rotational sequence has been demonstrated to effectively mitigate the incidence and severity of soil-borne phytopathogens and plant-parasitic nematodes across a diverse array of crops, as corroborated by prior publications.18 Similarly, the inclusion of leguminous crops in rotation can suppress weed populations through allelopathic effects and competition for resources, while also ameliorating soil condition and fertility.19

Intercropping, an effective cultural control strategy, refers to the concurrent cultivation of multiple crop species within a single field.20 This prophylactic practice utilizes ecological interactions between diverse plant species to establish agroecosystems less conducive to pest proliferation while simultaneously fostering the activity of natural enemies. The mechanisms beyond the pest-suppressive effects of intercropping are complex, encompassing factors including resource competition, physical barriers, allelopathy, and habitat manipulation.21 The efficacy of intercropping as a pest management strategy is contingent upon the judicious selection of companion crops, their precise spatial configuration, and the ideal timing of their establishment.22,23 For instance, the utilization of aromatic plants, exemplified by Ocimum basilicum or Mentha spp., as intercrops were reported to repel or mask the volatile olfactory cues exploited by pests to locate their host plants, thereby diminishing pest infestation levels.24,25 Aside from its direct impact on pest populations, intercropping can also boost the overall resilience and yield of agroecosystems by augmenting soil fertility, optimizing water use efficiency, and mitigating the risk for crop failure stemming from abiotic stressors.2628

Sanitation practices, are cultural control practices that involve the removal and destruction of pest-infested plant material, crop residues, and other sources of pest inoculum from farmlands and surrounding areas.29 These practices aim to shrink emergent pest populations and prevent their spread within and between cropping seasons, thus minimizing the necessity for curative interventions.30 For example, the elimination of fallen fruits and mummified nuts in almond orchards were demonstrated to significantly reduce the overwintering population of navel orangeworm (Amyelois transitella), a main pest of almonds and other tree nuts.31 Aside from these field-level measures, sanitation practices also encompass the cleaning and disinfection of farm equipment, storage facilities, and transportation vehicles to prevent the introduction and spread of pests from external sources.32

The employment of resistant varieties is a fundamental cultural control strategy that exploits the genetic diversity of crops to minimize the adverse-effects of pests and diseases on crop production.33 The use of resistant varieties in IPM programs aims to decline the dependence on pesticides, minimize yield losses, and amend the overall sustainability and resilience of crops. The mechanisms of resistance in crop plants are diverse and can be divided into three main categories: antixenosis, antibiosis, and tolerance.34 Antixenosis renders the plant less attractive or suitable for feeding, oviposition, or shelter. Antibiosis involves plant characteristics that have direct adverse consequences on pest growth, development, reproduction, or survival, such as the production of toxic secondary metabolites or of physical barriers. Tolerance describes the capacity of a plant to withstand or recover from pest damage without significant yield reduction, often through compensatory growth or enhanced stress responses. Using Bt cotton varieties, which express insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, has been a major success story in IPM, leading to significant falls in pesticide utilization and improved control of lepidopteran pests, such as cotton bollworm.35 However, the prevalent adoption of Bt cotton has also raised concerns about the probability for resistance development in pest populations, highlighting the necessity for effective resistance management strategies.36,37

II.B. Monitoring and Decision Making

Scouting and sampling techniques are fundamental components of the monitoring and decision-making process in IPM programs.38,39 Aside from these sampling designs, various tools and techniques are employed to monitor pest populaces and their negative-effects on crop plants, including visual inspection, the employment of sweep nets, sticky traps, pheromone traps, and remote sensing technologies.40,41 Remote sensing techniques, such as aerial photography, satellite imagery, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are increasingly being used to monitor crop health and detect pest outbreaks over large spatial scales.4244 The integration of diverse monitoring tools and techniques, coupled with appropriate sampling designs, empowers IPM practitioners to make data-driven decisions regarding the necessity and timing of pest management interventions. Recently, the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) for identification and decision-making has been utilized in IPM: Batz et al.45 reported the several ways for AI to enhance aphid pest forecasting: 1) identification of insects best on image recognition and Deep Learning, 2) forecasting model based on Machine Learning and neural networks and 3) optimizing the monitoring infrastructure to improve predictive models. Ali et al.46 reported an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled IoT-based pests detection method employing pest sound analytics in large agricultural area and among the four models mentioned in their work, the CNN-Bi-LSTM model could achieve 98.91% accuracy. However, the usage of AI has been more frequently in not only IPM but also the whole agriculture area, there are still several obstacles restricting AI decision support systems: AI technology effectiveness, functionality under field conditions, the level of computational expertise and power required to use and run the system and system mobility.47

Economic injury levels (EILs) and action thresholds (ATs) are essential tools in IPM decision-making.4850 They help farmers and pest management professionals determine when pest control measures are economically warranted. EILs represent the pest population density at which the cost of crop damage equals the cost of control, while ATs are set at a lower pest density to prevent populations from reaching the EIL.4850 By considering pest density, crop susceptibility, and the costs and benefits of different management strategies; EILs and ATs enable the implementation of timely and cost-effective pest control interventions.5153 This approach minimizes redundant pesticide applications, reducing the ecological impact and economic burden accompanying pest management. The calculation of EILs and ATs requires extensive information on the autoecology or natural history of the pest species, the crop, and their interactions aside from the economic factors influencing the cost-benefit analysis of pest management decisions.54 For instance, the EIL for soybean aphid (Aphis glycines) in soybean production has been estimated at 674 aphids per plant, based upon the relationship between aphid density, soybean yield, and the cost and efficacy of insecticide treatments.5557 The corresponding AT for soybean aphid is set at 250 aphids per plant, providing a buffer for population growth and allowing time for the implementation of control measures to take effect.5557 The efficacious implementation of EILs and ATs within IPM presents some challenges, including the necessity for accurate and timely monitoring data, the variability in pest damage relationships across diverse environmental conditions and crop phenological stages, and the propensity for multispecies pest interactions that can synergistically impact crop yield.58,59

II.C. Biological Control

Natural enemies, encompassing parasitoids, predators, and pathogens, constitute an important component of biological pest control within IPM programs.6062 Such beneficial organisms can enable the regulation of pest populaces through diverse mechanisms, including direct predation, parasitism, and infection, frequently maintaining pest densities below economically damaging thresholds.6365 The prolific integration of natural enemies into IPM necessitates a comprehensive elucidation of their biology and ecology with both target pests and the crop environment.66 Predators, encompassing a diverse range of species from arthropods (e.g., ladybird beetles, lacewings, spiders) to vertebrates (e.g., birds, rodents), actively hunt and prey upon multiple individuals throughout their life cycle.6769 The influence of predators on pest populations depends on their feeding rate, functional response, numerical response, prey preference, and several other ecological components.70 Parasitoids, instead, are insects that lay their eggs or/in a host individual, eventually eliminating the host while the parasitoid larvae develop.71,72 Pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and nematodes, infecting and causing disease in pest populations, leading to reduced growth, reproduction, and survival.73

Classical biological control (CBC) is a strategy that falls within the broader umbrella of IPM and biological control, which entails the importation and establishment of natural adversaries sourced from the native selection of the target pest.74,75 This strategy seeks to attain long-term, sustainable pest suppression by reestablishing the ecological balance between the pest and its natural predators in the introduced range, thereby mitigating the adverse impacts of the invasive pest species on agroecosystems. The choice of suitable natural enemies is based on criteria such as their host specificity, climatic adaptability, reproductive potential, and searching efficiency.65,76 Host specificity is important to minimize the risk of nontarget effects on native species and to ensure the environmental safety of the biological control program. One of the most successful examples of CBC is the transference of some vedalia beetle (Rodolia cardinalis) from Australia to California in the late 19th century for the control of the cottony cushion scale (Icerya purchasi), a serious pest of citrus.77 Vedalia beetle rapidly established and spread throughout the infested areas, effectively suppressing the scale populations and saving citrus industry in California. Other notable examples involve the management of the cassava mealybug in Africa through the transference of the parasitoid wasp Apoanagyrus lopezi from South America.78 Despite these successes, CBC also faces challenges and risks, including the potential for nontarget impacts on native species, the unintended spread of introduced agents to new areas, and the possible interference with other IPM tactics.

The inclusion of natural enemies into IPM programs involves the conservation and augmentation of existing populations and the institution of new species through conservation biological control (CVBC). CVBC focuses on modifying the crop environment to favor the survival and performance of natural adversaries, such as by providing alternative food sources (e.g., pollen and nectar), shelter, and overwintering sites. Conservation and augmentation of natural predators are two key strategies within the broader framework of biological control.60,79 These approaches aim to enhance the abundance, diversity, and effectiveness of predators/parasitoids/pathogens in agroecosystems, thereby promoting the natural regulation of pest populations.80 Conservation and augmentation techniques are often utilized together with other IPM tactics, such as chemical and cultural control, to achieve sustainable and cost-effective pest management.81 This encompasses various practices, including the provision of alternative food sources (e.g., nectar, pollen, and alternative prey), the creation of sheltering and overwintering habitats (e.g., beetle banks and hedgerows), and the minimization of broad-spectrum pesticide applications that can adversely affect beneficial organisms.82 In contrast, augmentation biological control entails the cyclic release of externally grown natural adversaries to supplement existing populations or compensate for their absence.83,84 This approach can be further categorized into inoculative and inundative releases, contingent upon the specific goals and frequency of release events.85,86 The realization of augmentation biological control is contingent upon the quality/quantity of released natural enemies, the timing and frequency of releases, and compatibility with other IPM tactics. Exemplary successful augmentation programs include the distribution of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis to control two-spotted spider mites in greenhouse crops,87,88 and the release of the parasitoid wasp Trichogramma spp. to control lepidopteran pests in field crops.89,90

Gene drives have received significant attention in the field of agricultural pest control due to their potential to effectively manage or even eradicate invasive species that pose threats to crops and ecosystems.9193 The ability of gene drives to rapidly spread desired traits through a population could revolutionize pest management strategies, offering a more targeted and sustainable approach compared to traditional methods such as pesticides. One promising application of gene drives in agriculture is the control of insect pests. By introducing traits that reduce the fertility or lifespan of the targeted species, gene drives could potentially suppress pest populations below economically damaging levels. For example, gene drives have been proposed as a means to combat the Asian citrus psyllid, a vector of the devastating citrus greening disease.94 However, the deployment of gene drives in agricultural settings also raises important ecological and ethical concerns. The potential for unintended consequences, such as the inadvertent spread of gene drives to nontarget species or the evolution of resistance in the targeted pests, requires careful consideration and robust risk assessment.95

II.D. Chemical Control

Among the different IPM components, perhaps chemical control is one that has experienced most novel and recent updates. Herein we include recent advances in selective and targeted pesticide use, resistance management, biopesticides and natural compounds and the use of nanotechnology.

II.D.1. Selective and Targeted Pesticide Use

The judicious and precise application of pesticides, targeting specific pests or areas, represents a vital element within IPM approaches, which emphasizes the strategic deployment of chemical control measures.5 Recent advancements in research have paved the way for the implementation of precise and focused pesticide application techniques. This approach necessitates a thorough insight into the pest life cycle, ecological interactions, and population fluctuations, as well as the crop phenology and the complex relationships within agricultural ecosystems.96,97 Molecular studies have significantly contributed to this endeavor by shedding light on the underlying mechanisms that determine the selectivity of insecticides. For instance, O’Flynn et al.98 characterized arylalkylamine N-acyltransferase from Tribolium castaneum (TcAANAT0) as a potential insecticide target (Figure 2). Kinetic analysis revealed that short-chain acyl-CoAs (C2–C10) and various arylalkylamines served as substrates, with catalytic efficiencies (kcat/KM) ranging from 1.0 × 103 to 1.2 × 106 M–1 s–1. The kinetic mechanism was determined to be a sequential mechanism starting with acetyl-CoA binding first, as evidenced by dead-end inhibition patterns and isothermal calorimetry (Kd = 0.33 ± 0.04 μM for acetyl-CoA). pH-rate profiles and kinetic studies with a novel amine substrate, 2,2-difluoro-2-phenethylamine, provided insight into the chemical mechanism, suggesting that an active site base deprotonates the amine substrate prior to nucleophilic attack. These findings offer valuable structural/mechanistic information for the rational design of inhibitors targeting TcAANAT0 and other insect AANATs.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

High-resolution crystal structure of TcAANAT0 in complex with acetyl-CoA at a 2.84 Å resolution. (a) The asymmetric unit reveals the hexameric arrangement of TcAANAT0 in the crystal lattice. (b) A single TcAANAT0 monomer is shown with bound acetyl-CoA, illustrating the enzyme–substrate complex. (c) Close-up view of the TcAANAT0 active site with acetyl-CoA bound. The unbiased Fo–Fc electron density map, contoured at 3σ and shown in green, confirms the position of acetyl-CoA within the active site. TcAANAT0 is depicted in magenta, acetyl-CoA in orange, and hydrogen bonds are indicated by black dashed lines. (d) An intermolecular π-stacking interaction is observed between the acetyl-CoA molecule and Phe-166 residue across two adjacent TcAANAT0 molecules at the crystal packing interface. The two interacting TcAANAT0 molecules are colored in magenta and teal, while the acetyl-CoA molecules are shown in orange and blue. Reprinted with permission from ref (98). Copyright 2020 American Chemical Society.

Lu et al.99 discovered lynamicin B as a potent and selective inhibitor for OfChi-h, a group h Chitinase obtained from the lepidopteran pest (i.e., Ostrinia furnacalis). Kinetic studies revealed that lynamicin B competitively inhibits OfChi-h with a Ki of ∼9 μM, while not significantly inhibiting other chitinases. Feeding experiments revealed that lynamicin B displayed potent insecticidal activities against lepidopteran pests Mythimna separata, O. furnacalis, and Spodoptera frugiperda, with LC50 values ranging from 20.0 to 53.1 mg/L. These findings suggest that lynamicin B is an intriguing natural-derived pesticide for the control of lepidopteran pests, with minimal impact on nontarget beneficial insects.

Shen et al.100 designed, produced, and assessed an array of glycosylated naphthalimide derivatives as novel inhibitors of OfHex1, an insect β-N-acetylhexosaminidase from the agricultural pest Ostrinia furnacalis. Rational molecular design and optimization led to the discovery of compounds 15r and 15y, which exhibited potent inhibitory activity against OfHex1 with Ki values of 5.3 μM and 2.7 μM, respectively, surpassing the efficacy of previously reported lead compounds. In vivo bioassays revealed that the most potent OfHex1 inhibitors exhibited insecticidal activity against Plutella xylostella, Myzus persicae, and O. furnacalis, with compound 15y causing 70% mortality in O. furnacalis larvae at 1 mM after 20 days.

Samurkas et al.101 virtually conducted a structure-based screening targeting the intersubunit interface of the diamondback moth (DBM) ryanodine receptor (RyR) N-terminal domain (NTD) to identify potential species-specific insecticides. Binding mode analysis revealed that these compounds selectively bind to a hydrophobic region of the DBM NTD-A but not to the corresponding region of its mammalian equivalent. These compounds were tested on HEK293 cell lines stably expressing DBM or mammalian RyR, with one compound showing good potency (EC50 = 58.2 ± 7.6 μM) and selectivity (selectivity index >8.6) against the DBM RyR. The insecticidal effect of this compound was further assured via fruit flies, with an LD50 of 2.51 μg/g. This study presents a baseline for designing a new class of selective RyR-targeting insecticides to manage both wild-type and resistant pests.

II.D.2. Resistance Management Strategies (RMS)

RMSs aim to prevent or delay the buildup of pesticide resistance in target pest populations.102,103 The facilitation of resistance is driven by the selection stress exerted by repeated pesticide applications, which favor the survival and reproduction of resistant individuals over susceptible ones. RMSs are formulated to mitigate the selection stress exerted on pest populations and to maintain the long term efficacy of pesticides.104,105 The alternation of pesticides with different ways of action diminishes the selection pressure on specific resistance mechanisms and aids in maintaining a diverse genetic pool of susceptible individuals within the pest population. Applying pesticides at their full recommended doses constitutes another crucial RMS, as sublethal doses can facilitate the survival and breeding of resistant individuals, thereby accelerating the appearance of resistance.106

There are various relevant studies to pest resistance development and management strategies in the literature.107109 Among many studies, a very recent study by Rigon et al.110 is particularly noteworthy. Their research investigated how fenoxaprop-p-ethyl and imazethapyr herbicide mixture influences the progression of herbicide resistance in Echinochloa crus-galli using recurrent selection at sublethal doses (Figure 3). Second-generation offspring chosen with the mixture exhibited reduced pest control efficacy compared to both the parental generation and unselected progeny. Following two selection cycles with the mixture, the GR50 values of susceptible (POP1-S) and imazethapyr-resistant (POP2-IR) biotypes increased by 1.6-fold and 2.6-fold, respectively. This study demonstrated that recurrent selection with a sublethal mixture of herbicides could potentially promote the progression of cross-resistance to cyhalofop, sethoxydim, diclofop, and quinclorac.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Dose–response curves illustrating herbicide resistance evolution in Echinochloa crus-galli (barnyard grass) populations after two generations of low-dose herbicide selection. Curves represent shoot fresh weight (% of untreated control) for susceptible (POP1-S, blue) and initially resistant (POP2-IR, red) biotypes treated with (a) fenoxaprop-p-ethyl, (b) imazethapyr, and (c) a mixture of both herbicides. Shifts in curve positions between generations indicate rapid evolution of resistance profiles under sublethal herbicide exposure. Reprinted with permission from ref (110). Copyright 2023 Elsevier.

II.D.3. Biopesticides and Naturally Derived Products

Biopesticides and naturally derived products offer more environmentally benign and sustainable alternatives to conventional synthetic pesticides.111,112 Naturally derived products are extracted or isolated from natural materials and may undergo some chemical modification to enhance their efficacy or stability.113,114 Microbial pesticides originate from bacteria, fungi, viruses, and nematodes that are pathogenic to specific pest species.115 Examples include Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticides, which contain bacterial spores and crystal proteins that are toxic to certain lepidopteran, coleopteran, and dipteran pests,116 and entomopathogenic fungi such as Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, which infect and kill many arthropod pests.117 Likewise, various essential oil-based formulations have been demonstrated to inactive bacterial pests related to food security/safety.118124

R&D efforts in this area center on the discovery and characterization of new bioactive compounds from natural sources and the optimization of formulation and delivery systems. For instance, a recent study investigated the influence of romidepsin to the herbicidal action of the biopesticide Burkholderia rinojensis.125 It was determined that romidepsin is a biological proherbicide that aims at plant histone deacetylases (HDAC). Romidepsin’s biological activity was significantly enhanced upon reduction of its disulfide bridge by tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (200 mM), resulting in the release of a substantially reactive free butenyl thiol terminal groups. This bioactivation process, involving disulfide bridge reduction, was also observed in plant cell-free extracts.

In a recent study, the phytotoxicity and entomotoxicity of rosemary and artemisia essential oils (EOs) were evaluated against the tomato pest Bemisia tabaci when formulated as atomized powders, nanoemulsions, and Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents (NaDES) compared to pure EOs.126 Nanoemulsions were reported to have the most entomotoxicity, inducing 60% and 98% mortality for Artemisia and Rosemary EOs, respectively, followed by NaDES (14% and 96% mortality) and pure EOs (17% and 90% mortality), while atomized powders showed no significant entomotoxicity. The extent of plant damage exhibited a comparable pattern, with nanoemulsions inducing the most severe phytotoxic effects, while natural deep eutectic solvents (NaDES) mitigated the deleterious impact on plants in comparison to the application of unmodified essential oils (EOs).

Rong et al.127 investigated the antifungal activity of the endophytic bacterium Bacillus safensis B21 against the rice blast pathogen Magnaporthe oryzae. The extract (with methanol) of B. safensis B21 culture filtrate exhibited strong, dose-dependent inhibition of M. oryzae growth (IC50 = 15.56 μg/mL) and remained stable across a wide pH range (1–9) and at temperatures up to 100 °C. In detached leaf assays and field trials, fermentation broth and culture filtrate of B. safensis B21 outperformed the fungicide carbendazim in controlling rice blast disease when applied preventatively (Figure 4). The antifungal compounds were detected as the cyclic lipopeptides iturin A2 and iturin A6, which caused morphological abnormalities and increased membrane permeability in M. oryzae hyphae.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Progression of lesion diameter 5 days postinoculation with strain B21 under preventative and curative droplet treatment regimens. Error bars indicate standard deviation. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between treatments are denoted by different letters. Scale bar represents 10 mm. Reprinted with permission from ref (127). Copyright 2020 Elsevier.

Giunti et al.128 investigated the repellency and habituation effects of essential oil (EO)-based nanoemulsions against the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica. Stable nanoemulsions were developed using fennel, mint, and sweet orange EOs, with droplet sizes smaller than 200 nm. All EO-based nanoformulations exhibited repellency against R. dominica in both area choice and arena bioassays, with mint and sweet orange formulations showing the strongest effects. Habituation to the repellent effects was observed in R. dominica adults following successive exposures to mint and sweet orange nanoemulsions, with the decline in responsiveness being frequency-dependent. Complete recovery of repellency was observed 24 h after the last training session.

Citronella grass (Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt) essential oil (EO) and its nanoemulsion were evaluated for their insecticidal and antifeedant activities against the destructive agricultural pest Spodoptera litura.129 Citronella essential oil (EO), characterized by GC-MS, revealed 13 terpenoids, with citronellal (26.38%), trans-geraniol (24.61%), and citronellol (13.80%) as the major constituents. A stable oil-in-water (O/W) nanoemulsion was formulated using 15% citronella EO and 5% Tween 80. Laboratory bioassays demonstrated 100% mortality of S. litura larvae at concentrations of 10.0 and 12.50 mg/mL for citronella EO and its nanoemulsion, respectively.

II.D.4. Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is an emerging field that holds promise for the design of novel and improved tools for chemical control under IPM.130 Nanopesticides offer several potential advantages over conventional pesticide formulations, including increased efficacy, reduced environmental effects, and targeted delivery to predetermined pests or plant tissues.131133 For example, nanoencapsulation of pesticide active ingredients can improve their stability, solubility, and controlled release, thereby lowering the amount of pesticide needed and minimizing off-target effects.134136 Nanoformulations can also enhance the penetration and translocation of pesticides within plant tissues, allowing for more efficient and localized pest control.137139 Examples of nanomaterials employed in the preparation of nanopesticides include polymeric nanoparticles, lipid-based nanocarriers, and inorganic nanoparticles such as silica and titanium dioxide.140145

The development and treatment of nanopesticides in IPM require a multidisciplinary approach that combines expertise from fields such as chemistry, materials science, agronomy, toxicology, risk assessors, regulator, and social sciences. Ongoing research priorities and activities in this area include the design and synthesis of novel nanomaterials with specific functionalities, the optimization of nanoformulations and delivery methods, and the assessment of their efficacy, safety, and environmental fate. For instance, Hao et al.146 reported a novel nanopesticide system involving boron nitride nanoplatelets (BNNP) functionalized with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 3-mercaptopropyl trimethoxysilane (MPTMS) as nanocarriers for the pesticide avermectin (AVM) (Figure 5). They found that the resultant BNNP:PEG/MPTMS nanocomposite exhibited a high pesticide loading capacity of 181.91 ± 5.22 mg/g, attributed to the favorable hydrophobic interactions, π–π stacking, and electrostatic interactions between the nanocarriers and AVM. The presence of PEG on the nanocarrier surface enhanced the colloidal stability and water dispersibility of the nanopesticide. Notably, the release kinetics of AVM from the nanocarriers could be tuned from first-order to zero-order by increasing the pH from 7 to 11, with a two-to-3-fold increase in the release rate, due to the hydrolysis of PEG ester groups under alkaline conditions. Furthermore, the BNNP:PEG/MPTMS nanocarriers significantly improved the photostability of AVM against UV degradation, extending its half-life from 53 to 130 min under UV exposure.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Schematic representation of BNNP functionalization with MPTMS and PEG to create BNNP:PEG/MPTMS composite nanocarriers for pesticide delivery. These nanocarriers exhibit high loading capacity, pH-responsive controlled release, enhanced leaf adhesion, and UV-blocking properties. Functionalized BNNPs self-assemble into interconnected nanochannels with three distinct orientations: horizontally stacked parallel channels vertically stacked tortuous channels and inclined stacked twisted channels. These diverse nanochannel configurations facilitate pesticide release and transport through multiple pathways. Reprinted with permission from ref (146). Copyright 2020 Elsevier.

Bae et al.147 developed a novel biopesticide nanocomposite encapsulating azadirachtin, a natural insect-killing compound from neem seed, using whey protein isolate as a nanocarrier matrix. The 260.9 ± 6.8 nm nanocomposite demonstrated faster action and greater efficacy against the fall armyworm compared to bulk azadirachtin, with LC50 values determined within 11 days of larval survival. Confocal microscopy revealed enhanced biodistribution throughout the insect body, and the nanocomposite exhibited improved UV stability owing to its intrinsic nanostructure and UV-scavenging vitamin E. This advancement in sustainable pest management highlights the potential for more environmentally friendly approaches to controlling agricultural pests via the combination of biotechnology and nanotechnology.

The study by Zheng et al.148 reported the propensity of using chitosan-based nanoformulations to boost the efficacy and sustainability of chlorfenapyr (CHL) for controlling Spodoptera frugiperda in maize. They found that CHL was successfully encapsulated in chitosan/carboxymethyl chitosan nanoparticles (CHL@CS/CMCS NPs) with a particle size of approximately 100 nm, which significantly improved the systemic activity of CHL. Root irrigation with CHL@CS/CMCS NPs yielded an optimal efficacy of 89.46–92.36% against S. frugiperda 7 days postapplication, which was 7.5–17.5 times higher than that of the CHL suspension concentrate (CHL-SC). The nanoformulation maintained 39.08–65.21% efficacy even 20 days after application. CHL@CS/CMCS NPs were readily absorbed by maize roots and predominantly transported to tender leaves, the preferred feeding site of S. frugiperda larvae, enabling targeted delivery of the insecticide.

III. Sustainability Benefits of IPM

Since the initial studies of IPM by Juan Herrera in cotton crops in 1956 in Canete, Peru,149 to its confirmation in alfalfa crops in 1959 in California150 and later systematization of the IPM concept by Ray Smith in the 1960s,151,152 the big challenge has been its generalized systematic and upscale implementation.153 However, it was not until the mid-1990s that successful IPM systematic and upscale implementations led by Fausto Cisneros in a range of crops including potatoes, sweet potatoes, asparagus was achieve by use of the Pilot Unit strategies.154,155 These were some of the pioneer works on the upscale implementation of sustainability benefits of IPM programs. After this historical synopsis, herein we discuss the most recent advances in sustainable environmental, economic and social benefits of IPM.

III.A. Environmental Sustainability

By prioritizing nonchemical methods and judicious pesticide application based on economic thresholds and pest monitoring, IPM seeks to maintain pest populaces below economically damaging levels while minimizing reliance on chemical interventions. This approach can not only reduce the total volume of pesticides applied but also promote the employment of more selective and benign compounds, mitigating the detrimental influences on nontarget organisms, ecosystems, and human health. IPM employs a combined approach, mixing cultural, biological, and physical control tactics, complemented by the strategic application of reduced-risk pesticides (i.e., biopesticides and naturally derived products). These alternatives, including microbial insecticides, botanical extracts, and semiochemicals, exhibit lower toxicity, shorter persistence, and fewer nontarget effects compared to typical synthetic pesticides. Their incorporation into IPM programs can advance the overall sustainability of crop protection approaches by reducing environmental contamination risks, protecting natural enemies and wildlife, and promoting ecosystem resilience.

Biodiversity, encompassing the variety of life forms at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels, is important for the functioning and resilience of agroecosystems, providing essential services such as pollination, pest control, nutrient cycling, and soil formation.17,156 The concentrated use of broad-spectrum pesticides in conventional agriculture has been a major driver of biodiversity loss, disrupting ecological interactions and processes.157 IPM promotes biodiversity conservation by prioritizing nonchemical pest control methods and selective pesticide application, mitigating direct and indirect effects on nontarget species. The embracing of cultural practices creates diverse habitats that support various beneficial organisms, enhancing natural pest regulation and overall agroecosystem resilience.158,159 IPM also emphasizes the conservation and augmentation of indigenous natural enemy populations through the provision of alternative food sources, sheltering habitats, and overwintering sites, reducing the need for chemical interventions.

III.B. Economic Sustainability

IPM offers a cost-effective approach to crop protection by optimizing pest control through a reduced reliance on relatively expensive and potentially hazardous chemical inputs. The economic gains of IPM arise from reduced pest management costs, improved resource utilization efficiency, and enhanced profitability and competitiveness of agricultural production.160 By considering various factors and utilizing available knowledge, IPM allows farmers to carefully evaluate the economic, environmental, and social implications of various pest management techniques. Through the embracing of IPM, farmers can optimize the long-term viability and adaptability of their agroecosystems, while minimizing potential risks and costs associated with pest control interventions. Ultimately, IPM represents a holistic pest management framework, that empowers farmers to make data-driven decisions that prioritize the cumulative health and resilience of their farming systems.161,162

The judicious employment of pesticides, informed by economic thresholds, pest monitoring, and decision support systems, can significantly reduce the quantity of chemicals needed to keep pest populations below damaging levels, lowering input costs for farmers and mitigating the development of pesticide resistance. Alternative pest management (e.g., cultural control, biological control) provide cost-effective alternatives to chemical control. IPM also improves the economic efficiency of agricultural production by optimizing the employment of resources like land, water, and labor through precision farming techniques and integration with other sustainable agricultural practices. Crop losses attributable to pests constitute a major constraint to agricultural throughput, with estimates of up to 40% of global crop production lost annually to pests.163 The effectiveness of IPM in reducing crop losses has been showcased in numerous studies across different crops and regions. For instance, Hutchison et al.164 reported that the widespread adoption of transgenic Bt maize in the U.S. significantly suppressed European corn borer populations across large areas. Their economic analysis estimated that this has provided a cumulative benefit of 6.8 billion USD over 14 years to maize growers in five major maize producing states, with a substantial portion (4.3 billion USD) accruing to farmers growing non-Bt maize.164

A pioneer successful approach in applying systematically and upscaling IPM programs was through the use of the Pilot Unit strategies proposed and led by Cisneros,155 which worked independently of the type of land tenure and political regime at the time of its application. For instance the use of Pilot Unit strategies in highland Andean quechua cooperative communities decreased damages caused by the crisis of the Andean potato borer beetle Premnotrypes spp from ∼45% to 4% in the mid-1990s155 and still in use throughout the Andean region. Similarly, the Pilot Unit strategy was applied during the Cuban sweet potato (boniato) crisis under a land tenure government owned communist regime, reducing damage caused by the beetle Cylas formicarius (Fab.) from ∼50% to <5% in the mid-1990s165 and extensively used in Cuba at present time covering most of its productive land. Finally, this same Pilot Unit approach was applied successfully in the asparagus crisis in the early 2000s in the exporting fields of Chavimochic in Peru owned by large land tenure private companies. These lands were gained to the desert through drip irrigation systems that initially generated ecological imbalances exacerbated by the indiscriminate use of synthetic pesticides, with large damages caused by different pests including Prodiplosis longifila, Bemisia argentifolii, Spodoptera ochrea, Pseudoplusia includens, and Heliothis virescens.and reversed by the above IPM strategy, reducing costs of pesticide application from ∼1,200 USD per hectare to 300 USD and applied in ∼3,800 ha by 2003155 and extending its use to 7,000 ha of Asparagus for exports by 2015 representing 147 million USD in exports. At present time Chavimochic is the largest exporting area of Peru and one of the largest in the world with exporting crops including avocados, grapes, blueberries, citrus, artichokes, peppers, onions among others, most of which have adapted IPM strategies as those initially applied to asparagus.

III.C. Social Sustainability

IPM can partake in social sustainability by improving food safety and quality, which are essential aspects of human health and well-being. IPM practices prioritize the utilization of nonchemical pest control methods and the judicious use of pesticides, thereby reducing the potential for pesticide residues in food and the related risks to consumer health. Moreover, by curtailing the damage caused by pests and diseases, IPM can help to maintain the nutritional value, appearance, and shelf life of agricultural products, further enhancing their quality and marketability.

Aside from reducing pesticide residues, IPM can also enhance food safety by minimalizing the risk of foodborne illnesses associated with microbial contamination. By endorsing the adoption of good agricultural practices, including proper sanitation, worker hygiene, smart surfaces, and postharvest handling, IPM can aid in preventing the introduction and dissemination of pathogens throughout the food supply chain.166170 Moreover, the utilization of biopesticides within the IPM framework can alleviate the occurrences of harmful chemicals that may interact with foodborne pathogens and exacerbate their virulence or resistance to antimicrobial treatments.171,172

IPM is important in lowering the exposure of farmers and consumers to pesticides, which is a key aspect of social sustainability in agriculture. Pesticide exposure can have significant harmful consequences on human health, ranging from acute poisoning to chronic diseases such as neurological disorders, cancer, and reproductive problems.173,174 Moreover, the health risks linked to pesticide use are often disproportionately borne by vulnerable populations, such as smallholder farmers, rural communities, and developing countries, where access to protective equipment, training, and health care may be limited.175,176 IPM mitigates these challenges by curtailing dependence on chemical pesticides and prioritizing the implementation of safer and more sustainable pest control methods.

V. Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the well-documented values of IPM for environmental, economic, and social sustainability, its prevalent adoption in agricultural systems remains a substantial challenge. Various barriers, including technical, economic, institutional, and cultural factors, can hinder the successful embracing of IPM practices by farmers and other stakeholders. Identifying and addressing these barriers is crucial for promoting the wider implementation of IPM and realizing its promise for sustainable crop protection.

A key technical barrier to IPM adoption is the inherent complexity and knowledge-intensive nature of IPM practices, which necessitates a significant investment in education, experimentation, and adaptation by farmers.3 To overcome this barrier, it is imperative to develop and disseminate IPM knowledge and skills through participatory and farmer-centered approaches, such as farmer field visits, on-farm demonstrations, and peer-to-peer learning networks. Moreover, the integration of traditional and local knowledge with scientific research can contribute to the development of more relevant and acceptable IPM strategies tailored to diverse agroecological and socio-cultural contexts.

Economic barriers, including the higher initial costs and perceived risks associated with IPM adoption, can also limit the uptake of IPM practices by farmers.12,177 The advantages of IPM might not be immediately apparent or may be subject to uncertainty and variability, depending upon the specific crop, pest complex, and market conditions.178 To address these economic barriers, it is important to construct and implement policies and incentives that support the adoption of IPM practices, such as subsidies, credits, and market-based instruments. For example, the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides agri-environment payments to farmers who adopt IPM and other sustainable farming practices, recognizing their contribution to public goods and ecosystem services.179,180 Similarly, the development of value chains and certification schemes for IPM-based products can create market incentives for farmers to adopt IPM practices and differentiate their products from conventionally grown ones.

Cultural and social barriers, such as the perception of IPM as a complex and risky approach, can also limit the adoption of IPM practices by farmers.181 In many cases, farmers may be reluctant to change their established pest management practices, especially if they perceive IPM as a threat to their identity, autonomy, or social status.182 To address these cultural and social barriers, it is essential to engage farmers and other stakeholders in the codesign and coimplementation of IPM strategies, considering their knowledge, values, and aspirations. Participatory and empowering engagement approaches, such as community-based IPM, can help to build trust, reciprocity, and collective action among farmers, while also fostering a sense of pride and ownership in the adoption of IPM practices.183 For instance, the promotion of the successful IPM program based on a Pilot Unit strategy described earlier for systematic and upscale IPM implementation could be an answer to these challenges including different crops, land tenure type and government regime.155,184

IPM is not a standalone approach but rather an integral component of sustainable agricultural systems that aim to optimize the utilization of natural resources, enhance ecosystem services, and improve the resilience and adaptability of agroecosystems.185 The integration of IPM with other sustainable agricultural practices, such as conservation agriculture, agroforestry, and organic farming, can create synergies and cobenefits that enhance the overall sustainability and performance of agricultural systems. Moreover, the incorporation of IPM with broader sustainable development goals, such as biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and rural livelihood improvement, can help to scale up and mainstream IPM practices in different agroecological and socio-economic contexts.186 However, integrating IPM with other sustainable agricultural practices and broader development goals also presents challenges. These include the necessity for cross-sectoral coordination and collaboration, the development of context-specific knowledge and solutions, and the foundation of enabling policies and institutional frameworks.

Labor constraints present another challenge for IPM adoption as the agricultural sector is facing increasing labor shortages and rising labor costs. IPM often requires more intensive monitoring, scouting, and management practices compared to conventional pest control methods. This increased labor demand can be a substantial barrier for growers already struggling to find and afford workers. Another practical challenge is the limitations of biopesticides. While biopesticides are an important tool in IPM, relying solely on them presents several issues. Biopesticides are often more expensive than conventional pesticides and typically require higher application rates. They also need more frequent applications. Moreover, biopesticides tend to provide only partial pest suppression rather than complete control. These factors can make exclusive reliance on biopesticides economically unfeasible for many growers, necessitating a more balanced approach that may still include some use of conventional pesticides within an IPM framework.

The regulatory milieu surrounding IPM varies significantly across major agrarian nations, influencing its implementation trajectory. In the U.S., the Endangered Species Act’s stipulations regarding pesticide application in relation to protected species engender a complex regulatory framework that complicates IPM implementation.187 The EU’s evolving phytosanitary legislation has recently precipitated unrest among farmers due to perceived conflicts between ecologically driven policies and agricultural viability. In Brazil, the nexus between agricultural frontier expansion and biodiversity conservation complicates IPM adoption in areas such as the Cerrado and Amazon biomes.188 Australia’s unique island biogeography necessitates innovative IPM protocols, yet regulatory frameworks often lag behind scientific advancements in biopesticide development and novel biological control agents. These different regulatory landscapes indicates the imperative for adaptive, context-specific IPM strategies that can navigate the complex issues among agroecosystem management, phytosanitary regulations, and socio-economic exigencies.

IV. Research Gaps and Priorities

Despite the significant progress made in the development and application of IPM strategies over the past decades, there remain important research gaps and priorities that need to be addressed to further enhance the effectiveness, adaptability, and scalability of IPM in different agroecological and socio-economic contexts.

An important research gap in IPM lies in the limited understanding of the complex ecological interactions and dynamics that govern the functioning and resilience of agroecosystems. While IPM has historically focused on managing individual pest species and deploying specific control tactics, there is increasing recognition of the need for a more holistic and systems-based approach. This approach acknowledges the multitude of interacting factors and processes that influence the structure and function of agroecosystems. Key areas of investigation include trophic relationships and food web dynamics among pests, natural enemies, crops and their microbiotas; the role population genetics in modulating perst control effectiveness, the impact of abiotic factors and land use patterns on pest population dynamics; the role of biodiversity and ecosystem preservation in the natural regulation of pests and research of better ways to engage stakeholder communities.

Furthermore, there is a need to increase our understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in most pest-crop interactions and the evolutionary processes that shape the adaptation and resistance of pests to different control strategies. With the rapid development of genomic and biotechnological tools, there is a growing opportunity to deepen our comprehension of these mechanisms and pathways that likely influence the behavior, physiology, and ecology of pests and their natural enemies. Increasing knowledge in this area will facilitate the development of novel pest control targets. This includes the development of genetically engineered crops, pests, natural enemies and biopesticides that may enhance the efficacy and specificity of pest control.

Despite the significant progress made in the development and application of novel chemical and biological control agents for pest management, there remain important knowledge gaps and research priorities that need to be addressed to further enhance their effectiveness, selectivity, and sustainability. One of the chief knowledge gaps is the limited understanding of the complex interactions and compatibility between different chemical and biological control agents, as well as their impact on nontarget organisms and the broader agroecosystem. While the development of new pesticides and biopesticides with improved plant adsorption and insect targeting properties is important, it is equally crucial to evaluate their potential synergistic or antagonistic effects when used in combination with other control tactics, such as natural enemies, resistant varieties, or cultural practices. This requires a more integrated and systems-based approach that considers the multiple factors and feedback loops that shape the dynamics and consequences of pest control strategies.

Another important research priority is the need for more extensive and rigorous testing and regulation of new chemical and biological control agents, particularly in terms of their postrelease long-term efficacy, safety, and environmental impact. While the use of advanced formulation and delivery technologies, such as nanoemulsions and microcapsules, can enhance the performance and stability of these agents, it is imperative to assess their potential risks and unintended consequences, such as the development of resistance in pest populations, the accumulation of residues in soil and water, or the disruption of ecological processes and food webs. This requires an adaptive approach that incorporates ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment of pest control stratagems based on the best available scientific evidence and stakeholder feedback. To ensure the responsible development and deployment of these pest control strategies, it is necessary to modernize our current regulatory system for biotech products.

VII. Conclusions

IPM emerged as a promising and sustainable paradigm for crop protection, offering a viable alternative to the excessive and indiscriminate application of chemical pesticides. By synergistically integrating a wide range of preventative, biological, cultural, and chemical control strategies, IPM seeks to keep pest populations below economically damaging thresholds while mitigating risks to public health and the environment. The embracing of IPM practices has been demonstrated to yield multiple benefits, including lowered pesticide use and associated risks, improved crop yields and quality, enhanced biodiversity, and increased profitability and resilience of some farming systems. However, despite the well-documented advantages of IPM, its widespread adoption and scaling have been hindered by various technical, economic, institutional, and social barriers. These barriers include the complexity and knowledge-intensive nature of IPM, the high initial costs and perceived risks of adoption, the lack of supportive policies and market incentives, and the limited awareness and participation of farmers and other stakeholders in the design and implementation of IPM programs. Overcoming these barriers requires a holistic and integrated approach that addresses the multiple dimensions of IPM adoption, and governance from the construction of locally adapted and cost-effective IPM strategies to the creation of enabling environments and value chains and regulations that support the scaling and agricultural-sustainability of IPM. A pioneer and successful approach for systematically and upscale implementation of IPM is the use of the Pilot Unit strategy that can be promoted as a starting point and adapted to a range of crops.

Moreover, the efficacious and widespread implementation of IPM requires a paradigm shift in the means we approach crop protection and agricultural development, moving from a narrow focus on yield maximization and pest eradication to a more holistic and agroecological perspective that recognizes the complex interactions and trade-offs between productivity, sustainability, and resilience while addressing climate change and sustainability challenges. This shift involves the embracing of IPM with other sustainable agricultural practices, such as conservation agriculture, precision agriculture, agroforestry, and organic farming, as well as the mainstreaming of IPM into broader food systems and landscape management strategies. To achieve this paradigm shift and realize the full potential of IPM, there is a need for increased investment in research, education, and extension that can generate and disseminate knowledge, technologies, and practices that are relevant, accessible, and adaptable to the diverse contexts and needs of farmers and other stakeholders. This includes the development of innovative and participatory research approaches that engage farmers and other stakeholders in the codesign and coevaluation of IPM strategies, as well as the strengthening of the capacity and empowerment of farmers and other actors to adopt and adapt IPM practices to their local conditions. A key player in the successful implementation of an IPM program to generate benefits in pest control that can upscale and be sustainable, is the development of novel IPM components as described in this review (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

IPM concepts and IPM programs and their potential benefits. For IPM concepts and applications to have an impact in pest control, there is need to develop successful IPM programs that can generate benefits including upscaling and sustainability on the social, economic, and environmental levels. Furthermore, the strength of the IPM programs at the end depends on the strength of the development of novel IPM components.

In conclusion, IPM offers a promising and sustainable approach to crop protection that can contribute to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the transition toward more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable agri-food systems. However, realizing the full potential of IPM requires a concerted and collaborative effort by all stakeholders involved, including farmers, researchers, policymakers, and civil society organizations, to address the multiple challenges and opportunities for the scaling and mainstreaming of IPM. By investing in research, education, and extension that can generate and disseminate relevant and actionable knowledge and practices, and by creating enabling policies and institutions that can support the adoption and diffusion of IPM, we can harness the power of IPM to achieve a more sustainable and equitable future for all.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by Food Manufacturing Technologies Program A1363 [grant number 2019-68015-29231, Project number TEX09762] from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). In addition, this work was partly supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture—Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) under C-REEMS [Grant Proposal Number 2021-07786 and tracking number GRANT13369273].

Author Contributions

W.Z. and Y.A. had equal contributions

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Angon P. B.; Mondal S.; Jahan I.; Datto M.; Antu U. B.; Ayshi F. J.; Islam M. S. Integrated pest management (IPM) in agriculture and its role in maintaining ecological balance and biodiversity. Advances in Agriculture 2023, 2023 (1), 5546373 10.1155/2023/5546373. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Rossi V.; Caffi T.; Salotti I.; Fedele G. Sharing decision-making tools for pest management may foster implementation of Integrated Pest Management. Food Security 2023, 15 (6), 1459–1474. 10.1007/s12571-023-01402-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Deguine J.-P.; Aubertot J.-N.; Flor R. J.; Lescourret F.; Wyckhuys K. A.; Ratnadass A. Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2021, 41 (3), 38. 10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Scheff D. S.; Phillips T. W.. Integrated pest management. In Storage of Cereal Grains and Their Products; Elsevier, 2022; pp 661–675. [Google Scholar]
  5. Han P.; Rodriguez-Saona C.; Zalucki M. P.; Liu S.-s.; Desneux N. A theoretical framework to improve the adoption of green Integrated Pest Management tactics. Communications Biology 2024, 7 (1), 337. 10.1038/s42003-024-06027-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Saroop S.; Tamchos S. Impact of pesticide application: Positive and negative side. Pesticides in a Changing Environment 2024, 155–178. 10.1016/B978-0-323-99427-9.00006-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker B. P.; Green T. A.; Loker A. J. Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems. Biological Control 2020, 140, 104095 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104095. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Szyniszewska A. M.; Akrivou A.; Björklund N.; Boberg J.; Bradshaw C.; Damus M.; Gardi C.; Hanea A.; Kriticos J.; Maggini R.; et al. Beyond the present: How climate change is relevant to pest risk analysis. EPPO Bulletin 2024, 54, 20–37. 10.1111/epp.12986. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jha P. K.; Zhang N.; Rijal J. P.; Parker L. E.; Ostoja S.; Pathak T. B. Climate change impacts on insect pests for high value specialty crops in California. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 906, 167605 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Boudh S.; Singh J. S. Pesticide contamination: environmental problems and remediation strategies. Emerging and eco-friendly approaches for waste management 2019, 245–269. 10.1007/978-981-10-8669-4_12. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Narayanan M.; Kandasamy S.; He Z.; Kumarasamy S.. Ecological impacts of pesticides on soil and water ecosystems and its natural degradation process. In Pesticides in the Natural Environment; Elsevier, 2022; pp 23–49. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rejesus R. M.; Jones M. S. Perspective: enhancing economic evaluations and impacts of integrated pest management farmer field schools (IPM-FFS) in low-income countries. Pest Management Science 2020, 76 (11), 3527–3536. 10.1002/ps.5912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Vågsholm I.; Arzoomand N. S.; Boqvist S. Food security, safety, and sustainability—getting the trade-offs right. Frontiers in sustainable food systems 2020, 4, 16. 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dara S. K. The new integrated pest management paradigm for the modern age. Journal of Integrated Pest Management 2019, 10 (1), 12. 10.1093/jipm/pmz010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Choudhury D.; Kumar P.; Zhimo V. Y.; Sahoo J.. Crop rotation patterns and soil health management. In Bioremediation of Emerging Contaminants from Soils; Elsevier, 2024; pp 565–589. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jasrotia P.; Kumari P.; Malik K.; Kashyap P. L.; Kumar S.; Bhardwaj A. K.; Singh G. P. Conservation agriculture based crop management practices impact diversity and population dynamics of the insect-pests and their natural enemies in agroecosystems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2023, 7, 1173048 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1173048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Busch A. K.; Douglas M. R.; Malcolm G. M.; Karsten H. D.; Tooker J. F. A high-diversity/IPM cropping system fosters beneficial arthropod populations, limits invertebrate pests, and produces competitive maize yields. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 2020, 292, 106812 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106812. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Shakeel Q.; Li G.; Long Y.; Tahir H. A. S. Development and implementation of IDM program for annual and perennial Crops. Plant Disease Management Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture through Traditional and Modern Approaches 2020, 13, 295–327. 10.1007/978-3-030-35955-3_15. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nyaupane S.; Mainali R. P.; Joshi T.; Duwal R.. Plant-Based Agro-Biodiversity Solutions for Reducing Agrochemical Use and Effects. In One Health Implications of Agrochemicals and their Sustainable Alternatives; Springer, 2023; pp 545–563. [Google Scholar]
  20. Stomph T.; Dordas C.; Baranger A.; de Rijk J.; Dong B.; Evers J.; Gu C.; Li L.; Simon J.; Jensen E. S.; et al. Designing intercrops for high yield, yield stability and efficient use of resources: Are there principles?. Advances in Agronomy 2020, 160 (1), 1–50. 10.1016/bs.agron.2019.10.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hatt S.; Döring T. F. Designing pest suppressive agroecosystems: principles for an integrative diversification science. Journal of Cleaner Production 2023, 432, 139701 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139701. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Huss C.; Holmes K.; Blubaugh C. Benefits and risks of intercropping for crop resilience and pest management. Journal of economic entomology 2022, 115 (5), 1350–1362. 10.1093/jee/toac045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. HE H.-m.; LIU L.-n.; Munir S.; Bashir N. H.; Wang Y.; Yang J.; Li C.; et al. Crop diversity and pest management in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2019, 18 (9), 1945–1952. 10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62689-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rezaei-Chiyaneh E.; Amani Machiani M.; Javanmard A.; Mahdavikia H.; Maggi F.; Morshedloo M. R. Vermicompost application in different intercropping patterns improves the mineral nutrient uptake and essential oil compositions of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 2021, 21, 450–466. 10.1007/s42729-020-00373-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Khalediyan N.; Weisany W.; Schenk P. M. Arbuscular mycorrhizae and rhizobacteria improve growth, nutritional status and essential oil production in Ocimum basilicum and Satureja hortensis. Industrial Crops and Products 2021, 160, 113163 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.113163. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Glaze-Corcoran S.; Hashemi M.; Sadeghpour A.; Jahanzad E.; Keshavarz Afshar R.; Liu X.; Herbert S. J. Understanding intercropping to improve agricultural resiliency and environmental sustainability. Advances in agronomy 2020, 162, 199–256. 10.1016/bs.agron.2020.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Riaz F.; Riaz M.; Arif M. S.; Yasmeen T.; Ashraf M. A.; Adil M.; Ali S.; Mahmood R.; Rizwan M.; Hussain Q.; et al. Alternative and non-conventional soil and crop management strategies for increasing water use efficiency. Environment, climate, plant and vegetation growth 2020, 323–338. 10.1007/978-3-030-49732-3_13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Chamkhi I.; Cheto S.; Geistlinger J.; Zeroual Y.; Kouisni L.; Bargaz A.; Ghoulam C. Legume-based intercropping systems promote beneficial rhizobacterial community and crop yield under stressing conditions. Industrial Crops and Products 2022, 183, 114958 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114958. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Yadav A.; Singh D.; Yadav A. Insect pest management through integrated pest tactics. Advanced Trends in Agricultural Entomology 2023, 1, 89–110. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kruidhof H. M.; Elmer W. H. Cultural methods for greenhouse pest and disease management. Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops 2020, 285–330. 10.1007/978-3-030-22304-5_10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gordon P. E.; Goodrich B. K.; Wilson H. Adoption of Amyelois transitella (navel orangeworm) monitoring and management practices across California tree nut crops. Journal of Integrated Pest Management 2023, 14 (1), 16. 10.1093/jipm/pmad014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Holah J.Principles of hygienic practice in food processing and manufacturing. In Food Safety Management; Elsevier, 2023; pp 587–613. [Google Scholar]
  33. Karlsson Green K.; Stenberg J. A.; Lankinen Å. Making sense of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the light of evolution. Evolutionary Applications 2020, 13 (8), 1791–1805. 10.1111/eva.13067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mani M.; Natarajan N.; Hegde R. D.; Tej M. K. Host Plant Resistance to Insect Pests in Horticultural Crops. Trends in Horticultural Entomology 2022, 335–386. 10.1007/978-981-19-0343-4_11. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Razaq M.; Mensah R.; Athar H. u. R. Insect pest management in cotton. Cotton production 2019, 85–107. 10.1002/9781119385523.ch5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Knight K. M.; Head G. P.; Rogers D. J. Successful development and implementation of a practical proactive resistance management plan for Bt cotton in Australia. Pest Management Science 2021, 77 (10), 4262–4273. 10.1002/ps.6490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Razzaq A.; Zafar M. M.; Ali A.; Li P.; Qadir F.; Zahra L. T.; Shaukat F.; Laghari A. H.; Yuan Y.; Gong W. Biotechnology and solutions: Insect-Pest-Resistance management for improvement and development of Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plants 2023, 12 (23), 4071. 10.3390/plants12234071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pinto C. B.; Carmo D. d. G. d.; Santos J. L. d.; Filho M. C. P.; Soares J. M.; Sarmento R. A.; Lima E.; Bacci L.; Picanço M. C. Sampling Methodology of a Key Pest: Technique and Sampling Unit for Evaluation of Leafhopper Dalbulus maidis Populations in Maize Crops. Agriculture 2023, 13 (7), 1391. 10.3390/agriculture13071391. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Singh M.; Vermaa A.; Kumar V.. Geospatial technologies for the management of pest and disease in crops. In Precision Agriculture; Elsevier, 2023; pp 37–54. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hadi M. K.; Kassim M. S. M.; Wayayok A. Development of an automated multidirectional pest sampling detection system using motorized sticky traps. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 67391–67404. 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3074083. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rydhmer K.; Bick E.; Still L.; Strand A.; Luciano R.; Helmreich S.; Beck B. D.; Grønne C.; Malmros L.; Poulsen K.; et al. Automating insect monitoring using unsupervised near-infrared sensors. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12 (1), 2603. 10.1038/s41598-022-06439-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Olson D.; Anderson J. Review on unmanned aerial vehicles, remote sensors, imagery processing, and their applications in agriculture. Agronomy Journal 2021, 113 (2), 971–992. 10.1002/agj2.20595. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hunter J. E. III; Gannon T. W.; Richardson R. J.; Yelverton F. H.; Leon R. G. Integration of remote-weed mapping and an autonomous spraying unmanned aerial vehicle for site-specific weed management. Pest Management Science 2020, 76 (4), 1386–1392. 10.1002/ps.5651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hafeez A.; Husain M. A.; Singh S.; Chauhan A.; Khan M. T.; Kumar N.; Chauhan A.; Soni S. Implementation of drone technology for farm monitoring & pesticide spraying: A review. Information processing in Agriculture 2023, 10, 192. 10.1016/j.inpa.2022.02.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Batz P.; Will T.; Thiel S.; Ziesche T. M.; Joachim C.. From identification to forecasting: the potential of image recognition and artificial intelligence for aphid pest monitoring. Frontiers in Plant Science 2023, 14, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1150748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ali M. A.; Dhanaraj R. K.; Nayyar A. A high performance-oriented AI-enabled IoT-based pest detection system using sound analytics in large agricultural field. Microprocessors and Microsystems 2023, 103, 104946 10.1016/j.micpro.2023.104946. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Leybourne D. J.; Musa N.; Yang P.. Can artificial intelligence be integrated into pest monitoring schemes to help achieve sustainable agriculture? An entomological, management and computational perspective. Agricultural and Forest Entomology n/a (n/a) 2024, 10.1111/afe.12630. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. da Silva P. R.; Istchuk A. N.; Foresti J.; Hunt T. E.; Alves de Araujo T.; Fernandes F. L.; Rodrigues de Alencar E.; Bastos C. S. Economic injury levels and economic thresholds for Diceraeus (Dichelops) melacanthus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in vegetative maize. Crop Prot. 2021, 143, 105476 10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105476. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Cárcamo H.; Herle C.; Schwinghamer T.; Robinson S.; Reid P.; Gabert R. K.; Wist T.; Tidemann B.; Costamagna A. C. Revising economic injury levels for Lygus spp. in canola: The value of historical yield and insect data to improve decision making. Crop Prot. 2024, 176, 106467 10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106467. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Penca C.; Hodges A. C.; Leppla N. C.; Cottrell T. E. Trap-based economic injury levels and thresholds for Euschistus servus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in florida peach orchards. Journal of Economic Entomology 2020, 113 (3), 1347–1355. 10.1093/jee/toaa044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. De Rossi R. L.; Guerra F. A.; Plazas M. C.; Vuletic E. E.; Brücher E.; Guerra G.; Reis E. Crop damage, economic losses, and the economic damage threshold for northern corn leaf blight. Crop Prot. 2022, 154, 105901 10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105901. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Dean A. N.; Niemi J. B.; Tyndall J. C.; Hodgson E. W.; O’Neal M. E. Developing a decision-making framework for insect pest management: a case study using Aphis glycines (H emiptera: A phididae). Pest Management Science 2021, 77 (2), 886–894. 10.1002/ps.6093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sanchez J. A.; Carrasco-Ortiz A.; López-Gallego E.; Ramírez-Soria M. J.; La Spina M.; Ortín-Angulo M. C.; Ibáñez-Martínez H. Density thresholds and the incorporation of biocontrol into decision-making to enhance the control of Cacopsylla pyri in pear (cv. Ercolini) orchards. Pest Management Science 2022, 78 (1), 116–125. 10.1002/ps.6615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Flöhr A.; Stenberg J. A.; Egan P. A. The joint economic impact level (jEIL): a decision metric for integrated pest and pollinator management. Integrative biological control: ecostacking for enhanced ecosystem services 2020, 20, 17–38. 10.1007/978-3-030-44838-7_2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Xu L.; Zhao T. H.; Xing X.; Xu G. Q. Comparing the cost–benefit probability of management based on early-stage and late-stage economic thresholds with that of seed treatment of Aphis glycines. Pest Management Science 2022, 78 (10), 4048–4060. 10.1002/ps.7024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Hesler L. S.; Beckendorf E. A. Soybean aphid infestation and crop yield in relation to cultivar, foliar insecticide, and insecticidal seed treatment in South Dakota. Phytoparasitica 2021, 49 (5), 971–981. 10.1007/s12600-021-00914-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ribeiro A. V.; Lacerda L. N.; Windmuller-Campione M. A.; Cira T. M.; Marston Z. P.; Alves T. M.; Hodgson E. W.; MacRae I. V.; Mulla D. J.; Koch R. L. Economic-threshold-based classification of soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, infestations in commercial soybean fields using Sentinel-2 satellite data. Crop Prot. 2024, 177, 106557 10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106557. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Balaska V.; Adamidou Z.; Vryzas Z.; Gasteratos A. Sustainable crop protection via robotics and artificial intelligence solutions. Machines 2023, 11 (8), 774. 10.3390/machines11080774. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kumar S.; Meena R. S.; Sheoran S.; Jangir C. K.; Jhariya M. K.; Banerjee A.; Raj A.. Remote sensing for agriculture and resource management. In Natural Resources Conservation and Advances for Sustainability; Elsevier, 2022; pp 91–135. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ratto F.; Bruce T.; Chipabika G.; Mwamakamba S.; Mkandawire R.; Khan Z.; Mkindi A.; Pittchar J.; Sallu S. M.; Whitfield S.; et al. Biological control interventions reduce pest abundance and crop damage while maintaining natural enemies in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2022, 289 (1988), 20221695 10.1098/rspb.2022.1695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Petit S.; Deytieux V.; Cordeau S. Landscape-scale approaches for enhancing biological pest control in agricultural systems. Environmental monitoring and assessment 2021, 193 (Suppl 1), 75. 10.1007/s10661-020-08812-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Tonle F. B.; Niassy S.; Ndadji M. M.; Tchendji M. T.; Nzeukou A.; Mudereri B. T.; Senagi K.; Tonnang H. E. A road map for developing novel decision support system (DSS) for disseminating integrated pest management (IPM) technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2024, 217, 108526 10.1016/j.compag.2023.108526. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Monticelli L. S.; Bishop J.; Desneux N.; Gurr G. M.; Jaworski C. C.; McLean A. H.; Thomine E.; Vanbergen A. J.. Multiple global change impacts on parasitism and biocontrol services in future agricultural landscapes. In Advances in Ecological Research, Vol. 65; Elsevier, 2021; pp 245–304. [Google Scholar]
  64. Dunn L.; Lequerica M.; Reid C. R.; Latty T. Dual ecosystem services of syrphid flies (Diptera: Syrphidae): pollinators and biological control agents. Pest management science 2020, 76 (6), 1973–1979. 10.1002/ps.5807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Bielza P.; Balanza V.; Cifuentes D.; Mendoza J. E. Challenges facing arthropod biological control: identifying traits for genetic improvement of predators in protected crops. Pest management science 2020, 76 (11), 3517–3526. 10.1002/ps.5857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Alam A.; Abbas S.; Abbas A.; Abbas M.; Hafeez F.; Shakeel M.; Xiao F.; Zhao C. R. Emerging trends in insect sex pheromones and traps for sustainable management of key agricultural pests in Asia: beyond insecticides—a comprehensive review. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 2023, 43 (6), 1867–1882. 10.1007/s42690-023-01100-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Fei M.; Gols R.; Harvey J. A. The biology and ecology of parasitoid wasps of predatory arthropods. Annual review of entomology 2023, 68, 109–128. 10.1146/annurev-ento-120120-111607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Shandilya A.; Singh S.; Mishra G.; Protasov A.; Kaspi R.. Ladybirds: biocontrol agents. In Biocontrol Agents for Improved Agriculture; Elsevier, 2024; pp 435–475. [Google Scholar]
  69. Retsi V.; Alfenas Duarte M.; Boonen S.; Vangansbeke D.; Pekas A. Reciprocal predation between the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii and aphid predators used in Integrated Pest Management. Biological Control 2023, 187, 105402 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2023.105402. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Islam Y.; Shah F. M.; Rubing X.; Razaq M.; Yabo M.; Xihong L.; Zhou X. Functional response of Harmonia axyridis preying on Acyrthosiphon pisum nymphs: the effect of temperature. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11 (1), 13565 10.1038/s41598-021-92954-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Fatouros N.; Cusumano A.; Bin F.; Polaszek A.; Van Lenteren J. How to escape from insect egg parasitoids: a review of potential factors explaining parasitoid absence across the Insecta. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2020, 287 (1931), 20200344 10.1098/rspb.2020.0344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Abram P. K.; Brodeur J.; Urbaneja A.; Tena A. Nonreproductive effects of insect parasitoids on their hosts. Annual Review of Entomology 2019, 64, 259–276. 10.1146/annurev-ento-011118-111753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Hajek A. E.; Gardescu S.; Delalibera I. Summary of classical biological control introductions of entomopathogens and nematodes for insect control. BioControl 2021, 66, 167–180. 10.1007/s10526-020-10046-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Maurya R. P.; Koranga R.; Samal I.; Chaudhary D.; Paschapur A. U.; Sreedhar M.; Manimala R. N. Biological control: A global perspective. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 2022, 42 (5), 3203–3220. 10.1007/s42690-022-00881-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Stenberg J. A.; Sundh I.; Becher P. G.; Björkman C.; Dubey M.; Egan P. A.; Friberg H.; Gil J. F.; Jensen D. F.; Jonsson M.; et al. When is it biological control? A framework of definitions, mechanisms, and classifications. Journal of Pest Science 2021, 94 (3), 665–676. 10.1007/s10340-021-01354-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Fischbein D.; Lantschner M. V.; Corley J. C. Modelling the distribution of forest pest natural enemies across invaded areas: Towards understanding the influence of climate on parasitoid establishment success. Biological control 2019, 132, 177–188. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.02.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Urbaneja A.; Ciancio A.; Droby S.; Hoddle M.; Liu J.; Tena A.. Recent Advances in Biological Control of Citrus Pests and Diseases; Elsevier, 2023; Vol. 184, p 105271. [Google Scholar]
  78. Neuenschwander P.; Haug T.. New technologies for rearing Epidinocarsis lopezi (Hym., Encyrtidae), a biological control agent against the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti (Hom., Pseudococcidae). In Advances in Insect Rearing for Research and Pest Management; CRC Press, 2021; pp 353–377. [Google Scholar]
  79. Gontijo L. M. Engineering natural enemy shelters to enhance conservation biological control in field crops. Biological control 2019, 130, 155–163. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.10.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Snyder W. E. Give predators a complement: Conserving natural enemy biodiversity to improve biocontrol. Biological control 2019, 135, 73–82. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.04.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Bernaola L.; Holt J. R. Incorporating sustainable and technological approaches in pest management of invasive arthropod species. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 2021, 114 (6), 673–685. 10.1093/aesa/saab041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Hudson T. B.; Alford A. M.; Bilbo T. R.; Boyle S. C.; Doughty H. B.; Kuhar T. P.; Lopez L.; McIntyre K. C.; Stawara A. K.; Walgenbach J. F.; et al. Living mulches reduce natural enemies when combined with frequent pesticide applications. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2023, 357, 108680 10.1016/j.agee.2023.108680. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Van Lenteren J. C.; Alomar O.; Ravensberg W. J.; Urbaneja A. Biological control agents for control of pests in greenhouses. Integrated pest and disease management in greenhouse crops 2020, 409–439. 10.1007/978-3-030-22304-5_14. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Carlos Pereira Rua J.; Barreiro S.; Reis A.; Tome M.; Branco M. A cost-benefit analysis for the management of Gonipterus platensis by comparing chemical and augmentative biological control. Forest Ecology and Management 2023, 548, 121333 10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121333. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. McGregor B. L.; Connelly C. R. A review of the control of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in the continental United States. Journal of medical entomology 2020, 58 (1), 10–25. 10.1093/jme/tjaa157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Archana H.; Darshan K.; Lakshmi M. A.; Ghoshal T.; Bashayal B. M.; Aggarwal R.. Biopesticides: A key player in agro-environmental sustainability. In Trends of Applied Microbiology for Sustainable Economy; Elsevier, 2022; pp 613–653. [Google Scholar]
  87. Yanar D.; Gebologlu N.; Cakar T.; Engur M. The use of predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in the control of two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae Koch, Acari: Tetranychidae) at greenhouse cucumber production in Tokat province, Turkey. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 2019, 17 (2), 2033. 10.15666/aeer/1702_20332041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Tiftikçi P.; Kök Ş.; Kasap İ. The effect of host plant on the biological control efficacy of the predatory mite, Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot against two-spotted spidermites, Tetranychus urticae koch on field-grown vegetables. Crop Prot. 2022, 158, 106012 10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Cherif A.; Mansour R.; Grissa-Lebdi K. The egg parasitoids Trichogramma: from laboratory mass rearing to biological control of lepidopteran pests. Biocontrol Science and Technology 2021, 31 (7), 661–693. 10.1080/09583157.2020.1871469. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Xie L.-C.; Jin L.-H.; Lu Y.-H.; Xu H.-X.; Zang L.-S.; Tian J.-C.; Lu Z.-X. Resistance of lepidopteran egg parasitoids, Trichogramma japonicum and Trichogramma chilonis, to insecticides used for control of rice planthoppers. Journal of Economic Entomology 2022, 115 (2), 446–454. 10.1093/jee/toab254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Medina R. F. Gene drives and the management of agricultural pests. Journal of responsible innovation 2018, 5 (sup1), S255–S262. 10.1080/23299460.2017.1407913. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Jones T.; Medina R. Corn stunt disease: an ideal insect–microbial–plant pathosystem for comprehensive studies of vector-borne plant diseases of corn. Plants 2020, 9 (6), 747. 10.3390/plants9060747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Teem J. L.; Alphey L.; Descamps S.; Edgington M. P.; Edwards O.; Gemmell N.; Harvey-Samuel T.; Melnick R. L.; Oh K. P.; Piaggio A. J.; et al. Genetic biocontrol for invasive species. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 2020, 8, 452. 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Chaverra-Rodriguez D.; Bui M.; Gilleland C. L.; Rasgon J. L.; Akbari O. S. CRISPR-Cas9-Mediated Mutagenesis of the Asian Citrus Psyllid, Diaphorina citri. GEN Biotechnology 2023, 2 (4), 317–329. 10.1089/genbio.2023.0022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Greenbaum G.; Feldman M. W.; Rosenberg N. A.; Kim J. Designing gene drives to limit spillover to non-target populations. PLoS Genetics 2021, 17 (2), e1009278 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Chauhan N. S.; Punia A.. Strategies for sustainable and ecofriendly pest management in Agroecosystem. In Pesticides in the Natural Environment; Elsevier, 2022; pp 365–381. [Google Scholar]
  97. Rakes M.; Pasini R. A.; Morais M. C.; Araujo M. B.; de Bastos Pazini J.; Seidel E. J.; Bernardi D.; Grützmacher A. D. Pesticide selectivity to the parasitoid Trichogramma pretiosum: A pattern 10-year database and its implications for Integrated Pest Management. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2021, 208, 111504 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. O’Flynn B. G.; Lewandowski E. M.; Prins K. C.; Suarez G.; McCaskey A. N.; Rios-Guzman N. M.; Anderson R. L.; Shepherd B. A.; Gelis I.; Leahy J. W.; et al. Characterization of arylalkylamine N-acyltransferase from Tribolium castaneum: an investigation into a potential next-generation insecticide target. ACS Chem. Biol. 2020, 15 (2), 513–523. 10.1021/acschembio.9b00973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Lu Q.; Xu L.; Liu L.; Zhou Y.; Liu T.; Song Y.; Ju J.; Yang Q. Lynamicin B is a potential pesticide by acting as a lepidoptera-exclusive Chitinase inhibitor. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 69 (47), 14086–14091. 10.1021/acs.jafc.1c05385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Shen S.; Dong L.; Chen W.; Wu R.; Lu H.; Yang Q.; Zhang J. Synthesis, optimization, and evaluation of glycosylated naphthalimide derivatives as efficient and selective insect β-N-Acetylhexosaminidase OfHex1 inhibitors. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 2019, 67 (22), 6387–6396. 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b02281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Samurkas A.; Fan X.; Ma D.; Sundarraj R.; Lin L.; Yao L.; Ma R.; Jiang H.; Cao P.; Gao Q.; et al. Discovery of potential species-specific green insecticides targeting the lepidopteran ryanodine receptor. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 2020, 68 (15), 4528–4537. 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c01063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Horowitz A. R.; Ghanim M.; Roditakis E.; Nauen R.; Ishaaya I. Insecticide resistance and its management in Bemisia tabaci species. Journal of Pest Science 2020, 93 (3), 893–910. 10.1007/s10340-020-01210-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Umina P. A.; McDonald G.; Maino J.; Edwards O.; Hoffmann A. A. Escalating insecticide resistance in Australian grain pests: contributing factors, industry trends and management opportunities. Pest Management Science 2019, 75 (6), 1494–1506. 10.1002/ps.5285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Barbosa M.; Andre T.; Pontes A.; Souza S.; Oliveira N.; Pastori P. Insecticide rotation and adaptive fitness cost underlying insecticide resistance management for Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Neotropical Entomology 2020, 49, 882–892. 10.1007/s13744-020-00800-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Baudrot V.; Schouten R.; Umina P. A.; Hoffmann A. A.; Bird L.; Miles M.; Maino J. L. Managing pesticide resistance in Spodoptera frugiperda: A spatially explicit framework for identifying optimal treatment strategies. Ecological Modelling 2023, 483, 110416 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110416. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Nauen R.; Slater R.; Sparks T. C.; Elbert A.; Mccaffery A. IRAC: insecticide resistance and mode-of-action classification of insecticides. Modern crop protection compounds 2019, 3, 995–1012. 10.1002/9783527699261.ch28. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Shehzad M.; Bodlah I.; Siddiqui J. A.; Bodlah M. A.; Fareen A. G. E.; Islam W. Recent insights into pesticide resistance mechanisms in Plutella xylostella and possible management strategies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2023, 30 (42), 95296–95311. 10.1007/s11356-023-29271-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Razzaq M. K.; Hina A.; Abbasi A.; Karikari B.; Ashraf H. J.; Mohiuddin M.; Maqsood S.; Maqsood A.; Haq I. U.; Xing G.; et al. Molecular and genetic insights into secondary metabolic regulation underlying insect-pest resistance in legumes. Functional & Integrative Genomics 2023, 23 (3), 217. 10.1007/s10142-023-01141-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Du Y.; Zhu Y. C.; Portilla M.; Zhang M.; Reddy G. V. The mechanisms of metabolic resistance to pyrethroids and neonicotinoids fade away without selection pressure in the tarnished plant bug Lygus lineolaris. Pest Management Science 2023, 79 (10), 3893–3902. 10.1002/ps.7570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Rigon C. A.; Cutti L.; Turra G. M.; Ferreira E. Z.; Menegaz C.; Schaidhauer W.; Dayan F. E.; Gaines T. A.; Merotto A. Jr Recurrent selection of Echinochloa crus-galli with a herbicide mixture reduces progeny sensitivity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71 (18), 6871–6881. 10.1021/acs.jafc.3c00920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Damalas C. A.; Koutroubas S. D. Botanical pesticides for eco-friendly pest management: Drawbacks and limitations. Pesticides in Crop Production: Physiological and Biochemical Action 2020, 181–193. 10.1002/9781119432241.ch10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. Marrone P. G. Pesticidal natural products–status and future potential. Pest Management Science 2019, 75 (9), 2325–2340. 10.1002/ps.5433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Campos E. V.; Proença P. L.; Oliveira J. L.; Bakshi M.; Abhilash P.; Fraceto L. F. Use of botanical insecticides for sustainable agriculture: Future perspectives. Ecological indicators 2019, 105, 483–495. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Isman M. B. Botanical insecticides in the twenty-first century—fulfilling their promise?. Annual Review of Entomology 2020, 65, 233–249. 10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Arakere U. C.; Jagannath S.; Krishnamurthy S.; Chowdappa S.; Konappa N. Microbial bio-pesticide as sustainable solution for management of pests: achievements and prospects. Biopesticides 2022, 183–200. 10.1016/B978-0-12-823355-9.00016-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Kumar P.; Kamle M.; Borah R.; Mahato D. K.; Sharma B. Bacillus thuringiensis as microbial biopesticide: uses and application for sustainable agriculture. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control 2021, 31 (1), 95. 10.1186/s41938-021-00440-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Islam W.; Adnan M.; Shabbir A.; Naveed H.; Abubakar Y. S.; Qasim M.; Tayyab M.; Noman A.; Nisar M. S.; Khan K. A.; et al. Insect-fungal-interactions: A detailed review on entomopathogenic fungi pathogenicity to combat insect pests. Microbial Pathogenesis 2021, 159, 105122 10.1016/j.micpath.2021.105122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. György É.; Laslo É.; Kuzman I. H.; Dezső András C. The effect of essential oils and their combinations on bacteria from the surface of fresh vegetables. Food Science & Nutrition 2020, 8 (10), 5601–5611. 10.1002/fsn3.1864. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Mouhoub A.; Raouan S. E.; Guendouz A.; El Alaoui-Talibi Z.; Koraichi S. I.; El Abed S.; Delattre C.; El Modafar C. Antiadhesion effect of the chitosan-based film incorporated with essential oils against foodborne bacteria. Industrial Crops and Products 2022, 189, 115742 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115742. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  120. Mondal P.; Laishram R.; Sarkar P.; Kumar R.; Karmakar R.; Hazra D. K.; Banerjee K.; Pal K.; Choudhury A.. Plant essential oil-based nanoemulsions: A novel asset in the crop protection arsenal. In Agricultural Nanobiotechnology; Elsevier, 2022; pp 325–353. [Google Scholar]
  121. Hashemi H.; Hashemi M.; Talcott S.; Castillo A.; Taylor T. M.; Akbulut M. Nanoimbibition of essential oils in triblock copolymeric micelles as effective nanosanitizers against food pathogens Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157: H7. ACS Food Science & Technology 2022, 2 (2), 290–301. 10.1021/acsfoodscitech.1c00396. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  122. Arcot Y.; Mu M.; Lin Y.-T.; DeFlorio W.; Jebrini H.; Kunadu A. P.-H.; Yegin Y.; Min Y.; Castillo A.; Cisneros-Zevallos L.; et al. Edible nano-encapsulated cinnamon essential oil hybrid wax coatings for enhancing apple safety against food borne pathogens. Current Research in Food Science 2024, 8, 100667 10.1016/j.crfs.2023.100667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Ruengvisesh S.; Oh J. K.; Kerth C. R.; Akbulut M.; Matthew Taylor T. Inhibition of bacterial human pathogens on tomato skin surfaces using eugenol-loaded surfactant micelles during refrigerated and abuse storage. Journal of food safety 2019, 39 (2), e12598 10.1111/jfs.12598. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  124. Wróblewska K.; Szumny A.; Żarowska B.; Kromer K.; Dębicz R.; Fabian S. Impact of mulching on growth essential oil composition and its biological activity in Monarda didyma L. Industrial Crops and Products 2019, 129, 299–308. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.11.076. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  125. Owens D. K.; Bajsa-Hirschel J.; Duke S. O.; Carbonari C. A.; Gomes G. L.; Asolkar R.; Boddy L.; Dayan F. E. The contribution of romidepsin to the herbicidal activity of Burkholderia rinojensis biopesticide. J. Nat. Prod. 2020, 83 (4), 843–851. 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b00405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Dunan L.; Malanga T.; Benhamou S.; Papaiconomou N.; Desneux N.; Lavoir A.-V.; Michel T. Effects of essential oil-based formulation on biopesticide activity. Industrial Crops and Products 2023, 202, 117006 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  127. Rong S.; Xu H.; Li L.; Chen R.; Gao X.; Xu Z. Antifungal activity of endophytic Bacillus safensis B21 and its potential application as a biopesticide to control rice blast. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 162, 69–77. 10.1016/j.pestbp.2019.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Giunti G.; Campolo O.; Laudani F.; Zappalà L.; Palmeri V. Bioactivity of essential oil-based nano-biopesticides toward Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). Industrial crops and products 2021, 162, 113257 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113257. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  129. Ankur; Gupta A.; Rawat P.; Singh M.; Mullick S. Development and Characterization of Cymbopogon winterianus (Jowitt) Essential Oil-Based Nano-Emulsion for Larvicidal and Antifeedant Activity Against Spodoptera litura (Fab.)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). BioNanoScience 2024, 1–16. 10.1007/s12668-024-01341-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  130. Cisneros-Zevallos L.; Akbulut M. Reducing Agricultural Waste and Losses with Nanotechnology: Shifting Paradigms in Food Safety, Produce Shelf Life, and Plant Protection. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2024, 72, 16045. 10.1021/acs.jafc.4c05226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Kumar S.; Nehra M.; Dilbaghi N.; Marrazza G.; Hassan A. A.; Kim K.-H. Nano-based smart pesticide formulations: Emerging opportunities for agriculture. J. Controlled Release 2019, 294, 131–153. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Wang D.; Saleh N. B.; Byro A.; Zepp R.; Sahle-Demessie E.; Luxton T. P.; Ho K. T.; Burgess R. M.; Flury M.; White J. C.; et al. Nano-enabled pesticides for sustainable agriculture and global food security. Nature Nanotechnol. 2022, 17 (4), 347–360. 10.1038/s41565-022-01082-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. Arcot Y.; Iepure M.; Hao L.; Min Y.; Behmer S. T.; Akbulut M. Interactions of foliar nanopesticides with insect cuticle facilitated through plant cuticle: effects of surface chemistry and roughness-topography-texture. Plant Nano Biology 2024, 7, 100062 10.1016/j.plana.2024.100062. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  134. Lang C.; Mission E. G.; Ahmad Fuaad A. A.-H.; Shaalan M. Nanoparticle tools to improve and advance precision practices in the Agrifoods Sector towards sustainability-A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 293, 126063 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126063. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  135. Pinto T. n. V.; Silva C. u. A.; Siquenique S. n.; Learmonth D. A. Micro-and nanocarriers for encapsulation of biological plant protection agents: A systematic literature review. ACS Agricultural Science & Technology 2022, 2 (5), 838–857. 10.1021/acsagscitech.2c00113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  136. Campos E. V.; Ratko J.; Bidyarani N.; Takeshita V.; Fraceto L. F. Nature-Based Herbicides and Micro-/Nanotechnology Fostering Sustainable Agriculture. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2023, 11 (27), 9900–9917. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c02282. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  137. Bueno V.; Gao X.; Abdul Rahim A.; Wang P.; Bayen S.; Ghoshal S. Uptake and translocation of a silica nanocarrier and an encapsulated organic pesticide following foliar application in tomato plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (10), 6722–6732. 10.1021/acs.est.1c08185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Shekhar S.; Sharma S.; Kumar A.; Taneja A.; Sharma B. The framework of nanopesticides: a paradigm in biodiversity. Materials Advances 2021, 2 (20), 6569–6588. 10.1039/D1MA00329A. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  139. Hong J.; Wang C.; Wagner D. C.; Gardea-Torresdey J. L.; He F.; Rico C. M. Foliar application of nanoparticles: mechanisms of absorption, transfer, and multiple impacts. Environmental Science: Nano 2021, 8 (5), 1196–1210. 10.1039/D0EN01129K. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  140. Wang G.; Xu X.; Cheng Q.; Hu J.; Xu X.; Zhang Y.; Guo S.; Ji Y.; Zhou C.; Gao F.; et al. Preparation of sustainable release mesoporous silica nano-pesticide for control of Monochamus alternatus. Sustainable Materials and Technologies 2023, 35, e00538 10.1016/j.susmat.2022.e00538. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  141. Zhong X.; Wen H.; Zeng R.; Deng H.; Su G.; Zhou H.; Zhou X. Zein-functionalized mesoporous silica as nanocarriers for nanopesticides with pH/enzyme dual responsive properties. Industrial Crops and Products 2022, 188, 115716 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115716. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  142. Hao L.; Lin G.; Wang H.; Wei C.; Chen L.; Zhou H.; Chen H.; Xu H.; Zhou X. Preparation and characterization of zein-based nanoparticles via ring-opening reaction and self-assembly as aqueous nanocarriers for pesticides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68 (36), 9624–9635. 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c01592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Chen L.; Zhou H.; Hao L.; Li Z.; Xu H.; Chen H.; Zhou X. Dialdehyde carboxymethyl cellulose-zein conjugate as water-based nanocarrier for improving the efficacy of pesticides. Industrial crops and products 2020, 150, 112358 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112358. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  144. An C.; Cui J.; Yu Q.; Huang B.; Li N.; Jiang J.; Shen Y.; Wang C.; Zhan S.; Zhao X.; et al. Polylactic acid nanoparticles for co-delivery of dinotefuran and avermectin against pear tree pests with improved effective period and enhanced bioactivity. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 206, 633–641. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.02.182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Yu M.; Sun C.; Xue Y.; Liu C.; Qiu D.; Cui B.; Zhang Y.; Cui H.; Zeng Z. Tannic acid-based nanopesticides coating with highly improved foliage adhesion to enhance foliar retention. RSC Adv. 2019, 9 (46), 27096–27104. 10.1039/C9RA05843E. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Hao L.; Gong L.; Chen L.; Guan M.; Zhou H.; Qiu S.; Wen H.; Chen H.; Zhou X.; Akbulut M. Composite pesticide nanocarriers involving functionalized boron nitride nanoplatelets for pH-responsive release and enhanced UV stability. Chemical Engineering Journal 2020, 396, 125233 10.1016/j.cej.2020.125233. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  147. Bae M.; Lewis A.; Liu S.; Arcot Y.; Lin Y.-T.; Bernal J. S.; Cisneros-Zevallos L.; Akbulut M. Novel biopesticides based on nanoencapsulation of azadirachtin with whey protein to control fall armyworm. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70 (26), 7900–7910. 10.1021/acs.jafc.2c01558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. Zheng Q.; Wu J.; Yan W.; Zhu S.; Miao X.; Wang R.; Huang S.; Cheng D.; Zhang P.; Zhang Z. Green synthesis of a chlorfenapyr chitosan nanopesticide for maize root application: Reducing environmental pollution and risks to nontarget organisms. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 253, 126988 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. JM H. First worldwide experience of Integrated Pest Management: the case of cotton in Peru. Rev. Peru Entomol. 2010, 46 (1), 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  150. Stern V.; Smith R.; Van den Bosch R.; Hagen K. The integration of chemical and biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid: the integrated control concept. Hilgardia 1959, 29 (2), 81–101. 10.3733/hilg.v29n02p081. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  151. Kilgore W. W.; Doutt R. L.. Pest Control: Biological, Physical, And Selected Chemical Methods 1967. [Google Scholar]
  152. Cisneros Vera F.; A J.; Palacios M.; Ortiz O. Strategy for Development and Implementation of Integrated Pest Management. Circular 1995, 21, 2–7. [Google Scholar]
  153. Ehler L. E.; Bottrell D. G. The illusion of integrated pest management. Issues in Science and Technology 2000, 16 (3), 61–64. [Google Scholar]
  154. Cisneros F.; Gregory P. Potato pest management. Aspects of Applied Biology 1994, 39, 113–124. [Google Scholar]
  155. V F. C.Chapter 13, El Manejo integrado de Plagas. In Control de Plagas Agricolas 2012. [Google Scholar]
  156. Tan H.; Wu Q.; Hao R.; Wang C.; Zhai J.; Li Q.; Cui Y.; Wu C. Occurrence, distribution, and driving factors of current-use pesticides in commonly cultivated crops and their potential risks to non-target organisms: A case study in Hainan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 854, 158640 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  157. Stein-Bachinger K.; Preißel S.; Kühne S.; Reckling M. More diverse but less intensive farming enhances biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2022, 37 (5), 395–396. 10.1016/j.tree.2022.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  158. Storkey J.; Bruce T. J.; McMillan V. E.; Neve P.. The future of sustainable crop protection relies on increased diversity of cropping systems and landscapes. In Agroecosystem Diversity; Elsevier, 2019; pp 199–209. [Google Scholar]
  159. Josephrajkumar A.; Mani M.; Anes K.; Mohan C. Ecological engineering in pest management in horticultural and agricultural crops. Trends in Horticultural Entomology 2022, 123–155. 10.1007/978-981-19-0343-4_4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  160. Wilson B. E. Successful integrated pest management minimizes the economic impact of Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on the Louisiana sugarcane industry. Journal of Economic Entomology 2021, 114 (1), 468–471. 10.1093/jee/toaa246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  161. Wyckhuys K.; Sanchez-Bayo F.; Aebi A.; van Lexmond M. B.; Bonmatin J.-M.; Goulson D.; Mitchell E. Stay true to integrated pest management. Science 2021, 371 (6525), 133–133. 10.1126/science.abf8072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  162. BUENO A. d. F.; Panizzi A. R.; Hunt T. E.; Dourado P.; Pitta R.; Gonçalves J. Challenges for adoption of integrated pest management (IPM): the soybean example. Neotropical Entomology 2021, 50, 5–20. 10.1007/s13744-020-00792-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  163. Junaid M.; Gokce A. Global agricultural losses and their causes. Bulletin of Biological and Allied Sciences Research 2024, 2024 (1), 66–66. 10.54112/bbasr.v2024i1.66. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  164. Hutchison W. D.; Burkness E.; Mitchell P.; Moon R.; Leslie T.; Fleischer S. J.; Abrahamson M.; Hamilton K.; Steffey K.; Gray M.; et al. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science 2010, 330 (6001), 222–225. 10.1126/science.1190242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  165. Cisneros Vera F.; Sedano J. A.. Manejo Integrado del Gorgojo del Camote o Tetuan del Boniato Cylas Formicarius (Fab.) en Cuba; International Potato Center, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  166. DeFlorio W.; Liu S.; Arcot Y.; Ulugun B.; Wang X.; Min Y.; Cisneros-Zevallos L.; Akbulut M. Durable superhydrophobic coatings for stainless-steel: An effective defense against Escherichia coli and Listeria fouling in the post-harvest environment. Food Research International 2023, 173, 113227 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  167. Mu M.; Lin Y.-T.; DeFlorio W.; Arcot Y.; Liu S.; Zhou W.; Wang X.; Min Y.; Cisneros-Zevallos L.; Akbulut M. Multifunctional antifouling coatings involving mesoporous nanosilica and essential oil with superhydrophobic, antibacterial, and bacterial antiadhesion characteristics. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2023, 634, 157656 10.1016/j.apsusc.2023.157656. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  168. Zhou W.; Liu S.; DeFlorio W.; Song S. H.; Choi H.; Cisneros-Zevallos L.; Oh J. K.; Akbulut M. E. Nanostructured antifouling coatings for galvanized steel food storage and container surfaces to enhance hygiene and corrosion resistance against bacterial, fungal, and mud contamination. Journal of Food Engineering 2024, 363, 111784 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2023.111784. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  169. Leaman S. M.; Kerr J.; Salas S.; Malik A.; Suslow T. V.; Wiedmann M.; Davis D. A. Fresh Produce Harvesting Equipment-A Review of Cleaning and Sanitizing Practices and Related Science. Food Protection Trends 2023, 43 (2), 126. 10.4315/FPT-22-023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  170. Hamilton A. N.; Topalcengiz Z.; Gibson K. E. Growing Safer Greens: Exploring Food Safety Practices and Challenges in Indoor, Soilless Production Through Thematic Analysis of Leafy Greens Grower Interviews. Journal of Food Protection 2023, 86 (11), 100163 10.1016/j.jfp.2023.100163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  171. Fenibo E. O.; Ijoma G. N.; Matambo T. Biopesticides in sustainable agriculture: Current status and future prospects. New and future development in biopesticide research: Biotechnological exploration 2022, 1–53. 10.1007/978-981-16-3989-0_1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  172. Duarte D.; Gaspar C.; Galhano C.; Castro P.. Biopesticides and sustainability in a land use context. In Sustainability in Natural Resources Management and Land Planning; Springer, 2021; pp 111–133. [Google Scholar]
  173. Upadhayay J.; Rana M.; Juyal V.; Bisht S. S.; Joshi R. Impact of pesticide exposure and associated health effects. Pesticides in crop production: physiological and biochemical action 2020, 69–88. 10.1002/9781119432241.ch5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  174. Rani L.; Thapa K.; Kanojia N.; Sharma N.; Singh S.; Grewal A. S.; Srivastav A. L.; Kaushal J. An extensive review on the consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and environment. Journal of cleaner production 2021, 283, 124657 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124657. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  175. Andersson E.; Isgren E. Gambling in the garden: Pesticide use and risk exposure in Ugandan smallholder farming. Journal of Rural Studies 2021, 82, 76–86. 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  176. Marete G. M.; Lalah J. O.; Mputhia J.; Wekesa V. W. Pesticide usage practices as sources of occupational exposure and health impacts on horticultural farmers in Meru County, Kenya. Heliyon 2021, 7 (2), e06118. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  177. Creissen H. E.; Jones P. J.; Tranter R. B.; Girling R. D.; Jess S.; Burnett F. J.; Gaffney M.; Thorne F. S.; Kildea S. Identifying the drivers and constraints to adoption of IPM among arable farmers in the UK and Ireland. Pest Management Science 2021, 77 (9), 4148–4158. 10.1002/ps.6452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  178. Grasswitz T. R. Integrated pest management (IPM) for small-scale farms in developed economies: Challenges and opportunities. Insects 2019, 10 (6), 179. 10.3390/insects10060179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  179. Hatt S.; Osawa N. Beyond “greening”: which paradigms shape sustainable pest management strategies in the European Union?. BioControl 2019, 64 (4), 343–355. 10.1007/s10526-019-09947-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  180. Alexoaei A. P.; Robu R. G.; Cojanu V.; Miron D.; Holobiuc A.-M. Good practices in reforming the common agricultural policy to support the european green Deal–a perspective on the consumption of pesticides and fertilizers. Amfiteatru Economic 2022, 24 (60), 525–545. 10.24818/EA/2022/60/525. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  181. Rossi V.; Sperandio G.; Caffi T.; Simonetto A.; Gilioli G. Critical success factors for the adoption of decision tools in IPM. Agronomy 2019, 9 (11), 710. 10.3390/agronomy9110710. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  182. Sharifzadeh M. S.; Abdollahzadeh G.; Damalas C. A. Farmers’ behaviour in the use of integrated pest management (IPM) practices: perspectives through the social practice theory. International Journal of Pest Management 2023, 1–14. 10.1080/09670874.2023.2227607. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  183. Xu G.; Sarkar A.; Qian L. Does organizational participation affect farmers’ behavior in adopting the joint mechanism of pest and disease control? A study of Meixian County, Shaanxi Province. Pest Management Science 2021, 77 (3), 1428–1443. 10.1002/ps.6161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  184. Control de Plagas Agrícolas. 1995. [Google Scholar]
  185. Kremsa V. Š.Sustainable management of agricultural resources (agricultural crops and animals). In Sustainable Resource Management; Elsevier, 2021; pp 99–145. [Google Scholar]
  186. Sekabira H.; Tepa-Yotto G. T.; Kaweesa Y.; Simbeko G.; Tamò M.; Agboton C.; Tahidu O. D.; Abdoulaye T. Impact of CS-IPM on key social welfare aspects of smallholder farmers’ livelihoods. Climate 2023, 11 (5), 97. 10.3390/cli11050097. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  187. Wolff L. Regulating pests—material politics and calculation in integrated pest management. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 2023, 6 (1), 455–472. 10.1177/25148486221076138. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  188. Duffus N. E.; Echeverri A.; Dempewolf L.; Noriega J. A.; Furumo P. R.; Morimoto J. The present and future of insect biodiversity conservation in the neotropics: policy gaps and recommendations. Neotropical Entomology 2023, 52 (3), 407–421. 10.1007/s13744-023-01031-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES