Integrated Pest Management: Good Intentions, Hard Realities. A Review

Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2021) 41: 38
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w
REVIEW ARTICLE
Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A

review
Jean-Philippe Deguine 1 & Jean-Noël Aubertot 2 & Rica Joy Flor 3 & Françoise Lescourret 4 &
Kris A.G. Wyckhuys 5 & Alain Ratnadass 6,7
Accepted: 29 March 2021 / Published online: 11 May 2021

# The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) provides an illustration of how crop protection has (or has not) evolved over the past six
decades. Throughout this period, IPM has endeavored to promote sustainable forms of agriculture, pursued sharp reductions in
synthetic pesticide use, and thereby resolved myriad socio-economic, environmental, and human health challenges. Global
pesticide use has, however, largely continued unabated, with negative implications for farmer livelihoods, biodiversity conser-
vation, and the human right to food. In this review, we examine how IPM has developed over time and assess whether this
concept remains suited to present-day challenges. We believe that despite many good intentions, hard realities need to be faced.
1) We identify the following major weaknesses: i) a multitude of IPM definitions that generate unnecessary confusion; ii)
inconsistencies between IPM concepts, practice, and policies; iii) insufficient engagement of farmers in IPM technology devel-
opment and frequent lack of basic understanding of its underlying ecological concepts. 2) By diverting from the fundamental IPM
principles, integration of practices has proceeded along serendipitous routes, proven ineffective, and yielded unacceptable
outcomes. 3) We show that in the majority of cases, chemical control still remains the basis of plant health programs.
4) Furthermore, IPM research is often lagging, tends to be misguided, and pays insufficient attention to ecology and to the
ecological functioning of agroecosystems. 5) Since the 1960s, IPM rules have been twisted, its foundational concepts have
degraded and its serious (farm-level) implementation has not advanced. To remedy this, we are proposing Agroecological Crop
Protection as a concept that captures how agroecology can be optimally put to the service of crop protection. Agroecological Crop
Protection constitutes an interdisciplinary scientific field that comprises an orderly strategy (and clear prioritization) of practices
at the field, farm, and agricultural landscape level and a dimension of social and organizational ecology.
Keywords IPM . Crop protection . Agroecology . Agroecological crop protection . Reduction of pesticides . Social ecology .
Food systems . Research approaches . Pesticides
Contents
1. Introduction
* Jean-Philippe Deguine 2. Sixty years of IPM
[email protected]
2.1. Conception and development of IPM
2.2. A quasi-infinite number of definitions and
1
CIRAD, UMR PVBMT, F-97410 Saint Pierre, La Réunion, France interpretations
2
INRAE, UMR AGIR, CS52627, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan 3. IPM roadblocks and adoption barriers
Cedex, France 3.1. Weak farmer knowledge base
3
Sustainable Impact Platform, International Rice Research Institute, 3.2. User preferences and risk aversion
IRRI-Cambodia Office, Toul Kork, Phnom Penh 12158, Cambodia 3.3. Vested interests and corporate responsibility
4
INRAE, UR1115, Domaine Saint-Paul, Site Agroparc, 3.4. Traditional practices and emerging IPM technologies
84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France 3.5. Hard and soft policy levers
5
Chrysalis Consulting, Hanoi, Vietnam 3.6. Cultural barriers and the decline of public interest
6
CIRAD, UPR HortSys, F-97455 Saint-Pierre, La Réunion, France science
7
HortSys, Univ. Montpellier, CIRAD, Montpellier, France
4. Inconsistencies between concepts and practices in IPM
38 Page 2 of 35 Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2021) 41: 38
4.1. Integration or juxtaposition of practices? combines expert knowledge (from practitioners such as
4.2. The pervasiveness of chemical protection farmers and advisers) and scientific knowledge (scientific
4.3. The IPM nebula and technical publications, datasets obtained from field exper-
5. Inadequate research on IPM iments, or diagnoses of commercial fields, and existing simu-
5.1. Gaps in research programs lation models).
5.2. Gaps in scientific approaches Sustainability is at the heart of the debates about agriculture
6. Inadequate consideration of ecology in IPM debate. However, for several decades, and in particular since
6.1. A move away from the roots of ecology towards the Rio de Janeiro Conference in 1992, it has been recognized
chemicals that the sustainability of ecosystems in general, and
6.2. Calls for more ecology in crop protection agroecosystems in particular, depends on ecosystem health
7. Agroecological Crop Protection (ACP): towards a para- and functioning, of which the driving force is biodiversity
digm shift (namely plant, animal and microbial communities—the latter
7.1. Origins and definition of ACP represented by fungal, bacterial and viral organisms). That was
7.2. Case studies nearly 30 years ago and we can make identical observations
7.3. Moving from IPM to ACP today (see the UN SDGs, about IPBES' bleak assessment in
8. Conclusion 2019 of biodiversity loss). This is also confirmed by significant
Acknowledgements recent references (Dainese et al. 2019). The different compo-
References nents of agroecology—social movements, sets of practices, and
scientific approaches (Altieri 1995; Dalgaard et al. 2003;
Gliessman 1997; Wezel et al. 2009)—take in hand this ecolog-
1 Introduction ical issue which supports ecosystem services. The United
Nations (UN) recommend agroecology both as a new approach
Since the end of the Second World War, in the Northern to development and as a comprehensive alternative to the mas-
hemisphere, agriculture has undergone a significant intensifi- sive and hazardous use of pesticides, in order to meet the chal-
cation faced with demands for increased production. The lenges of food rights and human rights (UN (United Nations)
Green Revolution proposed by William Gaud in 1968 advo- 2017). Other concepts have highlighted the importance of pro-
cates substantial use of inputs, in particular synthetic pesti- moting ecological processes in agroecosystems while increas-
cides (Jain 2010), and this trend continues today in the ing agronomic performance: ecologically intensive agriculture
Global north and Global south countries. Since the 1990s, and ecological intensification (Doré et al. 2011; Griffon 2013;
the concept of a “doubly” green revolution demonstrates the Ratnadass and Barzman 2014) and other forms of agriculture
desire to embrace environmental concerns (Conway 1997; de using the word “green” in a variety of forms, e.g., “making
Schutter and Vanloqueren 2011), but production, perfor- agriculture green again” (Kuyper and Struik 2014). Today, ag-
mance, and profitability remain the priority (Horlings and roecology provides the main thrust of functional biodiversity to
Marsden 2011). Today, the concept of sustainable intensifica- enhance ecological function and the ecosystem services which
tion proposed by Sir Gordon Conway (Conway 1999) and the result from it (Ahmed et al. 2016; Bommarco et al. 2013;
“Montpellier Panel” (Conway et al. 2013) has been put for- Demestihas et al. 2017; Duru et al. 2015; Gaba et al. 2015;
ward for Africa (Pretty et al. 2011; Ratnadass 2020). This Isbell et al. 2017; Petit and Lescourret 2019; Tilman et al.
sustainable intensification has been under development since 2006) notably through spatio-temporal diversification of
then, reflecting the various degrees of agricultural sustainabil- agroecosystems (Duru et al. 2015; Gaba et al. 2015;
ity, as well as the different levels of inputs. Struik and Kuyper Malézieux et al. 2009; Ratnadass et al. 212; Tittonell 2014). It
(2017) believe that there are today two main options for the is also important that on-farm management action is significant:
sustainable intensification of agriculture: one which aims to one can diversify at the extra-field level, but its impacts on-farm
“de-intensify” agroecosystems with high inputs, and the other are also important and variable (Karp et al. 2018). However, the
which aims to increase the level of inputs in situations where implementation of these proposals in terms of agricultural prac-
there is a need to increase yields. Participatory modeling ap- tices and the design of agroecological farming systems is still
proaches which combine expert and scientific knowledge far from being effective in practice, despite investment in re-
(Aubertot and Robin 2013; Vayssières et al. 2011) have the search (Simon et al. 2017c), and in the field despite public
potential to promote innovation in such options because they policies promoting “greener” agriculture (Caron et al. 2014;
allow i) uncertainties to be explicitly in these contexts recog- Wezel et al. 2014). The lack of practical examples of biodiver-
nized; ii) local factors to be incorporated; and iii) a broader sity at the service of agriculture is no doubt due to uncertainties
study framework including the social and ecological scope of about the effects of agricultural practices, the ecological pro-
agricultural activities (Thérond et al. 2015). These approaches cesses and the associated ecosystem services (Reid et al. 2005;
allow a rigorous scientific framework to be applied which Thérond et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2007).
Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2021) 41: 38 Page 3 of 35 38
Today, intensive farming has been shown to have positions; iii) during emergency situations, seek remedial
reached its limits. In pest management, questions relating measures that cause minimum ecological disruption; iv) de-
to the questions of sustainability have often been raised (van vise monitoring techniques. Finally, the “IPM pyramid” con-
Lenteren 1998), in particular, the many harmful conse- cept provides a reminder that IPM is not only about “integrat-
quences of the massive use of pesticides: farmers, con- ing pest management technologies” but that there should
sumers and society in general face more socio-economic equally be a hierarchy or prioritization of practices (in which
difficulties (Bourguet and Guillemaud 2016; Sheahan pesticides are listed as a measure of last resort) (Naranjo
et al. 2017); there is mounting pollution of water, soil and 2001). In the absence of this prioritization, one can never
the atmosphere (Aubertot et al. 2005; Burdon et al. 2019); achieve sustainable pest management and leave everything
biodiversity is being eroded, particularly that of insects to chance while causing unacceptable environmental external-
(Foucart 2019; Hallmann et al. 2017; Sánchez-Bayo and ities (Pedigo 1989). However, without questioning the merits
Wyckhuys 2019) and birds (Chamberlain and Fuller 2000; of the concept (Barzman et al. 2015), and beyond its worthy
Hallmann et al. 2014). Researchers are increasingly principles, there are grounds today to question its performance
pointing out the risks and consequences for public health in the field particularly when faced with current and future
(Baldi et al. 2013; Bassil et al. 2007; Eddleston et al. 2002; agricultural challenges.
Fantke et al. 2012; Hedlund et al. 2020; Hoppin and Several problems are highlighted. Indeed, some authors
LePrevost 2017; Robinson et al. 2020; Sheahan et al. call into question the relevance of IPM in a sustainable agri-
2017; Wyckhuys et al. 2020a); even human rights are men- culture world. These problems include i) modest reductions or
tioned (UN 2017). This really is the breaking point that must increase in quantities of pesticides used, contrary to the aim of
bring about change among farmers. Also, to give more the past 70 years; ii) the swarm of definitions and interpreta-
weight to this statement, mankind not only pollutes the tions of IPM, which mean we no longer know what we are
planet and puts his health in danger, but the polluters them- referring to when we talk about IPM; iii) the gap that exists
selves run economic losses. This system cannot be sustain- between IPM concepts and practices in the field; iv) the fre-
able. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) quent lack of ecological sciences, although they have been the
ad opted in 20 15 by the U nite d N ations (https:// focus for several decades. The objective of this article is to
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/ propose a general assessment of IPM. Its concrete implemen-
sustainabledevelopmentgoals) can be used as a framework tation in the field is too often still based on the systematic and
to orient research towards sustainable pest management widespread use of synthetic pesticides. To illustrate the gap
(Dangles and Casas 2019; Struelens and Silvie 2020). between the “virtuous” concept of IPM and unsustainable
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is the model of crop practices (Pedigo 1995), we have borrowed the phrase “good
protection that has prevailed since its creation in the late intentions and hard realities” from Anderson and Feder (2004)
1950s. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization that they used in their analysis of agricultural extension. At the
of the United Nations (FAO), “Integrated Pest Management end of this review, we propose a change of course in crop
(IPM) means the careful consideration of all available pest protection, in line with the current social, economic, environ-
control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate mental, sanitary, and ecological challenges to tackle in agri-
measures that discourage the development of pest populations culture worldwide.
and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are
economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human
health and the environment. IPM promotes the growth of a 2 Sixty years of IPM
healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-
ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms” 2.1 Conception and development of IPM
(FAO 2020). Initially known as Integrated Control, IPM has,
by virtue of its broad principles, contributed to helped improve After the emergence of modern fungicides in the eighteenth
crop protection around the world. These core principles and century, and herbicides and insecticides in the nineteenth cen-
guidelines of IPM, as clearly defined back in the 60s (e.g., tury, research on chemical weapons during the two world wars
Bottrell and Bottrell 1979) are the following: i) potentially (in particular on gases) led to the discovery of new organic
harmful species will continue to exist at tolerable levels of compounds whose insecticidal properties were then put to use
abundance; ii) the ecosystem is the management unit; iii) use in agriculture. The development of crop protection since the
of natural control agents is maximized; iv) any control proce- end of the Second World War took place in several stages.
dure may produce unexpected and undesirable effects; v) an Work began in the late 1940s by Californian entomologists,
interdisciplinary approach is essential. In addition, the main who developed the concept of “supervised control” of crop
guidelines are as follows: i) analyze the pest status and estab- pests (Smith and Smith 1949). This involved monitoring the
lish thresholds; ii) devise schemes to lower equilibrium population levels of pests in the field, to inform the choice of
in 1956, it had become practically impossible to control out-

breaks of cotton pests despite repeated applications (15 to 25
per season). In Central America (El Salvador, Nicaragua), 30
to 50 treatments in 90 days were recorded (Barducci 1972;
Deguine et al. 2008). In these desperate situations, IPM has
emerged as a suitable and recommended crop protection strat-
egy. However, this did not last.
In the 1960s, pest management was concerned with man-
aging populations of pests in a crop. In the 1970s, especially in
continental Europe, the FAO and the IOBC (International
Organization for Biological and integrated Control of noxious
animals and plants) promoted Integrated Pest Management.
For the FAO, Smith and Reynolds (1966) defined IPM as “a
pest population management system that utilizes all suitable
Fig. 1 Biological control: adult of Cheilomenes sulphurea eating aphids techniques in a compatible manner to reduce pest populations
in Réunion (France). Photo: © Antoine Franck—CIRAD and maintain them at levels below those causing economic
injury.” Currently, the FAO definition relies on these tech-
(essentially chemical) protection methods. At the end of the niques and provides a broader view on the health of
1950s in the US, Stern et al. (1959) proposed the concept of agroecosystems. The IOBC defined Integrated Pest
Integrated Control, defined as “applied pest control which Management in 1973 as “a pest control system that uses a
combines and integrates biological control and chemical con- set of methods that satisfy economic, ecological and toxico-
trol.” This concept emphasized the need to take on board logical requirements by giving priority to natural control and
environmental concerns and to conciliate biological control by respecting tolerance thresholds” (Ferron 1999). The con-
(Fig. 1) and chemical control (Fig. 2). This was the time when cept of IPM, for English speakers, Manejo Integrado de
the general public began to become aware of the harmful Plagas for Spanish speakers and Protection Intégrée des
effects of pesticides on the environment (Carson 1962) and Cultures for French speakers (Lucas 2007), has since become
when the first scientific considerations were given to integrat- a benchmark in crop protection around the world. Note that
ing biological control and chemical control (van den Bosch the first two translations are pest-oriented while the latter is
and Stern 1962), and these studies have continued since. crop-oriented.
In the 1940s and 1950s, the overuse of pesticides, both in In the early 1990s, the IOBC and the LEAF (Linking
terms of treatment frequency and in the doses of active ingre- Agriculture and Farming) Group proposed extending the prin-
dients applied, led to ecological disasters and the impossibility ciples and objectives of IPM to integrated production, respec-
of controlling pest populations due to build-up of pesticide tively under the names Integrated Farming (El Titi et al. 1993)
resistance. Such situations have been encountered, for exam- and Integrated Crop Management (Leake 2000). This implies
ple, in Latin America (Wille 1951). In Peru’s Canette valley, that crop protection should not be disconnected from other
objectives expected from agroecosystems. In integrated pro-
duction, preservation of resources (soil, water, energy, and
labor) is associated with limiting pest damage and increasing
agronomic performance (quantity and quality of agricultural
production) (Boller et al. 2004). However, the term
“Integrated Production” has been overused. In fact, it has been
used to describe so-called “virtuous” production or agricultur-
al practices, even if it sometimes departs significantly from the
IOBC directives, and occasionally from its concept and spirit.
This is particularly the case for Integrated Fruit Production in
France with regard to environmental issues (Bellon et al.
2006). In addition, anxious that the term “integrated produc-
tion” might be badly received by the French agricultural pro-
fession due to possible confusion with economic integration,
the FARRE network (Forum of Farmers Responsible and
Respectful of the Environment) chose to translate the
Fig. 2 Chemical control: insecticide treatment in a peach orchard in English term Integrated Farm Management (within the frame-
South of France. Photo: © Christophe Maître—INRAE work of the European Integrated Farming Initiative) into
Agriculture Raisonnée [close to responsible agriculture (Goss inconsistent levels of implementation in the field (Lucas
and Barry 1995)], which suffers from the same semantic is- et al. 2017; Stetkiewicz et al. 2018).
sues as IPM (Bonny 1997; Lucas et al. 2017). It is therefore It is therefore pretentious to offer a single definition of
ultimately only in Switzerland, the Czech Republic, and IPM. Further to Bajwa and Kogan (2002) and Coll and
Northern Italy that Integrated Production has been developed Wajnberg (2017b), Stenberg (2017) considers that IPM is:
(and there solely in fruit production), as well as in Reunion “a holistic ‘approach’ or ‘strategy’ to combat plant pests and
(France), e.g., Integrated Mango Production (Vincenot and diseases using all available methods, while minimizing appli-
Normand 2009). cations of chemical pesticides.” “Approach” refers to the sci-
This example illustrates the semantics of the various con- entific and conceptual approach and “strategy” to its imple-
cepts of IPM, in particular their translation to French and other mentation in the field, depending on the definition of IPM
languages (mostly European and American, the continents used or levels of practice complexity [e.g., the four levels of
where these concepts appeared). In addition to the ambiguity IPM according to Prokopy 1994], adoption of IPM ranges
of the term “integrated” (vs. “harmonized,” even the notion of from 0 to 100% (Shennan et al. 2001).
economic integration) is the meaning of the term “manage- It is difficult to find characteristics common to all definitions
ment” (vs. “control”), and “pest” [vs. bioagressors(s), dis- of IPM. However, we offer some of them below. IPM’s prima-
ease(s)]. For example, IPM has long been translated in French ry aim is to integrate the different pest management techniques
as Lutte Intégrée, an almost literal translation of “Integrated (regular cropping practices along with genetic, physical, biolog-
Control,” but the term adopted by consensus is now ical, and chemical means). It also promotes socio-economic
Protection Intégrée des Cultures (Integrated Crop Protection) viability and a reduction in use of chemical pesticides, especial-
(Ferron 1999). In German and Dutch, the notion of “control” is ly after 1962 and the publication of Carson (1962), to minimize
advanced (integrierte Schädlingsbekämpfung and the risks to the environment and public health. IPM also aims to
Geïntegreerde bestrijding) (Wildbolz 1962), while in Spanish, make these techniques (notably chemical and biological)
besides “control,” it resembles the English in that “manage- compatible and synergistic. This highlights the need for
ment” is stressed (Manejo integrado de plagas) (Nilda and multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research on different
Vázquez 2004). This reflects differences in orientation (“pest”: techniques and their interactions. Finally, the use of chemical
single pest or set of pests; “crop”: single crop vs. cropping pesticides is authorized only as a last resort and, if necessary,
system vs. agroecosystem vs. production system). based on intervention thresholds, part of the guidelines of IPM
and implied in the universally accepted FAO definition. The
first and stated last characteristics we mentioned were also
2.2 A quasi-infinite number of definitions and identified by Hurley and Sun (2019) as two key elements fre-
interpretations quently found in definitions.
Coll and Wajnberg (2017b) point out that the definitions
A lot has been written about IPM, but capturing all the differ- fail to mention that integration relates to all the pests of a
ent interpretations is not the purpose of this review. Instead, particular crop (phyto-pathogenic microorganisms, arthropod
we refer the reader to the following noteworthy publications pests, phyto-pathogenic/pest nematodes, weeds/parasitic
or reference works: Abrol 2014; Abrol and Shankar 2012; plants). For them, integration is about controlling a single or
Dent 1995; Ehler 2006; Ferron 1999; Heinrichs et al. 2009; a small number of pest species. This is sometimes called “ver-
Kogan 1998; Kogan and Heinrichs 2020; Koul et al. 2004; tical integration,” as opposed to “horizontal integration”
Maredia et al. 2003; Norris et al. 2003; Peshin and Dhawan which entails simultaneous management of several pest clas-
2009; Prokopy and Kogan 2003; Radcliffe et al. 2009; ses (Aubertot et al. 2005; Ehler 2006; Lamichhane et al. 2017;
Rapisarda and Cocuzza 2018; Smith and van den Bosch Weiss et al. 2009). Finally, Young (2017) calls attention to the
1967; Wearing 1988; Wyckhuys et al. 2021). fact that insects are the most studied type of pests in IPM (75%
Over the years, IPM has seen its definitions multiply to the of publications, based on a meta-analysis of the last 40 years).
point where Bajwa and Kogan (2002) identified 67 between
1959 and 2000. Coll and Wajnberg (2017b) give a choice of
42 definitions, based in part on the Bajwa and Kogan (2002) 3 IPM roadblocks and adoption barriers
list, spanning the period 1959–2016, reflecting the diversity of
elements, concepts, and criteria. It is likely that there are more During its 60-year history, clear successes have been achieved
than a hundred definitions of IPM today. in IPM implementation in both Western nations and in the
For a three-word concept, there are as many definitions as Southern hemisphere, involving concrete reductions in pesti-
there are authors and for each definition that emphasizes one cide use, altered farming patterns and wide-ranging socio-eco-
particular feature of IPM, another can be found contradicting nomic benefits (Norton and Mullen 1994; Pretty 2005; Pretty
it (Jeger 2000). This has led to confusion and to highly and Bharucha 2015). In Southeast Asia, farmer training
programs attained a staggering 92% pesticide reduction in rice program termination, political change, altered priorities, or
(Bangladesh) or 50–70% reduction in tea and cabbage agroindustry meddling (Pretty 2005; Thorburn 2015; Wilson
(Vietnam) (van den Berg 2004). In addition, the and Tisdell 2001). Also, several (top-down) IPM programs
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) attained 50– failed to account for local agroecological or socio-economic
80% cuts in insecticide use on millions of rice farms without contexts (Ruesink 1980; Smith 1983; Uneke 2007).
any noticeable yield loss (Bottrell and Schoenly 2012). In the Participatory training programs such as the UN-endorsed
US, the Huffaker project for IPM and the IPM consortium Farmer Field Schools (IPM-FFS) were criticized for their pro-
(1972–1985) attained a 70–80% reduction of a wide set of hibitive cost, needs in personnel requirements and insufficient
pesticides on > 5 million hectares—resulting in more than scalability (Rajotte et al. 2005; Tripp et al. 2005; van den Berg
$500 million annual savings (Pimentel and Peshin 2014). In and Jiggins 2007; Waddington and White 2014; Waddington
a review of more than 500 IPM programs from across the et al. 2014). However, the FAO Farmer Field Schools pro-
globe, 13% and 19% respective increases in crop yields and gram has covered millions of farmers across Southeast Asia,
farm profits were logged (Waddington and White 2014) with and average reductions of 70–75% in pesticide use were
even partial IPM adoption delivering concrete benefits attained (with reductions in some districts in Indonesia of up
(Norton et al. 2019). Irrespective of possible difficulties in to 99%). Yet, once supportive policies and funding were re-
impact assessment (Puente et al. 2011; Rejesus and Jones moved, pesticide use surged again (Bottrell and Schoenly
2020), IPM has certainly had a positive impact on farmer 2012; Heong and Escalada 1997; Thorburn 2014 and 2015).
livelihoods and environmental integrity. More than half a century after its conception, IPM has not
Particularly in the Southern hemisphere, millions of small- been adopted to a satisfactory extent and has largely failed to
holder farmers successfully adopted IPM (Hammig et al. deliver on its promise (Bottrell 1996; Corbet 1981; Ehler
2008; Ngin et al. 2017; Pretty 2005; Rejesus et al. 2009), 2006; Ehler and Bottrell 2000; Orr 2003; Pimentel 1982;
though these achievements were routinely undone following Sherman and Gent 2014; van den Bosch 1965; Willey
Fig. 3 Barriers to adoption and spread of IPM in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, categorized under six pillars of sustainability transition
(Template design by Showeet.com)
1978). The low levels of farmer adoption and insufficient IPM information can also be used to deliver pesticide information
technology diffusion are invariably ascribed to different fac- (CAVAC 2014; Flor et al. 2018). IPM practitioners still need
tors, some of which closely related to local farming contexts. to critically examine how these tools, especially digital media,
We summarize reasons for low adoption and spread of IPM will disseminate IPM practices. Moreover, there is only limit-
in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres (Fig. 3). ed uptake in the use of communication tools in certain cultural
While certain factors apply across innovations (Juma 2016), and linguistic contexts. Experiences vary from country to
others are inherent to crop protection or the broader agricul- country. The benefits of participatory extension have primar-
ture sector. In the following paragraphs, we examine each of ily been reaped in the Southern Hemisphere, where (often
these IPM roadblocks through a lens of sustainability transi- illiterate) smallholder farmers operate in heterogeneous farm
tions, which help in understanding social, technical, institu- settings and thus have diverse needs (Alwang et al. 2019;
tional and ecological aspects of shifts towards sustainability Morse and Buhler 1997). Group-based learning processes,
(Loorbach et al. 2017). e.g., as promoted through FFS take time and the ensuing in-
novation tends to proceed at a slow pace (Rebaudo and
3.1 Weak farmer knowledge base Dangles 2011), but ongoing experimentation by individual
farmers can yield valuable, locally adapted technologies
“What farmers don’t know can’t help them,” so wrote the (van Mele et al. 2005). Rebaudo et al. (2014) suggest that
anthropologist Jeffery Bentley when outlining farmers’ tech- “new approaches in pest management extension practices
nical knowledge regarding plant health (Bentley 1989). A key should include topics such as group decision making, inter-
factor hampering uptake of (knowledge-intensive) IPM is group relations, commitment, and persuasion which deal di-
farmers’ deficient ecological literacy and incomplete under- rectly with how other farmers influence each other’s thoughts
standing of its constituent processes (Horgan 2017; Murray and actions.” On the other hand, in the Northern Hemisphere,
et al. 2021; Rajotte et al. 2005; van Mele 2008; Wyckhuys there appears to be much confusion among farmers regarding
et al. 2019a). This particular barrier applies across countries whether certain technologies are IPM-compatible or not
and farming contexts, comprises technical aspects and basic (Stetkiewicz et al. 2018). Moreover, farmers are targeted in
ecological concepts, and manifests as an undervaluation of communications about biological control, but there is less en-
certain IPM components (Zhang et al. 2018). For example, gagement of other types of stakeholders such as policymakers
while the active conservation or in-field augmentation of ben- (Barratt et al. 2018).
eficial organisms is an important IPM technology, many
farmers are totally unaware of the existence of biological con- 3.2 User preferences and risk aversion
trol agents such as parasitic wasps, predaceous mites or insect-
killing nematodes (Wyckhuys et al. 2019a). In early attempts End-users’ perceptions are a key obstacle to IPM diffusion,
to promote IPM, e.g., through training & visit (T&V) exten- and several IPM constituent technologies are perceived as
sion schemes or other top-down technology transfer initia- inflexible, difficult to implement and incompatible with (deep-
tives, farmers were indeed insufficiently empowered to make ly engrained) farming habits (Cowan and Gunby 1996; Parsa
decisions based on such ecological information. Yet, partici- et al. 2014). IPM implementation can easily be perceived as
patory training efforts such as FFS included “hands-on” expe- risky considering how its benefits in terms of technological
riential learning modules and effectively removed this con- reliability, sustained yield or enhanced profit, are often unclear
straint (van de Fliert 1993; van Schoubroeck 1999). to farmers (Fernandez-Cornejo and Kackmeister 1996; Jørs
FFS experiences also revealed a need for farmers to be et al. 2017; Lefebvre et al. 2015; Marrone 2009). Social and
sufficiently involved in IPM development, from design up till psychological elements (e.g., prevailing beliefs or attitudes;
in-field validation (Andrews et al. 1992; Geertsema et al. Morales and Perfecto 2000; Wyckhuys et al. 2019a) further
2016; Morse 2009; van Huis and Meerman 1997; Way and tilt the balance in favor of risk-averse practices such as pre-
van Emden 2000). Collaborative FFS facilitate changes in ventive use of agrochemicals (Despotović et al. 2019;
farmers’ practices and trajectories compared to consultative Munyua 2003; Vasileiadis 2017). Also, many farmers place
FFS (Bakker et al. 2021). Participatory research and two- disproportionate emphasis on potential pest-induced losses or
way dialogues between scientists, extension officers, and ex- the relative role of crop protection within overall farm man-
perts are of critical importance (Bentley et al. 2003; Deguine agement (Heong and Escalada 1997; Ohmart 2008; Palis
and Ratnadass 2017). Building these elements into extension 2006), while they are far less clear about the “insurance” ben-
programs helps blend practical experience with scientific in- efits provided by, for example, insect biodiversity (Lamarque
sights, thus filling knowledge gaps and circumventing the et al. 2014). As such, the ensuing decision-making is guided
disciplinary silos that pervade in academia (Feder et al. by “worst case” scenarios and further reinforced by marketing
2004; Untung 1995; van Huis and Meerman 1997). campaigns of agrochemical suppliers (Heong and Escalada
Moreover, the communication tools delivering IPM 1999). Yet, such misconceptions can easily be mitigated by
relatively cheap, small-scale experiments, e.g., within FFS control, agroecology, or robotic weeding (Juma 2016).
programs (Heong and Escalda 1999). Indeed, today’s agrochemical industry is walking along sev-
In both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, a key hur- eral of the well-trodden paths that, for example, the Horse
dle is the overall absence (or insufficient farmer awareness) of Association of America chose when resisting farm mechani-
IPM decision thresholds for particular crops and the convolut- zation during the 1920s.
ed monitoring schemes that are required to assess on-farm pest Though the agrochemical industry is omnipresent in both
pressure (Murray et al. 2021; Ohmart 2008; Sivapragasam hemispheres, the rudimentary registration processes in several
2004). Often, the cumbersome nature of threshold-based developing countries have led to high pesticide loads, a con-
IPM decision-making leads farmers to confuse different man- tinued use of banned and restricted-use substances and a lack
agement concepts or to favor more user-friendly options and of water-tight regulation (Wesseling 2005). In settings with
convenient application methods, e.g., insecticide-coated resource-poor smallholders, subsistence farming systems, no
seeds, calendar-based sprays (Horgan 2017; Möhring et al. organic certification schemes, or lagging demand for high-
2020). Conversely, straightforward messaging, simple deci- value commodities, the availability of cheap pesticides hin-
sion rules and heuristics such as “no early spray” or “3 reduc- ders adoption of IPM (Orr 2003; Pretty and Bharucha 2015).
tions, 3 gains” can help steer farmers towards more environ- Conversely, in areas where consumers are willing to pay a
mentally friendly crop protection schemes (Heong and premium price for pesticide-free produce or where non-
Escalada 1997; Huan et al. 2005). Other constraints that apply chemical alternatives are widely available (e.g., biological
primarily to the Southern hemisphere include inadequate control in Europe’s greenhouse sector; van Lenteren 2012)
meaningful participation and a lack of consideration for the certain IPM barriers can be removed (Lefebvre et al. 2015;
ultimate needs and preferences of end-users (Iqbal 2010; Marrone 2009; Onillon and Gullino 1999). In either case, for
Samiee et al. 2009). innovation and eventual “creative destruction” to proceed
(Juma 2016), there are clear and outspoken vested interests
3.3 Vested interests and corporate responsibility and very few signs that the agrochemical industry is commit-
ted to regulate itself and take responsibility for its actions
The adoption of IPM is shaped by extensive lobbying, mar- (Goulson 2020). A sign of hope is that comprehensive policy
keting, and wide-ranging manipulation by the agrochemical frameworks are emerging, e.g., the EU Farm-to-Fork program
industry (Goulson 2020). Across the globe, IPM technologies that will help the agrochemical industry prioritize environ-
struggle to find fertile ground and flourish in settings where mental health instead of limitless profit (European
farm advisers are paid (or decision-support tools are designed) Commission 2020).
by this industry, where farmers annually draw loans from
chemical suppliers, or where the only accessible source of pest 3.4 Traditional practices and emerging IPM
management information is to be found behind the counter of technologies
the pesticide shop (Ehler 2006; Flor et al. 2020; Wagner et al.
2016; Wyckhuys and O'Neil 2007). Biased information about Despite the decades of committed basic and applied research
IPM and pesticide safety thus abounds while the only behav- that have gone into developing and validating its constituent
ior change that is fervently pursued is the one leading to technologies, insufficient implementation of IPM advances
sustained or enhanced company profits (Murray and Taylor have been made for a number of crops in the Southern hemi-
2000). There are now innumerable accounts of direct and sphere (Cowan and Gunby 1996; Goodell 1984; Rajotte et al.
covert interference by agrochemical companies and concerted 2005; Uneke 2007; Way and van Emden 2000; Wyckhuys
efforts to sustain IPM beliefs that are aligned with their busi- et al. 2013). Also, the decades-long research on non-
ness plans (Goulson 2020; Hutchins 1995; Murray and Taylor chemical crop protection has not resulted in changes in farmer
2000; Pretty and Bharucha 2015; Untung 1995; van den behavior or in tangible socio-ecological outcomes in either
Bosch 1989). In the meantime, alternative IPM products face hemisphere (González-Chang et al. 2020). On the other hand,
diverse bureaucratic barriers to proper registration and farmer much can be learned from centuries of experience of tradition-
access (Barratt et al. 2018; Cowan and Gunby 1996; al farmers and the wealth of preventative, agroecological prac-
Vanloqueren and Baret 2009). tices that are already in place in a myriad of cropping systems
The above trends are sustained by schemes that support (Altieri 2004). For most broad-acre crops, there is currently a
pesticide subsidies and which create confusion (Parsa et al. range of effective, locally validated IPM alternatives including
2014). None of the above is unique to the present-day pesti- biological control, decision-support tools, innovative pesticide
cide problem, but are typical features of the struggle by pro- delivery modes (e.g., attract-and-kill) or agronomic measures
ducers of incumbent technologies (i.e., synthetic pesticides) to such as diversified crop sequences, implementation of cover-
maintain a “status quo” when faced with the emergence of crops, and inter-cropping (Veres et al. 2020). For example, in
potentially “disruptive” innovations such as biological 78% of the authorized usage cases for neonicotinoid
insecticides in France, at least one non-chemical alternative In countries or geopolitical entities where IPM has been
method can immediately replace chemical compounds (Jactel made mandatory (e.g., the EU), the operationalization, moni-
et al. 2019). A global analysis recently demonstrated how IPM toring, and expectations for immediate conversion limited the
technologies such as biological control can alleviate the food effectiveness of IPM-based policies (Barzman et al. 2015;
safety and environmental health hazards linked to Matyjaszczyk 2019). There are cases where sustainability
neonicotinoid insecticides (Wyckhuys et al. 2020a). The tech- and IPM are explicit in policy, but these become blurred by
nological progress and implementation readiness of various notions of food security or intensification that ultimately again
biological control and biopesticide approaches bodes well legitimize reliance on pesticides (Flor et al. 2018; Untung
for ongoing efforts to phase out these compounds in a range 1995). Furthermore, there are cases of delayed policies that
of fruit and vegetable crops in Europe and North America. hamper IPM adoption: underfinanced extension systems that
Genetically engineered crops producing Bacillus provide inadequate support to farmers in pest diagnosis and
thuringiensis (Bt) endotoxins and host-plant resistance also IPM implementation (Pretty and Bharucha 2015; Rola and
fit under the IPM umbrella and have ample potential to reduce Pingali 1993). In the Northern hemisphere, knowledge-
pesticide use, though the former technology does carry certain deficit interventions and policy mismatches lead to an ineffec-
risks (Bharucha 2015; Peshin and Zhang 2014; Romeis et al. tive response to the pressing needs of some novice farmers,
2019). In recent years, the rise in artificial intelligence, remote farm incubators, and small-scale marketing innovators where
sensing, and autonomous agricultural vehicles (e.g., solar- locally validated IPM represents a desirable technological ad-
powered mechanical weeding robots) has created golden op- vantage (Calo 2018).
portunities for a sharp reduction, or even outright suspension,
of pesticide use (Filho et al. 2020). Notwithstanding the rapid 3.6 Cultural barriers and the decline of public interest
technological advances and IPM innovations, one should en- science
sure that smallholder farmers in the Southern hemisphere are
not bypassed, that context-specific solutions are offered and For decades, systems-approaches have been advocated to ad-
that a full integration of indigenous ecological knowledge is vance the development and implementation of IPM, while
pursued (Abate et al. 2000; Nampeera et al. 2019; van Huis integrated multi-stakeholder, multi-level projects are increas-
and Meerman 1997). ingly seen as vital to attain measurable change at scale (Altieri
et al. 1983; Lewis et al. 1997; Rodenburg et al. 2015; Schut
3.5 Hard and soft policy levers et al. 2014). Yet, the bulk of IPM scientists continue to operate
in silos, adopt a pest-centric perspective, exhibit increasing
Effectively influencing farmer behavior is difficult (Kanter ‘niche’ specialization and tend to focus on their “mandatory”
et al. 2019). However, to ease this process, different “pressure crop and/or pest system (Alwang et al. 2019; Coll and
points” can be identified to drive along agri-food value chains Wajnberg 2017b; Ehler 2006; Morse and Buhler 1997;
and both soft (i.e., certification schemes, food safety labelling) Rosenheim and Coll 2008; Vanloqueren and Baret 2009;
and hard policy options (i.e., conditional financial assistance) Warner et al. 2011). Also, reaching out across disciplinary
can be considered. Still, IPM-related policies are faced with boundaries is still an unusual act: even though economic or-
three common constraints. First, diverging IPM definitions nithology experienced a bonanza during the late nineteenth
and connotations complicate the formulation and interpreta- century (Kronenberg 2014), only scant attention is now paid
tion of clear policies (Ehler 2005; Ehler and Bottrell 2000; to valuing the contribution of bird- or insect-mediated biolog-
Hoy 2020; Jeger 2000; Ohmart 2008; Untung 1995). ical control to IPM (Garcia et al. 2020; Naranjo et al. 2015).
Second, where IPM is codified into legislation, there are un- Another aspect that is routinely forgotten is how IPM can
intended effects and vested interests which move towards an entail collective decision-making, coordination, or shared
improvement in pesticide efficiency (Matyjaszczyk 2019; norms and values; these are not automatically generated in
Rola and Pingali 1993; Trumble 1998). Third, a risk-averse communities (Castella et al. 1999; Cowan and Gunby 1996;
policy environment exists around some IPM solutions with, Palis 2006; Parsa et al. 2014; Rebaudo et al. 2014). Yet, a
for example, disproportionate attention given to the eventual perceived need for collective decision-making in certain farm-
non-target risk of ecologically based alternatives such as bio- ing systems should not preclude a push for behavioral change
logical control (Barratt et al. 2018; van Wilgen et al. 2013). at the individual level. Indeed, when addressing highly mobile
These concerns are often translated into overly stringent reg- polyphagous pests or noxious weeds, land-use or pest man-
ulatory processes that tend to obscure positive benefits and agement decisions of just a handful of farmers can bring about
prevent the timely implementation of and farmer access to often dramatic positive change at the agrolandscape level
science-based solutions, which are primarily aimed at allevi- (Bagavathiannan et al. 2019; Vreysen et al. 2007). Also, even
ating the well-documented adverse ecological impact of con- when only a fraction of farmers within a given community is
ventional control practices. trained on IPM, this information invariably gets put into
practice, triggers further innovation, and disseminates filters This theoretical range of integration has rarely been tested in
through existing social networks (Rebaudo and Dangles 2013; the field. In reality, IPM has often been a juxtaposition of
Wyckhuys and O'Neil 2007). different crop protection techniques (Ehler 2005; Lucas et al.
In the Southern hemisphere, government extension agents 2017; Stenberg 2017). Frison et al. (1999) confirms that inte-
and crop advisors unaffiliated with the pesticide industry are seen gration at several levels (i.e., control of a single pest on a
to have low status because of their comparatively limited opera- particular crop; control of several pests on the same crop;
tional funds (Teoh and Ooi 1986). For many of these actors, several crops; several farms) is not common. This lack of
sectoral bureaucracies further impede their work (Untung integration means that practices “superimposed” on each other
1995). These are part of the human or institutional mechanisms do not result in any synergy and are not optimized (Ehler
that keep pesticide use locked into pest management routines 2006; Hoy 2020). They are sometimes incompatible, or barely
(Spangenberg et al. 2015). Finally, the institutional reconfigura- compatible with each other (Reteau 2017; Suckling et al.
tion of universities and the accompanying decline in public in- 2014), with instances of synergy occurring by pure chance.
terest science should be of concern to all (Warner et al. 2011). In the goal of demonstrating that this integration is not obvious
Since its heydays in the 1960s, biological control science (as a in practice, Ohmart (2009) draws a clear distinction between
key constituent of IPM) has been removed from core curricula in two areas of IPM: on the one hand, the academic sphere,
the University of California (UC) system while favouring more research and knowledge, and on the other, the field and
“fancy,” prestigious disciplines such as transgenic engineering. production area. Long before him, Hutchins (1995) distin-
Conversely, many countries in the Southern hemisphere continue guished an “idealistic IPM” of theory and a “realistic IPM”
to lag behind their northern counterparts in building the necessary for farmers. There is little interaction between these two
institutional capacity on public interest science domains that un- spheres: reasons include farmers' ignorance of the science be-
derpin IPM and agroecology. hind the techniques; there is a confusion of principles due to
different definitions; insufficient consideration of ecological
issues in research; insufficient links between researchers and
4 Inconsistencies between concepts practitioners (Deguine and Ratnadass 2017). In addition, there
and practices in IPM is a deficit in the roll-out of incentives which are clearly nec-
essary to encourage farmers to adopt IPM, for example at the
4.1 Integration or juxtaposition of practices? European level where it is compulsory (Lefebvre et al. 2015).
The search to coordinate chemical and biological control in
IPM has often been considered a sphere of integration (de the 1950s was the driving force behind Integrated Control, the
facto by the words that make up its name). Prokopy (1994) forerunner to IPM, and the conditions for integration were
and Kogan (1998) defined 3 levels of integration in IPM: an quickly reviewed (van den Bosch and Stern 1962). Today,
initial level of single pest management techniques, a second however, their compatibility is widely questioned (Ehler and
level of strategies for the management of a group of pests and Bottrell 2000; Lucas et al. 2017; Stenberg 2017; Suckling
a third level of integration of management techniques for pop- et al. 2012). Analysis of the history of research and crop pro-
ulations of several pests as part of the overall strategy of ag- tection practices shows that chemical and biological control
ronomic management of cropping systems. Figure 4 presents have undergone concomitant and continuous changes, but
an ideal situation of integrated protection in an apple orchard. most often, these changes have been concomitant and
Fig. 4 Integrating different

methods to achieve pome fruit
protection against pests, diseases,
and weeds (adapted from Simon
et al. (2017a))
Fig. 5 Geographical representation of public interest in different pest “Biopesticide” (d). Within a given map, darker colors reflect a higher
management topics at a global and country-specific level. Online public proportion of internet queries for a given search term relative to the total
interest (or so-called salience; Wyckhuys et al. 2019b) was assessed over number of internet searches in that country over the 16-year time period.
2004–2020 by running Google Trends queries for different search terms. Gray represents insufficient data. All maps are drawn based on non-back-
More specifically, searches were performed for “Integrated Pest corrected outputs. Google Trends queries can be run on https://trends.google.
Management” (a), “Biological Pest Control” (b), “Agroecology” (c), and com
independent from one another (Reteau 2017). Figure 5 sug- rare instances where these forms of control were used concur-
gests that one can simply indicate how scientific and public rently, there was a lack of clear planning and of a strategy
interest in different types of pest management strategies dif- regarding levels of intensity; results were disappointing,
fers widely, with rapidly emerging attention. Examples of this underlining their incompatibility (De Bach 1974; Deguine
are biological control in the Andes region (particularly and Ratnadass 2017).
Colombia) and eastern Africa, biopesticides in China, In addition to Fig. 5, a research on Google Books Ngram
Western Europe and India, or agroecology in a number of Viewer shows the temporal evolution of several terms, includ-
countries in Africa and Latin America. In addition, Perrin ing “Integrated Pest Management” and “Agroecology” (Fig.
(1997) suggests that both chemical and biological approaches 6). There has been a steady decline of IPM in books since the
have resulted in better cooperation between public and private mid-1990s and an increase in Agroecology since the early
sectors and are both considered as possible solutions. In the 2000s. These curves suggest that the application of
Fig. 6 Frequencies (yearly

counts, normalized to the
maximum counts for the term
“Integrated Pest Management”)
of four key terms—Integrated
Pest Management, Agroecology,
Biopesticide, and Biological Pest
Control—found in sources
printed between 1960 and 2019.
Analysis performed on https://
books.google.com/ngrams on
March 12, 2021
agroecology to crop protection (Agroecological Crop for crop protection strategies that respect the environment and
Protection, see Section 7) is underway and that a paradigm that take into account the ecological functioning of
shift, at least in the books, is taking place. This paradigm shift agroecosystems. Yet, we are still facing increasing levels of
is probably an abandonment of the pest “enemies/allies” con- pesticide use (Guichard et al. 2017). It should be stressed that
cept, shifting towards a vision based on Sustainable there are even negative impacts on farm-level economics—
Development Goals (SDG) (Dangles and Crespo-Pérez e.g., farmer revenue and profitability (Lechenet et al. 2017a, b;
2020). It is noticeable that biological control remains a narrow Mourtzinis et al. 2019). Pesticide use not only remains a dom-
area of publication, but it is perfectly compatible with inant practice, but it has steadily increased over the past 60
agroecology. years and overall toxicity has also increased (Bernhardt et al.
It is important to draw attention to the fact that despite the 2017; DiBartolomeis et al. 2019; Enserink et al. 2013).
strict guidelines and rules of IPM and the clear need for a Hedlund et al. (2020) speak of “ever-increasing” use, and even
hierarchy different technologies, as identified in the late in highly developed countries there is no sign of reduction,
1960s/early 1970s and described in the IPM pyramid especially in large-scale field crops (Piwowar 2021). This is
(Naranjo 2001), this has been diluted. Thus, when IPM was exactly what has been observed in most agricultural produc-
first developed, there was no room for subjective assessments tion systems, with an ongoing proliferation of chemical con-
and differing interpretations—as to fit individual companies’ trol at best complemented with some other measures (Coll and
business plans. As indicated by Pedigo (1989): “In order to Wajnberg 2017a; Lucas et al. 2017; Peshin and Zhang 2014).
integrate several tactics into the overall pest management pro- Farmers are often reluctant to give up agropharmaceuticals
gram, a set of principles is needed as a guide. Without princi- because of their ease of use, their proven short-term effective-
ples, integration may proceed along some serendipitous routes ness, their cost-effectiveness in most of the production situa-
- which is usually ineffective and generally unacceptable.” In tions, and because they are seen to guarantee fewer production
pepper and tomato production in greenhouses, Dáder et al. losses. There have been cases where a well-established IPM
(2020) insist that the combination of biological and chemical was abandoned in favor of uncontrolled pesticide use.
control requires a schedule in their implementation and a good Toleubayev et al. (2011) give the example of Kazakhstan after
knowledge of the interactions: early establishment of benefi- the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The systematic reappear-
cials, then chemical control, with or without compatibility ance of pesticides is linked to brutal changes in organizational
depending on the beneficials and the molecules. Hokkanen and institutional frameworks which disrupted research, train-
(2015) considers that today there is a significant gap between ing and collaborative work. However, the phytosanitary train-
the traditional principles of IPM, which are described in the ing and monitoring of farmers is often undertaken by repre-
IPM pyramid, and the current situation. The use of chemical sentatives of the agrochemical industry (Ohmart 2009). This
pesticides, which was supposed to represent only a small part explains why farmers remain dependent on pesticides (Epstein
of this pyramid, represents the majority of cases, which can and Zhang 2014; Matyjaszczyk 2019) and why pesticide use
result in an upside down pyramid. For Hokkanen (2015), “it has not declined is even increasing in some countries. This is
becomes obvious that this method of pest management will true for Europe (Buckwell et al. 2020), under the directive on
neither be stable nor sustainable.” the sustainable use of pesticides (2009/128/EC), despite na-
It has also long been noted that there is no proposed tional plans to reduce the use of pesticides; in France, there
strategy for the implementation of practices in the field. It was a 25% increase in the use of agricultural pesticides be-
will have taken more than half a century since the advent tween 2011 and 2018 (Guichard et al. 2017). This is also the
of IPM for a sequential logic to be proposed for IPM case in the US (Meehan and Gratton 2016), China (Zhang
implementation in the European Union (Barzman et al. et al. 2011), India (Peshin and Zhang 2014) and in most de-
2015). While these authors suggest using chemical control veloping countries. For Ehler (2005), IPM can be considered
as a last resort, after exhausting all other techniques (i.e., as Integrated “Pesticide” Management (Peshin and Zhang
biological control, cultural control, physical control, vari- 2014) and it remains the dominant practice in California, the
etal control), chemical control as a first resort is still com- birthplace of IPM (Rosenheim et al. 2020). In this American
monplace and still observed in the field in the vast major- state, Epstein and Bassein (2003) do not record any decrease
ity of farms not only in Europe, but also around the world in pesticide use. Despite some successful experiences [e.g.,
(Lucas et al. 2017). IPM on Bemisia tabaci on cotton in Arizona (Naranjo and
Ellsworth 2009)], there an increase in insecticide use in the
4.2 The pervasiveness of chemical protection United States between 1997 and 2012 (Meehan and Gratton
2016).
There are calls for sustainable agriculture, whether at a global The example of the development of IPM in the European
level or in circular circuits (Byerlee et al. 2009; LaCanne and Union deserves to be described. IPM is now the cornerstone of
Lundgren 2018); in these contexts, there is a legitimate place crop protection, since European Directive 2009/128/EC made
the application of IPM principles mandatory in 2014 in Hawaii (Vargas et al. 2008) and the eradication of the
(Barzman et al. 2014). This directive raises questions of sub- Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann) in
stance. Firstly, the IPM principles it promotes did not corre- Mexico (Enkerlin et al. 2015) are perfect illustrations of such
spond to an explicit and orderly description of practices, a technical, economic and social success. This is also the case
which were only presented later (Barzman et al. 2015). of the transgenic cultivation of cotton plants in China (plants
Second, there is no explicit document on the operational of integrating up to 3 genes coding for Bt toxins), which were
an ordered phytosanitary strategy in the field describing the given free of charge to smallholder farmers for the manage-
content of practices. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, ment of Helicoverpa armigera Hb. which had become resis-
to monitor the application of IPM in the field (Matyjaszczyk tant to insecticides (Tabashnik et al. 2010). Even if there have
2019; Thiel et al. 2021). Thirdly, the application of this direc- been outbreaks of non-target mirid bugs (Lu et al. 2010; Li
tive, which took effect on 1 January 2014, “transformed” all et al. 2020), this strategy allowed a large-scale return of ben-
areas that were not considered to be in IPM on 31 December eficial arthropods to horticultural crops adjacent to cotton
2013 (e.g., that were cultivated with a conventional chemical crops, allowing the reduction of pesticide use (Lu et al.
protection program) into areas cultivated in IPM the following 2012) and promoting arthropod pest suppression (Li et al.
morning. Should not this be an eye-opener? Fourthly, apart 2020). These AW-PM successes have been made possible
from principles 1 (prevention), 2 (monitoring), and 3 (prefer- by the involvement of governments or governing bodies in
ence to non-chemical methods, which is not applied in the decisions taken on a large scale in the regions under consid-
field) proposed by Barzman et al. (2015), the other principles eration, but also sometimes collectively by several countries,
concern agrochemical protection, with priority given to the while involving various actors, particularly citizens, who have
search for efficiency in the use of agrochemicals. Moreover, a role to play. In these movements, smallholder farmers have
it is to be feared that the efforts made to improve the efficiency been encouraged to participate in the cooperative management
and good conditions of pesticide use, in the drafting of most of of pest populations. While IPM is often considered in the field
the IPM principles of the European directive, paradoxically as a toolbox (often chemical) in a curative approach on a local
contribute to legitimizing and facilitating their use in the field scale, AW-IPM, a combination of large-scale top-down pre-
even more. Since the IPM was made mandatory by directive ventive approach and bottom-up field by field curative ap-
2009/128/EC (i.e., “compulsory IPM”), Matyjaszczyk (2019) proach, has proved to be particularly suitable for insects that
highlights the difficulties encountered in the field: no available are highly mobile on large scales, whether they are crop pests
alternatives to pesticide treatments; lack of available interven- or vectors of animal or human diseases (Wyss 2006). It is a
tion thresholds for triggering these treatments; lack of effec- promising way to maintain populations within their functional
tive biopesticides; lack of farmers’ knowledge on preventive area (Birch et al. 2011), but it also requires detailed knowledge
measures; low economic profitability. Buckwell et al. (2020) of the biology and ecology of the pests concerned (Brévault
point out that the strategy to reduce farmers’ dependence on and Bouyer 2014). In such an approach, the different tech-
pesticides is not working well in practice. Lefebvre et al. niques can show a real synergy if they are cleverly integrated
(2015) consider that it is necessary to implement public incen- in a well delimited spatial context (Tabashnik et al. 2010).
tive policies so that farmers are truly motivated to adopt IPM, Even if it plays a significant role, the field-by-field scale is
without favoring agrochemical practices. inadequate on its own.
However, relevant ways of looking at IPM and experiences
that have worked well in the real world should be mentioned. 4.3 The IPM nebula
Thus, in order to control pest populations within a delimited
area, a variant of IPM, the “area-wide IPM” (AW-PM) has For over 50 years, the numerous definitions of IPM have
been proposed (Vreysen et al. 2007), and has been widely given rise to different interpretations, confusion and even
developed as a complement to the more frequent "field-by- abuse. Many appellations have tried to embody the systems
field IPM" approach mentioned by Spurgeon (2007). The observed in the field, depending on the level of chemical pres-
AW-PM delimited area can be large (landscape, region, coun- sure or the importance of techniques alternative to chemicals:
try, several countries), but it can also be, in principle, a closed conventional IPM, bio-intensive IPM, preventive IPM, com-
environment such as a greenhouse. AW-PM has existed for a munity IPM, zero IPM, low IPM, high IPM, ultimate IPM,
long time and has shown undeniable success on a large scale etc. Figure 7 presents, in the form of a word cloud, the thirty
(Vreysen et al. 2007). This is the case of suppression or erad- most frequently encountered IPM wordings in the literature.
ication of fruit flies, where a first phase of reducing pest pop- This confirms that IPM can be adapted to all contexts and that
ulations using different techniques, sometimes chemical, is a qualifier is often required to identify the system being re-
then followed by a second phase of eradication using other ferred to. By way of illustration, IPM is considered compatible
techniques, sometimes biological, such as the Sterile Insect both with conventional farming (Dufour 2001), which is the
Techniques. The suppression of different species of fruit flies case in most countries, but also with organic farming (Baker
Fig. 7 Word cloud representing

the diversity of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) expressions
found in the literature
et al. 2020; Haldhar et al. 2014). Perrin (1997) speaks of “zero they propose the concept of joint economic impact level
pesticide IPM” compatible with principles of crop protection (jEIL), which takes into account the economic injury level
in organic farming (Boisclair and Estevez 2006; Muneret et al. of pests, as well as the economic benefits of pollinators. This
2018; Zehnder et al. 2007). direction is supported by Egan et al. (2020), who proposed a
Alongside the success story of AW-IPM in the examples systematic framework to integrate pollinator services into
above, Ehler and Bottrell (2000) question if the philosophy IPM. They justify the existence of IPPM by the fact that
of IPM is actually applied in the field, speaking of “the IPM does not explicitly favor pollinators. In this logic of in-
illusion of IPM”; Coll and Wajnberg (2017b) discuss “dis- cluding more trophic groups in IPM, some authors have
illusionment with IPM.” Spurgeon (2007) discusses the proposed IPPPM (with predators as an additional element)
nebulous terms of IPM. (Dangles 2020, personal communication). We could sug-
Ehler (2006) distinguishes “True IPM,” which uses gest IPPPPM (including parasitoids) and could go even
chemical control only as a very last resort, from “False further (e.g., IP 6 M including pathogens and parasitic
IPM,” which is largely based on chemical control, and is plants). This highlights the limitations of pest-centric
much more widespread (Foucart 2019; Lucas et al. 2017), IPM definitions.
both in countries with intensive agriculture and in develop- Benbrook (1996), Hollingsworth and Coli (2001), and
ing countries (especially on rice and cotton). The acronym Ohmart (2009) consider IPM to be a “continuum” of practices
“IPM” has sometimes been parodied to reflect agrochemical arising from the confusion created by its many definitions. We
reality in the field, where it is simply a euphemism for pes- begin with “low IPM,” equivalent to sustainable chemical
ticide management: “Integrated Pesticide Management” control, and “False IPM” (Ehler (2006), moving to "moderate
( P e s h i n an d Z ha ng 2 0 14 ), “ I n t el l i g e n t P e s t i c i d e IPM” and “high IPM,” similar to “Genuine IPM” (Hill and al.
Management” (Nicholls and Altieri 2004), or “Improved 1999), and finally “ultimate IPM” and “true IPM” (Ehler
Pesticide Marketing” (Dufour 2001). 2006). Every crop protection practice on the planet fits into
In the ESR (Efficiency-Substitution-Redesign) approach to the innumerable systems along this IPM continuum. This no-
move from conventional to sustainable agricultural systems tion of continuum has its limits, for example when IPM itself
(Hill and MacRae 1995), most IPM definitions correspond becomes Integrated Pesticide Management—and becomes
to stage E (improving the Efficiency of chemical protection) intertwined with Integrated Resistance Management, as a
or S (essentially the Substitution of chemical pesticides by strategy to rotate synthesized active ingredients, i.e., an
other means). The “true IPM” of Ehler (2006) and the “truly efficiency-based approach heavily endorsed by the agrochem-
IPM” of Thomas (1999), with its ecological bias, correspond ical industry.
to the stage R (Redesign) because they imply a complete re- The acronym IPM is indeed so anchored in the minds of
design of the production system, as highlighted by Lechenet scientists, farmers, decision makers, industry workers,
et al. (2017a, b). trainers, and teachers, that Zalucki et al. (2009) suspect that
The fact that IPM is pest-centred inevitably requires addi- whatever approach is used in future to protect crops, it will be
tional details in its design when dealing with other trophic called IPM. In certain research institutes, it is not uncommon
groups. For example, in an attempt to optimize simultaneous to call “IPMists” all scientists working in the crop protection
management of pests and beneficial pollinators, Flöhr et al. domain.
(2018) introduced the concept of IPPM (Integrated Pest and Differences in perception have generated bottlenecks,
Pollinator Management). To help farmers in decision making, which have long been highlighted by Jeger (2000), meeting
the challenges of sustainable development. Like him, other example, studies on those that are the least dangerous for
authors (Barzman et al. 2014; Dara 2019; Ehler 2005; human health and the environment (Eddleston et al. 2002;
Hokkanen 2015; Stenberg 2017) consider that IPM has a Farrar et al. 2018; Jepson et al. 2020; Robinson et al. 2020;
political and commercial, as well as scientific and technical Whiteker 2019). This general trend, boosted by the plant pro-
component. Lucas et al. (2017) highlight the lack of coherence tection industry, endorses and helps to legitimize the use of
between science, practices, and policies in IPM. Hokkanen synthetic pesticides in crop protection and in IPM schemes.
(2015) questions the rationale behind IPM: “IPM at the cross- However, this is not necessarily the case: for example, Jepson
roads: Science, politics or business (as usual)?” Based on this et al. (2020) list a fair number of new, highly hazardous prod-
observation, IPM is not consistent and not compatible with ucts (e.g., neonicotinoids) that were initially developed for
objectives of sustainability, particularly ecological, expressed their user-friendly application methods as coatings or prophy-
above. lactics. The industry is less committed to developing environ-
mentally friendly products than is commonly believed. Unless
it is pushed by restrictive policies, there will be no easy shifts.
5 Inadequate research on IPM Pesticide research is also accompanied by studies reforms the
eco-efficiency of IPM and developing biopesticides to better
5.1 Gaps in research programs account for agroecosystem sustainability (Magarey et al.
2019; Struelens and Silvie 2020). However, expanding re-
The lack of integration in the field is also noted in scientific search into cropping system management with integrated crop
research (Birch et al. 2011; Ehler 2006; Lucas et al. 2017; protection is needed in certain continental or national plans to
Stenberg 2017). This disparity is primarily observed in the reduce pesticide use (Lamichhane et al. 2016; Lamichhane
field of academia, which is often engaged segmentally and et al. 2019). This need for integration also applies to IPM
suffers from disconnected cognitive research: the acquisition components such as genetic leverage. It needs to be empha-
of biological knowledge, the study of control techniques, etc. sized how host plant resistance is a part of the IPM pyramid
On the other hand, integrative, interdisciplinary research, for and it is a central preventative measure. A European initiative
example on aerial and soil biodiversity and its interactions is trying to launch a new area of research, “breeding for IPM,”
with agroecosystem components, landscape ecology and its by integrating varietal creation programs into the design of
renewed scales (Begg et al. 2017; Brewer and Goodell 2012; cropping systems (Lamichhane et al. 2018).
Redlich et al. 2018), socio-economic research bringing the Stenberg (2017) describes the needs of modern IPM, with
market closer to the field, social ecology, even psycho- more studies on the different techniques, especially the compat-
sociology (Hill 2014) or studies in farm support, are still very ibility and optimization of techniques—integration-oriented re-
rare (Deguine et al. 2017). search that has seen less than satisfactory results in spite of a
This lack of scientific integration has existed for decades few exceptions (Lescourret 2017). It is recognized that control
and continues today. Most of the recent works on IPM still practices interact with each other and that they can have syner-
tend to list and describe tactical solutions separately, in spe- gistic or antagonistic effects when used together. Numerous
cific contexts (Abrol 2014) rather than scientifically under- publications advocate such an approach, including, to cite but
stand the advantage of using them together to harness their one very striking example, that of Lewis et al. (1997).
synergy (Capinera 2014; Stenberg 2017; Struelens and Silvie Promoting these synergies is the challenge faced by IPM re-
2020). The same is true if we examine the experiences of the search according to Birch et al. (2011). These authors add that
past decade in which IPM has been a driving force for inno- we can only speak of “truly integrative pest management” when
vation in crop protection. Most often, studies deal separately research focuses on a complete redesign of cropping systems
with protection techniques and the results give rise to solu- and promoting biodiversity at every scale. In the same vein,
tions which can be juxtaposed but not integrated. In addition, other researchers suggest promoting cultivated or wild plant
in the majority of situations, studies are based on a single pest, biodiversity in agroecosystems, in order to strengthen not just
a single crop, a specific context, without a broader approach pest regulation but also other ecosystem services and
taking into account all pests, or even all management con- agroecosystem stability (Altieri and Nicholls 2004; Bianchi
straints faced by farmers, in a socio-technical non-generic et al. 2006; Duru et al. 2015; Ferron and Deguine 2005; Gaba
whole (Lamichhane et al. 2015; Lucas et al. 2017; Ricci et al. 2015; Hoy 2020; Hufnagel et al. 2020; Isbell et al. 2017;
et al. 2011). There are, however, some notable exceptions, Kiritani 2000, 2020; Landis 2017; Lescourret et al. 2015a;
such as the European “Pure” project on field crops, a multisite Lundgren and Fausti 2015; Malézieux et al. 2009; Ratnadass
project with comprehensive IPM solutions with diversified et al. 2012; Tilman et al. 2006).
crop sequences as an important tool (Vasileiadis et al. 2017). Frisbie and Smith Jr 1991 and Rutherford and Conlong
Finally, in the aforementioned research, use of chemicals is (2010) speak respectively of ‘biologically intensive IPM’
often widespread. Pesticide reduction policies favor, for and “bio-intensive IPM,” which consider the interactions
between the different elements of an agroecosystem and tri- points out that no IPM model takes all factors into account,
trophic interactions (pests—natural enemies—plants) on an such as farmers’ education level, socio-economic conditions,
enlarged spatial scale. This is advocated by Ratnadass et al. environmental concerns, ethical values, regulatory frame-
(2012) for crop pest control, as well as by Ahmed et al. (2016) works, public policies, availability of control techniques, ex-
for the protection of beneficial insects. tension and training, consumer preferences or market charac-
teristics. This author insists on the importance of research and
5.2 Gaps in scientific approaches a move towards “New IPM,” which includes sustainability,
management and business.
The lack of research into IPM can also be seen in the ap- IPM has also suffered from a lack of farmer involvement
proaches used. In addition to the interdisciplinarity shortcom- during research (Ohmart 2008) both in the Southern hemi-
ings mentioned above, it is often reported that IPM research sphere (Litsinger et al. 2009; Parsa et al. 2014; Waage 1998)
does not often use systemic and participatory approaches and in the Northern hemisphere (Penvern et al. 2019; Vreysen
(Barrera et al. 2020a and 2020b; Birch et al. 2011; Dara et al. 2007). With more involvement, farmers could contribute
2019; Deguine et al. 2017; Lucas et al. 2017; Stenberg to research with their wide and empirical knowledge on ben-
2017). In their study on biological control, Wyckhuys et al. eficial insects, animal pests or other living organisms, and on
(2018) provide an effective and generic conceptual framework traditional protection methods (Altieri and Nicholls 2017;
to understand IPM diffusion/adoption; in particular, these au- Wyckhuys et al. 2019a). The latter authors believe that prop-
thors highlight how only scant attention is paid to social erly training farmers on natural enemies of pests and the im-
sciences. portance of ecosystem services would reduce their depen-
Flaws in the systemic approach to IPM have long been dence on pesticides. Furthermore, by bringing together the
noted (Stenberg 2017). In an analysis of 107 publications issues faced by both researchers and farmers, they could be
published between 1991 and 2012, Schut et al. (2014) show trained on the different practices at their disposal and, above
that only a small number has systemic approach, the majority all, on the importance of making them compatible and orderly.
being technical or technological. Only a quarter of the IPM
definitions identified by Bajwa and Kogan (2002) refer to the
word “system.” In IPM, there is a predominance of a “pest- 6 Inadequate consideration of ecology in IPM
centric” perspective rather than an interdisciplinary systems/
holistic perspective (Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2019; Coll and 6.1 A move away from the roots of ecology towards
Wajnberg 2017b; Lewis et al. 1997; Rosenheim and Coll chemicals
2008; Teng and Savary 1992). In France, Ricci et al. (2011)
suggested “rethinking crop protection,” while retaining inte- Research on IPM does not sufficiently take ecological pro-
grated crop protection, the French equivalent of IPM. Ricci cesses in agroecosystems into account and therefore, their
and Messean (2015) argue for a systemic approach that “goes resilience to pests (Lucas et al. 2017; Walter 2005).
beyond the framework” of a simple substitution for pesticides. “Whatever happened to IPM?” ask Peterson et al. (2018),
In their “holistic pest management” approach, Barrera (2020a) faced with the progressive disappearance of the primary aims
consider that IPM is essentially pest-oriented, not especially of IPM, regretting in particular, like Dufour (2001), the de-
crop-oriented and even less farmer-oriented. Hoy (2020) re- cline in status of ecology since the “supervised control” of
calls that a recent query on the Web of Science for papers with Smith and Smith (1949). It may be added that there is also
keywords “agroecosystem management” (or “agroecosystems no emphasis on agronomic considerations or non-chemical
management”) and “Integrated Pest Management” (or “IPM”) prevention.
resulted in a single reference (a presentation on horticultural We note that there has been a focus on control methods in
pests from an ecological control conference). This lack of a IPM rather than on the agroecosystem as the object of IPM
systemic and holistic approach is reflected in the narrowness (Lescourret et al. 2016); this has resulted in the aforemen-
of the disciplinary spectrum of IPM, which has long lacked tioned lack of research integration, and pesticide use, driven
significant investment in the humanities and social sciences by the agropharmaceutical industry, is seen by farmers as
(Goodell 1989; Hill 2004 and 2014; Ruesink 1980). This is simple and easy to apply in the field.
really critical: IPM continues to be largely taken forward by Coll and Wajnberg (2017b) note the lack of ecology in the
mono-disciplinarians. Maybe this also shows our inability to various definitions of IPM identified by Bajwa and Kogan
effectively break “lock-ins” of farmers… Crop protection sci- (2002). In comparison, economic profitability is universal
entists alone will never be able to “unlock” this, nor will social (Onstad and Crain 2019). As a result, over the 60 years of
scientists if they act alone. This lack also reflects the need to IPM’s existence, ecology, which is largely incompatible with
fill the gap between researchers and farmers (Sherman and the use of chemicals, has been neglected. Moreover, in cases
Gent 2014; Zalom 1993). Dara (2019) goes even further and where the concept of ecology is used in IPM,
environmentalism is referenced more often than ecology, i.e., 7 Agroecological Crop Protection (ACP):
the aim to reduce negative environmental impacts (Lucas et al. towards a paradigm shift
2017), rather than using ecological processes to replace chem-
ical pesticides (Geiger et al. 2010; Lescourret et al. 2015b; 7.1 Origins and definition of ACP
Ratnadass and Barzman 2014). At most, pest population dy-
namics (which indeed pertains to the scientific field of popu- The basic principles of ACP have different sources, but have
lation ecology) are studied in order to set economic thresholds. ecology as their foundation, as many authors have suggested
Over several decades, Stuart Hill has highlighted a lack of (see above). The biological and agronomic components of
ecology in the humanities and social sciences: he has always ecology (Hénin 1966, cited by Sébillotte 2006) are also
campaigned to promote social ecology and psycho-economics superimposed on social and organizational ecology, which
in IPM (Hill 2004 and 2014; Hill et al. 1999) in order to can be described as social ecology (Hill 2004; Huxley
change food systems. 1964). In addition, the principles of ACP are identical to the
principles of agroecology from which they originate and they
are also inspired by certain principles of crop protection used
6.2 Calls for more ecology in crop protection in organic agriculture or in permaculture. Finally, ACP takes
into account the lessons of half a century of crop protection
Since the start of the millennium, the harmful effects of under the aegis of IPM.
pesticides on human health have been assessed and have ACP is a simple concept to define and to understand: it is
become major concerns (Bourguet and Guillemaud 2016; the application of agroecology to crop protection. Like agro-
Eddleston et al. 2002; Hoppin and LePrevost 2017; UN ecology (Wezel et al. 2009), ACP has 3 dimensions. It is a
2017; Schäffer et al. 2018). Thus, today, the issues of eco- scientific discipline, an ordered strategy of cropping practices,
logical sustainability of agroecosystems and respect for and a sociological movement within a socio-ecological frame-
health are as important as the “classic” issues of sustainable work of food systems.
development (social, economic, environmental) (Barbier Scientifically, ACP is a concept of crop protection based on
1987; Dasgupta 2007; Schäffer et al. 2018; Purvis et al. cropping systems whose aim is to improve the sustainability
2019) and a new paradigm of agriculture is needed which of agroecosystems by taking into account their ecological
recognizes agriculture's multiple roles in the development functioning. ACP aims to promote the ecological health of
of these fields (Byerlee et al. 2009). agroecosystems by directly or indirectly optimizing interac-
For several decades, authors have called for greater focus tions between living (plant, animal, microbial) communities
on ecology in IPM. Some have proposed an “ecologically- both below and above the ground. ACP is built on two pillars,
based IPM” (Kennedy and Sutton 2000; Koul and Cuperus biodiversity (both aerial and edaphic) and soil health, in order
2007), others a “truly IPM” (Thomas 1999). Other authors to make agroecosystem less susceptible to biotic stresses.
suggest developing the relationship with Pest Management, ACP aims to improve the health of agroecosystems by encour-
therefore a more pest-centred IPM: ecologically based pest aging practices which enhance ecosystem services (Power
management (Altieri and Nicholls 2003; Brévault et al. 2010), such as pest regulation (Hoy 2020). Researchers have
2014; Zhao et al. 2016). Finally, other authors propose similar known of these principles for a very long time, but have rarely
“Pest Management” approaches: a more environmentally taken them into account.
friendly approach [e.g., Environmental Pest Management The agronomic dimension of ACP is a strategy which is
(Coll and Wajnberg 2017a)], a more agroecological approach applied in an explicit and orderly way on the ground (Deguine
[e.g., ecological pest management; ecological pest control; and Ratnadass 2017). Here, absolute priority is given to pre-
agroecological approaches for pest management (Altieri ventive measures, both space- and time-wise, within a
1980; Altieri and Nicholls 2017; Brzozowski and Mazourek redesigned agroecosystem framework (Ratnadass 2020) in-
2018; Hill 2004; Kogan and Jepson 2007; Lemos et al. 2011; cluding prophylaxis, varietal resistance or tolerance (Begg
Reddy 2017; Zhao et al. 2016; Wyckhuys et al. 2020b)] or et al. 2017; Simon et al. 2014), the improvement of soil quality
even a more systemic and holistic approach such as holistic and health and, of course, biodiversity via habitat manage-
pest management (Barrera 2020a, b; Malézieux 2017). ment or diversified farming systems (Gurr et al. 2017;
Deguine et al. (2009) endorse a “crop-centred” rather than Landis et al. 2000; Lichtenberg et al. 2017; Tilman et al.
“pest-centred” approach and call for a major change of course, 2012); phytosanitary and cropping techniques such as preven-
transitioning from agrochemical crop protection to tive physical control or direct seeding complementing a
Agroecological Crop Protection (ACP). This represents the phytosanitary and agroecosystem health assessment based
application of agroecology to crop protection, both scientifi- on field observations. If curative measures are to be used,
cally and practically and is described in detail (Deguine et al. chemical pesticides should be mandatory should be governed
2017). by regulations, and used within very strict criteria [(notably
using active ingredients which are less harmful to the environ- agroecosystem performance beyond simple pest regulation,
ment (Guedes et al. 2016)]; local applications to small areas by enhancing multiple ecosystem services through the
only). In addition, the broad and integrative approach of ACP mobilisation of biodiversity in ecosystem functions.
makes it possible to consider the use of, alongside agroeco-
logical practices, traditional physical, biological, and genetic 7.2 Case studies
techniques as well as more recent technological innovations in
crop protection such as biocontrol products, decision support Pioneering experiments took place in cotton cultivation at the
tools, and robotics. small farm level in Africa between 1990 and 2000, when it
The third dimension of ACP is its role in agroecological became impossible to control populations of phloem-feeding
transition towards more robust food systems (Hamm 2009). insects (in particular the aphid Aphis gossypii and the whitefly
ACP is a set of interactions, in a social, institutional and eco- Bemisia tabaci), even after heavy insecticide applications. The
logical context, by different stakeholders involved in crop agroecological approach made it possible to manage aphid
protection: farmers, researchers, decision-makers, policy- populations and eliminated foliar applications of insecticides
makers, advisors, buyers, consumers, processors, (Deguine et al. 1994, 2000, 2008). The approach was extend-
agrosuppliers, trainers, and teachers. These interactions are a ed to all phloem-feeding insects of cotton (Deguine et al.
generic character of agroecology’s sociological effects. Some 2008).
of the components, however, are specific to crop protection The first ACP experiences in intensive farming took place
because pesticides, biological control, genetically modified between 2000 and 2010 in Reunion on mango, courgette and
plants or biodiversity have both professional and personal chayote crops (Deguine et al. 2015 and 2018). These experi-
resonance among stakeholders. This social dimension is based ences brought together members of the agricultural profession
on the ecological and socio-economic bases of cropping sys- and placed producers at the center of the system. It enabled
tems, socio-technical systems and food systems proposed by comparisons of the performance of conventional horticultural
Hamm (2009), Hill (2004), Hoy (2015), Hoy et al. (2016), cropping systems (i.e., using agrochemicals), with agroeco-
Prokopy (1994) and Vialatte et al. (2019). Actors act in dif- logical cropping systems. The results of these experiments
ferent spheres of influence, but they are also influenced by were significant and encouraging, and provided valuable les-
them. These spheres may include personal values, markets, sons for the agroecological transition which is taking place
regulations, the landscape, farm, field and knowledge. now (Deguine et al. 2019). Insecticide and herbicide treat-
There is a large continuum between IPM and ACP. ments have been greatly reduced or even eliminated. On 13
Figures 8 and 9 show via spider graphs differences between mango plantations observed during 3 campaigns (from 2012
the two paradigms, according respectively to the ESR to 2014), TFI (treatment frequency index, standardized num-
framework (Hill and MacRae 1995; Dupré et al. (2017) ber of pesticide treatments for a given production) decreased
and to six ecosystem services (Ratnadass 2020). In particu- from 22.4 to 0.3. On courgette (Cucurbita pepo, also called
lar, Fig. 9 illustrates the ability of ACP to address overall zucchini or baby marrow), the pyrethroid-organophosphorus
Fig. 8 Spider graph showing the

positioning (on 0–75% scale
axes) of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) and
Agroecological Crop Protection
(ACP) according to their
respective share between the
components of the E-S-R
framework (Hill and MacRae
1995). « E » stands for increased «
Efficiency » (of synthetic inputs);
« S » for « Substitution » (of
synthetic inputs by alternative
inputs split into off-farm and on-
farm: cf. Dupré et al. 2017), « R »
for « re-design »
Fig. 9 Spider graph showing the positioning (on 0–40 % scale axes) of of ES, not only the virtually only plant biomass (namely 4F: Food, Feed,
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Agroecological Crop Protection Fiber & Fuel) and pest and disease regulation ES (adapted from
(ACP) according to their respective contributions to six types of Ratnadass 2020). One should note that in absolute value, this is not at
ecosystem services (ES), reflecting the contribution of ACP to a range the expense of these two ES
combination applied weekly to the crop at a dose of 495 g ha-1 7.3 Moving from IPM to ACP
has been replaced by spot spraying of a biological insecticide
(spinosad) on trap plants at less than one gram per dose. On During the transition to ACP, each professional will face dif-
chayote (Sechium edule, also called cho-cho) insecticide and ficulties and advantages compared to IPM. For researchers,
herbicide applications have been completely eliminated. the first hurdle is to convince stakeholders and partners that
Savings on labor are also significant: a 9% reduction on cour- ACP is not just another concept with little improvement over
gette and chayote, 28% on mango. Protection costs were re- IPM (in terms of break with pesticides, for example), nor
duced by 72% for courgette, 100% for chayote and by 66% for simply wishful thinking coming to nought in practice because
mango. Yield increased by over 45% for courgette and cha- it is based on principles (in particular the substitution of non-
yote and did not change for mango (Deguine et al. 2015 and renewable inputs with ecological processes) which have not
2018). In addition, in-depth ecological studies conducted on been proven for all production situations. A second difficulty
functional biodiversity in mango orchards over three years is predicting the success rate and economic benefits of ACP: it
have shown that instead of a few pests and weed species seen is far more complex than predicting the effectiveness and eco-
in agrochemical orchards, nearly 800 morpho-species of ar- nomic return of pesticides in conventional agriculture. The
thropods and more than a hundred spontaneous herbaceous cost of ACP practices and the economic benefits of the regu-
plants were observed in agroecological orchards (Deguine lating services they provide need to be assessed, and this re-
et al. 2018). In Reunion, public policies have taken up the mains a challenge (Bommarco et al. 2013). Yet another diffi-
torch from technical measures in the field and now offer in- culty for researchers is getting the ACP message across in the
centives, with good results. Global south hemisphere countries (ACP originates from the
Other agroecological pest management experiences have Northern hemisphere), because some of these countries, par-
taken place on different crops in mainland or overseas ticularly in sub-Saharan Africa, did not experience the Green
France and in several tropical countries during the last decade Revolution, and might see it as being denied access to effec-
(Deguine et al. 2017). Six of these experiences are shown in tive technologies. This is an already controversial issue for
Fig. 10, arranged by life history traits of the pests being stud- agroecology in general. A final, more theoretical, difficulty
ied (specificity and dispersal capacity), implementation scales is that in order to develop outwardly “simple” techniques
of regulatory processes: from soil to field (and its close vicin- (which may be perceived as retrograde by some), researchers
ity), then up to the landscape scale as well as their contribution have to deploy extremely complex analytical tools. New skills
to the 4 stages of agroecological transition described by and approaches are needed, protocols for data collection have
Ratnadass (2017). to be renewed, new disciplines invested in such as ecology
Fig. 10 Positioning of 6 Agroecological Crop Protection (ACP) case Jeannequin 2017); 2) Agroecological management of tomato bacterial
studies according to : i) the 4 agroecological transition keys (on 0– wilt in Martinique (Deberdt and Fernandes 2017); 3) Resident
100% scales); ii) pest life history traits (specificity and dispersal vegetation cover management to control apple orchard pests in France
capacity) and implementation scales of regulation processes (soil— (Simon et al. 2017b); 4) Agroecological management of mango fruit flies
field—landscape). Agroecological transition keys: SAM = selection and in Benin (Sinzogan et al. 2017); 5) Agroecological management of
adaptation of methods; GIK = generation and integration of knowledge; banana pests in the Dominican Republic (Gandini et al. 2017); 6)
IEP = implementation and evaluation of practices; TKT = training and Agroecological management of soil-dwelling pests of upland rice in
knowledge transfer. Case studies: 1. Agroecological management of soil- Madagascar (Randriamanantsoa and Ratnadass 2017)
borne pathogens on greenhouse vegetable crops in France (Faloya and
(e.g., chemical, community, functional, and landscape ecolo- Acquiring such tools and skills takes time and a certain capac-
gy), but also modeling, biomathematics or participatory re- ity to adapt. Conversely, this aforementioned difficulty can be
search. In IPM, modeling efforts have greatly focused on taken by researchers as a highly motivating challenge.
threshold-based decision-making to help triger pesticide treat- For producers, transition to ACP generally leads to a struc-
ments (e.g., Zadoks 1981). In that sense, modeling contributed tured and orderly reorganization of their practices as com-
to the continued presence of the agrochemical industry in IPM pared to conventional solutions, which are deemed more man-
programmes. Modeling also plays a key role in ACP, but with ageable and less risky, at least in the short term. ACP is seen
different purposes. The main role of models for ACP is to by many farmers as a “leap into the unknown,” especially in
handle the highest biological complexity of pesticide-free the absence of risk insurance. There is also the psychosocial
agroecosystems. Such models notably take into account the issue and perception that ACP is less “high tech” than other
impact of cropping practices on the biological component of approaches, which can even give the impression of taking a
agroecosystems (e.g., Deguine et al. 2021) and thus help de- step backwards (vis-à-vis other producers). In addition, using
sign ACP-based cropping systems. Like for IPM, a secondary indigenous beneficial organisms can be perceived by the farm-
role of models for ACP is to help threshold-based decision- er as losing control of cropping system management, even
making for curative treatments as a last resort (but not espe- worsened by the fact that the effect of these “invisible” bene-
cially for chemical use). The main differences between models ficial organisms is not as immediate and observable as using
used for IPM and models used for ACP are the underlying pesticides, or physical measures such as anti-insect nets.
conceptual frameworks, which represent more or less An advantage is that producers may see their profession as
explicitely the ecological functioning of the agroecosystems being upgraded by transitioning to ACP, which translates into
considered agroecosystems. Increasingly, researchers adopt the management of complex and diversified systems, the pres-
new modes of thinking, for example, to take into account the ervation of the environment and the safeguarding of human
option by context interactions (Sinclair and Coe 2019). health, namely a very positive image of their responsibilities,
above and beyond their mere role of food producers. Another permanent interactions between the groups involved (from
advantage for researchers is the fact that ACP meets the ex- farmer to consumer), in dynamic, robust food systems.
pectations of society (especially consumers) and current envi- In general, the transition to ACP is based on four mutually
ronmental policies (decision-makers and donors). Resources reinforcing pillars: i) choice and adaptation of practices; ii)
and dedicated facilities are therefore allocated to research integration of knowledge, iii) implementation and evaluation;
(e.g., funds from Ecophyto, the French national action plan iv) training and diffusion of knowledge (Deguine et al. 2017).
for pesticide reduction; calls for projects from certain private In order to implement ACP on the ground, a set of basic
foundations). In this context, ACP researchers have a vocation practices can be used, primarily preventively. These tech-
both to inform policy, but also to feed the message carried by niques are not to be implemented simultaneously, but must
extension workers and advisers. rather be chosen, adapted and integrated in an orderly manner
Experiences in ACP in recent years make it possible to in reasoned cropping systems with the aim of establishing a
identify necessary generic conditions and lessons for the de- suite of ecosystem services. Knowledge should therefore be
sign and implementation of future agroecological experiments integrated whether it comes from field or laboratory, regional
in different contexts. Deguine et al. (2019) therefore proposed agricultural diagnoses, simulations, expertise or scientific and
a list of certain conditions which are necessary, but not suffi- technical articles. This can require qualitative modeling such
cient, for the development of large-scale agroecological ex- as that based on the IPSIM platform (Aubertot and Robin
periments: i) awareness and motivation of agricultural groups 2013). This innovative approach has the advantage of democ-
and other stakeholders, starting with producers. This impor- ratizing modeling activities and bridges the gap between sci-
tant work is undertaken by technical partners, each with entists and other stakeholders involved in ACP. This knowl-
means and tools; ii) a unifying phytosanitary problem, with edge sharing makes it possible to better adapt cropping sys-
either a socio-economic or environmental deadlock, or the tems to production situations with different physical, biologi-
possibility of taking a significant step towards the adoption cal, chemical, and socio-economic requirements (Aubertot
of greener agroecological practices with access to new mar- and Robin 2013) and to the farmer’s own objectives. Once
kets that such a move would provide; iii) research capacity, these systems have been designed, they should be implement-
which will improve the scope and content of research, leading ed either through gradual modification of existing systems, or
to the integration of new, better scientific knowledge; iv) syn- through a brand new design (Meynard et al. 2012). Each per-
ergy between research and development to bring together the formance measure of these systems must then be assessed
complementary activities of partners (research, experimenta- using a multiple criteria method such as the one proposed by
tion, training, teaching, advice, transfer); v) a research and Deytieux et al. (2015).
development project in partnership—the preparation and or- The development of ACP requires continually advancing
ganization of which would require several conditions to be operational and actionable knowledge. It is therefore impor-
met (collective sharing of circumstances, co-design of pro- tant that the initial basic training is continuously updated
grams to be implemented, coordination of actions by a transfer through formal training, self-training books, technical journals
organization); vi) a systemic and participatory approach (Fig. or online resources, and through regular exchange with other
11), at the right spatio-temporal scales and with revised members of the profession: farmers, agricultural advisers, de-
criteria which take into account the ecological sustainability velopment engineers or researchers (Deguine et al. 2017). It is
of agroecosystems; vii) support from public authorities both also important that knowledge is accessible to other groups:
before and during the agroecological transition period; viii) representatives of cooperatives, extension organisations,
Fig. 11 Participatory research approach in the framework of the design of results. 2. Role-playing allowing farmers to be confronted with situations
an Agroecological Crop Protection (ACP) experiment (mango orchards to be managed. 3. Collective monitoring of pest and beneficial
in Réunion, France). 1. Discussion in the field between researchers, populations in an orchard. Photos: © Jean-Philippe Deguine—CIRAD
farmers and advisors to compare the results obtained with the expected
Fig. 12 From Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to Agroecological R = Re-design); Tittonell 2014 (CS = Current systems; EE = Eco-
Crop Protection (ACP). Transition between agrochemical pest efficiency; IS = Input substitution; SR = System re-design; AE L&FS =
management and healthy agroecosystem & food system management. agroecological landscapes and food systems); Gliessman 2016 (Level 1 =
This figure shows the objects of study and the concerns that are the Increase the efficiency of industrial and conventional practices; Level 2 =
main focus of IPM and ACP, as well as scales of reasoning and Substitute alternative practices for industrial/conventional inputs and
practice. The figure is based on the conceptual approaches of the practices—levels 1 and 2 focus on the protection system only; Level 3
following authors: Prokopy 1994 (P1 = IPM within a single class of = Redesign the agroecosystem so that it functions on the basis of a new set
pests; P2 = IPM across all classes of pests; P3 = IPM in concert with of ecological processes; Level 4 = Re-establish a more direct connection
practices; P4 = IPM in relation to psychological, social, political and legal between those who grow our food and those who consume it; Level 5 =
constraints); Hill and MacRae 1995 (E = Efficiency ; S = Substitution ; Construction of a new global food system)
public authorities and consumers. Tools for dissemination and Today, IPM has arguably reached its limits (as suggested
extension of ACP, including training approaches such as field- in Fig. 6) and the people who have worked in IPM, includ-
schools and other participatory schemes build on what worked ing the authors of this review, have completed their mission
for IPM. It should also benefit from the development of digital (Barrera 2020a). Recent years have seen emerging calls for
learning platforms and other novel communication tools. All a “green revolution,” biodiversity-friendly agriculture,
these interactions should contribute to the development of transformative change in global food systems, or the need
social and organizational ecology and robust food systems for sustainable food production to enable all to benefit from
(Hamm 2009). healthy diets (Beddington 2010; Pretty et al. 2018; Willett
et al. 2019). We now believe a change of course is neces-
sary: an intellectual revolution and a break with current
8 Conclusion practices. Generally, concepts evolve in small adjustments
and turns, but sometimes a genuine revolution is necessary,
Overall, despite 6 decades of good intentions, harsh realities i.e., when a concept no longer suits the context and chal-
need to be faced for the future: i) the numerous definitions of lenges of a sector. This requires a paradigm shift, proposed
IPM have resulted in confusion and different interpretations by Kuhn (1962): a new, defined and recognized scientific
by members of the profession; ii) inconsistencies between concept, bringing together a large number of researchers
the concept of IPM and practices and public policies are espousing the new approach and proposing new solutions
widely-recognized; iii) unguided (often prophylactic) to the problems encountered by farmers in the field. Like
chemical control remains the cornerstone of many IPM pro- other authors (e.g., Letourneau et al. 2017), on the ground it
grams; iv) the use of chemical control only as a last resort (as seems to us that radical changes in crop protection are now
per IPM guidelines) is rarely adopted by farmers; v) IPM needed, instead of the small adjustments made to IPM,
research is often inadequate, both in programs and scientific which supported various forms of agriculture, including in-
approaches; vi) ecology is not sufficiently taken into ac- tensive agriculture, based on monoculture and large quanti-
count in IPM. ties of inputs, particularly pesticides.
Agriculture is today faced with severe ecological, sanitary, protection takes priority in crop system management, whose
social, economic and environmental challenges. We are pro- aim is to produce healthy plants in robust agroecosystems.
posing a paradigm shift by endorsing the universal adoption of Finally, ACP also represents a profound change in scien-
ACP—the application of agroecology to crop protection. Like tific approaches, crop protection and its associated measures.
agroecology, ACP has 3 aspects: it is an interdisciplinary sci- Redefined and sustainable research programs and approaches
ence; an organized strategy of agronomic practices; a form of and a broad and systematic phytosanitary strategy in the field
social ecology combining the stances and interactions of food are vital to agroecological transition. To ensure a complete
system stakeholders. Drawing on the work of Prokopy (1994), transition from IPM to ACP rather than small adjustments,
Hill and MacRae (1995), Tittonell (2014) and Gliessman we can use the ESR approach developed by Hill and
(2016), Fig. 12 shows the multifactorial development of the MacRae (1995), updated and adapted to crop protection
IPM continuum into ACP, highlighting trends in protection, (DeLonge et al. 2016; Hill 2004 and 2014; Hill et al. 1999).
approaches, scales, and levels of action. Replacing conventional chemical control (Integrated Pesticide
Compared to pest management concepts that have crossed Management) is not a simple question of improving its effi-
the last six decades, ACP is based on agroecological princi- ciency (E) or substituting it with other methods (S), including
ples, taking ecology as its guiding principle. ACP is not pest- biological control, in a curative approach. The objective is to
centred and seeks to promote agroecosystem health, which is apply truly profound preventive ecological solutions (Hill
reflected in recent guidelines (FAO 2020). ACP can benefit 2004), by redesigning (R) cropping systems, even if some
from relevant strategies such as AW-IPM, which allows a authors advocate modification of crop succession as an essen-
large-scale preventive approach to be complemented with cu- tial element of crop control in IPM strategies (Bajwa and
rative tactics at plot level, while involving national or regional Kogan 2004; Palti 1981). This alternative can make use of
organizations and different actors in society (Vreysen et al. biological control, especially conservation biological control,
2007). In this respect, and facing dangerous, invasive, polyph- which significantly contributes to restoring agroecosystems
agous and highly mobile pests, e.g., the oriental fruit fly regulation (Wyckhuys et al. 2013).
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), the large-scale agroecological However, a broader issue is the redesign of socio-technical
preventive strategy of ACP could be judiciously systems, from field to market, within food systems (Hoy et al.
complemented by curative and local practices in a “multi-crop 2016). In the momentum of food system development, Hill
centred” approach when necessary. Finally, there are decision (2004 and 2014) underlines the need to consider social ecol-
rules in the ACP phytosanitary strategy to be applied in the ogy, as defined by Huxley (1964), in addition to organic and
field which warn against advancing to the next stage unless agronomic ecology. This is confirmed by DeLonge et al.
the previous one has been implemented. (2016) in order to facilitate the transition to sustainable food
ACP represents a real change of course and requires the systems.
redesign of entire farming systems using a “cropping system- In this redesign, crop protection is only one component,
oriented” approach (Ratnadass 2020). One can assert that and it is subdivided into two stages: i) deconstruction of the
ACP has similarities with the concepts of ecological intensifi- pesticide-based pest management plan and ii) introduction of a
cation (Bommarco et al. 2013; Doré et al. 2011; Ratnadass new management scheme for the agroecosystem, consistent
and Barzman 2014; Tittonell 2014) and Japanese IBM over the entire food system, and focusing on biological, agro-
(Kiritani 2000). We also note the perfect coherence with the nomic and social ecology. The objective is the creation of
contributions from soil health and biodiversity to ecosystem healthy ecosystems and productive, sustainable, fair and resil-
services and bundles of services (Petit and Lescourret 2019). ient agroecosystems (Hoy 2015), based on optimized interac-
The transition from IPM to ACP requires both words and tions between plant, animal and microbial communities,
action. The words adopted by ACP illustrate its systemic, which contribute to crop health (Vega et al. 2020). As a con-
multi-scale and participatory approach, as proposed by sequence, the large reduction in pesticide use observed in full-
Meynard et al. (2012). Unlike IPM and its countless variants, scale experiments (Deguine et al. 2015 and 2018) is no longer
which are “pest-oriented” (Pest Management), the acronym seen as an objective, but simply as a positive effect of a
ACP is "crop-oriented" (Crop Protection) and implies a sys- healthy agroecosystem. Finally, healthy agroecosystems in-
temic approach (cropping system-oriented). ACP clearly indi- tentionally safeguard the ecological resilience of farming sys-
cates a direction of travel where ecosystem services are pro- tems and are a core constituent of sustainable food systems
moted, a holistic approach with priority given to the design of (Hamm 2009; Hoy et al. 2016).
ecologically healthy agroecosystems (Deguine and Penvern
2014; Hoy 2015; Wezel et al. 2014). Crop protection is built
on bioecological balances arising from multiple interactions Acknowledgements We thank Philippe Lucas and Pierre Ferron, who
encouraged us to carry out this review and who supported us in our
between the plant, animal, and microbial communities present
reflections. We also thank Antoine Frank (CIRAD) and Christophe
in agroecosystems (both in and above the soil). As such, crop
Maître (INRAE) for allowing us to use the photos (respectively Figs. 1 Altieri MA (1995) Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture.
and 2). Thanks also to our colleagues Jérémy Bouyer (CIRAD), Eric Westview Press, Boulder
Justes (CIRAD), and Olivier Dangles (IRD) who kindly reread the man- Altieri MA (2004) Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in the search
uscript before its submission. In addition, we would like to thank the for sustainable agriculture. Front Ecol Environ 2:35–42. https://doi.
Managing Editor of Agronomy for Sustainable Development and the four org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0035:LEATFI]2.0.CO;2
anonymous reviewers for their comments which helped us improve this Altieri MA, Martin PB, Lewis WJ (1983) A quest for ecologically based
manuscript. pest management systems. Environ Manage 7:91–99. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF01867047
Code availability Not applicable. Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2003) Ecologically based pest management: a
key pathway to achieving agroecosystem health. In: Managing for
Author contribution Conceptualization, J.-P.D. and A.R.; Methodology, Healthy Ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 993–1004
J.-P.D., J.-N.A., R.J.F., F.L., K.W., A.R.; Investigation, J.-P.D., R.J.F., Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2004) Biodiversity and Pest Management in
A.R.; Writing—Original draft, J.-P.D., R.J.F., A.R.; Review and Editing, Agroecosystems. The Haworth Press, New York
J.-P.D., J.-N.A., F.L., K.W.; Funding acquisition, J.-P.D., J.-N.A.; Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2017) Agroecological foundations for pest man-
Resources : J.-P.D., J.-N.A., A.R.; Supervision, J.-P.D., K.W., A.R. agement in the tropics: learning from traditional farmers. In:
Integrated Pest Management in Tropical Regions. CABI,
Data availability All the data used to write this bibliographic review Wallingford, pp 6–17
come from the publications listed in the reference list below. Alwang J, Norton G, Larochelle C (2019) Obstacles to widespread dif-
fusion of IPM in developing countries: Lessons from the field. J
Integr Pest Manage 10:10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmz008
Declarations Anderson JR, Feder G (2004) Agricultural Extension: good Intentions
and hard Realities. World Bank Res Obs 19:41–60. https://doi.org/
Ethics approval The authors approve. 10.1093/wbro/lkh013
Andrews KL, Bentley JW, Cave RD (1992) Enhancing biological con-
Consent to participate The authors consent to participate. trol's contributions to integrated pest management through appropri-
ate levels of farmer participation. Fla Entomol 75:429–439. https://
Consent for publication The authors consent for publication. doi.org/10.2307/3496124
Aubertot J-N, Barbier J-M, Carpentier A, Gril J-J, Guichard L, Lucas P,
Voltz M (eds) (2005) Pesticides, agriculture et environnement.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Réduire l’utilisation des pesticides et en limiterles impacts
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons environnementaux. Quae, Versailles
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- Aubertot J-N, Robin M-H (2013) Injury Profile SIMulator, a qualitative
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as aggregative modelling framework to predict crop injury profile as a
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- function of cropping practices, and the abiotic and biotic environ-
vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were ment. I. Conceptual bases. PloS One 8:e73202. https://doi.org/10.
made. The images or other third party material in this article are included 1371/journal.pone.0073202
in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a Bagavathiannan MV, Graham S, Ma Z, Barney JN, Coutts SR, Caicedo
credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's AL, De Clerck-Floate R, West NM, Blank L, Metcalf AL, Lacoste
Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by M, Moreno CR, Evans JA, Burke I, Beckie H (2019) Considering
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain weed management as a social dilemma bridges individual and col-
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this lective interests. Nat plants 5:343–351. https://doi.org/10.1038/
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. s41477-019-0395-y
Bajwa WI, Kogan M (2002) Compendium of IPM Definitions (CID).
What is IPM and how is it defined in the Worldwide Literature?
Integrated Plant Protection Center (IPPC). Oregon State University,
Corvallis. Publication Number 998
Bajwa WI, Kogan M (2004) Cultural practices: springboard to IPM. In:
References Integrated Pest Management: potential, constraints and challenges.
CABI, Wallinford, pp. 21-38
Baker BP, Green TA, Loker AJ (2020) Biological control and integrated
Abate T, van Huis A, Ampofo JKO (2000) Pest management strategies in
pest management in organic and conventional systems. Biol Control
traditional agriculture: an African perspective. Annu Rev Entomol
140:104095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104095
Annual 45:631–659. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.631
Bakker T, Dugué P, de Tourdonnet S (2021) Assessing the effects of
Abrol DP (2014) Integrated Pest Management: Current Concepts and
farmer field schools on farmers’ trajectories of change in practices.
Ecological Perspective. Academic Press, San Diego
Agron Sustain Dev 41:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-
Abrol DP, Shankar U (2012) Integrated pest management: Principles and 00667-2
practice. CABI, Wallingford
Baldi I, Bouvier G, Cordier S, Coumoul X, Elbaz A, Gamet-Payrastre L,
Ahmed KS, Majeed MZ, Haidary AA, Haider N (2016) Integrated pest Lebailly P, Multigner L, Rahmani R, Spinosi J, van Maele-Fabry G
management tactics and predatory coccinellids: A review. J Entomol (2013) Pesticides. Effets sur la santé. Synthèse et recommandations.
Zool Stud 4:591–600 Expertise collective. INSERM, Paris
Altieri MA (1980) The need for an agroecological approach to pest man- Barbier EB (1987) The concept of sustainable economic development.
agement. Environ Manage 4:467–468 Environ Conserv 14:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Altieri MA (1989) Agroecology: A new research and development para- S0376892900011449
digm for world agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 27:37–46. Barratt BIP, Moran VC, Bigler F, van Lenteren JC (2018) The status of
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(89)90070-4 biological control and recommendations for improving uptake for
the future. Biol Control 63:155–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Bonny S (1997) L’agriculture raisonnée, l’agriculture intégrée et Farre-
s10526-017-9831-y Forum de l’agriculture raisonnée respectueuse de l’environnement.
Barducci TB (1972) Ecological consequences of pesticides used for the Natures Sciences Sociétés 5:64–71
control of cotton insects in Canete Valley, Peru. In: The Careless Bottrell DG (1996) The Research Challenge for Integrated Pest
Technology: Ecology and international development. The Natural Management in Developing Countries: A Perspective for Rice in
History Press, Garden City, pp 423–438 Southeast Asial. J Agric Entomol 13:185–193
Barrera JF (2020a) Holistic Pest Management. In: Aera-wide manage- Bottrell DR, Bottrell DG (1979) Integrated pest management. Council on
ment of fruit fly pests CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 275-293 Environmental Quality. Washington, DC
Barrera JF (2020b) Introduction: Beyond IPM. In: Beyond IPM: Bottrell DG, Schoenly KG (2012) Resurrecting the ghost of green revo-
Introduction to the Theory of Holistic Pest Management. lutions past: the brown planthopper as a recurring threat to high-
Sustainability in Plant and Crop Protection. Springer, pp. 1-8 yielding rice production in tropical Asia. J Asia-Pac Entomol 15:
Barzman M, Bàrberi P, Birch ANE, Boonekamp P, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh 122–140
S, Graf B, Hommel B, Jensen JE, Kiss J, Kudsk P, Lamichhane JR, Bourguet D, Guillemaud T (2016) The hidden and external costs of pes-
Messéan A, Moonen AC, Ratnadass A, Ricci P, Sarah JL, Sattin M ticide use. Sustain Agric Rev 19:35–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/
(2015) Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agron 978-3-319-26777-7_2
Sustain Dev 35:1199–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015- Brévault T, Bouyer J (2014) From integrated to system-wide pest man-
0327-9 agement: Challenges for sustainable agriculture. Outlooks Pest
Barzman MS, Bertschinger L, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Graf B, Jensen JE, Manage 25:212–213. https://doi.org/10.1564/v25_jun_05
Jorgensen LN, Kudsk P, Messéan A, Moonen AC, Ratnadass A, Brévault T, Renou A, Vayssieres J-F, Amadji G, Assogba-Komlan F,
Sarah JL, Sattin M (2014) IPM policy, research and implementation: Diallo M-D, De Bon H, Diarra K, Hamadoun A, Huat J, Marnotte
European initiatives. In: Peshin R, Pimentel D (eds) Integrated Pest P, Menozzi P, Prudent P, Rey J-Y, Sall D, Silvie P, Simon S,
Management, Experiences with Implementation, Global Overview Sinzogan A, Soti V, Tamòo M, Clouvel P (2014) DIVECOSYS:
4. Springer, London, pp 415–428 Bringing together researchers to design ecologically-based pest
Bassil KL, Vakil C, Sanborn M, Cole DC, Kaur JS, Kerr KJ (2007) management for small-scale farming systems in West Africa. Crop
Cancer health effects of pesticides: systematic review. Can Fam Prot 66:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.08.017
Physician 53:1704–1711 Brewer MJ, Goodell PB (2012) Approaches and incentives to implement
Beddington J (2010) Food security: contributions from science to a new integrated pest management that addresses regional and environ-
and greener revolution. Philos T R Soc B 365:61–71. https://doi.org/ mental issues. Annu Rev Entomol 57:41–59. https://doi.org/10.
10.1098/rstb.2009.0201 1146/annurev-ento-120709-144748
Begg GS, Cook SM, Dye R, Ferrante M, Franck P, Lavigne C, Lovei GL, Brzozowski L, Mazourek MA (2018) Sustainable Agricultural Future
Mansion-Vaquie A, Pell JK, Petit S, Quesada N, Ricci B, Wratten Relies on the Transition to Organic Agroecological Pest
SD, Birch ANE (2017) A functional overview of conservation bio- Management. Sustainability-Basel 10:2023. https://doi.org/10.
logical control. Crop Prot 97:145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 3390/su10062023
cropro.2016.11.008 Buckwell A, De Wachter E, Nadeu E, Williams A (2020) Crop Protection
Bellon S, de Sainte MC, Lauri PE, Navarette M, Nesme T, Plénet D, & the EU Food System. Where are they going? RISE Foundation,
Pluvinage J, Habib R (2006) La production fruitière intégrée : le Brussels
vert est-il dans le fruit ? Le Courrier de l’Environnement de Burdon FJ, Munz NA, Reyes M, Focks A, Joss A, Rasanen K, Altermatt
l’INRA, Paris, pp 5–18 https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02656625 F, Eggen RIL, Stamm C (2019) Agriculture versus wastewater pol-
Benbrook CM (1996) Pest management at Crossroads. Consumers lution as drivers of macroinvertebrate community structure in
Union, Yonkers streams. Sci Total Environ 659:1256–1265. https://doi.org/10.
Bentley JW (1989) What farmers don't know can't help them: The 1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.372
strengths and weaknesses of indigenous technical knowledge in Byerlee D, de Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2009) Agriculture for Development:
Honduras. Agric Hum Values 6:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Toward a New Paradigm. Annu Rev of Resour Econ 1:15–31.
BF02217666 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144239
Bentley JW, Boa, van Mele P, Almanza J, Vasquez D, Eguino S (2003) Calo A (2018) How knowledge deficit interventions fail to resolve begin-
Going public: a new extension method. Int J Agric Sustain 1:108– ning farmer challenges. Agr Hum Values 35:367–381. https://doi.
123. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2003.0111 org/10.1007/s10460-017-9832-6
Bernhardt ES, Rosi EJ, Gessner MO (2017) Synthetic chemicals as agents Capinera JL (2014) Integrated Pest Management: Current Concepts and
of global change. Front Ecol Environ 15:84–90. https://doi.org/10. Ecological Perspective. Fla Entomol 97:1272. https://doi.org/10.
1002/fee.1450 1653/024.097.0342
Bianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable pest regula- Caron P, Biénabe E, Hainzelin E (2014) Making transition towards eco-
tion in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, logical intensification of agriculture a reality: the gaps in and the role
biodiversity and natural pest control. P R Soc B-Biol Sci 273:1715– of scientific knowledge. Curr Opin Env Sust 8:44–52. https://doi.
1727. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3530 org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.004
Birch ANE, Begg GS, Squire GR (2011) How agro-ecological research Carson R (1962) Silent spring. The Riverside Press, Cambridge
helps to address food security issues under new IPM and pesticide Castella J-C, Jourdain D, Trebuil G, Napompeth B (1999) A systems
reduction policies for global crop production systems. J Exp Bot 62: approach to understanding obstacles to effective implementation of
3251–3261. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err064 IPM in Thailand: key issues for the cotton industry. Agr Ecosyst
Boisclair J, Estevez B (2006) Insect pest management in organic agricul- Environ 72:17–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00159-5
ture: acting in harmony with complexity. Phytoprotection 87:83–90 Chaplin-Kramer R, O'Rourke M, Zhang W, Robinson B, Schellhorn N,
Boller EF, Avilla J, Joerg E, Malavolta C, Wijnands FG, Esbjerg P (2004) Gratton C, Rosenheim JA, Tscharntke T, Karp DS (2019)
Integrated Production. Principles and Technical Guidelines, 3rd edi- Measuring what matters: actionable information for conservation
tion. IOBC/WPRS Bull 27 biocontrol in multifunctional landscapes. Front Sustain Food Syst
Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts SG (2013) Ecological intensification: 3:60. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00060
harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol Evol CAVAC (2014) CAVAC (Cambodia Agricultural Value Chain Program)
28:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012 Six-Monthly Report. CAVAC, Phnom Penh
Chamberlain DE, Fuller RJ (2000) Local extinctions and changes in Dasgupta P (2007) The idea of sustainable development. Sustain Sci 2:5–
species richness of lowland farmland birds in England and Wales 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0024-y
in relation to recent changes in agricultural land-use. Agr Ecosyst De Bach P (1974) Biological control by natural enemies. Cambridge
Environ 78:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00105-X University Press, London
Coll M, Wajnberg E (2017a) Environmental pest management: Deberdt P, Fernandes P (2017) Agroecological Management of Bacterial
Challenges for agronomists, ecologists, economists and Wilt of Tomato in Martinique. In: Agroecological Crop Protection.
policymakers. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Springer Science+Business Media BV, Dordrecht
Coll M, Wajnberg E (2017b) Environmental Pest Management: A Call to Deguine J-P, Atiama-Nurbel T, Aubertot J-N, Augusseau X, Atiama M,
Shift from a Pest-Centric to a System-Centric Approach. In: Jacquot M, Reynaud B (2015) Agroecological management of
Environmental pest management: challenges for agronomists, ecol- cucurbit-infesting fruit fly: a review. Agro Sustain Dev 35:937–
ogists, economists and policymakers. John Wiley & Sons, 965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0290-5
Chichester, UK, pp 1–17 Deguine J-P, Aubertot J-N, de Cambiaire J-C, Cresson C, Fares M,
Conway G (1997) The Double Green Revolution. Penguin Books, Lambert G, Marquier M, Nurbel T, Laurent P, Vanhuffel L,
London, UK Vincenot D (2019) Development of agroecological horticultural sys-
Conway G (1999) The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the tems in Réunion. In: The agroecological transition of agricultural
Twenty-first Century. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York systems in the Global South, Agricultures et défis du monde collec-
Conway G, Wilson K, Wilson E (2013) Un rapport du Panel de tion, AFD, CIRAD, Éditions Quæ, Versailles, pp. 127-140
Montpellier 2013, L’intensification durable : un nouveau paradigme Deguine J-P, Ferron P, Russell D (2008) Sustainable pest management
pour l’agriculture africaine. Agriculture for Impact, Imperial for cotton production. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 28:113–137.
College, London https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007042
Deguine J-P, Ferron P, Russell D (2009) Crop Protection: from
Corbet PS (1981) Non-entomological impediments to the adoption of
Agrochemistry to Agroecology. Science Publishers, Enfield, NH,
integrated pest management. Prot Eco 3:183–202
USA
Cowan R, Gunby P (1996) Sprayed to death: path dependence, lock-in
Deguine J-P, Gloanec C, Laurent P, Ratnadass A, Aubertot J-N (2017)
and pest control strategies. Econ J 106:521–542. https://doi.org/10.
Agroecological Crop Protection. Springer Science+Business Media
2307/2235561
BV, Dordrecht
Dáder B, Colomer I, Adán Á, Medina P, Viñuela E (2020) Compatibility Deguine J-P, Gozé E, Leclant F (2000) The consequences of late out-
of early natural enemy introductions in commercial pepper and to- breaks of the aphids Aphis gossypii in cotton growing in Central
mato greenhouses with repeated pesticide applications. Insect Sci Africa: towards a possible method for the prevention of cotton stick-
27:1111–1124. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12723 iness. Int J Pest Manage 46:85–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Dainese M, Martin EA, Aizen MA, Albrecht M, Bartomeus I, Bommarco 096708700227426
R, Carvalheiro LG, Chaplin-Kramer R, Gagic V, Garibaldi LA, Deguine J-P, Gozé E, Leclant F (1994) Incidence of early outbreaks of the
Ghazoul J, Grab H, Jonsson M, Karp DS, Kennedy CM, Kleijn D, aphid Aphis gossypii Glover in cotton growing in Cameroon. Int J
Kremen C, Landis DA, Letourneau DK, Marini L, Poveda K, Rader Pest Manage 40:132–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/
R, Smith HG, Tscharntke T, Andersson GKS, Badenhausser I, 09670879409371870
Baensch S, Bezerra ADM, Bianchi FJJA, Boreux V, Bretagnolle Deguine J-P, Jacquot M, Allibert A, Chiroleu F, Graindorge R, Laurent P,
V, Caballero-Lopez B, Cavigliasso P, Ćetković A, Chacoff NP, Albon B, Marquier M, Gloanec C, Lambert G, Vanhuffel L,
Classen A, Cusser S, da Silva e Silva FD, de Groot GA, Vincenot D, Aubertot J-N (2018) Agroecological Protection of
Dudenhöffer JH, Ekroos J, Fijen T, Franck P, Freitas BM, Garratt Mango Orchards in Réunion. Sustain Agr Rev 28:249–308.
MPD, Gratton C, Hipólito J, Holzschuh A, Hunt L, Iverson AL, Jha https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90309-5_8
S, Keasar T, Kim TN, Kishinevsky M, Klatt BK, Klein A-M, Deguine J-P, Penvern S (2014) Agroecological Crop Protection in
Krewenka KM, Krishnan S, Larsen AE, Lavigne C, Liere H, Maas Organic Farming: Relevance and Limits. In: Organic Farming,
B, Mallinger RE, Martinez Pachon E, Martínez-Salinas A, Meehan Prototype for Sustainable Agricultures, © Springer Science+
TD, Mitchell MGE, Molina GAR, Nesper M, Nilsson L, O'Rourke Business Media Dordrecht, pp. 107-130
ME, Peters MK, Plećaš M, Potts SG, de L. Ramos D, Rosenheim Deguine J-P, Ratnadass A (2017) Agroecogical Crop Protection: At the
JA, Rundlöf M, Rusch A, Sáez A, Scheper J, Schleuning M, Interface Between Agroecology, Crop Protection and Biodiversity
Schmack JM, Sciligo AR, Seymour C, Stanley DA, Stewart R, Management. In: Agroecological Crop Protection. Springer
Stout JC, Sutter L, Takada MB, Taki H, Tamburini G, Tschumi Science+Business Media BV, Dordrecht, pp. 33-43
M, Viana BF, Westphal C, Willcox BK, Wratten SD, Yoshioka A, Deguine J-P, Robin M-H, Corrales DC et al (2021) Qualitative modeling
Zaragoza-Trello C, Zhang W, Zou Y, Steffan-Dewenter I (2019) A of fruit fly injuries on chayote in Réunion: Development and transfer
global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop pro- to users. Crop Prot 139:105367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.
duction. Sci Adv 5:eaax0121. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv. 2020.105367
aax0121 DeLonge MS, Miles A, Carlisle L (2016) Investing in the transition to
Dalgaard T, Hutchings NJ, Porter JR (2003) Agroecology, scaling and sustainable agriculture. Environ Sci Policy 55:266–273. https://doi.
interdisciplinarity. Agr Ecosyst Environ 100:39–51. https://doi.org/ org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.013
10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00152-X Demestihas C, Plénet D, Génard M, Raynal C, Lescourret F (2017)
Dangles O, Casas J (2019) Ecosystem services provided by insects for Ecosystem services in orchards. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 37:
achieving sustainable development goals. Ecosyst Serv 35:109–115. 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0422-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.002 Dent DR (1995) Integrated pest management. Chapman & Hall, London
Dangles O, Crespo-Pérez V (2020) Editorial overview: Devastating lo- de Schutter O, Vanloqueren G (2011) The new green revolution: how
cust swarms and pandemics: the same pressing need for sustainabil- twenty-first-century science can feed the world. Solutions 2:33–44
ity. Curr Opin Insect Sci 40:v–ix. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois. http://hdl.handle.net/10535/7482
2020.08.004 Despotović J, Rodić V, Caracciolo F (2019) Factors affecting farmers’
Dara SK (2019) The new integrated pest management paradigm for the adoption of integrated pest management in Serbia: An application of
modern age. J Integrat Pest Manage 10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ the theory of planned behavior. J Clean Prod 228:1196–1205.
jipm/pmz010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.149
Deytieux V, Munier-Jolain N, Caneill J (2015) Assessing the sustainabil- Agroecological Crop Protection. Springer Science+Business
ity of cropping systems in single- and multi-site studies. A review of Media B.V., Dordrecht, pp. 112-119
methods. Eur J Agron 72:107–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja. FAO (2020) NSP – Integrated Pest Management, FAO definition. http://
2015.10.005 www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/pests/ipm/
DiBartolomeis M, Kegley S, Mineau P, Radford R, Klein K (2019) An en/.
assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading (AITL) of chemical Fantke P, Friedrich R, Jolliet O (2012) Health impact and cost damage
pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States. PloS One assessment of pesticides in Europe. Environ Int 49:9–17. https://doi.
14:e0220029. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220029 org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.08.001
Doré T, Makowski D, Malézieux E, Munier-Jolain N, Tchamitchian M, Farrar JJ, Ellsworth PC, Sisco R, Baur ME, Crump A, Fournier AJ,
Tittonell P (2011) Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensi- Murray MK, Jepson PC, Tarutani CM, Dorschner KW (2018)
fication in agronomy: Revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge. Assessing Compatibility of a Pesticide in an IPM Program. J
Eur J Agron 34:197–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.006 Integr Pest Manage 9:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmx032
Dupré M, Michels T, Le Gal PY (2017) Diverse dynamics in agroeco- Feder G, Murgai R, Quizon JB (2004) The acquisition and diffusion of
logical transitions on fruit tree farms. Eur J Agron 90:23–33. https:// knowledge: The case of pest management training in farmer field
doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.07.002 schools, Indonesia. J Agr Econ 55:221–243. https://doi.org/10.
Duru M, Therond O, Martin G, Martin-Clouaire R, Magne MA, Justes E, 1111/j.1477-9552.2004.tb00094.x
Journet EP, Aubertot J-N, Savary S, Bergez JE, Sarthou J-P (2015) Fernandez-Cornejo J, Kackmeister A (1996) The diffusion of integrated
How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance eco- pest management techniques. J Sustain Agr 7:71–102
system services: A review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:1259–1281. Ferron P (1999) Protection intégrée des cultures : évolution du concept et
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1 de son application. Cah Agr 8:389–396
Dufour R (2001) Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Ferron P, Deguine J-P (2005) Crop protection, biological control, habitat
Fundamentals Sustain Agr 522:2–12 management and integrated farming. Agr Sustain Dev 25:17–24
Eddleston M, Karalliedde L, Buckley N, Fernando R, Hutchinson G, Filho FH, Heldens WB, Kong Z, de Lange ES (2020) Drones: innovative
Isbister G, Konradsen F, Murray D, Piola JC, Senanayake N, technology for use in precision pest management. J Econ Entomol
Sherriff R, Singh, Siwach SB, Smit L (2002) Pesticide poisoning 113:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toz268
in the developing world-a minimum pesticides list. Lancet 360: Flor RJ, Chhay K, Sorn V, Maat H, Hadi BAR (2018) The technological
1163–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11204-9 trajectory of Integrated Pest Management for rice in Cambodia.
Egan PA, Dicks LV, Hokkanen HM, Stenberg JA (2020) Delivering Sustainability-Basel 10:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061732
Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM). Trends Plant Flor RJ, Maat H, Hadi BAR, Then R, Kraus E, Chhay K (2020) How do
Sci 25:577–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2020.01.006 stakeholder interactions in Cambodian rice farming villages contrib-
ute to a pesticide lock-in? Crop Prot 135:104799. https://doi.org/10.
Ehler LE (2005) Integrated pest management: a national goal? Issues Sci
1016/j.cropro.2019.04.023
Technol 22:25–26
Flöhr A, Stenberg JA, Egan PA (2018) The joint economic impact level
Ehler LE (2006) Integrated pest management (IPM) definition, historical
(jEIL): a decision metric for integrated pest and pollinator manage-
development and implementation, and the other IPM. Pest Manage
ment. In: Integrative Biological Control. Progress in Biological
Sci 62:787–789
Control, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
Ehler LE, Bottrell DG (2000) The illusion of Integrated Pest 030-44838-7_2
Management. Issues Sci Technol 16:61–64. https://doi.org/10. Foucart S (2019) Et le monde devint silencieux. Comment l’agrochimie a
2307/43312037 détruit les insectes, Seuil, Paris
El Titi A, Boller EB, Gendrier J-P (1993) Integrated production. Frisbie RE, Smith JW Jr (1991) Biologically intensive integrated pest
Principles and Technical Guidelines, 3rd edition. IOBC/WPRS management: the future. In: Progress and Perspectives for the 21th
Bull 16 Century. Entomol. Soc. Am. Centennial Symp. ESA, Lanham, MD,
Enkerlin W, Gutiérrez-Ruelas JM, Cortes AV, Roldan EC, Midgarden D, USA, pp 151–164
Lira E, López JLZ, Hendrichs J, Liedo P, Arriaga FJT (2015) Area Frison EA, Gold CS, Karamura EB, Sikora RA (1999) Mobilizing IPM
freedom in Mexico from Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: for sustainable banana production in Africa. Proceedings of a work-
Tephritidae): a review of over 30 years of a successful containment shop on banana IPM held in Nelspruit, South Africa-23-28
program using an integrated area-wide SIT approach. Fla Entomol November 1998. International Network for the Improvement of
98:665–681. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.098.0242 Banana and Plantain (INIBAP), Montpellier, France
Enserink M, Hines PJ, Vignieri SN, Wigginton NS, Yeston JS (2013) The Gaba S, Lescourret F, Boudsocq S, Enjalbert J, Hinsinger P, Journet EP,
pesticide paradox. Science 341:728–729. https://doi.org/10.1126/ Navas ML, Wery J, Louarn G, Malézieux E, Pelzer E, Prudent M,
science.341.6147.728 Ozier-Lafontaine H (2015) Multiple cropping systems as drivers for
Epstein L, Bassein S (2003) Patterns of pesticide use in California and the providing multiple ecosystem services: from concepts to design.
implications for strategies for reduction of pesticides. Annu Rev Agron Sustain Dev 35:607–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-
Phytopathol 41:351–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto. 014-0272-z
41.052002.095612 Gandini G, Guillermet C, de Lapeyre de Bellaire L (2017)
Epstein L, Zhang M (2014) The Impact of Integrated Pest Management Agroecological Management of Banana Pests in Export Crops in
Programs on Pesticide Use in California, USA. In: Integrated Pest the Dominican Republic. In: Agroecological Crop Protection.
Management. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 1-46 Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, pp. 135-141
European Commission (2020) A farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy Garcia K, Olimpi EM, Karp DS, Gonthier DJ (2020) The Good, the Bad,
and environmentally-friendly food system. Communication from and the Risky: Can Birds Be Incorporated as Biological Control
the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Agents into Integrated Pest Management Programs? J Integr Pest
European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of Manage 11:11. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmaa009
the Regions. COM(2020) 381 final. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/ Geertsema W, Rossing WA, Landis DA, Bianchi FJJA, van Rijn PC,
info/files/communication-annex-farm-fork-greendeal_en.pdf. Schaminée JH, Tscharntke T, van Der Werf W (2016) Actionable
Faloya V, Jeannequin B (2017) Agroecological practices to manage soil- knowledge for ecological intensification of agriculture. Front Ecol
borne pathogens in greenhouse vegetable crops in France. In: Environ 14:209–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1258
Geiger F, Bengtsson J, Berendse F, Weisser WW, Emmerson M, Morales Hedlund J, Longo SB, York R (2020) Agriculture, Pesticide Use, and
MB, Ceryngier P, Liira J, Tscharntke T, Winqvist C, Eggers S, Economic Development: A Global Examination (1990–2014).
Bommarco R, Pärt T, Bretagnolle V, Plantegenest M, Clement Rural Sociol 85:519–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12303
LW, Dennis C, Palmer C, Oñate JJ, Guerrero I, Hawro V, Aavik Heinrichs EA, Maredia KM, Mohankumar S (2009) Future of IPM: a
T, Thies C, Flohre A, Hänke S, Fischer C, Goedhart PW, Inchausti P worldwide perspective. In: Integrated pest management. Concepts,
(2010) Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and tactics, strategies and case studies. Cambridge University Press, pp.
biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl Ecol 506–522
11:97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.001 Heong KL, Escalada MM (1997) Perception change in rice pest manage-
Gliessman SR (1997) Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable ment: A case study of farmers' evaluation of conflict information. J
Agriculture. CRC press, Boca Raton, USA Appl Commun 82:3–17
Gliessman SR (2016) Transforming food systems with agroecology. Heong KL, Escalada MM (1999) Quantifying rice farmers’ pest manage-
Agroecol Sust Food 40:187–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/ ment decisions: beliefs and subjective norms in stem borer control.
21683565.2015.1130765 Crop Prot 18:315–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(99)
González-Chang M, Wratten SD, Shields MW, Costanza R, Dainese M, 00030-7
Gurr GM, Johnson J, Karp DS, Ketelaar JW, Nboyine J, Pretty J Hill SB (2004) Redesigning Pest Management. J Crop Improv 12:491–
(2020) Understanding the pathways from biodiversity to agro- 510. https://doi.org/10.1300/J411v12n01_09
ecological outcomes: A new, interactive approach. Agr Ecosyst Hill SB (2014) Considerations for Enabling the Ecological Redesign of
Environ 301:107053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107053 Organic and Conventional Agriculture: A Socail Ecology and
Goodell GE (1984) Challenges to International Pest Management Psychosocial Perspective. In: Organic Farming, Prototype for
Research and Extension in the Third World: Do We Really Want Sustainable Agricultures. Springer Science+Business Media
IPM to Work? Bull Entomol Soc Amer 30:8–26. https://doi.org/10. Dordrecht, pp. 401-422
1093/besa/30.3.18 Hill SB, MacRae RJ (1995) Conceptual Framework for the Transition
Goodell GE (1989) Social science input into IPM. Trop Pest Manage 35: from Conventional to Sustainable Agriculture. J Sustain Agr 7:81–
252–253 87. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v07n01_07
Goss MJ, Barry DAJ (1995) Groundwater Quality: Responsible Hill SB, Vincent C, Chouinard G (1999) Evolving ecosystems ap-
Agriculture and Public Perceptions. J Agr Environ Ethic 8:52–64. proaches tofruit insect pest management. Agric Ecosyst Environ
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02286401 73:107–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00019-5
Goulson D (2020) Pesticides, Corporate Irresponsibility, and the Fate of Hokkanen HMT (2015) Integrated pest management at the crossroads:
Our Planet. One Earth 2:302–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear. Science, politics, or business (as usual)? Arthropod-Plant Inte 9:
2020.03.004 543–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-015-9403-y
Griffon M (2013) Qu’est-ce que l’agriculture écologiquement intensive? Hollingsworth CS, Coli WM (2001) IPM adoption in the Northwestern
Editions Quae, Versailles US: An examination of the IPM continuum. Am J Alternative Agr
Guedes RNC, Smagghe G, Stark JD, Desneux N (2016) Pesticide- 16:177–183. https://doi.org/10.2307/44509995
induced stress in arthropod pests for optimized integrated pest man- Hoppin JA, LePrevost CE (2017) Pesticides and human health. Pest man-
agement programs. Annu Rev Entomol 61:43–62. https://doi.org/ agement within the environment. In: Challenges for agronomists,
10.1146/annurev-ento-010715-023646 ecologists, economists and policymakers. John Wiley & Sons,
Guichard L, Dedieu F, Jeuffrou M-H, Meynard J-M, Reau R, Savini I Chichester, UK, pp. 251-273
(2017) Le plan Ecophyto de réduction d’usage des pesticides en Horgan FG (2017) Integrated pest management for sustainable rice cul-
France : décryptage d’un échec et raisons d’epérer. Cah Agr 26: tivation: a holistic approach. In: Achieving Sustainable Cultivation
14002. https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2017004 of Rice, Burleigh Dodds, Cambridge, UK, pp. 271-292
Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Landis DA, You M (2017) Habitat management Horlings LG, Marsden TK (2011) Towards the real green revolution?
to suppress pest populations: progress and prospects. Annu Rev Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological moderni-
Entomol 62:91–109. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-031616- sation of agriculture that could 'feed the world'. Global Environ
035050 Chang 21:441–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.
Haldhar SM, Choudhary BR, Bhargava R, Sharma SK (2014) 004
Development of an organic integrated pest management (IPM) mod- Hoy CW (2015) Agroecosystem health, agroecosystem resilience, and
ule against insect-pests of muskmelon in arid region of Rajasthan, food security. J Environ Stud Sci 5:623–635. https://doi.org/10.
India. J Exp Biol Agr Sci 2:19–24 https://krishi.icar.gov.in/jspui/ 1007/s13412-015-0322-0
bitstream/123456789/2248/1/IPM%20Modules%20in% Hoy CW (2020) Advances in understanding agroecosystems ecology and
20Muskmelon.pdf its applications in integrated pest management. In: Integrated man-
Hallmann CA, Foppen RPB, van Turnhout CAM, de Kroon H, Jongejans agement of insect pests. Current and future developments. Burleigh
E (2014) Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high Dodds Science Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK, pp. 131-160
neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511:341–343. https://doi.org/ Hoy CW, Bosserman S, MacDonald R (2016) Social networks, ecolog-
10.1038/nature13531 ical frameworks, and local economies. In: Local Food Systems in
Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, Old Industrial Regions: Concepts, Spatial Contexte, and Local
Stenmans W, Müller A, Sumser H, Hörren T, Goulson D, de Kroon Practices. Routledge, pp. 51-76
H (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying Huan NH, Thiet LV, Chien HV, Heong KL (2005) Farmers’ participatory
insect biomass in protected areas. Plos One 12:e0185809. https:// evaluation of reducing pesticides, fertilizers and seed rates in rice
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Crop Prot 24:457–464.
Hamm MW (2009) Principles for Framing a Healthy Food System. J https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2004.09.013
Hung Environ Nutr 4:241–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Hufnagel J, Reckling M, Ewert F (2020) Diverse approaches to crop
19320240903321219 diversification in agricultural research. A review. Agron Sustain
Hammig MD, Shepard BM, Carner GR, Dilts R, Rauf A (2008) Area- Dev 40:14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00617-4
wide pest management for non-rice food crops in Southeast Asia. Hurley TM, Sun H (2019) Softening shock and awe pest management in
Area-wide Pest Management: Theory and Implementation. CABI, corn and soybean production with IPM principles. J Integr Pest
Wallingford, pp 326–350 Manage 10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmz001
Hutchins SH (1995) Free enterprise: the only sustainable solution to IPM Kuyper TW, Struik PC (2014) Epilogue: global food security, rhetoric,
implementation. J. Agric Entomol 12:211–217 and the sustainable intensification debate. Curr Opin Env Sustain 8:
Huxley J (1964) Essays of a Humanist (Education and Humanism p.132). 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.09.004
Harmonds-worth, UK, Penguin LaCanne CE, Lundgren JG (2018) Regenerative agriculture: merging
Iqbal M (2010) Concept and implementation of participation and empow- farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6:
erment: reflection from the coffee IPM-SECP. Hubs-Asia 10:1. e4428. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4428
https://doi.org/10.7454/mssh.v11/2.112 Lamarque P, Meyfroidt P, Nettier B, Lavorel S (2014) How ecosystem
Isbell F, Adler PR, Eisenhauer N, Fornara D, Kimmel K, Kreme C, services knowledge and values influence farmers' decision-making.
Letourneau DK, Liebma M, Polle HW, Quija S, Scherer-Lorenze PloS One 9:e107572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107572
M (2017) Benefits of increasing plant diversity in sustainable Lamichhane JR, Barzman M, Booij K, Boonekamp P, Desneux N, Huber
agroecosystems. J Ecol 105:871. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365- L, Kudsk P, Langrell SRH, Ratnadass A, Ricci P, Sarah J-L,
2745.12789 Messéan A (2015) Robust cropping systems to tackle pests under
Jactel H, Verheggen F, Thiéry D, Escobar-Gutiérrez AJ, Gachet E, climate change. A review. Agr Sustain Dev 35:443–459. https://doi.
Desneux N (2019) Alternatives to neonicotinoids. Environ Int 129: org/10.1007/s13593-014-0275-9
423–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.045 Lamichhane JR, Dachbrodt-Saayed S, Kudsk P, Messéan A (2016)
Jain HK (2010) The Green revolution: history, impact and future. Toward a reduced reliance on conventional pesticides in European
Studium Press, Houston, TE agriculture. Plant Dis 100:10–24. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-05-
Jeger MJ (2000) Bottlenecks in IPM. Crop Prot 19:787–792 15-0574-FE
Jepson PC, Murray K, Bach O, Bonilla MA, Neumeister L (2020) Lamichhane JR, Messéan A, Ricci P (2019) Research and innovation
Selection of pesticides to reduce human and environmental health priorities as defined by the Ecophyto plan to address current crop
risks: a global guideline and minimum pesticides list. Lancet Plan protection transformation challenges in France. Adv Agron 154:81–
Health 4:e56–e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30266-9 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2018.11.003
Jørs E, Aramayo A, Huici O, Konradsen F, Gulis G (2017) Obstacles and Lamichhane JR, Arseniuk E, Boonekamp P, Czembor J, Decroocq V,
opportunities for diffusion of integrated pest management strategies Enjalbert J, Finckh MR, Korbin M, Koppel M, Kudsk P,
reported by Bolivian small-scale farmers and agronomists. Environ Mesterhazy A, Sosnowska D, Zimnoch-Guzowska E, Messéan A
Health Insight 11:1178630217703390. https://doi.org/10.1177/ (2018) Advocating a need for suitable breeding approaches to boost
1178630217703390 integrated pest management: a European perspective. Pest Manage
Sci 74:1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4818
Juma C (2016) Innovation and its enemies: Why people resist new tech-
Lamichhane JR, Dürr C, Schwank AA, Robin MH, Sarthou JP, Cellier V,
nologies. Oxford University Press
Messéan A, Aubertot J-N (2017) Integrated management of
Kanter DR, Bartolini F, Kugelberg S, Leip A, Oenema O, Uwizeye A
damping-off diseases. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 37:10. https://
(2019) Nitrogen pollution policy beyond the farm. Nat Food 1:27–
doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0417-y
32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0001-5
Landis DA (2017) Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-
Karp DS, Chaplin-Kramer R, Meehan TD et al (2018) Crop pests and
based ecosystem services. Basic Appl Ecol 18:1–12. https://doi.
predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape
org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.07.005
composition. P Natl Acad Sci USA 115:E7863–E7870. https://doi.
Landis DA, Wratten SD, Gurr GM (2000) Habitat management to con-
org/10.1073/pnas.1800042115
serve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu Rev
Kennedy GG, Sutton TB (2000) Emerging technologies for integrated Entomol 45:175–201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.
pest management: Concepts, Research and Implementation. APS 175
Press, St Paul, Minnesota Leake A (2000) The development of integrated crop management in
Kiritani K (2000) Integrated biodiversity management in paddy fields: agricultural crops: comparisons with conventional methods. Pest
shift of paradigm from IPM toward IBM. Integ Pest Manage Rev 5: Manag Sci 56:950–953. https://doi.org/10.1002/1526-
175–183. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011315214598 4998(200011)56:11%3C950::AID-PS234%3E3.0.CO;2-5
Kiritani K (2020) Understanding agroecosystems and pest management: Lechenet M, Dessaint F, Py G, Makowski D, Munier-Jolain N (2017a)
from chemical control to integrated biodiversity management. In: Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and prof-
Integrated management of insect pests. Current and future develop- itability on arable farms. Nat Plants 3:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/
ments. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, Cambridge, nplants.2017.8
UK, pp. 97-130 Lechenet M, Deytieux V, Antichi D, Aubertot J-N et al (2017b) Diversity
Kogan M (1998) Integrated pest management: historical perspectives and of methodologies to experiment Integrated PestManagement in ara-
contemporary developments. Annu Rev Entomol 43:243–270. ble cropping systems: Analysis and reflections based on a European
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.243 network. Eur J Agron 83:86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.
Kogan M, Heinrichs EA (2020) Integrated management of insect pests. 09.012
Current and future developments. Burleigh Dodds Science Lefebvre M, Langrell SRH, Gomez-Y-Paloma S (2015) Incentives and
Publishing Limited, Cambridge policies for integrated pest management in Europe: a review. Agron
Kogan M, Jepson P (2007) Perspectives in ecological theory and integrat- Sustain Dev 35:27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0237-2
ed pest management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Lescourret F (2017) Toward a reduced use of pesticides in European
Koul O, Cuperus GW (2007) Ecologically based integrated pest manage- farming systems: An introduction to the PURE project. Crop Prot
ment: present concept and new solutions. In: Ecologically Based 97:7–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.12.004
Pest Management, CABI, Oxfordshire, pp. 1-17 Lescourret F, Dutoit T, Rey F, Côte F, Hamelin M, Lichtfouse E (2015a)
Koul O, Dhaliwal GS, Cuperus GW (2004) Integrated pest management: Agroecological engineering. Agron Sustain Dev 35:1191–1198.
potential, constraints and challenges. CABI, Wallingford https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0335-9
Kronenberg J (2014) What can the current debate on ecosystem services Lescourret F, Poncet C, Simon S (2016) Insights into the ecological
learn from the past? Lessons from economic ornithology. Geoforum control of pests in horticulture. Acta Hortic 1137:91–104. https://
55:164–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.011 doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1137.14
Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition. Lescourret F, Magda D, Richard G et al (2015b) A social–ecological
University of Chicago Press approach to managing multiple agro-ecosystem services. Curr
Opin Environ Sustain 14:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust. Meehan TD, Gratton C (2016) A Landscape View of Agricultural
2015.04.001 Insecticide Use across the Conterminous US from 1997 through
Lemos F, Sarmento RA, Teodoro AV, dos Santos GR, do Nascimento IR 2012. PloS One 1:e0166724. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
(2011) Agroecological strategies for arthropod pest management in 0166724
Brazil. Recent Pat Food Nut Agr 3:142–154 Meynard JM, Dedieu B, Bos AB (2012) Re-design and co-design of
Letourneau DK, Fitzsimmons MI, Nieto DJ (2017) Approaches in Plant farming systems. An overview of methods and practices. In:
Protection: Science, Technology, Environment and Society. In: Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic.
Environmental pest management: challenges for agronomists, ecol- Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 405-429
ogists, economists and policymakers. John Wiley & Sons, Möhring N, Wuepper D, Musa T, Finger R (2020) Why farmers deviate
Chichester, UK, pp. 21-53 from recommended pesticide timing: the role of uncertainty and
Lewis WJ, van Lenteren JC, Phatak SC, Tumlinson JH (1997) A total information. Pest Manag Sci 76:2787–2798. https://doi.org/10.
system approach to sustainable pest management. P Natl Acad Sci 1002/ps.5826
94:12243–12248. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.23.12243 Morales H, Perfecto I (2000) Traditional knowledge and pest manage-
Li W, Wang L, Jaworski CC, Yang F, Liu B, Jiang Y, Lu Y, Wu K, ment in the Guatemalan highlands. Agric Hum Values 17:49–63.
Desneux N (2020) The outbreaks of nontarget mirid bugs promote https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007680726231
arthropod pest suppression in Bt cotton agroecosystems. Plant Morse S (2009) IPM, ideals and realities in developing countries. In:
Biotechnol J 18:322–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13233 Integrated Pest Management, Concepts, Tactics, Strategies and
Lichtenberg EM, Kennedy CM, Kremen C et al (2017) A global synthesis Case Studies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 458-470
of the effects of diversified farming systems on arthropod diversity Morse S, Buhler W (1997) IPM in developing countries: the danger of an
within fields and across agricultural landscapes. Glob Change Biol ideal. Integr Pest Manag Rev 2:175–185. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
23:4946–4957. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13714 1018457219228
Litsinger JA, Libetario EM, Canapi BL (2009) Eliciting Farmer Mourtzinis S, Krupke CH, Esker PD, Varenhorst A, Arneson NJ, Bradley
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in the Development of CA, Byrne AM, Chilvers MI, Giesler LJ, Herbert A, Kandel YR
Integrated Pest Management Programs for Rice in Asia. In: (2019) Neonicotinoid seed treatments of soybean provide negligible
Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact. Springer, benefits to US farmers. Sci Rep 9:11207. https://doi.org/10.1038/
Dordrecht, pp. 119-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8990- s41598-019-47442-8
9_5 Muneret L, Mitchell M, Seufert V, Aviron S, Pétillon J, Plantegenest M,
Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F (2017) Sustainability transitions Thiéry D, Rusch A (2018) Evidence that organic farming promotes
research: transforming science and practice for societal change. pest control. Nat Sustain 1:361–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/
Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/ s41893-018-0102-4
annurev-environ-102014-021340 Munyua C (2003) Challenges in implementing integrated pest manage-
Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, Guo Y, Desneux N (2012) Widespread adoption of ment (IPM) practices: Implications for agricultural extension.
Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Association for
Nature 487:362–365. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11153 Agricultural and Extension Education, Raleigh, North Carolina,
Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, Xia B, Li P, Feng H, Wyckhuys KA, Guo Y (2010) USA. pp. 469-479
Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale Murray DL, Taylor PL (2000) Claim no easy victories: evaluating the
adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science 328:1151–1154. https:// pesticide industry’s global safe use campaign. World Dev 28:1735–
doi.org/10.1126/science.1187881 1749. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00059-0
Lucas P (2007) Le concept de la protection intégrée des cultures. Innov Murray K, Jepson P, Bouska C et al. (2021) Integrated Pest Management
Agron 1:15–21 Summit Reveals Barriers, Needs, and Goals for Agricultural
Lucas P, Ratnadass A, Deguine J-P (2017) Moving from Integrated Pest Extension. J Extension 58(3). Retrieved from https://tigerprints.
Management to Agroecological Crop Protection. In: Agroecological clemson.edu/joe/vol58/iss3/24
Crop Protection. Springer Science+Business Media B.V, Dordrecht, Nampeera EL, Nonnecke GR, Blodgett SL, Tusiime SM, Masinde DM,
pp 24–33 Wesonga JM, Murungi LK, Baidu-Forson J, Abukutsa-Onyango
Lundgren JG, Fausti SW (2015) Trading biodiversity for pest problems. MO (2019) Farmers’ Knowledge and Practices in the Management
Sci Adv 1:e1500558. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500558 of Insect Pests of Leafy Amaranth in Kenya. J Integr Pest Manag 10:
Magarey RD, Klammer SS, Chappell TM, Trexler CM, Pallipparambil 31. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmz029
GR, Hain EF (2019) Eco-efficiency as a strategy for optimizing the Naranjo SE (2001) Conservation and evaluation of natural enemies in
sustainability of pest management. Pest Manage Sci 75:3129–3134. IPM systems for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Prot 20:835–885. https://
https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5560 doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00115-6
Malézieux E (2017) Agroecology, a 21st Century Agricultural Naranjo SE, Ellsworth PC (2009) Fifty years of the integrated control
Revolution? In: Agroecological Crop Protection. Springer concept: moving the model and implementation forward in
Science+Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, pp. 2-6 Arizona. Pest Manag Sci 65:1267–1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Malézieux E, Crozat Y, Dupraz C, Laurans M, Makowski D, Ozier- ps.1861
Lafontaine H, Rapidel B, de Tourdonnet S, Valantin-Morison M Naranjo SE, Ellsworth PC, Frisvold GB (2015) Economic value of bio-
(2009) Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools logical control in integrated pest management of managed plant
and models. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:43–62. https://doi. systems. Annu Rev Entomol 60:621–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/
org/10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8_22 annurev-ento-010814-021005
Maredia KM, Dakouo D, Mota-Sanchez D (2003) Integrated pest man- Ngin C, Suon S, Tanaka T, Yamauchi A, Kawakita K, Chiba S (2017)
agement in the global arena. CABI, Wallingford Impact of insecticide applications on arthropod predators and plant
Marrone PG (2009) Barriers to adoption of biological control agents and feeders in Cambodian rice fields. Phytobiomes 1:128–137. https://
biological pesticides. In: Integrated Pest Management. Cambridge doi.org/10.1094/PBIOMES-01-17-0002-R
University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 163-178 Nicholls CI, Altieri MA (2004) Agroecological bases of ecological engi-
Matyjaszczyk E (2019) Problems of implementing compulsory integrated neering for pest management. In: Ecological engineering for pest
pest management. Pest Manage Sci 75:2063–2067. https://doi.org/ management: advances in habitat manipulation for arthropods.
10.1002/ps.5357 CSIRO, Collingwood, pp. 33-54
Nilda PC, Vázquez L (2004) Manejo ecológico de plagas. La Habana, Pimentel D (1982) Perspectives of integrated pest management. Crop
Cuba. Editorial Centro de Estudios de Desarrollo Agrario y Rural, Prot 1:5–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-2194(82)90054-0
pp. 127-284 Pimentel D, Peshin R (2014) Integrated pest management: pesticide prob-
Norris RF, Caswell-Chen EP, Kogan M (2003) Concepts in integrated lems. Springer Science & Business Media
pest management. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ Piwowar A (2021) The use of pesticides in Polish agriculture after inte-
Norton G, Mullen J (1994) Economic evaluation of integrated pest man- grated pest management (IPM) implementation. Environ Sci Pollut
agement programs: a literature review. Virginia Polytech Inst State Res 2021:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12283-w
Univ, Blacksburg Petit S, Lescourret S (2019) La biodiversité au cœur des agroécosystèmes
Norton G, Alwang J, Kassie M, Muniappan R (2019) Economic Impacts : où en sommes-nous aujourd’hui ? Innov Agron 75:15–27
of Integrated Pest Management Practices in Developing Countries. Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and syn-
In: The Economics of Integrated Pest Management of Insects. CABI ergies. Philos T Roy Soc B 365:2959–2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/
Publishing, Boston, MA, pp. 140-154 rstb.2010.0143
Ohmart C (2008) IPM implementation at field level: “What are the im- Pretty J (2005) Sustainability in agriculture: recent progress and emergent
pediments to grower adoption of IPM? Why do they exist and what challenges. Sustainability in agriculture. Iss Environ Sci Technol 21:
can be done to get around them? ”. In: ENDURE International 1–15
Conference 2008, pp. 1-10 Pretty J, Benton TG, Bharucha ZP, Dicks LV, Flora CB, Godfray HCJ,
Ohmart CP (2009) IPM implementation - overcoming barriers to grower Goulson D, Hartley S, Lampkin N, Morris C, Pierzynski G (2018)
adoption. Pesticides News 85:20–22 Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable
Onillon JC, Gullino LM (1999) Implementation of IPM: from research to intensification. Nat Sustain 1:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1038/
the consumer. In: Integrated Pest and Disease Management in s41893-018-0114-0
Greenhouse Crops. Developments in Plant Pathology. Springer, Pretty J, Bharucha ZP (2015) Integrated pest management for sustainable
Dordrecht, pp. 411-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47585-5_29 intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 6:152–182.
Onstad DW, Crain PR (2019) Major economic issues in integrated pest https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6010152
management. In: The economics of integrated pest management of Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in
insects. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 1-13 African agriculture. Int J Agr Sustain 9:5–24. https://doi.org/10.
Orr A (2003) Integrated pest management for resource-poor African 3763/ijas.2010.0583
farmers: Is the emperor naked? World Dev 31:831–845. https:// Prokopy RJ (1994) Integration in orchard pest and habitat management: a
doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00015-9 review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 50:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Palis FG (2006) The role of culture in farmer learning and technology 0167-8809(94)90120-1
adoption: A case study of farmer field schools among rice farmers in Prokopy R, Kogan M (2003) Integrated pest management. In:
central Luzon, Philippines. Agric Hum Values 23:491–500. https:// Encyclopedia of Insects. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 589-595
doi.org/10.1007/s10460-006-9012-6 Puente M, Darnall N, Forkner RE (2011) Assessing integrated pest man-
Palti J (1981) Cultural Practices and Infectious Crop Diseases. Springer- agement adoption: Measurement problems and policy implications.
Verlag Environ Manage 48:1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-
Paredes D, Karp DS, Chaplin-Kramer R, Benítez E, Campos M (2019) 011-9737-x
Natural habitat increases natural pest control in olive groves: eco- Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D (2019) Three pillars of sustainability: in
nomic implications. J Pest Sci 92:1111–1121. https://doi.org/10. search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci 14:681–695. https://doi.
1007/s10340-019-01104-w org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
Parsa S, Morse S, Bonifacio A, Chancellor TCB, Condori B, Crespo- Radcliffe EB, Hutchison WD, Cancelado RE (2009) Integrated pest man-
Pérez V, Hobbs SLA, Kroschel J, Ba ML, Rebaudo F, Sherwood agement: concepts, tactics, strategies and case studies. Cambridge
SG, Vanek SJ, Faye E, Herrera MA, Dangles O (2014) Obstacles to University Press
integrated pest management adoption in developing countries. Rajotte EG, Norton GW, Luther GC, Barrera V, Heong KL (2005) IPM
PNAS 111:3889–3894. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312693111 transfer and adoption. In: Globalizing Integrated Pest Management:
Pedigo LP (1989) Entomology and pest management. Macmillan A Participatory Research Process. Cambridge University Press, pp.
Publishing Company 143-157
Pedigo LP (1995) Closing the gap between IPM theory and practice. J Randriamanantsoa R, Ratnadass A (2017) Agroecological Management
Agric Entomol 12:171–181 of Insect Pests of Upland Rice in Madagascar. In: Agroecological
Penvern S, Fernique S, Cardona A, Herz A, Ahrenfeldt E, Dufils A, Crop Protection. Springer Science+Business Media B.V.,
Jamar A, Korsgaard M, Kruczyńska D, Matray S, Ozolina-Pole L, Dordrecht, pp. 141-145
Porcel M, Ralle B, Steinemann B, Świergiel W, Tasin M, Telfser J, Rapisarda C, Cocuzza GEM (2018) Integrated Pest Management in
Warlop F, Sigsgaard L (2019) Farmers’ management of functional Tropical Regions. CABI, Wallingford, UK
biodiversity goes beyond pest management in organic European Ratnadass A (2017) Feedback and common approaches to agroecological
apple orchards. Agric Ecosyst Environ 284:106555. https://doi. crop protection : further examples.. In: Agroecological Crop
org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.014 Protection. Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, pp.
Perrin RM (1997) Crop protection: taking stock for the new millennium. 110-159
Crop Prot 16:449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(97) Ratnadass A (2020) Crop Protection for Agricultural Intensification
00014-8 Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustain Agric Rev 39:1–34.
Peshin R, Dhawan AK (2009) Integrated Pest Management: Volume 1: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38881-2_1
Innovation-Development Process. Springer, Science & Business Ratnadass A, Barzman M (2014) Ecological Intensification for Crop
Media Protection. Sustain Agric Rev 14:53–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Peshin R, Zhang W (2014) Integrated pest management and pesticide use. 978-3-319-06016-3_3
In: Integrated Pest Management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1-46. Ratnadass A, Fernandes P, Avelino J, Habib R (2012) Plant species
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7796-5_1 diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and diseases in
Peterson RK, Higley LG, Pedigo LP (2018) Whatever happened to IPM? agroecosystems: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 32:273–303. https://
Am Entomol 64:146–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/tmy049 doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0022-4
Rebaudo F, Carpio C, Crespo-Pérez V, Herrera M, de Scurrah MM, Ruesink WG (1980) Economics of integrated pest management: discus-
Canto RC, Montañez AG, Bonifacio A, Mamani M, Saravia R, sion - an entomologists views of IPM research needs. Am J Agr
Dangles O (2014) Agent-based models and integrated pest manage- Econ 62:1014–1015. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240304
ment diffusion in small scale farmer communities. In: Integrated Rutherford RS, Conlong DE (2010) Combating sugarcane pests in South
Pest Management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 367-383. https://doi. Africa: from researching biotic interactions to bio-intensive integrat-
org/10.1007/978-94-007-7802-3_15 ed pest management in the field. Proc Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol
Rebaudo F, Dangles O (2011) Coupled Information Diffusion–Pest 27:1–17
Dynamics Models Predict Delayed Benefits of Farmer Samiee A, Rezvanfar A, Faham E (2009) Factors influencing the adop-
Cooperation in Pest Management Programs. PLoS Comput Biol 7: tion of integrated pest management (IPM) by wheat growers in
e1002222. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002222 Varamin County, Iran. Afr J Agr Res 4:491–497. https://doi.org/
Rebaudo F, Dangles O (2013) An agent-based modeling framework for 10.5897/AJAR.9000337
integrated pest management dissemination programs. Environ Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KAG (2019) Worldwide decline of the en-
Modell Softw 45:141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012. tomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol Conserv 232:8–27. https://
06.014 doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020
Reddy PP (2017) Agro-ecological Approaches to Pest Management Schäffer A, Filser J, Frische T, Gessner M, Köck W, Kratz W, Liess M,
for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer Science Nature Singapore Nuppenau E-A, Roß-Nickoll M, Schäfer R, Scheringer M (2018)
Pte Ltd The Silent Spring - On the need for sustainable plant protection.
Redlich S, Martin EA, Steffan-Dewenter I (2018) Landscape-level crop Leopoldina Discussions 16, Halle
diversity benefits biological pest control. J Appl Ecol 55:2419– Schut M, Rodenburg J, Klerkx L, van Ast A, Bastiaans L (2014) Systems
2428. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13126 approaches to innovation in crop protection. A systematic literature
Reid W, Mooney H, Cropper A et al (2005) Ecosystems and human well- review. Crop Prot 56:98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.
being: synthesis. Millenium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, 11.017
Washington DC Sébillotte M (2006) Penser et agir en agronome. In : L’Agronomie
Rejesus RM, Jones MS (2020) Perspective: enhancing economic evalu- aujourd’hui. Quæ, Versailles, pp. 1-29
ations and impacts of integrated pest management farmer field Sheahan M, Barrett CB, Goldvale C (2017) Human health and pesticide
schools (IPM-FFS) in low-income countries. Pest Manag Sci use in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Econ 48:27–41. https://doi.org/10.
2020:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5912 1111/agec.12384
Rejesus RM, Palis FG, Lapitan AV, Chi TTN, Hossain M (2009) The Shennan C, Cecchettini CL, Goldman GB, Zalom FG (2001) Profiles of
impact of integrated pest management information dissemination California farmers by degree of IPM use as indicated by self-
methods on insecticide use and efficiency: evidence from rice pro- descriptions in a phone survey. Agric Ecosyst Environ 84:267–
ducers in South Vietnam. Rev Agric Econ 31:814–833. https://doi. 275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00248-6
org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2009.01468.x Sherman J, Gent DH (2014) Concepts of sustainability, motivations for
Reteau A (2017) The Development of Crop Protection: A Critical Look pest management approaches, and implications for communicating
through the Eyes of a Science Historian. In: Agroecological Crop change. Plant Dis 98:1024–1035. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-
Protection. Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, pp. 14-0313-FE
19-24 Simon S, Lesueur-Jannoyer M, Plénet D, Lauri P-É, Le Bellec F (2017a)
Ricci P, Bui S, Lamine C (2011) Repenser la protection des cultures: Methodology to design agroecological orchards: Learnings from on-
innovations et transitions. Editions Quae, Versailles station and on-farm experiences. Eur J Agron 82:320–330. https://
Ricci P, Messean A (2015) Stratégies intégratives et innovations doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.09.004
systémiques: sortir du cadre. Innov Agron 46:147–155 Simon S, Marliac G, Capowiez Y (2017b) Gestion de la strate herbacée
Robinson C, Portier CJ, Čavoški A, Mesnage R, Roger A, Clausing P, pour favoriser la régulation des ravageurs en vergers de pommiers
Whaley P, Muilerman H, Lyssimachou A (2020) Achieving a High en France. In: Agroecological Crop Protection. Springer Science+
Level of Protection from Pesticides in Europe: Problems with the Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, pp. 141-145
Current Risk Assessment Procedure and Solutions. Eur J Risk Regul Simon S, Marliac G, Capowiez Y (2017c) Managing Plant Ground Cover
11:450–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.18 to Control Pests in Apple Orchards in France. In: Agroecological
Rodenburg J, Schut M, Demont M, Klerkx L, Gbèhounou G, Oude Crop Protection. Springer Science+Business Media B.V.,
Lansink A, Mourits M, Rotteveel T, Kayeke J, van Ast A, Dordrecht, pp. 125-128
Akanvou L (2015) Systems approaches to innovation in pest man- Simon S, Rusch A, Wyss E, Sarthou J-P (2014) Conservation Biocontrol:
agement: reflections and lessons learned from an integrated research Principles and Implementation in Organic Farming. In: Organic
program on parasitic weeds in rice. Int J Pest Manage 61:329–339. Farming, Prototype for Sustainable Agricultures. Springer
https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2015.1066042 Science+Business Media Dordrecht, pp. 83-105
Rola AC, Pingali PL (1993) Pesticides, rice productivity, and farmers' Sinclair F, Coe R (2019) The options by context approach: a paradigm
health: an economic assessment. IRRI, Manila shift in Agronomy. Exp Agr 55:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Romeis J, Naranjo SE, Meissle M, Shelto AM (2019) Genetically S0014479719000139
engineered crops help support conservation biological control. Sinzogan A, Vayssières J-F, Ratnadass A (2017) Agroecological
Biol Control 130:136–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol. Management of Mango Fruit Flies in Benin. In: Agroecological
2018.10.001 Crop Protection. Springer Science+Business Media B.V.,
Rosenheim JA, Cass BN, Kahl H, Steinmann KP (2020) Variation in Dordrecht, pp. 129-135
pesticide use across crops in California agriculture: Economic and Sivapragasam A (2004) Brassica IPM adoption: progress and constraints
ecological drivers. Sci Total Environ 733:138683. https://doi.org/ in south-east Asia. In: The Management of Diamondback Moth and
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138683 Other Crucifer Pests. Proc Third Int Workshop 29. Melbourne,
Rosenheim JA, Coll M (2008) Pest-centric versus process-centric re- Australia, pp. 11-18
search approaches in agricultural entomology. Am Entomol 54: Smith E (1983) Integrated pest management (IPM) - specific needs of
70–72 https://rosenheim.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/ developing countries. Int J Trop Insect Sci 4:173–177. https://doi.
sites/137/2014/09/Rosenheim-Coll.-2008.-Am.-Entomol..pdf org/10.1017/S1742758400004197
Smith RF, Reynolds HT (1966) Principles, Definitions and Scope of Natl Acad Sci 109:10394–10397. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
Integrated Pest Management. Proc FAO Symp IntegrbPest Contr 1208240109
1:11–17 Tilman D, Reich PB, Knops JMH (2006) Biodiversity and ecosystem
Smith RF, Smith GL (1949) Supervised control of insects. Calif Agr 3:3– stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441:629–
12 632. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04742
Smith P, van den Bosch R (1967) What is integrated pest management? Tittonell P (2014) Ecological intensification of agriculture - sustainable
In: Pest control. Academic Press, New-York, pp. 295-340 by nature. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 8:53–61. https://doi.org/10.
Spangenberg JH, Douguet JM, Settele J, Heong KL (2015) Escaping the 1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006
lock-in of continuous insecticide spraying in rice: Developing an Toleubayev K, Jansen K, van Huis A (2011) From Integrated Pest
integrated ecological and socio-political DPSIR analysis. Ecol Management to Indiscriminate Pesticide Use in Kazakhstan. J
Model 295:188–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.05. Sustain Agr 35:350–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.
010 562036
Spurgeon DW (2007) Ecologically Based Integrated Pest Managementin Tripp R, Wijeratne M, Piyadasa VH (2005) What should we expect from
Cotton. In: Ecologically Based Integrated Pest Management. CABI, farmer field schools? A Sri Lanka case study. World Dev 33:1705–
Wallingford, pp. 367-405 1720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.012
Stenberg JA (2017) A Conceptual Framework for Integrated Pest Trumble JT (1998) IPM: Overcoming Conflicts in Adoption. Integr Pest
Management. Trends in Plant Sci 22:759–769. https://doi.org/10. Manage Rev 3:195–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009691223903
1016/j.tplants.2017.06.010 UN (United Nations) (2017) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right
Stern VM, Smith RF, van den Bosch R, Hagen KS (1959) The integrated to food. Human Rights Council, Thirty-fourth session, 27 February-
control concept. Hilgardia 29:81–101 24 March 2017, Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed 12 April 2020.
Stetkiewicz S, Bruce A, Burnett FJ, Ennos RA, Topp CF (2018) https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/
Perception vs practice: Farmer attitudes towards and uptake of PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement
IPM in Scottish spring barley. Crop Prot 112:96–102. https://doi. Uneke CJ (2007) Integrated pest management for developing countries: a
org/10.1016/j.cropro.2018.05.005 systemic overview. In: Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp.
Struelens Q, Silvie P (2020) Orienting insecticide research in the tropics 127-203
to meet the sustainable development goals. Curr Opin Insect Sci 40: Untung K (1995) Institutional constraints on IPM implementation in
24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2020.05.015 Indonesia. In: Institutional Constraints to IPM. 13 Int Plant Prot
Struik PC, Kuyper TW (2017) Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Congr, The Hague July 2-7 1995, pp. 35-47
the richer shade of green. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 37:39. van de Fliert E (1993) Integrated pest management: farmer field schools
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0445-7 generate sustainable practices: a case study in Central Java evaluat-
Suckling DM, Stringer LD, Stephens AE, Woods B, Williams DG, Baker ing IPM training. Wageningen University, Netherlands
G, El-Sayed AM (2014) From integrated pest management to inte- van den Berg H (2004) IPM Farmer Field Schools: A synthesis of 25
grated pest eradication: technologies and future needs. Pest Manage impact evaluations by Wageningen University, January 2004.
Sci 70:179–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3670 Prepared for the Global IPM Facility
Suckling DM, Tobin PC, McCullough DG, Herms DA (2012) van den Berg H, Jiggins J (2007) Investing in farmers - the impacts of
Combining tactics to exploit Allee effects for eradication of alien farmer field schools in relation to integrated pest management.
insect populations. J Econ Entomol 105:1–13. https://doi.org/10. World Dev 35:663–686
1603/EC11293 van den Bosch R (1965) Practical application of the integrated control
Tabashnik B, Sisterson M, Ellsworth P, Dennehy TJ, Antilla L, Liesner L, concept in California. Proc Int Congr Entomol 12 London, pp. 595-
Whitlow M, Staten RT, Fabrick JA, Unnithan GC, Yelich AJ, 97
Ellers-Kirk C, Harpold VS, Li X, Carrière Y (2010) Suppressing van den Bosch R (1989) The pesticide conspiracy. Univ of California
resistance to Bt cotton with sterile insect releases. Nat Biotechnol Press
28:1304–1307. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1704 van den Bosch R, Stern VM (1962) The integration of chemical and
Teng PS, Savary S (1992) Implementing the systems approach in pest biological control of arthropod pests. Annu Rev Entomol 7:367–
management. Agr Syst 40:237–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308- 386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.07.010162.002055
521X(92)90023-H van Huis A, Meerman F (1997) Can we make IPM work for resource-
Teoh CH, Ooi ACP (1986) Towards more effective plant protection in the poor farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa? Int J Pest Manage 43:313–320.
tropics. J Plant Prot Trop (Malaysia) 3:51–72 https://doi.org/10.1080/096708797228636
Thérond O, Duru M, Martin G, Martin-Clouaire R, Magne MA, Justes E, van Lenteren JC (1998) Sustainable and safe crop protection: a reality?
Journet EP, Aubertot J-N, Savary S, Bergez JE, Sarthou J-P (2015) Mededelingen - Universiteit Gent, Faculteit Landbouwkundige en
How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture. In: Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen 63:409–414
Agroecological Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp.1259-1281 van Lenteren JC (2012) The state of commercial augmentative biological
Thiel L, Mergenthaler M, Haberlah-Korr V (2021) Wahrgenommene control: plenty of natural enemies, but a frustrating lack of uptake.
Umsetzung des integrierten Pflanzenschutzes bei BioControl 57:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-011-9395-1
landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben in Nordwestdeutschland. Gesunde Vanloqueren G, Baret PV (2009) How agricultural research systems
Pflanzen. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10343-021-00548-4 shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but
Thomas MB (1999) Ecological approaches and the development of “truly locks out agroecological innovations. Res Policy 38:971–983.
integrated” pest management. P Natl Acad Sci 96:5944–5951 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.008
Thorburn C (2014) Empire strikes back: the making and unmaking of van Mele P (2008) The importance of ecological and socio-technological
Indonesia's national integrated pest management program. Agroecol literacy in R&D priority setting: the case of a fruit innovation system
Sustain Food 38:3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013. in Guinea, West Africa. Int J Agric Sustain 6:183–194. https://doi.
825828 org/10.3763/ijas.2008.0369
Thorburn C (2015) The rise and demise of integrated pest management in van Mele P, Ahmad S, Magor NP (2005) Innovations in rural extension:
rice in Indonesia. Insects 6:381–408 case studies from Bangladesh. CABI, Wallingford
Tilman D, Reich PB, Isbell F (2012) Biodiversity impacts ecosystem van Schoubroeck F (1999) Learning to fight a fly: developing citrus IPM
productivity as much as resources, disturbance, or herbivory. P in Bhutan. Wageningen University, Netherlands
van Wilgen BW, Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2013) Some Perspectives Wearing CH (1988) Evaluating the IPM implementation process. Annu
on the Risks and Benefits of Biological Control of Invasive Rev Entomol 33:17–38 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.
Alien Plants in the Management of Natural Ecosystems. 1146/annurev.en.33.010188.000313
Environ Manage 52:531–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267- Weiss A, Dripps JE, Funderburx J (2009) Assessment of implementation
013-0099-4 and sustainability of integrated pest management programs. Fla
Vargas RI, Mau RFL, Jang EB, Faust RM, Wong L (2008) The Hawaii Entomol 92:24–28. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.092.0105
fruit fly area-wide pest management program. In: Areawide IPM: Wesseling C (2005) Human rights and environmental justice in pesticide
theory to implementation. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 300– issues: Examples of inequities from Central America. Epidemiology
332 16:S72–S73
Vasileiadis V (2017) Economic sustainability: Less pesticide rarely Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Vallod D, David C (2009) Agroecology as a
causes loss. Nature Plants 3:17016. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants. science, movement or practice. Agron Sustain Dev 29:503–515.
2017.16 https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004
Vasileiadis VP, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Kudsk P et al (2017) Wezel A, Casagrande M, Celette F, Vian J-F, Ferrer A, Peigne J (2014)
Sustainability of European winter wheat- and maize-based cropping Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review.
systems: Economic, environmental and social ex-post assessment of Agron Sustain Dev 34:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-
conventional and IPM-based systems. Crop Prot 97:60–69. https:// 0180-7
doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.11.002 Whiteker GT (2019) Applications of the 12 Principles of Green
Vayssières J, Vigne M, Alary V, Lecomte P (2011) Integrated participa- Chemistry in the Crop Protection Industry. Org Process Res Dev
tory modelling of actual farms to support policy making on sustain- 23:2109–2121. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.oprd.9b00305
able intensification. Agr Syst 104:146–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Wildbolz T (1962) Über Möglichkeiten der Prognose und
j.agsy.2010.05.008 Befallsüberwachung und Über Toleranzgrenzen bei der
Vega D, Gazzano Santos MI, Salas-Zapata W, Poggio SL (2020) Integrierten Schädlingsbekämpfung im Obstbau. Entomophaga 7:
Revising the concept of crop health from an agroecological perspec- 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02374369
tive. Agroecol Sustain Food 44:215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Wille JE (1951) Biological Control of Certain Cotton Insects and the
21683565.2019.1643436 Application of New Organic Insecticides in Peru. J Econ Entomol
Veres A, Wyckhuys KAG, Kiss J, Tóth F, Burgio G, Pons X, Avilla C, 44:13–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/44.1.13
Vidal S, Razinger J, Bazok R, Matyjaszczyk E, Milosavljević I, Vi Willey WRZ (1978) Barriers to the diffusion of IPM programs in com-
Le X, Zhou W, Zhu Z-R, Tarno H, Hadi B, Lundgren J, Bonmatin J- mercial agriculture. In: Pest Control Strategies. New York
M, van Lexmond MB, Aebi A, Rauff A, Furlan L (2020) An update Academic, pp. 285-308
of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic pesti- Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S,
cides. Part 4: Alternatives in major cropping systems. Environ Sci Garnett T, Tilman D, DeClerck F, Wood A, Jonell M (2019) Food in
Pollut Res 27:29867–29899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020- the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets
09279-x from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393:447–492. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
Vialatte A, Barnaud C, Blanco J, Ouin A, Choisis J-P, Andrieu E,
Wilson C, Tisdell C (2001) Why farmers continue to use pesticides de-
Sheeren D, Ladet S, Deconchat M, Clément F, Esquerré D, Sirami
spite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecol Econ 39:
C (2019) A conceptual framework for the governance of multiple
449–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00238-5
ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 4:
Wyckhuys KAG, Aebi A, van Lexmond MFB, Bojaca CR, Bonmatin J-
1653–1673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00829-4
M, Furlan L, Guerrero JA, Mai TV, Pham HV, Sanchez-Bayo F,
Vincenot D, Normand F (2009) Guide de production intégrée de mangues
Ikenaka Y (2020a) Resolving the twin human and environmental
à la Réunion. CIRAD, Montpellier
health hazards of a plant-based diet. Environ Int 144:106081. https://
Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J, Kenmore P (2007) Area-Wide
doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106081
Integrated Pest Management (AW-IPM): Principles, Practice and
Wyckhuys KAG, Bentley JW, Lie R, Fredrix M (2018) Maximizing
Prospects. In: Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests. Springer,
farm-level uptake and diffusion of biological control innovations
Dordrecht, pp. 3-33
in today’s digital era. BioControl 63:133–148. https://doi.org/10.
Waage J (1998) The future development of IPM. Entomologia Sin 5:257– 1007/s10526-017-9820-1
271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7917.1998.tb00322.x Wyckhuys KAG, Heong KL, Sanchez-Bayo F, Bianchi FJJA, Lundgren
Waddington H, White H (2014) Farmer field schools: from agricultural JG, Bentley JW (2019a) Ecological illiteracy can deepen farmers’
extension to adult education. Syst Rev Sum 1. https://researchonline. pesticide dependency. Environ Res Lett 14:093004. https://doi.org/
lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/4647439 10.1088/1748-9326/ab34c9
Waddington H, Snilstveit B, Hombrados J, Vojtkova M, Phillips D, Wyckhuys KAG, Lu Y, Morales H, Vazquez LL, Legaspi JC, Eliopoulos
Davies P, White H (2014) Farmer field schools for improving farm- PA, Hernandez LM (2013) Current status and potential of conser-
ing practices and farmer outcomes: A systematic review. Campbell vation biological control for agriculture in the developing world.
System Rev 10:335. https://doi.org/10.4073/CSR.2014.6 Biol Control 65:152–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.
Wagner CH, Cox M, Robles JLB (2016) Pesticide lock-in in small scale 2012.11.010
Peruvian agriculture. Ecol Econ 129:72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Wyckhuys KAG, Lu Y, Zhou W, Cock MJW, Naranjo SE, Fereti A,
j.envpol.2016.05.011 Williams FE, Furlong MJ (2020b) Ecological pest control fortifies
Walter GH (2005) Insect Management and Ecological Research. agricultural growth in Asia–Pacific economies. Nat Ecol Evol:1–9.
Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01294-y
Warner KD, Daane KM, Getz CM, Maurano SP, Calderon S, Powers KA Wyckhuys KAG, O'Neil RJ (2007) Role of opinion leadership, social
(2011) The decline of public interest agricultural science and the connectedness and information sources in the diffusion of IPM in
dubious future of crop biological control in California. Agr Hum Honduran subsistence maize agriculture. Int J Pest Manage 53:35–
Values 28:483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9288-4 44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670870601033331
Way MJ, van Emden HF (2000) Integrated pest management in practice - Wyckhuys KAG, Pozsgai G, Lovei GL, Vasseur L, Wratten SD, Gurr
pathways towards successful application. Crop Prot 19:81–103. GM, Reynolds OL, Goettel M (2019b) Global disparity in public
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(99)00098-8 awareness of the biological control potential of invertebrates. Sci
Total Enviro 660:799–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019. Zehnder G, Gurr GM, Kuhne S, Wade MR, Wratten SD, Wyss E (2007)
01.077 Arthropod pest management in organic crops. Annu Rev Entomol
Wyckhuys KAG, Sánchez-Bayo F, Aebi A et al (2021) Stay true to 52:57–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091337
integrated pest management. Science 371:133–133. https://doi.org/ Zhang W, Jiang FB, Ou FJ (2011) Global pesticide consumption and
10.1126/science.abf8072 pollution: With China as a focus. Proc Int Acad Ecol Environ Sci
Wyss JH (2006) Screwworm eradication in the Americas. Ann NY Acad 1:25–144 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228841853
Sci 916:186–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000. Zhang W, Ricketts T, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton S (2007) Ecosystem
tb05289.x services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253–260.
Young SL (2017) A systematic review of the literature reveals trends and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024
gaps in integrated pest management studies conducted in the United Zhang W, Lu Y, van der Werf W, Huang J, Wu F, Zhou K, Deng X, Jiang
States. Pest Manage Sci 73:1553–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps. YWK, Rosegrant MW (2018) Multidecadal, county-level analysis
4574 of the effects of land use, Bt cotton, and weather on cotton pests in
Zadoks JC (1981) EPIPRE: A Disease and Pest Management System for China. Proc Nat Acad Sci 115:E7700–E7709. https://doi.org/10.
Winter wheat Developed in the Netherlands. EPPO Bull 11:365– 1073/pnas.1721436115
369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.1981.tb01945.x Zhao Z-H, Reddy GVP, Hui C, Li B (2016) Approaches and mechanisms
Zalom FG (1993) Reorganizing to facilitate the development and use of for ecologically based pest management across multiple scales.
integrated pest management. Agric Ecosyst Environ 46:245–256. Agric Ecosyst Environ 230:199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(93)90028-N agee.2016.06.010
Zalucki MP, Adamson D, Furlong MJ (2009) The future of IPM: whither
or wither? Austr J Entomol 48:85–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
1440-6055.2009.00690.x tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Integrated Pest Management: Good Intentions, Hard Realities. A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrated Pest Management: Good Intentions, Hard Realities. A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrated Pest Management: Good Intentions, Hard Realities. A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2021) 41: 38

Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A

Accepted: 29 March 2021 / Published online: 11 May 2021

in 1956, it had become practically impossible to control out-

Fig. 4 Integrating different

Fig. 6 Frequencies (yearly

Fig. 7 Word cloud representing

Fig. 8 Spider graph showing the

You might also like