Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Agriculture and Its Role in Maintaining Ecological Balance and Biodiversity

Angon, Prodipto Bishnu; Mondal, Sujit; Jahan, Israt; Datto, Mitu; Antu, Uttam Biswas; Ayshi, Famin Jahan; Islam, Md. Shafiul

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5546373

Advances in Agriculture

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 5546373 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5546373

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Agriculture and Its Role in Maintaining Ecological Balance and Biodiversity

Prodipto Bishnu Angon,¹Sujit Mondal,²Israt Jahan,²Mitu Datto,²Uttam Biswas Antu,²Famin Jahan Ayshi,²and Md. Shafiul Islam¹

Academic Editor: Xinqing Xiao

Received17 Jan 2023

Revised18 Jul 2023

Accepted27 Jul 2023

Published12 Aug 2023

Abstract

The production of sustainable crops and environmental management in farming face several significant potential obstacles, including climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation. Weeds and insect pests that considerably reduce yields have put crop production systems in danger. The greatest worry for farmers is the decline in productivity due to illnesses and pests. Insects, weed pests, and plant pathogens destroy more than 40% of all potential food production every year. The widespread use of integrated pest management (IPM) is a result of worries about the long-term viability of conventional agriculture. IPM ensures sufficient, secure, equitable, and steady flows of both food and ecosystem services, as well as increased agricultural profitability due to lower pest management expenditures. A number of studies conducted on IPM have been combined. Important information from all these studies was analyzed and summarized in this literature review. In this article, we investigated the following: (1) explanation of different management components; (2) development in organically integrated weed and insect pest management, with possible ramifications and scope; (3) knowledge and adaptation status of IPM in the modern world; (4) resources and tools of IPM; (5) current challenges and suggested future research priorities. Regular training related to IPM should be arranged to spread the knowledge of IPM to all farmer levels. This requires the cooperation of the government. Furthermore, IPM will reach a new milestone if Internet of Things technology is practiced along with the existing pest control method. Overall, this review addresses the possibilities for researchers and farmers to use a variety of natural control agents as a full or partial replacement for synthetic pesticides.

1. Introduction

A challenge to achieving global food safety and sustainable development is posed by pathogens, weeds and insects since they significantly reduce agricultural yields globally [1]. Yield losses caused by pests may be equivalent to the amount of food needed to feed nearly 1 billion individuals when considered in terms of food security [2]. Alternative means must be used to limit pest damage while avoiding the expense and unfavorable effects associated with synthetic pesticides. However, excess use of these pesticides brings additional obstacles, and it is now obvious that they must be avoided.

Integrated pest management (IPM) involves the use of several pest control techniques intended to supplement or completely eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides. It has been used for a very long time and is a sustainable pest management method [3]. By applying IPM, pest populations are kept below a point where they cannot harm the economy [4]. It involves determining strategies that are practical, affordable, and minimize environmental damage [3]. IPM refers to the management of crops using a variety of strategies to keep pest levels below a certain economic threshold [5]. It is a methodical strategy that incorporates many pest-control measures into one program. Incorporating cultural, biological, genetic, physical, legislative and mechanical constraints lessens the dependence on pesticides [6]. A sustainable food supply would be ensured through an integrated weed management plan that includes diverse chemical, cultural, physical, and preventative weed control strategies. Agronomic weed control is unquestionably a component of integrated weed management strategies, and the producer’s set of cultural techniques—such as crop density, the use of difficult varieties, or strategic mineral fertilizer planning—can easily manipulate this component. When using herbicides is not an option, this is particularly true [7].

We emphasized the value of IPM in improving crop productivity and gave particular attention to various management techniques in this review. We discussed the development of bio-based integrated insect pest and weed management in agricultural crop production, as well as any potential ramifications and scope. In addition, we discussed the status of knowledge and adaptability, as well as the resources and tools of contemporary IPM. This study also identifies current limitations and upcoming requirements to enhance IPM use in contemporary agriculture. In actuality, the main goal of this review is to explain cutting-edge methods that farmers can employ to maximize the use of diverse natural controls as an alternative to synthetic pesticides.

2. Methodology

To study the function of IPM in agriculture to preserve ecological balance and biodiversity, extensive scientific databases were examined for pertinent material and citations. Google Scholar, Web of Science, Springer Link, Wiley Online Library, and Mendeley were used to search the scientific literature. We used the keywords “Integrated Pest Management,” “IPM,” “biodiversity,” “ecological balance,” “IMP adoption,” “physical control,” “cultural pest control,” “chemical control,” “biological control,” “entomopathogen,” “IoT in pest control,” “drone in IPM,” “pest monitoring,” “pheromone,” “microorganism involved in IPM” for finding related papers. We chose some research and review articles based on some selected criteria. The selection criteria were (i) the study includes the relationship among IPM, ecological balance, and biodiversity; (ii) the study includes the role of fungus, viruses, nematodes, predators, and other microorganisms in IPM practices; (iii) the study includes different pest control techniques in IPM; (iv) the study includes the adaptation status of IPM; (v) the study includes the role of Internet of Things (IoT) and drones in pest control. In this study, an effort has been made to consolidate all available material on IPM strategy, including management components, adaptation approaches, resources, and tools of IPM, as well as present difficulties and potential scope for preserving ecological balance and biodiversity. This review has compiled a total of 143 references, including research articles, books, and reviews from 1997 to 2023. In the current review article, seven tables and two figures have also been added based on the synthesis of the references gathered to present various types of insect pest predators and parasitoids, entomopathogenic microorganisms and their target pests, physiological impact of some allelochemicals on insects, management of agricultural insect pests with physical control methods, pathogenic fungi, nematode species, viruses and bacterial species with their target organisms, Percentage of IPM training received and nonreceived by farmers and framework of IPM adoption. The figure is drawn using the software “Microsoft PowerPoint 2019,” and the pie chart is from “Microsoft Excel 2019”. The PRISMA outlined the techniques for screening previously published papers collected from databases (Figure 1).

3. Historical Background of IPM

Beginning in the 1970s, in response to rising awareness of the negative side effects of pesticide use, the concept of “Integrated Pest Management” was first introduced in agriculture. The strategy emphasizes combining artistic techniques with pest biology to control insect pests in crops [8]. A thorough experiential learning strategy, like farmer field schools, is needed to assist farmers in fully comprehending the applications and implications of IPM because it is a complicated technology [9]. It has been 50 years since pest management research in some regions of Europe, Canada, and the United States focused on developing threshold theory and harmonic control tactics [10]. The majority of cultural, mechanical, genetic, chemical, and biological techniques are incorporated into IPM strategies and measures to maintain the number of dangerous pests in a crop below the threshold that would result in an economic loss [11].

The spotted Alfalfa aphid and the Alfalfa caterpillar were the first pests for which early “supervised” and “integrated” management schemes were created. IPM has since been described as the predominant crop protection paradigm, but adoption rates are still modest [12, 13]. Due to people moving to new locations within or across nations and the globalization of the food industry, more pest species have been introduced into areas where they did not previously exist. IPM’s gradual expansion in popularity has led to increased recognition of it as an ecologically sustainable strategy that can also ensure the output and quality of agricultural goods [14]. IPM, then, may be defined as the adoption of a superior pest management method that reduces agricultural yields while minimizing chemical toxicity to the beneficial organisms that are essential to the success of the actual management practice [11].

Currently, countries in Africa and Latin America are using integrated production and pest management together and concurrently [11]. The central tenets of IPM are (a) encouraging healthy soil and crops, (b) fending off natural predators, (c) frequently monitoring crop health and pest activity, and (d) imparting technological expertise to the farming society. IPM strategies expand on these needs to combine the ability to control the behavior of numerous insects that are detrimental to agricultural production with enhanced environmental conservation due to reduced chemical pesticides [14].

4. Management Components

4.1. Genetical Control

The many constitutive and inducible defense mechanisms that plants have evolved to thwart insect attacks are called resistance in host plants. A complicated web of interactions is involved in the research on host plant resistance, and these interactivities are mediated by chemical and morphological characteristics that affect how much harm pests do [15]. Multiple resistance characteristics may exist, including antixenosis and antibiosis resistance [16]. They are categorized as constitutive resistance (pre-existing in the plant prior to the raid), induced resistance as a result of Tuta absoluta infection, or genetically inserted resistance [17]. A tactic that takes advantage of cultivars created through genetic engineering [18]. These cultivars feature physical, biochemical, or morphological characteristics that make them less attractive to pests or less favorable to their growth, development, or successful reproduction.

4.1.1. Morphological Structures

A host plant’s surface may act as a physical barrier due to morphological characteristics like waxy cuticles and/or trichome-like epidermal structures [15]. The natural enemies of pests are allured to and rewarded by indirect defenses, which employ them as “bodyguards.” Plant characteristics that aid in indirect defense include smells (frequently caused by pests), which draw natural enemies to afflicted plants [19], and nectar that holds down and remunerates attracted natural enemies of pests [20].

4.1.2. Chemical Host Plant Resistance

According to a study on various chrysanthemum types, isobutyl amide may be linked to host plant resistance to the western flower thrips. By creating an ecometabolomic method and assimilating the metabolomic profiles of resistant and susceptible plants, compounds for constitutive western flower thrips resistance were found and validated in subsequent in vitro bioassays [21]. Jacobaea vulgaris (a wild plant species) had jacobine, jaconine, and kaempferol glucoside; chrysanthemums included chlorogenic and feroluylquinic acids; tomatoes contained acyl sugars; and carrots contained alanine, sinapic acid, and luteolin [21, 22].

4.1.3. Transgenic Plant

The majority of transgenic crops resist pests that are lepidopteran and/or coleopteran, or maybe even a mixture of both features, such as glufosinate-ammonium, glyphosate, 2–4 D, dicamba [23]. For instance, cotton, maize, soybean, sugar beet, alfalfa, and canola all possess herbicide-resistant characteristics that bestow glyphosate tolerance [24]. Cotton [11], soybean (lepidopteran pests) and maize [25] all possess insect defenses that, until now, were mostly given by insecticidal proteins gleaned from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (lepidopteran and coleopteran pests). Since 2014, a Bt trait for a lepidopteran pest has been found in aubergines in Bangladesh [23].

4.1.4. Induced Resistance

Several plant regulators salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET), together with other chemicals that occur naturally in reactions, defend plants from infections and insects [26]. The JA pathway is an important part of the defense against thrips. When thrips were introduced to Arabidopsis plants, the JA-responsive genes VSP2 and PDF1.2 became very active.

4.1.5. Plant Vaccination

When a pest attacks a plant, it typically responds by activating both immediate and indirect defenses, successfully repelling both the pest that is attacking at the time and pest species that may attack in the future [27]. If the organism that induces defense is nearly benign and the plant is derived to become immune by the induced defense to a more harmful pest, this procedure can be referred to as “plant vaccination” [26]. Plants can be protected against pests and pathogens by being exposed to elements that cause them to enter a “primed” state [28].

4.2. Cultural Control

The deliberate modification of a farm or garden for the purpose of growing and cultivating plants to reduce plant disease and various pest attack is known as a cultural method. Evidence for this exists: the effective application of cultural approaches to managing soilborne pathogens results in enhanced soil structure and lower disease prevalence [29]. Crop rotation, the timing of planting, a change in crop variety, irrigation management, harvesting, and utilizing trap crops are other cultural practices used in agricultural crops that are more preventive than curative and may thus need advanced preparation. Cropping techniques like alley cropping, intercropping, strip cropping, mixed cropping, etc., when used with caution, can serve as a deterrent, danger, or concealment for pests. In the limited intercropping studies that examined oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) insect pest responses

Legume intercrops lessened damage from the cabbage stem weevil (Ceutorhynchus pallidactylus) and rapeseed winter stem weevil (Ceutorhynchus picitarsis) [30]. Also, powdery mildew (caused by Podosphaera aphanis) and botrytis fruit rot (caused by Botrytis cinerea) were often less severe in strawberry plots with microsprinklers than in strawberry plots with overhead aluminum sprinklers. The crop rotation between marsh rice and upland maize has an impact on the bacteria and archaea that colonize roots [31]. Plowing is another crucial preventative measure to get rid of crop debris and reveal the stages of various vegetable pests that live in the soil [32]. Cultural interventions can take a lot of time and effort and are usually preventative [33].

4.3. Biological Control

The use of natural enemies to manage weeds, illnesses, and insects is defined as biological control [34]. Although it has limitations depending on how it is utilized, augmentative biological control with repeated releases only briefly lowers pest outbreaks, and few programs achieve permanent control. The effectiveness of using biological control using evolved extractions varies depending on how it is used; however, few programs are able to permanently suppress pest outbreaks [35]. In some cases, the presence of natural enemies such as parasitic wasps and predatory arthropods can significantly reduce pest numbers [36], and some typical approaches for controlling endemic pests include the regular release of commercially available natural enemies, the protection of natural enemy populations by providing refuges or avoiding acts that harm them [3].

4.3.1. Predators

Asopinae (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) stinkbugs, which eat other bugs, are important for keeping an eye on a variety of pests, such as lepidopteran larvae in greenhouses and fields and herbivorous pentatomid species (Table 1) [37]. Predatory insects are exploited in integrated pest control systems, including lacewings, ground beetles, centipedes, dragonflies, rove, midges, ladybugs, pirate bugs, and aphids [38]. Anystis baccarum (L.), a generalist predatory mite, was created in Canada as a new biocontrol agent and went on sale in 2022 [39]. Lady beetles are voracious eaters and may be common in areas where food is plentiful, and broad-spectrum pesticide use is prohibited. Lady beetles are excellent predators when aphids are plentiful (high pest density), but they are thought to be less effective when pest consistency is low [40].

4.3.2. Parasitoids

Insect pests are specifically targeted by parasitoids, a type of natural enemy. Unlike true parasites, parasitoid organisms kill their prey and complete their development on a single host [42]. Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, and Neuroptera represent a small minority of the parasitoids, which are typically Diptera or Hymenoptera. In contemporary decades, the parasitoids of the families Bethilidae, Braconidae, Ichneumonidae and Pteromalidae have sparked a surge in interest in parasitoid-based biological management of stored goods pests [43].

4.3.3. Entomopathogens

Bacteria and fungi that grow inside plant tissues without manifesting any disease signs in the host plant are referred to as endophytes. It is vital to highlight that while fungal endophytes are common in plant species, their features and degree of colonization vary depending on the kind of plant tissue [44]. Several research studies have revealed that entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) are effective against insect and mite pests. They also enhance the plant’s ability to respond to other biotic stresses [45]. During several biocidal actions, substances like insecticides, antifungals, herbicides, and antivirals are produced, which causes systemic resistance to be induced [46]. Because they can infect insects directly through the cuticle, EPF, a key group of biological control agents for pests with chewing mouthparts, like whiteflies and other sap-sucking pests, play an important role in the natural decline of whitefly populations [47]. There are about 700 species of EPF, which are members of the groups Laboulbeniales and Pyrenomycetes (Ascomycota, Deuteromycota) (Table 2) [48]. EPF is a superior alternative that can be exploited to manage many species of ticks, mites and insects since they can infect insects through their cuticles before the disease is caused by ingestion [49]. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that they can almost entirely stop insects at all phases of their life cycles, making them one of the key components of IPM strategies [50].

4.4. Behavioral Control

Assorted traps are treated in the field not only to enthrall the pests but also to cut down their offspring by shattering their mating capability, such as baits containing poisons, color traps, light traps, pheromone lures, etc. [3]. A good illustration of a technology created by academics and now employed commercially by American blueberry growers is a mating disruption for oriental beetles; a microencapsulated sprayable formulation, point-source dispensers (bubbles), and a sprayable formulation using Specialized Pheromone and Lure Application Technology have all been studied [52].

4.4.1. Pheromones

Some creatures generate “sex pheromones,” which are chemical signals that trigger a sexual response in a member of the same species’ opposite sex [53, 54]. In contrast to pheromones, which are chemical messengers involving male and female adults of a species of insect, which one sex uses them to communicate with its sex partners the proneness and assent to mate [55]. The sex pheromones of prominent lepidopteran pests such as tomato fruit worms (Helicoverpa armigera) and common armyworms are commonly used as surveillance attractions in tropical vegetable production systems (Spodoptera litura) [56]. In a Japanese tea plantation, sex pheromones were investigated as potential mating-disruption agents against Ascotis selenaria cretacea (Butler) [57].

4.4.2. Allelochemicals

Allelochemicals are nonnutritional chemical compounds that an organism or plant secrets into the surroundings and which cause a particular reaction in a different species [58]. In an effort to find a multifunctional pesticide for use in IPM, different allelochemicals were tested for their capacity to control weeds and fungi [55]. Allelochemicals include aldehydes and ketones, pyrethrum, alkaloids, glycosides, glucosinolates, limonoids, quassinoids, saponins, organic acids, piramides, polyacetylenes, polyphenols, terpenes, phenolics, flavonoids and quinones, which are naturally found in various plant components and protect plants from different types of pests (Table 3) [59].

4.5. Physical Control

Recent developments in pesticide resistance, the desire to eliminate chemical residues, and practical considerations have made physical control of insect pests more popular. Physical control involves altering the environment so that pest insects cannot live or grow there. Physical methods can be passive or active. Passive methods include hermetic storage, packaging, air doors, screening, etc., while active methods include inert dust, sieving, and temperature modification (aeration treatments, heat, grain chilling, etc.), and electromagnetic methods (microwaves, radio frequencies and ionizing radiation). Active techniques require ongoing input during the control period to be effective. The quantity and intensity of the input affect the degree of control attained. From emergence to postharvest, plants are well-protected by physical management techniques. Physical control techniques are better adapted to postharvest settings since the environment is somewhat limited, the substance has great economic value, and insecticide application is typically inappropriate or even prohibited. In postharvest quarantine situations where a specific pest’s infestation must be eradicated at a certain level of control, physical control techniques like ionizing radiation, heat, and cold are frequently used. Some specific physical management techniques are highlighted in Table 4.

4.6. Microbial Control

Addressing the problems caused by numerous pests is essential for sustainable agricultural production. These pests include birds, animals, weeds, fungi, viruses, nematodes, and insects. As an environmentally acceptable strategy for pest population management in the agricultural sector, microbial pesticides are extremely acceptable and ideal for academics and farmers [73, 74]. Currently, many microbial biopesticides have been created from fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, and protozoa and are employed in insect pest management techniques worldwide [75]. Microbial pesticides are gaining popularity due to their lower environmental toxicity, target specificity, and safety for nontarget organisms [76, 77].

4.6.1. Viruses

Lepidopteran caterpillars, which consume insect pests, are subject to control by microbial biocontrol agents found in a variety of entomopathogenic viruses. Baculoviruses, DNA viruses with double strands, infect and kill a wide variety of insect pests [78]. On a variety of crops, recent studies have shown a considerable decrease in disease severity for a range of pathogens, including Streptomyces, Agrobacterium, Xanthomonas, Erwinia amylovora, and Ralstonia solanacearum (Table 5). Phage use has the following benefits: (a) simple manufacture; (b) good selectivity for the target organism; (c) lengthy shelf life. To spread the phage in the field, the crop might be dressed with an avirulent variant of the pathogen that is infected with it. Even though it cannot harm the crop, the avirulent strain acts as a conduit for the phage’s production [79].

4.6.2. Bacteria

Bt is one of the most effective and widely utilized microbial control agents, having been found to contain more than 240 holotypes of cryotoxins that are active against Lepidoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera, and Hymenoptera [82]. Bt is one of the more than 100 bacterial species that have been recognized as microbial agents against insect pests [83]. Burkholderia, Pseudomonas, Serratia, Saccharopolyspora, Chromobacterium, Bacillaceae, Yersinia, and Streptomyces species are among the entomopathogenic bacteria, whereas different strains of the fungi—Metarhizium anisopliae, Hirsutella, Isaria, Beauveria bassiana, Paec Baculoviruses, Lecanicillium are species-specific insect pathogenic viruses that attack insects by biting and chewing, especially lepidopteron caterpillars (Table 5) [73, 84].

4.6.3. Fungi

The microbial pest management technique heavily relies on pathogenic fungi, which can be both terrestrial and aquatic (Table 6). Those fungi that coexist closely with insects are referred to as EPF. These relationships can take the forms of commensalism, symbiosis, and parasitism and are typically voluntary or required [85]. Because of their potential as biocontrol agents, fungal infections of insects have recently attracted increased research. In that sense, numerous fungi have been discovered to be pathogenic to insects after being tested for virulence against insects. Over 750 fungal species, primarily from the entomophthorales and hyphomycetes, are harmful to insects, and many of them have tremendous promise for pest control [86]. Metarhizium anisopliae is currently being used as part of the largest single microbial control effort employing fungus to eradicate spittlebugs (Cercopidae) from South American sugarcane and pastures [87].

4.6.4. Nematodes

Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) are soil worms that feed on insects and have a significant potential for biocontrol in crops (Table 7). The most common EPN species used in insecticidal formulations areHeterorhabditis bacteriophora, Steinernema scapterisci (mole cricket nematode), Symbiobacterium thermophilum, Steinernema carpocapsae, Steinernema feltiae, Heterorhabditis megidis, and Steinernema riobravis. EPN-infected juveniles (IJs) enter through natural openings such as the intersegmental membrane, anus, spiracles, or mouth and actively search for their hosts in the soil. Once within the body of the host, the EPNs release symbiotic bacteria into the hemocoel, leading to bacterial septicemia and the host’s death (the infectious phase). Then, during nematode reproduction, the insect carcass and symbiotic bacteria are utilized as a food source (necrotrophic phase). In response to a food shortage, an infectious L3 nematode larval stage re-establishes contact with the bacterial symbiont, resulting in IJs that emerge, depart the corpse, and go in search of a new insect (free phase). Steinernema species carry the bacteria Xenorhabdus spp., whereas Heterorhabditis species carry the bacteria Photorhabdus spp. [95]. Nematodes must be in a wet environment to remain active. Wood-boring larvae that maintain their tunnels open are good candidates for EPNs, which thrive in dark and moist conditions [96].

4.7. Chemical Control

The most effective pesticides for IPM are those that have little to no effect on the behavior of natural enemies while providing maximum control of the target insect [98]. Pesticides are any compound or combination of substances that are known to eliminate, repel, or mitigate any pest. Pesticides, including insecticides, acaricides, fungicides, and herbicides, are crucial crop management tools and have a big impact on global agricultural production [98]. Additionally, they are separated into four categories based on their intended use: plant growth regulators, defoliants, fumigants, and desiccants. Chemical pesticides are grouped into several groups based on their mechanisms of action, and switching between chemicals from different modes of action groups is advised to reduce the risk of the formation of resistance [99]. They may be obtained and derived from living things (such as allelochemicals, botanicals, insect growth regulators, and pheromones) or from man-made (synthetic) substances that are obtained from other natural sources (inorganics) [33]. However, chemical control is commonly abused, particularly in crops that are grown on a large scale, like soybeans [100]. Not just insecticides or acaricides but also fungicides, foliar nutrients, plant growth regulators, herbicides and chemicals that might be sprayed on canopies should be considered while highlighting the significance of selective pesticides in agriculture [101].

4.8. IoT in Pest Control

Despite the best attempts to prevent them, pests remain a problem for farmers. Beyond conventional farming methods, technology, particularly the IoT, may hold the key to an answer. IoT can link sensors and out-of-the-box equipment that automates, visualizes, and analyzes data to guide prompt action [102]. IoT should be considered in the field of pest management, which is not typically done. Here are a few instances of how it can be used.

4.8.1. Monitoring for Pests

Use remote surveillance to look for specific pests and learn about their behavior, habitats, and patterns. This is possible by automating monitoring and data collection, tying traps together to report specific pest levels, and implementing more accurate and prompt countermeasures [103]. One illustration would be an apple orchard that wanted to monitor the amounts of codling moths in various parts of the property so it could be prepared to act when required [104].

4.8.2. Weather Monitoring

Monitoring extremely local weather patterns can also provide further information for estimating the amount and level of harm posed by pest populations [105]. As an illustration, consider olive plantations attempting to control fruit flies and larvae, which cause the fruit to fall off the trees too soon. When monitored in real-time, temperature and precipitation are important predictors of fruit fly activity and can help determine the appropriate course of action.

4.8.3. Chemical Automation

Farmers can apply less pesticide and get better results by keeping track of the amounts on plants over time. A farmer may need to use pesticides more frequently if it rains, but depending on how a storm affects different parts of the crop, pesticides may be used excessively or insufficiently in some places [106]. Typically, sensors in the soil or above ground, close to plants, can be used to measure chemical levels [107].

4.8.4. Health Monitoring of Crops

To help you spot potential pest problems and catch them early can be compared projected crop growth to actual crop growth while taking weather and other factors into mind [108].

4.8.5. IPM Automation

The IPM process becomes more precise, timelier, and less onerous for the farmer by automating time-consuming IPM tasks like monitoring different data points on a farm and responding to that data [109].

Integrating the aforementioned IoT capabilities into a comprehensive solution makes an accurate understanding and response possible. To help guide action during this crop cycle and in the future, it is possible to trace the full history of the pest’s attack on the crop, the quantity of pesticide used, and how much the yield of crops is impacted.

4.9. Drones in Pest Control

Drones allow for the treatment of very specialized areas, such as weed patches or disease sources. Drones can offer sensible, effective, and green alternatives to foliar treatment for the control of pests and diseases [110]. They, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), have become increasingly ubiquitous due to their capacity to operate fast and their wide range of potential uses in a number of real-world scenarios. The scientific community has recently given agricultural precision using UAVs a great deal of consideration. Multiple methods, for instance, face challenges like how to investigate the area in the least amount of time while avoiding having additional drones examine the same area, find parasites, and limit their spread by using an adequate amount of pesticides [110].

Two of humanity’s most basic needs, fiber and food, are met through agriculture, a significant source of wealth for many nations. Due to technical advancements like the environmental movement, agriculture has seen a substantial transformation in recent decades. Managing livestock, commodities, and water depth are only a few of the issues that are the focus of agricultural research. Thanks to a variety of sensors and equipment on deck, the drones can complete these tasks [111].

UAV usage is The Insect Pest Administration is a one-of-a-kind collection that displays the latest innovations for the study and advancement of drones that operate independently. Such innovations include the detection and delineation of invasions of insect damage and pest habitats, as well as the supply of microorganisms and technology to soothe pest-related anxieties. Satellite imagery technology, such as spacecraft and UAVs, is employed to identify the presence of insect predators on fields and rapidly alert farmers to the issue. The advantages of heavy-altitude imaging for agriculture, which is based on satellites, comprise an expansive monitoring region, precise adaptability, a relatively brief return period, and a modest expenditure. For a variety of catastrophe monitoring purposes, a space-based system is beneficial since it can cover a vast agricultural area. It is harder to meet this requirement for pests and pest monitoring in agricultural regions since satellite monitoring is heatwave-sensitive and has inferior precision [112].

A consistent and digital approach to agricultural insect and disease surveillance is required wherever drones are used to detect the presence of pests and insects. Those features currently have an impact on the advancement and application of drones in modern farming [113].

We believe that the multidisciplinary approach is the best method for carrying out advances in research and transmission, which leads to a quicker rate of development and application of these innovations to improve pesticides. These approaches were unquestionably not associated with entomology when they were developed [114]. Drones use an autonomous technique to look for insects that are message-driven. A device to store data is included inside every UAV and is used to save encrypted copies of previously inspected destinations. The drone updates its geographical location with every flight by adding new details and erasing erroneous information. The UAV may employ such mapping to help it decide what to do next [115]. To avoid going to the same place more than once and to synchronize UAV activities, the drones occasionally broadcast signals over the earlier-occupied area. This speeds up insect extermination and research efforts [116].

5. Knowledge and Adaptation Status of IPM

Since IPM may effectively utilize both contemporary technology and conventional agricultural systems based on indigenous farming methods, it is projected to remain a dominant theme in the near future. IPM considers every economic, environmental, and social factor, which also ensures that consumers have access to healthy food [117]. Excessive application of chemical insecticides by farmers caused rapid resistance development in targeted insect pests and also had harmful impacts on the human body and nontarget species. The usage of pesticides can be significantly reduced in farming systems based on IPM technology without negatively affecting yield [118]. To make proper decisions, farmers need to have adequate knowledge about various ancillary aspects of IPM, like different control methods, the biology of pests, potential pest damages, the suitable application of available resources, etc. [3].

Most of the studies showed that male farmers’ IPM knowledge is generally higher than that of female farmers. The educational level of farmers has a positive correlation with their knowledge of IPM [119]. But the age of the farmer is negatively correlated with it. Providing agricultural knowledge and technology, including IPM, to farmers in a timely and effective manner is a challenge for agricultural extension agents. As a result, farmers had a limited understanding of the fundamental principles guiding alternative pest management techniques [120]. One study showed that only a very limited percentage of farmers had received IPM training (Figure 2) [121]. Therefore, farmers must be knowledgeable about all related fields of IPM, such as biological, cultural, physical, and other techniques of pest management. Due to a lack of proper knowledge about IMP in vegetable production, farmers are less interested in adopting IPM or other nonchemical pest management techniques. As a result, the farmers’ knowledge of IPM had a positive impact on its adoption, which suggests that IPM adoption could increase with adequate education and training [122].

IPM knowledge is higher among people who have engaged in more IPM-related activities than among those who have not [123], and their adaptation rate to IPM is high. Vegetable farmers’ adoption rate of IPM was only 30%. Farmers got almost the same yield even though they used pesticides (glyphosate, acephate, deet, propoxur, metaldehyde, boric acid, diazinon, etc.) [118]. Their overall frequency of pesticide treatment decreased as a result, which helped them lower their input costs. The adoption of IPM concepts can benefit farmers economically by lowering costs [124]. Proposed a framework with four main categories related to IPM adoption (Figure 3).

There are four additional general management components, such as weed management, insect-pest management, general management, and ecosystem management [125]. Instead of implementing all IPM techniques at once, farmers in a specific region may implement broader IPM methods based on common management focuses [125]. Numerous factors, such as farmer land ownership status, farmers’ attitudes toward IPM, field school, extension contact, and use of enhanced varieties, became more significant and had a positive impact, which increased the probability of IPM adoption [118]. Above all, farmers’ extensive knowledge of IPM is a prerequisite for its widespread adoption.

6. Resources and Tools of the IPM

To get the most benefit from the advantages of an IPM approach, proper use of IPM tools and technology is recommended. Too frequently, a lot of IPM tools and technologies are not implemented appropriately because of practical issues, including high commercialization costs or a lack of interest in their adoption [3]. Some methods that have always worked to get rid of pests are trapping because of delimitation, using biopesticides and insecticides (density-dependent strategies), preventing mating (density-independent suppression technologies), and the sterile insect technique (SIT). It seems like it would be a good idea to use a technology that works quickly, like a combination of biopesticides and the release of sterile insects, or other methods that depend on population density and work against the target population [126].

The likelihood of successful eradication would rise if there were a wider range of tools and technologies available for the suppression and delimitation of pests; however, this is not the case for all insect taxa. Social approval is required in urban areas for eradication by new tools and other activities [127]. A single tactic targets various life stages, which will decimate a population more quickly while limiting the propagation and consequently the infested region. This improves productivity, reduces costs, and permits the introduction of more surveillance traps, raising the possibility of the disappearance of pests, which indicates a successful eradication. In the future, quantitative eradication program analysis will be useful to establish the likelihood of success and major variables influencing the outcome in the eradication of arthropods and other relative pests [128].

General tools used in different methods of IPM:(1)Tools of the Physical Method: Hand picking net (O, V, etc shaped), temperature modifier/regulator, ultraviolet (UV) and infrared radiation (IR) light sources, flame thrower, light trap, sound sources, electric flash gun, etc.(2)Tools of the Mechanical Method:(a)Mechanical barrier: Sticky tape in trees, fences, trenches for crawling- insects, etc.(b)Mechanical trap: Pheromone trap, wing trap, heliothis trap, water pan trap, PHerocon II trap, sticky trap, methyl eugenol trap, delta trap, funnel trap, sucking trap, pitfall trap, etc.(3)Tools of Biological Method: Natural enemies, predators, parasitoids and microbial pathogens are mostly used.(4)Tools of Behavioral Method:(a)Pheromones: Different types of pheromones such as sex pheromones, trail pheromones, aggregation pheromones, alarm pheromones, etc.(b)Allelochemicals: Allomones and kairomones(5)Tools of Biotechnological Method:(a)Hybridization technology(b)Soma clonal variability(c)Transgenic plants (here, plants are treated by the addition of the following genes: lectinenzyme, amylase inhibitors, protease inhibitors, and Bt endotoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis(d)Male sterile technique(6)Tools of the legal method: Quarantine management.(7)Tools of chemical method: All selective chemicals.

6.1. Novel Tools and Technology

(i)For the control of insect pests, new methods are now being developed. Unfortunately, many of them cannot be used broadly. The most useful tools will probably provide generic solutions that can be easily customized for various targets. The ideas listed below are intriguing and could eventually result in new tools.(ii)To provide future programs with more possibilities, new genetic techniques are being developed, such as genetically modified sterile insects with a dominant, repressible, lethal genetic system. Recently, field releases have also been conducted [129].(iii)Arthropod pest population growth can be controlled genetically by using techniques like the release of insects carrying a dominant lethal and SIT [130].(iv)Genetics and biotechnology have made it possible to use new, highly effective, and not-too-expensive ways to control genetics. One example is the use of clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats technology in some of the main disease vectors [131].(v)The microencapsulated moth sex pheromone was applied to sterile Mediterranean fruit flies (mass-reared) before they were dispersed in the urban area, successfully disrupting the moth mate location. This strategy has been designed to resolve the concern of general people regarding the aerial application of pheromones, but it would necessitate the routine release of those treated flies and other effective application techniques [127].(vi)The potential application of nonvirulent, insect-specific viruses to stop the transmission of insect-spread diseases [132].(vii)Under the concept of cross-species behavioral disruption, insects are utilized as weapons against other species. Even though para-pheromones were successful in getting male fruit flies of one species to attract and physically interact with another species during the day, experiments to stop fruit flies from mating at dusk were not successful.(viii)Stichotrema dallatorreanum (Strepsipteran parasite) appears to show potential as a new bio-control agent for the management of the pest Tettigoniidae.(ix)Fluid jet polishing and multijet polishing are proving to be effective techniques for improving polishing effectiveness. This particular method is applicable for polishing the surfaces of boards. Additionally, by cleaning many lens units at once, it can be used to provide very effective surface polishing for large-scale lens arrays [133].(x)Antiaggregation chemicals were used to prevent the Scolytidae from responding to their aggregation pheromones while protecting vital hosts, causing the pest to scatter, which may work against the intention of controlling an outbreak [134].(xi)A variety of underlying genetic and cytoplasmic factors can result in sterility in hybrids produced by crosses between closely related species.(xii)Eradication programs will continue to benefit from the advancement of current technology and its knowledge-based integration, along with the continuous development of innovative techniques. The success rate of invasion responses should rise with the combination of various strategies that have significant synergy or in a sequential use pattern [126].(xiii)In the future, conditional lethality may be used to create sterile males without using of radiation, such as “Release of Insects with a Dominant Lethal” in the medfly system, which maintains a medfly culture dependent on antibiotics. In culture, larvae treated with antibiotics can survive, but their crossed offspring die due to lack of antibiotics [135].(xiv)Initially, fluorescent protein markers were used in transgene use in SIT, and these markers have recently become available for the pink bollworm [136].

7. Limitations of IPM

IPM is reinterpreted for current times when improved agricultural techniques and methods of communication play a crucial role in food consumption and manufacturing. Agriculture is an aspect of global commerce that is influenced by various other variables, and IPM is a feature of agriculture, which is a business focused on serving consumers [3].

Small-scale urban farmers are much more widely mentioned as lacking fundamental horticultural expertise than their rural counterparts, possibly because they are more likely to have nonfarming experiences [137] and can be adversely affected in many other ways (e.g., via linguistic limitations). Unprofitable companies frequently offer these farmers fundamental agricultural instruction, perhaps in collaboration with urban planning agencies as well as other vendors of services. Despite the fact that controlling weeds and pests is frequently quoted as one of the major difficulties confronted by these farmers, agricultural instruction typically gives a basic understanding of pest control [138]. Limited internet connections or unfamiliarity with online sources of information may be obstacles, especially in remote locations where internet access may not be available and also in affluent nations [139]. Perhaps a more significant issue than the availability of advisory services is the paucity of IPM research pertinent to subsistence agriculture [140]. Local farmers may not be able to employ specific pest control strategies due to cost alone, besides the fact that particular inputs may not be available in packing quantities that are acceptable for their range [141]. The one and only package quantities that the pheromone transmitters now come in are considered too large to meet the demands of farmers with large plantations. Another issue is that when dealing with vendors of farming equipment, local farmers may require more negotiating skills [140].

Mechanical and physical management strategies are the most primitive approaches used to directly combat pests. They either destroy the pest, restrict its usual path of attack, or change the atmosphere to deter pest behavior. Concerns regarding the actual harmful effects of pesticides on human beings and the ecosystem have grown as a result of the extensive use of these incredibly poisonous pesticides, especially in agricultural activities. The categorization of pests has undergone a significant change both historically and geographically as a result of changes in farming practices, biodiversity, and ecology. There are often outbreaks as a result of several pests expanding their cosmopolitan distribution and developing pesticide resilience [142]. From a technological and theoretical standpoint, each of the physical, chemical, biological, and cultural methods has limitations that affect how well they work to manage a particular pest. Prior to ultimately choosing the best strategies to use, several other considerations are considered, including the benefits and drawbacks of each method. Strict regulations limit the range of alternatives even though we proceed from manufacturing to consumption. Considering postharvest circumstances, a variety of physical methods of control are employed. The mechanisms of operation for chemical techniques are clearly specified and constrained. Modernization of the infrastructure is often linked to reasonable expenses. Adjusting the standards’ criteria for good sanitary and hygienic practices to specific limits is another hurdle to the deployment of IPM [65].

Bacterial agents are now being used more often in IPM methods due to current issues with the use of conventional pesticides and the focus on sustainable farming with minimal costs [143]. EPF require specific climatic conditions to spread and multiply diseases. EPF have a short lifespan and are extremely expensive to manufacture for commercial applications [48].

8. Future Needs

Suitable solutions are urgently required due to the widespread concerns about relying on chemical pesticides, which are well established. To make sure that the insects do not pose a hazard to the plant, the physical habitat of the pest is changed using physical procedures. Stress levels ranging from aggravation to death can be produced in order to achieve this. This can also be accomplished by employing tools like structural obstacles that prevent pests from getting into crops. By increasing IPM treatments, there is now a widespread desire to reduce pest infestations at all points in the pre- and post-harvest food production processes. We feel that physical methods of control would be more widely employed if management fully understood the “real worth” part of IPM deployment as contrasted to the easier traditional pest management techniques. The employment of skilled individuals with in-depth expertise in the expansion of humans and the activity of the main agricultural pests is necessary for the use of physical manipulation techniques. In order to make it easier to incorporate individual elements, commencing an IPM program sometimes necessitates improving the structure’s layout and modifying the component design [65]. The impact on microorganisms that are not targeted is negligible. Precision farming would undoubtedly benefit from the majority of diseases’ ability to replicate themselves both spatially and temporally [143]. For the comprehensive and typically risk-free management of insect pests in agricultural production, mycoinsecticides have the capability to serve as a key element of an IPM program. The effectiveness of the goods in adverse climate factors, compositions that would improve permanence, have a longer lifespan and are easy to use, as well as pathogenic aggressiveness and range of effect, all require emerging interdisciplinary efforts to accomplish this. The sustainability of pest distribution and abundance in ecological systems is greatly influenced by the actions of EPF. An awareness of this function led to the investigation into the potential use of infectious fungus in the control of insect pests [48]. It has been established that biological treatment is an option that is beneficial for the environment. While teaching farmers how to utilize cultural approaches properly and how to incorporate them into other tactics ought to be a focus of biochemical management. In addition, it is crucial to examine the various microbiological product preparations that will produce the most effective outcomes. From the manufacturer to the customer, every link in the product lifecycle must try to promote and embrace biological control measures. To increase consumer awareness of biostimulants, promotional initiatives, including exhibitions, advertisements, and apprenticeship programs, can be carried out. For use in many environments and temperatures in the future, the search for innovative microbial inoculants should continue. Considering greater effectiveness, usability, and expenditure, improved manufacturing, conceptualization, preservation, and surface treatments must be developed. For important agricultural plants, microbiological genomes can be inserted into conventional breeding. To understand the epidemiology of insect diseases and ensure their long-term usage, a considerable study is required.

9. Conclusion

Diseases, weeds, and pests that affect crops represent a serious threat to agricultural livelihoods, food security, and efforts to reduce poverty. There are numerous ways to minimize harm with IPM strategies. IPM is reformulated for contemporary times, where sophisticated agricultural technologies play a crucial role in food production and consumption. IPM is far more than an ordinary resource-saving technique. IPM techniques require a lot of knowledge, much as other sustainable intensification methods do [1]. In this review, we highlight the present status and development of IPM. Advances in technology have now ushered in a new chapter in IPM. After all, there are some limitations to this process. We have identified those limitations and set some future works in this review. Extension officers needed to increase the training on IPM. This will help farmers to understand pest management as well as they can increase their crop production. Government assistance is necessary for this. If IoT is used in conjunction with the current pest management technique, IPM will also achieve a new milestone. IPM advice is needed to support sustainable farming techniques that combine profits for crop farmers, affordability for consumers, food security, and environmental conservation for the expanding global population.

Data Availability

This manuscript is a review, based on the published articles that are referred and listed in the reference lists of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

P.B.A. developed the idea and designed the structure. S.M., I.J., M.D., U.B.A., F.J.A. and P.B.A. collected the data. P.B.A., S.M., I.J., M.D., U.B.A., F.J.A. and M.S.I. wrote the manuscript and prepared the final version of the manuscript. P.B.A. revised the manuscript.

References

J. Pretty and Z. P. Bharucha, “Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa,” Insects, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 152–182, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. N. E. Birch, G. S. Begg, and G. R. Squire, “How agro-ecological research helps to address food security issues under new IPM and pesticide reduction policies for global crop production systems,” Journal of Experimental Botany, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 3251–3261, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Dara, “The new integrated pest management paradigm for the modern age,” Journal of Integrated Pest Management, vol. 10, no. 1, Article ID 12, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. W. Hagstrum and P. W. Flinn, “Integrated pest management,” in Integrated Management of Insects In Stored Products, pp. 399–407, CRC Press, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Prokopy and M. Kogan, “Integrated pest management,” in Encyclopedia of Insects, pp. 523–528, Elsevier, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Oguh, C. Okpaka, C. Ubani, U. Okekeaji, P. Joseph, and E. Amadi, “Natural pesticides (biopesticides) and uses in pest management—a critical review,” Asian Journal of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 1–18, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
N. E. Korres, N. R. Burgos, I. Travlos et al., “New directions for integrated weed management: modern technologies, tools and knowledge discovery,” Advances in Agronomy, vol. 155, pp. 243–319, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Querner, “Integrated pest management for cultural heritage,” Collection Forum, vol. 30, no. 1-2, pp. 123-124, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Peshin, K. S. U. Jayaratne, and R. Sharma, “IPM extension: a global overview,” in Integrated Pest Management, D. P. Abrol, Ed., pp. 493–529, Academic Press, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Peshin and W. Zhang, “Integrated pest management and pesticide use,” in Integrated Pest Management, pp. 1–46, Springer, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Fahad, S. Saud, A. Akhter et al., “Bio-based integrated pest management in rice: an agro-ecosystems friendly approach for agricultural sustainability,” Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 94–102, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. De Clercq, P. G. Mason, and D. Babendreier, “Benefits and risks of exotic biological control agents,” BioControl, vol. 56, pp. 681–698, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Parsa, S. Morse, A. Bonifacio et al., “Obstacles to integrated pest management adoption in developing countries,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 10, pp. 3889–3894, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Pretty, C. Toulmin, and S. Williams, “Sustainable intensification in African agriculture,” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 5–24, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Mouden, K. F. Sarmiento, P. G. L. Klinkhamer, and K. A. Leiss, “Integrated pest management in western flower thrips: past, present and future,” Pest Management Science, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 813–822, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Gharekhani and H. Salek-Ebrahimi, “Life table parameters of Tuta Absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on different varieties of tomato,” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 1765–1770, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Han, Y.-N. Zhang, Z.-Z. Lu et al., “Are we ready for the invasion of tuta absoluta? Unanswered key questions for elaborating an integrated pest management package in Xinjiang, China,” Entomologia Generalis, vol. 38, pp. 113–125, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Martin, J. R. Underwood, C. Nelson, and A. Payne, “Implementation of pesticide applicator certification schools and continuing education workshops (FHWA-OK-18-03),” 2018, https://hdl.handle.net/11244/321505.
View at: Google Scholar
J. S. Ostrem, Z. Pan, J. L. Flexner, E. Owens, R. Binning, and L. S. Higgins, “Monitoring susceptibility of western bean cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) field populations to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein,” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 847–853, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Stenberg, M. Heil, I. Åhman, and C. Björkman, “Optimizing crops for biocontrol of pests and disease,” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 698–712, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. A. Leiss, Y. H. Choi, I. B. Abdel-Farid, R. Verpoorte, and P. G. L. Klinkhamer, “NMR metabolomics of thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis) resistance in Senecio hybrids,” Journal of Chemical Ecology, vol. 35, pp. 219–229, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. A. Leiss, Y. H. Choi, R. Verpoorte, and P. G. L. Klinkhamer, “An overview of NMR-based metabolomics to identify secondary plant compounds involved in host plant resistance,” Phytochemistry Reviews, vol. 10, pp. 205–216, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Anderson, P. C. Ellsworth, J. C. Faria et al., “Genetically engineered crops: importance of diversified integrated pest management for agricultural sustainability,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, vol. 7, Article ID 24, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. K. Owen and I. A. Zelaya, “Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides,” Pest Management Science, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 301–311, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. N. Meihls, H. Kaur, and G. Jander, “Natural variation in maize defense against insect herbivores,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, vol. 77, pp. 269–283, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. A. Bruce, L. E. Smart, A. N. E. Birch et al., “Prospects for plant defence activators and biocontrol in IPM—concepts and lessons learnt so far,” Crop Protection, vol. 97, pp. 128–134, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Stenberg, “A conceptual framework for integrated pest management,” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 759–769, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Martinez-Medina, V. Flors, M. Heil et al., “Recognizing plant defense priming,” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 818–822, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Labrada, Alternatives to Replace Methyl Bromide for Soil-Borne Pest Control in East and Central Europe, FAO/UNEP, 2008.
S. Cadoux, G. Sauzet, M. Valantin-Morison et al., “Intercropping frost-sensitive legume crops with winter oilseed rape reduces weed competition, insect damage, and improves nitrogen use efficiency,” OCL, vol. 22, no. 3, Article ID 22, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Breidenbach, K. Brenzinger, F. B. Brandt, M. B. Blaser, and R. Conrad, “The effect of crop rotation between wetland rice and upland maize on the microbial communities associated with roots,” Plant and Soil, vol. 419, pp. 435–445, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Kunjwal and R. M. Srivastava, “Insect pests of vegetables,” in Pests and their Management, pp. 163–221, Springer, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Karuppuchamy and S. Venugopal, “Integrated pest management,” in Ecofriendly Pest Management for Food Security, pp. 651–684, Elsevier, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
B. P. Baker, T. A. Green, and A. J. Loker, “Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems,” Biological Control, vol. 140, Article ID 104095, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Torres and A. D. F. Bueno, “Conservation biological control using selective insecticides—a valuable tool for IPM,” Biological Control, vol. 126, pp. 53–64, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Hajek and J. Eilenberg, Natural Enemies: An Introduction to Biological Control, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
A. A. de Castro, J. C. M. Poderoso, R. C. Ribeiro, J. C. Legaspi, J. E. Serrão, and J. C. Zanuncio, “Demographic parameters of the insecticide-exposed predator Podisus nigrispinus: implications for IPM,” BioControl, vol. 60, pp. 231–239, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Holmes, D. Upadhyay, and S. Mandjiny, “Biological control of agriculture insect pests,” European Scientific Journal, Special Edition, pp. 228–237, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Saito, R. Buitenhuis, and M. Brownbridge, “Use of the generalist predator anystis baccarum in greenhouse IPM: interactions with other biological control agents, a laboratory study,” Biological Control, vol. 177, Article ID 105127, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Kundoo and A. A. Khan, “Coccinellids as biological control agents of soft bodied insects: a review,” Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, vol. 5, pp. 1362–1373, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Fahad, L. Nie, S. Hussain et al., “Rice pest management and biological control,” in Sustainable Agriculture Reviews: Cereals, vol. 16, pp. 85–106, Springer, Cham, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Salim, A. Gökçe, M. N. Naqqash, and A. Bakhsh, “An overview of biological control of economically important lepidopteron pests with parasitoids,” Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 354–362, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Harush, E. Quinn, A. Trostanetsky, A. Rapaport, M. Kostyukovsky, and D. Gottlieb, “Integrated pest management for stored grain: potential natural biological control by a parasitoid wasp community,” Insects, vol. 12, no. 11, Article ID 1038, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Mantzoukas and P. A. Eliopoulos, “Endophytic entomopathogenic fungi: a valuable biological control tool against plant pests,” Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 1, Article ID 360, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. M. Abd-Elgawad, “Towards optimization of entomopathogenic nematodes for more service in the biological control of insect pests,” Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control, vol. 29, Article ID 77, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Rahman, S. K. Biswas, N. C. Barman, and T. Ferdous, “Plant extract as selective pesticide for integrated pest management,” Biotechnological Research, vol. 2, pp. 6–10, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Sani, S. I. Ismail, S. Abdullah, J. Jalinas, S. Jamian, and N. Saad, “A review of the biology and control of whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), with special reference to biological control using entomopathogenic fungi,” Insects, vol. 11, no. 9, Article ID 619, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. M. Maina, I. B. Galadima, F. M. Gambo, and D. Zakaria, “A review on the use of entomopathogenic fungi in the management of insect pests of field crops,” Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 27–32, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Rajula, A. Rahman, and P. Krutmuang, “Entomopathogenic fungi in southeast asia and africa and their possible adoption in biological control,” Biological Control, vol. 151, Article ID 104399, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Srinivasan, S. Sevgan, S. Ekesi, and M. Tamò, “Biopesticide based sustainable pest management for safer production of vegetable legumes and brassicas in Asia and Africa,” Pest Management Science, vol. 75, no. 9, pp. 2446–2454, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Dara, Entomopathogenic Microorganisms: Modes of Action and Role in IPM, Agriculture and Natural Blogs, University of California, 2017.
C. Rodriguez-Saona, C. Vincent, and R. Isaacs, “Blueberry IPM: past successes and future challenges,” Annual Review of Entomology, vol. 64, pp. 95–114, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Seybold, B. J. Bentz, C. J. Fettig, J. E. Lundquist, R. A. Progar, and N. E. Gillette, “Management of Western North American bark beetles with semiochemicals,” Annual Review of Entomology, vol. 63, pp. 407–432, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Smart, G. Aradottir, and T. Bruce, “Role of semiochemicals in integrated pest management,” in Integrated Pest Management, D. P. Abrol, Ed., pp. 93–109, Academic Press, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. H. Rizvi, J. George, G. V. P. Reddy, X. Zeng, and A. Guerrero, “Latest developments in insect sex pheromone research and its application in agricultural pest management,” Insects, vol. 12, no. 6, Article ID 484, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Srinivasan, M. Y. Lin, F. C. Su et al., “Use of insect pheromones in vegetable pest management: successes and struggles,” in New Horizons in Insect Science: Towards Sustainable Pest Management, A. Chakravarthy, Ed., pp. 231–237, Springer, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Luo, F. H. Magsi, Z. Li et al., “Development and evaluation of sex pheromone mass trapping technology for ectropis grisescens: a potential integrated pest management strategy,” Insects, vol. 11, no. 1, Article ID 15, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. V. Prasad and M. Srinivasa Rao, “Use of semio-chemicals and pheromones in insect pest management (IPM),” Adaptation Strategies for Pest Management in Climate Change Scenarios, vol. 72, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
N. M. Abd El-Ghany, “Semiochemicals for controlling insect pests,” Journal of Plant Protection Research, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. T. Gajger and S. A. Dar, “Plant allelochemicals as sources of insecticides,” Insects, vol. 12, no. 3, Article ID 189, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. G. A. Barbedo, “Using digital image processing for counting whiteflies on soybean leaves,” Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 685–694, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ben Issa, H. Gautier, and L. Gomez, “Influence of neighbouring companion plants on the performance of aphid populations on sweet pepper plants undergreenhouse conditions,” Agricultural and Forest Entomology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 181–191, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Bhattacharyya, “The push-pull strategy: a new approach to the eco-friendly method of pest management in agriculture,” Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 604–607, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
O. Koul, G. W. Cuperus, and N. Elliott, Areawide Pest Management: Theory and Implementation, CABI, 2008.
K. Thakur, A. Sharma, and K. Sharma, “Management of agricultural insect pests with physical control methods,” The Pharma Innovation Journal, vol. SP-10, no. 6, pp. 306–314, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
E. O. Gogo, M. Saidi, F. M. Itulya, T. Martin, and M. Ngouajio, “Eco-friendly nets and floating row covers reduce pest infestation and improve tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) yields for smallholder farmers in Kenya,” Agronomy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Nath and D. Sikha, “Insect pests of citrus and their management,” International Journal of Plant Protection, vol. 12, pp. 188–196, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Saha, Handbook of Plant Protection, Kalyani Publishers, 1990.
M. R. Damavandian, “Laboratory and field evaluation of mineral oil spray for the control of citrus red mite, panonychus citri (McGregor),” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant Science, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 92–96, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. V. R. Reddy, A. K. Chakravarthy, S. Sudhagar, and R. M. Kurian, “A simple technique to capture, contain and monitor the fresh-emerging beetles of tree borers,” Current Biotica, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 191–194, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
R. A. Salas, Z. C. Gonzaga, D. Wu, G. Luther, P. A. Gniffke, and M. C. Palada, “Effects of physical barrier and insect growth regulator on whitefly control and yield of chili pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.),” Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1-2, pp. 13–19, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
M. A. Shah, K. Malik, A. Bhatnagar, S. Katare, S. Sharma, and S. K. Chakrabarti, “Effect of temperature and cropping sequence on the infestation pattern of bemisia tabaci in potato,” The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 89, no. 11, pp. 1802–1807, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kour, K. L. Rana, N. Yadav et al., “Rhizospheric microbiomes: biodiversity, mechanisms of plant growth promotion, and biotechnological applications for sustainable agriculture,” in Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Agricultural Sustainability, A. Kumar and V. Meena, Eds., pp. 19–65, Springer, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kour, K. L. Rana, N. Yadav et al., “Agriculturally and industrially important fungi: current developments and potential biotechnological applications,” in Recent advancement in white biotechnology through fungi, A. Yadav, S. Singh, S. Mishra, and A. Gupta, Eds., Fungal Biology, pp. 1–64, Springer, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Mazhabi, H. Nemati, H. Rouhani et al., “The effect of Trichoderma on polianthes qualitative and quantitative properties,” The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 617–621, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Kumar and A. Singh, “Biopesticides: present status and the future prospects,” Journal of Fertilizers & Pesticides, vol. 6, no. 2, Article ID e129, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Senthil-Nathan, “A review of biopesticides and their mode of action against insect pests,” in Environmental Sustainability, P. Thangavel and G. Sridevi, Eds., pp. 49–63, Springer, New Delhi, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Clem and A. L. Passarelli, “Baculoviruses: sophisticated pathogens of insects,” PLOS Pathogens, vol. 9, no. 11, Article ID e1003729, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Diallo, A. Crépin, C. Barbey, N. Orange, J.-F. Burini, and X. Latour, “Mechanisms and recent advances in biological control mediated through the potato rhizosphere,” FEMS Microbiology Ecology, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 351–364, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K.-B. G. Scholthof, S. Adkins, H. Czosnek et al., “Top 10 plant viruses in molecular plant pathology,” Molecular Plant Pathology, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 938–954, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Mansfield, S. Genin, S. Magori et al., “Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology,” Molecular Plant Pathology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 614–629, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Raymond and B. A. Federici, “In defence of Bacillus thuringiensis, the safest and most successful microbial insecticide available to humanity—a response to EFSA,” FEMS Microbiology Ecology, vol. 93, no. 7, Article ID fix084, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Abtew, S. Subramanian, X. Cheseto, S. Kreiter, G. T. Garzia, and T. Martin, “Repellency of plant extracts against the legume flower thrips Megalurothrips sjostedti (Thysanoptera: Thripidae),” Insects, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 608–625, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. N. Yadav, A. A. Rastegari, and N. Yadav, Microbiomes of Extreme Environments, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, USA, 2020.
A. Suman, A. N. Yadav, and P. Verma, “Endophytic microbes in crops: diversity and beneficial impact for sustainable agriculture,” in Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity, D. Singh, H. Singh, and R. Prabha, Eds., pp. 117–143, Springer, New Delhi, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Ramanujam, R. Rangeshwaran, G. Sivakumar, M. Mohan, and M. S. Yandigeri, “Management of insect pests by microorganisms,” Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 455–471, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Li, S. B. Alves, D. W. Roberts et al., “Biological control of insects in brazil and china: history, current programs and reasons for their successes using entomopathogenic fungi,” Biocontrol Science and Technology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 117–136, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Ujjan and S. Shahzad, “Use of entomopathogenic fungi for the control of mustard aphid (Lipaphis erysimi) on canola (Brassica Napus L.),” Pakistan Journal of Botany, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2081–2086, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Akmal, S. Freed, M. N. Malik, and H. T. Gul, “Efficacy of Beauveria bassiana (Deuteromycotina: Hypomycetes) against different aphid species under laboratory conditions,” Pakistan Journal of Zoology, no. 1, pp. 71–78, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
J. C. Palumbo, “Review of new insecticides under field development for desert vegetable and melon production,” 1997, Vegetable Report, College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/221606/370111-117-125.pdf?sequence=1.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Michereff Filho, S. O. D. Oliveira, R. S. de Liz, and M. Faria, “Cage and field assessments of beauveria bassiana-based mycoinsecticides for myzus persicae sulzer (Hemiptera: Aphididae) control in cabbage,” Neotropical Entomology, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 470–476, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
M. R. Asi, M. H. Bashir, M. Afzal, and S. Imran, “Effect of conidial concentration of entomopathogenic fungi on mortality of cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae L,” Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 175–180, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
I. C. C. Hsia, M. T. Islam, I. Yusof, T. Y. How, and D. Omar, “Evaluation of conidial viability of entomopathogenic fungi as influenced by temperature and additive,” International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, vol. 16, pp. 146–152, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Saranya, R. Ushakumari, S. Jacob, and B. M. Philip, “Efficacy of different entomopathogenic fungi against cowpea aphid, aphis craccivora (Koch),” Journal of Biopesticides, vol. 3, pp. 138–142, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
H. S. Koppenhöfer and R. Gaugler, “Entomopathogenic Nematode and Bacteria Mutualism,” in Defensive Mutualism in Microbial symbiosis, pp. 117–134, CRC Press, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Sarwar, “Microbial insecticides—an ecofriendly effective line of attack for insect pests management,” International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Research Technology, vol. 1, pp. 4–9, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Kantor, Z. Handoo, C. Kantor, and L. Carta, “Top ten most important U.S.-regulated and emerging plant-parasitic nematodes,” Horticulturae, vol. 8, no. 3, Article ID 208, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. d. F. Bueno and R. C. O. d. F. Bueno, “Integrated pest management as a tool to mitigate the pesticide negative impact into the agroecosystem: the soybean example,” in The Impact of Pesticides, M. Jokanovic, Ed., pp. 165–190, Embrapa Soja-Capítulo Em Livro Téc.-Científico ALICE, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
T. C. Sparks and R. Nauen, “IRAC: mode of action classification and insecticide resistance management,” Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, vol. 121, pp. 122–128, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. de Freitas Bueno, M. J. Batistela, R. C. O. de Freitas Bueno, J. de Barros França-Neto, M. A. N. Nishikawa, and A. L. Filho, “Effects of integrated pest management, biological control and prophylactic use of insecticides on the management and sustainability of soybean,” Crop Protection, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 937–945, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Stecca, A. F. Bueno, A. Pasini, D. M. Silva, K. Andrade, and D. M. Z. Filho, “Side-effects of glyphosate to the parasitoid telenomus remus nixon (Hymenoptera: Platygastridae),” Neotropical Entomology, vol. 45, pp. 192–200, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. de Barbaro, “Automated sensing of daily activity: a new lens into development,” Developmental Psychobiology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 444–464, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Materne and M. Inoue, “IoT monitoring system for early detection of agricultural pests and diseases,” in 2018 12th South East Asian Technical University Consortium (SEATUC), vol. 1, pp. 1–5, IEEE, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Brunelli, A. Albanese, D. d’Acunto, and M. Nardello, “Energy neutral machine learning based iot device for pest detection in precision agriculture,” IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 10–13, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Mabrouki, M. Azrour, D. Dhiba, Y. Farhaoui, and S. El Hajjaji, “IoT-based data logger for weather monitoring using arduino-based wireless sensor networks with remote graphical application and alerts,” Big Data Mining and Analytics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 25–32, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Campelo, J. V. Capella, R. Ors, M. Peris, and A. Bonastre, “IoT technologies in chemical analysis systems: application to potassium monitoring in water,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 3, Article ID 842, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Cavender-Bares, A. K. Schweiger, J. A. Gamon et al., “Remotely detected aboveground plant function predicts belowground processes in two prairie diversity experiments,” Ecological Monographs, vol. 92, no. 1, Article ID e01488, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Pandey and A. Mukherjee, “A review on advances in iot-based technologies for smart agricultural system,” in Internet of Things and Analytics for Agriculture, P. K. Pattnaik, R. Kumar, and S. Pal, Eds., vol. 99 of Studies in Big Data, pp. 29–44, Springer, Singapore, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Dobrojevic and N. Bacanin, “IoT as a backbone of intelligent homestead automation,” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 7, Article ID 1004, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. A. Refaai, V. S. N. C. H. Dattu, N. Gireesh, E. Dixit, C. H. Sandeep, and D. Christopher, “Application of IoT-based drones in precision agriculture for pest control,” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2022, Article ID 1160258, 12 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. P. Singh, A. Yerudkar, V. Mariani, L. Iannelli, and L. Glielmo, “A bibliometric review of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in precision agriculture and precision viticulture for sensing applications,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 7, Article ID 1604, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Popescu, F. Stoican, G. Stamatescu, L. Ichim, and C. Dragana, “Advanced UAV–WSN system for intelligent monitoring in precision agriculture,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 3, Article ID 817, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Velusamy, S. Rajendran, R. K. Mahendran, S. Naseer, M. Shafiq, and J.-G. Choi, “Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in precision agriculture: applications and challenges,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 1, Article ID 217, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Moses-Gonzales and M. J. Brewer, “A special collection: drones to improve insect pest management,” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 114, no. 5, pp. 1853–1856, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Shafi, R. Mumtaz, J. García-Nieto, S. A. Hassan, S. A. R. Zaidi, and N. Iqbal, “Precision agriculture techniques and practices: from considerations to applications,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 17, Article ID 3796, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Demestichas, N. Peppes, and T. Alexakis, “Survey on security threats in agricultural IoT and smart farming,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 22, Article ID 6458, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kaur and M. Kaur, “Integrated pest management: a paradigm for modern age,” in Pests, Weeds and Diseases in Agricultural Crop and Animal Husbandry Production, D. Kontogiannatos, A. Kourti, and K. F. Mendes, Eds., IntechOpen, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. H. Kabir and R. Rainis, “Integrated pest management farming in Bangladesh: present scenario and future prospect,” International Journal of Agricultural Technology, vol. 9, pp. 515–527, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Pouratashi and H. Iravani, “Farmers’ knowledge of integrated pest management and learning style preferences: implications for information delivery,” International Journal of Pest Management, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 347–353, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Atreya, “Pesticide use knowledge and practices: a gender differences in Nepal,” Environmental Research, vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 305–311, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. L. Oo, M. Yabe, and H. V. Khai, “Farmers’ perception, knowledge and pesticide usage practices: a case study of tomato production in inlay lake, Myanmar,” Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture Kyushu University, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 327–331, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. C. Jayasooriya and M. M. M. Aheeyar, “Adoption and factors affecting on adoption of integrated pest management among vegetable farmers in Sri Lanka,” Procedia Food Science, vol. 6, pp. 208–212, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Erbaugh, P. Kibwika, and J. Donnermeyer, “Assessing extension agent knowledge and training needs to improve IPM dissemination in Uganda,” Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 59–70, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Lefebvre, S. R. H. Langrell, and S. Gomez-y-Paloma, “Incentives and policies for integrated pest management in Europe: a review,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development, vol. 35, pp. 27–45, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Puente, N. Darnall, and R. E. Forkner, “Assessing integrated pest management adoption: measurement problems and policy implications,” Environmental Management, vol. 48, pp. 1013–1023, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Suckling, P. C. Tobin, D. G. McCullough, and D. A. Herms, “Combining tactics to exploit allee effects for eradication of alien insect populations,” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Suckling, B. Woods, V. J. Mitchell et al., “Mobile mating disruption of light-brown apple moths using pheromone-treated sterile mediterranean fruit flies,” Pest Management Science, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 1004–1014, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Suckling, L. D. Stringer, A. E. A. Stephens et al., “From integrated pest management to integrated pest eradication: technologies and future needs,” Pest Management Science, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 179–189, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. F. Harris, A. R. McKemey, D. Nimmo et al., “Successful suppression of a field mosquito population by sustained release of engineered male mosquitoes,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 30, pp. 828–830, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Bajda and L. Grigoraki, “Integrated pest management: novel tools, remaining challenges, and intriguing non-target effects,” Current Opinion in Insect Science, vol. 39, pp. iii–v, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hammond, R. Galizi, K. Kyrou et al., “A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 34, pp. 78–83, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Walker, P. H. Johnson, L. A. Moreira et al., “The wMel Wolbachia strain blocks dengue and invades caged Aedes aegypti populations,” Nature, vol. 476, pp. 450–453, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Wang, C. F. Cheung, L. T. Ho, M. Y. Liu, and W. B. Lee, “A novel multi-jet polishing process and tool for high-efficiency polishing,” International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 115, pp. 60–73, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. W. Ross, “3-Methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one and the Douglas-fir beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): history of successful bark beetle pheromone treatments,” The Canadian Entomologist, vol. 153, no. 1, pp. 62–78, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Fraser Jr., “Insect transgenesis: current applications and future prospects,” Annual Review of Entomology, vol. 57, pp. 267–289, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. S. Simmons, A. R. McKemey, N. I. Morrison et al., “Field performance of a genetically engineered strain of pink bollworm,” PLOS ONE, vol. 6, no. 9, Article ID e24110, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Surls, G. Feenstra, S. Golden et al., “Gearing up to support urban farming in California: preliminary results of a needs assessment,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 33–42, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Opitz, R. Berges, A. Piorr, and T. Krikser, “Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North,” Agriculture and Human Values, vol. 33, pp. 341–358, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Labarthe and C. Laurent, “Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms?” Food Policy, vol. 38, pp. 240–252, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Quarcoo, C. Bonsi, D. N. O. Tackie, W. A. Hill, G. Wall, and G. Hunter, “Economies of scale in integrated pest management in vegetable and fruit production,” Professional Agricultural Workers Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, Article ID 7, pp. 53–68, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
T. R. Grasswitz and S. Yao, “Efficacy of pheromonal control of peachtree borer (Synanthedon exitiosa (Say)) in small-scale orchards,” Journal of Applied Entomology, vol. 140, no. 9, pp. 669–676, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Adhikari, “Insect pest management: mechanical and physical techniques,” Reviews in Food and Agriculture (RFNA), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 48–53, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kachhawa, “Microorganisms as a biopesticides,” Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 468–473, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Prodipto Bishnu Angon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

4854

Downloads

1336

Citations