Towards integrated pest and pollinator management in tropical crops

Pesticide use in integrated pest and pollinator management framework to protect pollinator health

Agricultural pesticides have historically been a critical tool in controlling pests and diseases, preventing widespread suffering and crop losses that led to catastrophes such as the Great Irish Famine (1845-1852) and the Cotton Boll Weevil Infestation (1915-1916). However, their usage has brought challenges, including resistance development, secondary pest outbreaks, harm to non-target organisms like pollinators, and environmental contamination. In response to these concerns, integrated pest management (IPM) has emerged as a comprehensive approach, emphasizing non-chemical pest control methods such as cultural practices, biological control, and crop rotation, with pesticides as the last resort. IPM has evolved, influenced by regulations like the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which prioritizes human health protection, especially for children. The development of systemic pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids, introduced a more efficient and targeted pest control method within the IPM framework. However, they have also raised concerns due to their potential adverse effects on pollinators. In recent years, integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM) has emerged as an enhanced approach, integrating pollinator health considerations into pest management strategies. In this article, we discuss this new approach, and briefly present an example of a modifying pesticide program in Pennsylvania apple orchards to illustrate the application of IPPM, in order to highlight the importance of IPPM in sustaining agriculture, protecting vital pollinators, and maintaining effective pest control practices. © 2024 The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Are agricultural commodity production systems at risk from local biodiversity loss?

Compelling evidence for feedbacks between commodity crop production systems and local ecosystems has led to predictions that biodiversity loss could threaten food security. However, for this to happen agricultural production systems must both impact and depend on the same components of biodiversity. Here, we review the evidence for and against the simultaneous impacts and dependencies of eight important commodity crops on biodiversity. We evaluate the risk that pollination, pest control or biodiversity-mediated soil health maintenance services are at risk from local biodiversity loss. We find that for key species groups such as ants, bees and birds, the production of commodities including coffee, cocoa and soya bean is indeed likely to be at risk from local biodiversity loss. However, we also identify several combinations of commodity, ecosystem service and component of biodiversity that are unlikely to lead to reinforcing feedbacks and lose-lose outcomes for biodiversity and agriculture. Furthermore, there are significant gaps in the evidence both for and against a mutualism between biodiversity and agricultural commodity production, highlighting the need for more evaluation of the importance of specific biodiversity groups to agricultural systems globally.

Pollination crisis Down-Under: Has Australasia dodged the bullet?

Since mid-1990s, concerns have increased about a human-induced "pollination crisis." Threats have been identified to animals that act as plant pollinators, plants pollinated by these animals, and consequently human well-being. Threatening processes include loss of natural habitat, climate change, pesticide use, pathogen spread, and introduced species. However, concern has mostly been during last 10-15 years and from Europe and North America, with Australasia, known as Down-Under, receiving little attention. So perhaps Australasia has "dodged the bullet"? We systematically reviewed the published literature relating to the "pollination crisis" via Web of Science, focusing on issues amenable to this approach. Across these issues, we found a steep increase in publications over the last few decades and a major geographic bias towards Europe and North America, with relatively little attention in Australasia. While publications from Australasia are underrepresented, factors responsible elsewhere for causing the "pollination crisis" commonly occur in Australasia, so this lack of coverage probably reflects a lack of awareness rather than the absence of a problem. In other words, Australasia has not "dodged the bullet" and should take immediate action to address and mitigate its own "pollination crisis." Sensible steps would include increased taxonomic work on suspected plant pollinators, protection for pollinator populations threatened with extinction, establishing long-term monitoring of plant-pollinator relationships, incorporating pollination into sustainable agriculture, restricting the use of various pesticides, adopting an Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management approach, and developing partnerships with First Nations peoples for research, conservation and management of plants and their pollinators. Appropriate Government policy, funding and regulation could help.

Perspective article: Food security in tropical Africa through climate-smart plant health management

Each year, Africa loses half of its harvest to pests (insects, pathogens, nematodes, weeds). To offset these losses and improve food security, pest management needs to be revamped urgently. Based on a synthesis of all 58 pest management projects conducted by IITA in its 55-year history, we advocate here for the implementation of the five following key climate-smart interventions, which have been shown to increase yields and decreasing CO₂ outputs compared to the current practices that are largely based on the use of synthetic pesticides: 1. Sanitation at the country's borders and at the field level is the most cost-efficient way to prevent pest damage and losses from exotic pests entering new territories. 2. Good soil management strengthens the crop plant and enhances the effectiveness of all other interventions. 3. Biological control is the quickest and in the long run most cost-effective way to control invading insect pests and weeds. 4. Resistant varieties are often the only way to control already established diseases and are a mainstay control method in combination with other practices. 5. Various bio-pesticides based on viruses, bacteria and fungi against insects have been commercialized or can be produced on-farm; they are to replace synthetic pesticides, which continue to have large negative impacts on the environment and human health. To apply these five practices, new decision-support and climate services tools should be used to empower low-literacy farmers to take timely decisions about pest control and to act as business partners. Meanwhile, all actors in the pest control community should account for their environmental costs, which up to now are born solely by the community, while profits from pesticide sales are pocketed privately. To successfully disseminate these practices across the continent, enhanced and harmonized policy support is required.