Reviewers for Journal of Integrated Pest Management (November 2024 to October 2025)

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has a prominent place on the policy agenda. Due to continuing concerns regarding unsustainable trends in pest management, promoting the adoption of IPM has been a priority in developed and developing countries. The history of IPM, however, can be traced back to the late 1800s when ecology was identified as the foundation for scientific plant protection. The priorities in IPM shifted from calendar-based use of insecticides to need base, and thereafter, reduce use of insecticides with safety concerns to environment and human health. The development, validation, and dissemination of site-specific IPM and adoption by farmers are key elements for the success of IPM programs. The IPM means do right thing based on a value-based decision system and use of multiple tactics. Because, information delivery is a key part of IPM, the spread of the internet rapidly has enhanced knowledge transfer and access to options. The knowledge acquisition tools are essential for the successful implementation of IPM. Knowledge and information transfer are key to correct pest management. IPM emphasizes correct decisions based on available information on pest management. Internet-based interactive decision support can play a significant role in developing countries. With new innovations coming fast and increasing awareness of the internet, more farmers are using IPM informatics and decision support systems. Environmental risk in IPM is an important issue. Pesticides will continue to dominate IPM in developing and under-developed countries as the target is to produce more for food security. Environmental quality in pest management will continue the focus on alternatives to pesticides and environmentally-safe tactics. Recent developments have the potential to contribute to greater significance of IPM for sustainable development in agriculture. New technological innovations and new modes of delivery have given a new direction to IPM. Biotechnology, including genetic engineering, offers new tools for reducing dependency on chemical pesticides. New products for biological control are becoming more widely applied, and the agrochemical industry is developing more specific and target products. Participatory approaches for farmer training and awareness rising are increasingly employed to ensure sustainability of pest management practices. Requirements of the food industry regarding pesticide residues have become a major force that encourage adoption of IPM practices, and the rising public demand for food safety and quality is creating niche and market nobreak opportunities for certified products, such as organic foods. Pest and pesticide management problems affect most countries and many externalities are global in scope. IPM is gaining recognition as a global policy issue and there is increased involvement of the relevant stakeholders in the IPM policy debate at both the national and international levels. To develop IPM programs for the 21st century, directional research and extension seems to be needed, as well as the development of new nobreak technology.

Food, water, and worker protection regulations have driven availability, and loss, of pesticides for use in pest management programs. In response, public-supported research and extension projects have targeted investigation and demonstration of reduced-risk integrated pest management (IPM) techniques. But these new techniques often result in higher financial burden to the grower, which is counter to the IPM principle that economic competitiveness is critical to have IPM adopted. As authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill and administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), conservation programs exist for delivering public-supported financial incentives to growers to increase environmental stewardship on lands in production. NRCS conservation programs are described, and the case for providing financial incentives to growers for implementing IPM is presented. We also explored the opportunity and challenge to use one key program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), to aid grower adoption of IPM. The EQIP fund distribution to growers from 1997 to 2002 during the last Farm Bill cycle totaled approximately 1.05 billion dollars with a portion of funds supporting an NRCS-designed pest management practice. The average percentage of allocation of EQIP funds to this pest management practice among states was 0.77 +/- 0.009% (mean +/- SD). Using Michigan as an example, vegetable and fruit grower recognition of the program's use to implement IPM was modest (25% of growers surveyed), and their recognition of its use in aiding implementation of IPM was improved after educational efforts (74%). Proposals designed to enhance program usefulness in implementing IPM were delivered through the NRCS advisory process in Michigan. Modifications for using the NRCS pest management practice to address resource concerns were adopted, incentive rates for pest management were adjusted, and an expanded incentive structure for IPM technique adoption was tabled for future consideration. The case is strong for using public-supported financial incentives offered by the EQIP to aid grower adoption of IPM as a means to address resource concerns, but current use of the EQIP for this purpose is modest to meager. With appropriate program adjustments and increased grower awareness, USDA NRCS conservation programs, and the EQIP in particular, may provide an important opportunity for growers to increase their use of IPM as a resource conservation and farm management tool.

Field experiments were conducted on integrated pest management (IPM) in rice with 2 treatments viz., IPM and farmers practices on 0.40 ha area each by Agriculture Research Station, Sakoli, Dist.Bhandara, Maharashtra for ive years on 3 farmers' ields in each years from kharif 2015 to kharif2019 with an objective to validate IPM practices from a basket of options available and demonstrate to farmers the management of pests in a holistic way (including insects, diseases and weeds).The results on pooled data revealed that theIPM practice was found more effective as compared to farmer practices in terms of management of insect pest of rice crop viz.stem borer and leaf folder, reduction of sheath rot disease and weed incidence translating into higher yield and higher Bene it-Cost ratio. MATERIAL AND METHODSIntegrated pest management (IPM) in rice trials were conducted on with 2 treatments viz., IPM and farmers practices on 0.40 ha area each by Agriculture Research Station, Sakoli, Dist.Bhandara in Maharashtra state for ive years on 3 farmers ields in each year from kharif2015 to kharif2019.Details of IPM trialsinformation were given below.A) IPM Practice : a) Common practices followed in IPM treatment -Nursery: 1. Seed treated with Carbendazim 50 % WP @ 2 g/kg seed.2. Applied Carbofuran 3 % CG @ 25 kg/ha (Carbofuran 3 % CG @ 2 250 g for 100 m nursery), 5 days before pulling seedlings from Details of practices followed in IPM trialwere given below:

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has been widely employed as an effective method to control or eliminate pest populations within museum collections (Pinniger and Crossman 2021). IPM emphasizes the use of targeted treatments and pesticide alternatives including low temperature, oxygen reduction, or replacement with gasses such as nitrogen, and species-specific lures on sticky traps. These treatments, combined with routine inspections, monitoring, good housekeeping, and exclusion create a more holistic and less toxic environment for the museum’s collections and people. But what about the pests themselves? The definition of a “pest” varies within each industry and it is paramount to consider ethical standards when implementing a pest management program not just for the environment and people, but for the animals targeted. Efforts have been made to minimize harm to rodents and other mammals deemed “pests,” such as banning certain poisons and using catch-and-release methods, but less consideration has been made for insects and arachnids. This talk explores ethics in museum IPM practices to foster a better understanding of our relationship with these living beings. For any museum collection, a primary objective is to limit the potential economic and health risks to the objects under their stewardship and care. The implementation of simple routine practices emphasizing preventive care, works to mitigate the risk of pest entry while deterring the need for more widespread, expensive, and time-consuming methods of pest management. Currently, standard pest monitoring practice employs sticky monitors that are thinly coated with glue and set out in collections storage and galleries to trap and observe potential pest insects. In most cases, any trapped being is killed. While there is, as of yet, no successful replacement for this monitoring system, the sustained practice of IPM with ethical considerations lessens the inopportune demise of insects, arachnids, and small mammals deemed pests. When considering ethics in pest management, there is the question of value. What value do “pests” have? As posited by Michael L. Draney in Ethical Obligations Toward Insect Pests, considering pest insects as individuals limits the development of sustainable and functional ethics for pest management. However, Draney does argue that insect populations are worthy of ethical consideration (Draney 1997). Building on these principles, I believe there is space in pest management to control these populations, protecting our collections, while recognizing the value of these beings and mitigating their suffering. The IPM methods that can help us achieve the goals of protecting museum collections while incorporating an ethical approach to pest management are: prevention, exclusion, and potentially, repellents. The first method, prevention, is the effort to keep pests out, and serves as the foundation and ethical cornerstone for IPM. Prevention is strongest when paired with exclusion, the active discouragement of pest entry. Exclusion aims to keep living beings—other than humans—outside, where they are not pests. This includes reducing entry points from outside the museum, vacuuming exit routes and hallways, organizing a committee of multiple departments tasked with finding collaborative methods of achieving exclusion and integrating pest management into the fundamentals of exhibition design. A commitment to exclusion marks a significant undertaking: it cannot be done alone. There must be a community of people who believe and steward the effort from within, not just individual professionals and volunteers. This is, perhaps, the most significant obstacle faced by a policy of exclusion: obtaining the buy-in and commitment to approaches centered around striking a new balance for IPM between economic expediency and the protection of the collections in question. Non-hazardous and non-invasive pest management is not just beneficial for the health of pests, but also that of museum workers and visitors. Many pesticides used in collections are effective at killing pests while being toxic to humans and the environment. For the health of the collections, humans, and pests, employing preventive methods such as housekeeping, exclusion, and potentially natural repellents reduces the pest’s opportunities for entering the museum (Brennan and Moreau 2019). Integrated Pest Management is a well-established and successful practice for collections care. The suggestions above require us to shift our focus from protecting our items at the expense of other beings to more inclusive approaches. This abstract does not aim to say anything particularly radical regarding IPM, but rather to support the simple and practical use of preventive measures and ethical considerations that benefit our institutions and bugs.

his year marks the 20th anniversary of the UC Statewide T Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program, which has been dedicated to furthering development and practice of IPM in California by facilitating UC research and extension activities. Its mission remains relevant today in addressing the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with a pest management system in transition. While a sustainable, ecologically based IPM approach has long been a desired goal of IPM developers and practitioners, the current IPM reality varies with the system itself and changes in response to external factors. Variables defining an IPM system include location-specific environmental conditions, the pest complex, resident natural enemies or antagonists, economic and sociological structures, and available research. The availability of IPM-compatible tactics, private and public infrastructure, economic and other incentives, and community support also influence its potential for adoption. IPM as a paradigm is universal; IPM in practice becomes specific to the intended crop, site or situation. The concept of IPM as a continuum has been embraced as a method for defining IPM systems in a manner that maintains the ecologically based goal while acknowledging the limitations of current knowledge. In the IPM continuum, professional scouting and use of available action thresholds are the minimum activities. Monitoring increases knowledge of crop status, pests and beneficial organisms, supporting better-informed pesticide use, and more importantly, decisions not to apply chemicals. Further along the continuum, IPM systems incorporate preventative, nonchemical horticultural or agronomic practices and biologically based tactics such as host-plant resistance, pheromone mating disruption, microbial controls and biological controls. “Reduced-risk” pesticides, which present less risk to human health and the environment, would be used sparingly and only when other options are not possible. At the highest level of the continuum, IPM assures that pest and crop managemeht decisions are integrated and ecologically based. The process of building the IPM continuum identifies the state of the art, as well as gaps in research and available pest control technologies. Conceptualizing IPM as a continuum enables individuals or organizations to evaluate how their current pest management practices relate to what is possible in a nonjudgmental way, while acknowledging the degree to which IPM-compatible practices are being used. California can be proud of the individual growers, organizations and in some cases whole industries that have successfully moved forward along the IPM continuum, yet we have only begun to fulfill IPM’s potential. Researchers in the public and private sectors have developed a remarkable number of practical, IPM-compatible tools. These include new applications of host-plant resistance and biological controls; “reduced-risk” pesticides including microbial agents and mating disruption; new classes of pesticides which are more selective and less disruptive to nontarget species; monitoring approaches like pheromone trapping, degree-day models and immunoassays; precision application techniques for pesticides; and refinements of cultural controls such as canopy management, mulches and sanitation.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is recommended in both developed and developing countries as a sustainable approach to pest management in agriculture. In adoption of IPM technologies, the use of chemical pesticides is expected to reduce resulting in positive gains in human and environmental health while still maintaining agricultural productivity. The introduction and adoption of IPM among farmers in Kenya would require that extension officers be closely involved in guiding the farmers in the implementation process. Views of the extension officers regarding IPM and its underlying principles are, therefore, crucial because of their important task as educators. The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of Kenyan agricultural extension officers regarding IPM. The study was conducted among extension officers and data for the study was collected from 193 extension officers in the Central and Eastern provinces of Kenya. The results showed that the extension officers were positive about the various concepts suggested in IPM. The extension officers further believed that IPM has the potential to contribute effectively in pest management by the majority of small scale farmers in Kenya. The extension officers viewed crop rotation, a cultural practice, to be of priority use in pest management. Most of the other IPM practices were considered practical in maintaining agricultural productivity. On the basis of the positive perceptions of the extension officers regarding IPM, the government of Kenya should establish a supportive policy that will enable the extension officers to promote and educate farmers on the various IPM practices. International Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development Vol. 7(2) 2006: 125-133

Integration in orchard pest and habitat management: A review

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a system that combines ready-made plant protection methods. IPM guidelines apply to all users of plant protection products and require the prioritization of preventative methods. Adherence to IPM principles contributes to the production of healthy and safe food. In Poland, the implementation of IPM into agricultural practice remains a solution to the problem. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure education and implementation of IPM at the basic or implementation level. The IPM element, particularly emphasized in the 2009/128/EC Directive, is the use of so-called warning systems, tools that address the issue of plant protection application. In this regard, it is necessary to use decision support systems (DSSs). DSSs are digital solutions that integrate meteorological, global, and field data. They include the risk of disease and pest occurrence and the timing of the application. DSSs are not part of the farmer’s experience or presentation but support them in making sound decisions. DSS reduces costs, the side effects of plant protection, and energy consumption. Examples of such solutions in Poland include the eDWIN platform and OPWS, classified, among others, in cereal protection against fungi. The aim of this article is to present the role, capabilities, and limitations of decision support systems in modern agricultural production and their importance in the context of the Green Deal and digital agriculture.

Worldwide, integrated pest management (IPM) is the policy decision for pest management. It has been five decades since the development of threshold theory and harmonious control strategies were the domain of pest management research in the USA, Canada, and some parts of Europe. In the 1970s the work on development and validation of IPM technologies started in developing countries. The implementation of IPM and pesticide reduction programs has been in place in the developed and developing countries for the last three to four decades. There are plausible questions raised about the objectives of IPM, adoption of IPM practices, and pesticide use. Questions are also being raised on the use of robust indicators to measure the impact of IPM research and extension. Pesticide use by volume, pesticide use by treatment frequency index, reduction in use of more toxic pesticides, and environmental impact quotient have been used as IPM impact evaluation indicators. Low volume pesticides and transgenic crops both decreased and stabilized pesticide use in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since then, the pesticide sales regained an upward trajectory, and pesticide use in agriculture has increased. Transgenetic crops were thus not proven to be a perfect technique in IPM. We propose that the reduction in pesticide use frequency and the environmental impact quotient be the primary indicators to evaluate the success of IPM programs in the future. We have moved full circle from IPM to integrated pest and pesticide management. This chapter analyzes the development and implementation of IPM programs in the developed and developing countries and their impact on pesticide use.

Synthetic pesticides reduce pest populations but also beneficial organisms like pollinators, thereby threatening the productivity of pollination-dependent crops such as avocados. Through the novel concept of integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM), the negative effects of pest control on pollinators are mitigated, leading to synergistic benefits for crop yield and quality. In this study, we investigated the impact of IPPM training on farmers’ knowledge, attitude, and management of avocado pests, changes in the size of avocado orchards, avocado losses due to insect pests, expenditure on pesticides, and income. We compared farmers using IPPM against those using each component in isolation (integrated pest management (IPM) or pollination services (PS) through beehive supplementation (PS)) and a control group that used conventional practices without PS. We utilized 2 rounds of panel data obtained from avocado growers from Murang’a County, Kenya, and employed difference-in-difference (DiD) and multinomial logistic regression models. The results indicate that individuals utilizing IPM demonstrated notable enhancements in their perceptions of avocado pests, pollinators, and IPPM packages in comparison to the control group. Conversely, those utilizing IPPM employed more effective pest management strategies than users of IPM only. In contrast to using IPM and PS in isolation, farmers who utilized IPPM registered a significantly higher (9.6%) increase in the proportion of household annual income from avocado farming compared to the control group. Our findings further show that farmers who received training were more likely to adopt IPM, PS, and IPPM practices. We recommend wide promotion of IPPM to enhance avocado production and livelihoods of smallholders in sub-Saharan Africa.

Adoption of Integrated Pest Management Technologies: A Case Study of Potato Farmers in Carchi, Ecuador

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is proposed as an alternative to conventional pest management practices to rein in the rising use of pesticides in agricultural production. However, the implementation of IPM is plagued by a range of challenges. Attempts in implementing IPM practices have involved dealing with issues closely linked to policy, social and psychological factors, extension methods, and information and knowledge systems. Enabling policies on pest management strategies are consistently proving to be vital prerequisites in promoting the use of IPM. The willingness of governments to support alternative pest management is considered crucial. Social and psychological factors predispose new technologies and practices to resistance by farmers and IPM practices are no exception. The nature of IPM implementation involves participation requiring a paradigm shift in extension methods and strategies. Challenges in IPM implementation have indications of the importance of collaborative effort among all the stakeholders in agricultural development in educating farmers and facilitating the needed change. A conceptual framework is given with suggestions on enabling factors for farmer-led development and implementation of IPM. Keywords : integrated pest management, strategies, developing countries International Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development Vol. 6 2005: 142-150

As historical background helpful to understanding current concepts and practices of apple pest management, we review the origin and rise of key pests of apple in North America and the evolution of approaches to their management, culminating with the concept of integrated pest management (IPM). We propose four levels of integration of orchard pest management practices. First-level IPM integrates chemically based and biologically based management tactics for a single class of pests, such as arthropods, diseases, weeds or vertebrates. Second-level IPM, the focus of our effort here, integrates multiple management tactics across all classes of pests. We describe components of second-level IPM for Massachusetts apple orchards, which are threatened each year by an exceptionally broad range of injurious pests. We illustrate the tentative advantages and shortcomings of second-level IPM using 1993 data from six commercial orchard test blocks. Our predominant approach was to use chemically based tactics for controlling arthropods, diseases and weeds early in the growing season, and afterwards to rely exclusively (for insects) or largely (for other pests) on biologically based tactics, such as cultural, behavioral, and biological controls. Compared with nearby first-level IPM blocks, insecticide use in 1993 was reduced substantially (about 30%), with only slightly more insect injury to fruit and little difference in populations of foliar insect pests. The results for mite pests and diseases were less encouraging although summer pruning significantly reduced disease injury caused by flyspeck. We discuss how second-level IPM poses special biological or operational challenges to apple pest management practitioners. The concept has merit, but refinements are necessary before it can be recommended broadly to commercial apple growers in Massachusetts as an economical and reliable alternative to first-level IPM.

Agronomic research and extension personnel generally recognize the benefits of integrated pest management (IPM) but IPM practices have not been rapidly adopted by farmers. In order for applied research and extension programs to be as influential as possible, strategies and tactics must be evaluated in the context of the real-world constraints experienced by farmers. We investigated the linkage between farmers' pest management behaviors, attitudes, and constraints by analyzing an extensive corn pest management survey distributed throughout Wisconsin in 2002. Our objectives were to (1) create a benchmark against which future changes in pest management practices could be detected and (2) explore potential associations between practices and farm characteristics, e.g., farm size or commodity produced. A total of 213 farmers responded with descriptions of their operations; weed, insect, and disease pest management practices; crop consultant usage; interactions with their local agrichemical dealer; and attitudes regarding pest management decision-making. We compared the relative responses of cash-grain and dairy farmers as well as managers of large and small farms. Larger farm size and percentage of operation in cash-grain production were associated with an increased frequency of rotating crops, rotating herbicide families, and use of a broadcast herbicide application. Managers of large farms and/or cash-grain crops also more frequently indicated considering the level of pest control, price, carryover potential, weed resistance management, environmental safety, and risk to the applicator than did dairy or small-sized operations. Cash-grain farmers had significantly higher scores on a calculated IPM index than did dairy farmers (P < 0.0001). We also found a significant positive relationship between farm size and IPM score (P < 0.0001). Our results provide a benchmark for future comparisons of IPM adoption rates in Wisconsin and highlight the association between IPM research/extension and farmers' management behavior.

As students spend the majority of their days attending school each year, they are an at-risk population to the exposures of pests and pesticides in the school environment. These exposures are capable of adverse health effects that can have a lasting impact as they are undergoing critical developmental stages during these years. Conventionally treated schools rely on routine spraying of pesticides for pest control. However, these conventional methods have been shown to increase exposure risk to pesticides without effective reductions in pest populations. To mitigate unnecessary pest and pesticide exposures in the school environment, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an alternative method of pest management that relies on the biological, physical and cultural control of pest conducive conditions that will only use pesticides as a last resort. Although proven to be an effective pest management control, the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs in Iowa is still minimal. Challenges include misconceptions surrounding IPM principles, effective means of communication, and structural challenges such as staff behaviors and budgetary constraints. This study takes a qualitative research approach to better understand the barriers and facilitators to IPM programs in Iowa. Because of the numerous social and institutional challenges to IPM implementation, using a qualitative approach will identify the perceptions of different stakeholders who engage with IPM and illuminate strategies to improve implementation success of IPM in public school districts. This study found that misconceptions about IPM are often the core of miscommunication issues between the districts and their communities. Transparency of information was found to be a critical component of successful implementation, and the use of local and social media was cited to be an outlet for communication that was preferred by community members. Education, amongst all stakeholders, was found to be an important component that is often overlooked. Behavioral and cultural changes were found to be longstanding challenges in the transition towards an IPM program when people are comfortable in their routines. This poses an increased challenge in the agricultural state of Iowa that has strong ties to pesticide use within its agricultural sector. Although challenges persist in the implementation process, with the understanding that IPM is reliant on a team effort that requires commitment from all involved, IPM has been proven to be an effective method in reducing pest and pesticide exposures in the school environment.