The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contend with. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2015) 35:1199-1215 DOI 10.1007 protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help develop sustainable solutions.

Farmers are facing serious plant protection issues and phytosanitary risks, in particular in the tropics. Such issues are food insecurity, lower income in traditional lowinput agroecosystems, adverse effects of pesticide use on human health and on the environment in intensive systems and export restrictions due to strict regulations on quarantine pests and limits on pesticide residues. To provide more and better food to populations in both the southern and northern hemispheres in a sustainable manner, there is a need for a drastic reduction in pesticide use while keeping crop pest and disease damage under control. This can be achieved by breaking with industrial agriculture and using an agroecological approach, whose main pillar is the conservation or introduction of plant diversity in agroecosystems. Earlier literature suggest that increasing vegetational biodiversity in agroecosystems can reduce the impact of pests and diseases by the following mechanisms: (1) resource dilution and stimulo-deterrent diversion, (2) disruption of the spatial cycle, (3) disruption of the temporal cycle, (4) allelopathy effects, (5) general and specific soil suppressiveness, (6) crop physiological resistance, (7) conservation of natural enemies and facilitation of their action against aerial pests and (8) direct and indirect architectural/ physical effects. Here we review the reported examples of such effects on a broad range of pathogens and pests, e.g. insects, mites, myriapods, nematodes, parasitic weeds, fungi, bacteria and viruses across different cropping systems. Our review confirms that it is not necessarily true that vegetational diversification reduces the incidence of pests and diseases. The ability of some pests and pathogens to use a wide range of plants as alternative hosts/reservoirs is the main limitation to the suppressive role of this strategy, but all other pathways identified for the control of pests and disease based on plant species diversity (PSD) also have certain limitations. Improving our understanding of the mechanisms involved should enable us to explain how, where and when exceptions to the above principle are likely to occur, with a view to developing sustainable agroecosystems based on enhanced ecological processes of pest and disease control by optimized vegetational diversification.

The overall interest in environmentally safe pest control methods and the rise of insecticide resistance in pest populations have prompted medical and agricultural entomology research on insect repellents in recent years. However, conducting research on repellent is challenging for several reasons: (1) the different repellent phenomena are not well defined; (2) it is difficult to test for and quantify repellent; (3) the physiological mechanisms are poorly known; (4) the field efficacy appears to be highly variable. Here, we identified five different types of repellent: expellency, irritancy, deterrency, odor masking and visual masking, and described behavioral bioassays to differentiate between them. Although these categories are currently defined by their behavioral response to different stimuli, we suggest new definitions based on their mechanism of action. We put forward three main hypotheses on the physiological mechanism: (1) a dose effect that modifies the behavior, (2) a repellent mechanism with specific receptors, or (3) inhibition of the transduction of neural information

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) provides an illustration of how crop protection has (or has not) evolved over the past six decades. Throughout this period, IPM has endeavored to promote sustainable forms of agriculture, pursued sharp reductions in synthetic pesticide use, and thereby resolved myriad socio-economic, environmental, and human health challenges. Global pesticide use has, however, largely continued unabated, with negative implications for farmer livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, and the human right to food. In this review, we examine how IPM has developed over time and assess whether this concept remains suited to present-day challenges. We believe that despite many good intentions, hard realities need to be faced. 1) We identify the following major weaknesses: i) a multitude of IPM definitions that generate unnecessary confusion; ii) inconsistencies between IPM concepts, practice, and policies; iii) insufficient engagement of farmers in IPM technology development and frequent lack of basic understanding of its underlying ecological concepts. 2) By diverting from the fundamental IPM principles, integration of practices has proceeded along serendipitous routes, proven ineffective, and yielded unacceptable outcomes. 3) We show that in the majority of cases, chemical control still remains the basis of plant health programs. 4) Furthermore, IPM research is often lagging, tends to be misguided, and pays insufficient attention to ecology and to the ecological functioning of agroecosystems. 5) Since the 1960s, IPM rules have been twisted, its foundational concepts have degraded and its serious (farm-level) implementation has not advanced. To remedy this, we are proposing Agroecological Crop Protection as a concept that captures how agroecology can be optimally put to the service of crop protection. Agroecological Crop Protection constitutes an interdisciplinary scientific field that comprises an orderly strategy (and clear prioritization) of practices at the field, farm, and agricultural landscape level and a dimension of social and organizational ecology.

Agriculture in the twenty-first century faces the challenge of meeting food demands while satisfying sustainability goals. The challenge is further complicated by climate change which affects the distribution of crop pests (intended as insects, plants, and pathogenic agents injurious to crops) and the severity of their outbreaks. Increasing concerns over health and the environment as well as new legislation on pesticide use, particularly in the European Union, urge us to find sustainable alternatives to pesticide-based pest management. Here, we review the effect of climate change on crop protection and propose strategies to reduce the impact of future invasive as well as rapidly evolving resident populations. The major points are the following: (1) the main consequence of climate change and globalization is a heightened level of unpredictability of spatial and temporal interactions between weather, cropping systems, and pests; (2) the unpredictable adaptation of pests to a changing environment primarily creates uncertainty and projected changes do not automatically translate into doom and gloom scenarios; (3) faced with uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should prepare for worst-case scenarios following a "no regrets" approach that promotes resilience vis-à-vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened; (4) more collective approaches involving extension and other stakeholders will help meet the challenge of developing more robust cropping systems; (5) farmers can take advantage of Web 2.0 and other new technologies to make the exchange of updated information quicker and easier; (6) cooperationThe views expressed by Stephen R. H. Langrell are purely his own and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

The physic nut shrub, Jatropha curcas (Euphorbiaceae), has been considered as a “miracle tree”, particularly as a source of alternate fuel. Various extracts of the plant have been reported to have insecticidal/acaricidal or molluscicidal/anthelminthic activities on vectors of medical or veterinary interest or on agricultural or non-agricultural pests. Among those extracts, the phorbol ester fraction from seed oil has been reported as a promising candidate for use as a plant-derived protectant of a variety of crops, from a range of pre-harvest and post-harvest insect pests. However, such extracts have not been widely used, despite the “boom” in the development of the crop in the tropics during recent years, and societal concerns about overuse of systemic chemical pesticides. There are many potential explanations to such a lack of use of Jatropha insecticidal extracts. On the one hand, the application of extracts potentially harmful to human health on stored food grain, might not be relevant. The problem of decomposition of phorbol esters and other compounds toxic to crop pests in the field needing further evaluation before such extracts can be widely used, may also be a partial explanation. High variability of phorbol ester content and hence of insecticidal activity among physic nut cultivars/ecotypes may be another. Phytotoxicity to crops may be further limitation. Apparent obstacles to a wider application of such extracts are the costs and problems involved with registration and legal approval. On the other hand, more studies should be conducted on molluscicidal activity on slugs and land snails which are major pests of crops, particularly in conservation agriculture systems. Further evaluation of toxicity to natural enemies of insect pests and studies on other beneficial insects such as pollinators are also needed.

No abstract

A regional sorghum head-bug and grain mold resistance trial was conducted in 1996 and 1997 at 15 and 13 research stations located in 10 West and Central African countries, respectively. Two cultivars namely IS 14384 and CGM 39/17-2-2 exhibited consistently high levels of resistance both to head-bugs and grain molds over years and localities. Eurystylus oldi was the dominant head-bug species at all localities except in Benin, Chad and Guinea. Sorghum grain mycoflora varied little between sites with genera Phoma and Fusarium dominating, followed by Curvularia. Efficiency of the insecticidal treatment on head-bug incidence partially confirmed the critical role played by head-bugs in aggravating mold infection.