1 Introduction

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a holistic approach to pest control that combines multiple strategies to manage pest populations at economically tolerable levels while minimizing the use of chemical pesticides (Pecenka et al., 2021; Zhu and Luo, 2024)). Initially developed to reconcile insecticide applications with biological control, IPM has evolved into a systems-based approach that employs a variety of control techniques, including biological, cultural, mechanical, and chemical methods, to achieve sustainable pest management (Birch et al., 2011). The primary goal of IPM is to reduce the reliance on chemical pesticides, thereby mitigating the negative impacts on human health, beneficial organisms, and the environment (Baker et al., 2020; Deguine et al., 2021). By integrating different pest control methods, IPM aims to create synergistic effects that enhance the overall effectiveness and sustainability of pest management practices (Egan et al., 2020; Green et al., 2020).

Potato cultivation faces significant pest challenges, with the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) being one of the most notorious pests due to its ability to develop resistance to insecticides (Alyokhin et al., 2015). Excessive reliance on chemical pesticides has led to repeated control failures and the phenomenon known as the "insecticide treadmill," where new chemicals must constantly replace ineffective ones. Additionally, pests such as aphids, wireworms, and nematodes pose substantial threats to potato crops, leading to considerable yield losses and increased production costs (Pretty and Bharucha, 2015). The environmental and health impacts of chemical pesticide use further complicate pest management in potato fields, necessitating the adoption of more sustainable and integrated approaches (Chaube and Pandey, 2022).

This study explores the ecological methods of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in potato fields, including an analysis of biological control methods, crop rotation, and other cultural practices that contribute to sustainable management of potato pests. The focus is on sustainable strategies for managing pest populations while minimizing the use of chemical pesticides. The study examines the current status of IPM practices in potato cultivation, identifies major pest challenges, and evaluates the effectiveness of various ecological technologies in managing these pests. This study aims to gain a deeper understanding of the benefits and limitations of IPM in potato fields, and provide recommendations for improving pest management practices.

2 Ecological Approaches in IPM for Potato Fields

2.1 Biological control methods

Biological control methods in integrated pest management (IPM) for potato fields involve the use of natural enemies to manage pest populations. These methods include the introduction or conservation of predators, parasitoids, and pathogens that target specific pests. For instance, the use of biopesticides and biostimulants has been highlighted as a sustainable approach to minimize crop yield losses and reduce the environmental impact of pest management (Baker et al., 2020). Additionally, selective insecticides and habitat manipulation can enhance the effectiveness of natural enemies, thereby reducing the reliance on chemical controls (Roubos et al., 2014). The integration of biological control with other IPM strategies can help maintain pest populations below economic thresholds while promoting ecological balance (Wenninger et al., 2020).

2.2 Cultural control practices

Cultural control practices are essential components of IPM that involve modifying farming practices to reduce pest establishment, reproduction, and survival. Common cultural practices include crop rotation, trap cropping, and maintaining clean and healthy crop growth (Poudel et al., 2022). Crop rotation, for example, disrupts the life cycle of pests like the Colorado potato beetle, thereby reducing their populations and delaying resistance development (Alyokhin et al., 2015). Other practices such as intercropping and the use of resistant potato varieties can also contribute to effective pest management by creating unfavorable conditions for pests (Ortiz et al., 2019). These practices are cost-effective and environmentally friendly, making them attractive options for sustainable agriculture.

2.3 Habitat management for pest control

Habitat management involves creating and maintaining environments that support natural enemies and reduce pest populations. This can be achieved through practices such as planting cover crops, maintaining field margins, and creating refugia for beneficial organisms. The complexity of the habitat at both local and landscape scales can significantly influence the effectiveness of biological control by providing alternative habitats and resources for natural enemies (Lundin et al., 2021). Additionally, managing semi-natural habitats can enhance the ecosystem services provided by natural enemies, although farmer adoption of these practices may vary based on their perceived importance and confidence in natural pest control (Zhang et al., 2018). Effective habitat management can thus play a crucial role in integrated pest and pollinator management, promoting both pest control and pollination services.

3 Advances in Technology Supporting Ecological IPM

3.1 Role of precision agriculture in IPM

Precision agriculture plays a crucial role in enhancing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) by enabling more accurate and efficient pest monitoring and control. The use of precision tools such as GPS, remote sensing, and data analytics allows for the precise application of pest control measures, reducing the need for blanket pesticide applications and minimizing environmental impact. For instance, phenology models developed through long-term monitoring can predict pest outbreaks, allowing farmers to deploy IPM strategies more effectively (D'Auria et al., 2016). This approach not only improves pest control but also supports sustainable agricultural practices by reducing chemical inputs and associated costs (Wenninger et al., 2020).

3.2 Innovations in biopesticides

Biopesticides represent a significant innovation in the field of IPM, offering environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional chemical pesticides. These biological control agents, including microbial pesticides, plant extracts, and pheromones, target specific pests while minimizing harm to beneficial organisms and the environment (Figure 1). The adoption of biopesticides is driven by the need to address pest resistance to conventional pesticides and the growing demand for sustainable agricultural practices (Baker et al., 2020). Despite their potential, the adoption of biopesticides faces challenges such as regulatory hurdles and limited awareness among farmers. Strategies to overcome these barriers include increased education, extension services, and policies that promote the use of biological control methods.

Figure 1 Pest control measures have different selective effects on pests depending on whether they are applied individually or in combination with other measures (i.e., as part of IPM) (Adopted from Green et al., 2020) Image capyion: (a) The IPM pyramid with its largest area of sustainable preventive and curative control methods and a smaller top of chemical pesticide control that could be applied if the Economic Injury Level (EIL) has been reached; (b) A conceptual illustration of the mode of selection that different IPM and non-IPM approaches may exert on pests and their subsequent consequences for the risk of pesticide resistance evolution (Adopted from Green et al., 2020)

3.3 Predictive modeling and pest dynamics

Predictive modeling is a powerful tool in IPM, enabling the anticipation of pest population dynamics and the timely implementation of control measures. By integrating data on pest biology, environmental conditions, and crop phenology, predictive models can forecast pest outbreaks and guide decision-making in pest management. For example, models based on accumulated degree-days have been used to characterize the seasonal population dynamics of key potato pests, helping farmers plan their IPM strategies more effectively (Munif and Rachmawati, 2020). These models facilitate a shift from calendar-based pesticide applications to more targeted and efficient pest control practices, ultimately contributing to the sustainability of agricultural systems (Alyokhin et al., 2015; Green et al., 2020).

4 Case Study: Successful Implementation of Ecological IPM

4.1 Background of the selected case

The selected case study focuses on the implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for potato late blight by the International Potato Center (CIP) and its partners. This initiative began in the 1990s and aimed to address the complex disease of potato late blight by integrating crop protection with social and behavioral sciences. The approach was implemented in various countries across Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and South America, utilizing farmer field schools (FFS) to facilitate farmer discovery-based learning methods.

4.2 Results and outcomes

The implementation of IPM through FFS led to significant positive outcomes. Farmers who participated in the program learned new knowledge, assessed new potato clones, and changed their crop management practices. This resulted in a 32% average increase in potato productivity and income in Peru, with similar improvements observed in other countries. The participatory research and training approach also had a broader impact beyond IPM for late blight, leading to the implementation of over 2 000 FFS in Peru and Bolivia for various crops and livestock between 2005 and 2012 (Figure 2). Additionally, the experience expanded to potato seed management in Uganda and Ethiopia, resulting in the formation of seed cooperatives (Ortiz et al., 2019).

Figure 2 Number of farmer field schools by farming activity in Peru from 1997 to 2012 (elaborated from CIPs survey) (Adopted from Ortiz et al., 2019)

4.3 Lessons learned and implications

Several key lessons were learned from this case study. First, the integration of social and behavioral sciences with crop protection is crucial for the successful implementation of IPM. The use of FFS and participatory research methods proved effective in facilitating farmer learning and adoption of new practices. Second, the approach demonstrated the importance of providing farmers with access to information, knowledge, and technologies to enable them to make informed decisions. Third, the success of the program highlighted the need for strong public-private partnerships and well-trained field advisors to support farmers in adopting IPM practices. The implications of this case study suggest that similar approaches could be applied to other regions and crops to achieve sustainable pest management and improve agricultural productivity (Kroschel et al., 2012; Magarey et al., 2019).

5 Challenges in Implementing Ecological IPM

5.1 Farmer adoption and knowledge gaps

One of the primary challenges in implementing ecological Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is the adoption and knowledge gaps among farmers (Kabir and Rainis, 2015). IPM is knowledge-intensive, requiring a deep understanding of various pest control methods and their integration. Studies have shown that while IPM adoption continues, the level of full adoption has decreased over time, with many farmers adopting only low to moderate levels of IPM practices (Yaguana et al., 2016). This decline can be attributed to the cessation of formal training and outreach efforts, leading to a reliance on farmer-to-farmer knowledge transfer, which may not be as effective. Additionally, the socio-psychological environment significantly affects the adoption of IPM practices. Factors such as attitude, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use play crucial roles in farmers' ecological conservation behavior (Rezaei et al., 2020). The lack of comprehensive training and continuous support further exacerbates these knowledge gaps, making it challenging for farmers to fully embrace IPM practices.

5.2 Economic and logistical constraints

Economic and logistical constraints also pose significant barriers to the widespread adoption of ecological IPM. Implementing IPM can be costly and time-consuming, requiring investments in new technologies and practices that may not yield immediate economic benefits (Li et al., 2024). For instance, while Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have been effective in disseminating IPM knowledge, the economic outcomes in the short term have been mixed, with some studies showing limited improvements in profits and reductions in chemical use (Rejesus and Jones, 2020). Additionally, resource-limited farmers often face challenges in accessing the necessary inputs and technologies for IPM, further hindering its adoption (Bottrell and Schoenly, 2018). The need for interdisciplinary long-term studies and rigorous evaluation methods to understand the economic impacts of IPM is crucial for developing more effective dissemination strategies.

5.3 Environmental and climatic challenges

Environmental and climatic challenges further complicate the implementation of ecological IPM. Climate change, in particular, has led to an increase in pest populations and the evolution of pesticide resistance, making it more difficult to manage pests effectively (Lamichhane et al., 2016). The loss of beneficial on-farm biodiversity and water shortages also contribute to the complexity of designing sustainable pest management strategies (Birch et al., 2011). Moreover, the variability in regional and local landscape patterns affects the effectiveness of IPM practices, necessitating a tailored approach to pest management that considers the specific ecological conditions of each area. The integration of various control techniques, such as biological control and crop diversification, is essential to address these environmental challenges and reduce the reliance on chemical pesticides (Alyokhin et al., 2015).

6 Future Directions for Ecological IPM in Potato Fields

6.1 Integrating multi-disciplinary research in IPM

The future of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in potato fields hinges on the integration of multi-disciplinary research. This approach involves combining insights from evolutionary biology, agroecology, and social sciences to develop more robust and sustainable pest management strategies. For instance, incorporating evolutionary principles can help delay resistance development in pests, optimizing each element of the management system and increasing synergies between them (Green et al., 2020). Additionally, integrating pollinator management into IPM, known as Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM), can enhance ecosystem services and improve crop yields by managing both pests and pollinators simultaneously (Lundin et al., 2021). Collaborative efforts between different research communities and disciplines are essential to advance these integrated approaches and address the complex challenges of pest management in potato fields.

6.2 Policy and regulatory support

Effective policy and regulatory support are crucial for the successful implementation of ecological IPM strategies. Policies that encourage the adoption of biological control methods and reduce reliance on chemical pesticides can significantly impact the sustainability of pest management practices. For example, public and private sector policies that promote the use of biopesticides, biostimulants, and pheromones can help overcome barriers to the adoption of IPM techniques (Baker et al., 2020). Additionally, financial incentives and conservation programs can support farmers in implementing advanced IPM strategies that provide long-term environmental benefits (Brewer and Goodell, 2012). Regulatory frameworks that facilitate the integration of IPM with broader agricultural and environmental policies will be essential to promote sustainable food production and protect ecosystem health (Egan et al., 2020).

6.3 Education and community engagement

Education and community engagement are vital components of advancing ecological IPM in potato fields. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have proven to be an effective method for disseminating IPM practices and enhancing farmers' knowledge and skills (Rejesus and Jones, 2020). These schools provide hands-on learning experiences, allowing farmers to test and adopt new pest management techniques, such as using resistant potato clones and implementing crop rotation (Ortiz et al., 2019). Additionally, increasing awareness and understanding of the benefits of IPM among farmers and the broader community can facilitate the adoption of sustainable pest management practices (Creissen et al., 2021). Engaging local communities in participatory research and training programs can lead to significant improvements in crop productivity and income, as well as broader environmental and social benefits.

7 Conclusion

Integrated pest management (IPM) in potato fields has demonstrated significant ecological and economic benefits. Various strategies have been developed and tested across different regions, such as the high Andes and coastal lowlands of Peru, to address site-specific pest challenges. These strategies include the use of plastic barriers, attract-and-kill methods, and rational insecticide use, which have shown to effectively manage pests like the Andean potato weevils, potato tuber moths, and flea beetles. Additionally, cropping management techniques, such as intercropping and organic farming, have been found to increase insect diversity and natural enemy populations, thereby reducing pest populations. The implementation of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) has also been effective in educating farmers about IPM practices, leading to increased productivity and income. However, challenges such as the evolution of insecticide resistance, particularly in pests like the Colorado potato beetle, highlight the need for continuous adaptation and integration of multiple control techniques.

To enhance the adoption and effectiveness of IPM in potato fields, several policy and research recommendations are proposed. Firstly, strong public-private partnerships are essential for the dissemination of IPM technologies and practices. Governments and agricultural organizations should invest in training programs for field advisors to support farmers in implementing IPM strategies. Research should focus on developing and refining pest phenology models to predict pest population dynamics and improve management timing. Additionally, policies should encourage the use of non-chemical control options and promote sustainable agricultural practices to mitigate the risks associated with excessive pesticide use. Continuous monitoring of pest resistance and the development of new, environmentally friendly pest control methods are also crucial for the long-term success of IPM.

The future of IPM in potato fields looks promising, with ongoing advancements in pest management strategies and increased awareness among farmers about the benefits of sustainable practices. The integration of cultural, biological, and chemical control methods, along with the use of participatory approaches like FFS, has the potential to significantly reduce pest populations and improve crop yields. However, the success of IPM will depend on the continuous collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and farmers to address emerging challenges and adapt to changing environmental conditions. By prioritizing ecological approaches and investing in education and research, the agricultural community can ensure the sustainable management of potato pests and contribute to global food security.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Miss Mao and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on previous manuscript of this paper.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The author affirms that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Alyokhin A., Mota-Sánchez D., Baker M., Snyder W., Menasha S., Whalon M., Dively G., and Moarsi W., 2015, The Red Queen in a potato field: integrated pest management versus chemical dependency in Colorado potato beetle control, Pest Management Science, 71(3): 343-56.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3826

Baker B., Green T., and Loker A., 2020, Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems, Biological Control, 140: 104095.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104095

Birch A., Begg G., and Squire G., 2011, 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, 62(10): 3251-3261.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err064

Bottrell D., and Schoenly K., 2018, Integrated pest management for resource-limited farmers: challenges for achieving ecological social and economic sustainability, The Journal of Agricultural Science, 156: 408-426.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859618000473

Brewer M., and Goodell P., 2012, Approaches and incentives to implement integrated pest management that addresses regional and environmental issues, Annual Review of Entomology, 57: 41-59.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144748

Chaube S., and Pandey S., 2022, Integrated pest management (IPM) best approach to control the agriculturally harmful pest population Big Data In Agriculture, Big Data In Agriculture (BDA), 4(2): 39-41.

https://doi.org/10.26480/bda.02.2022.39.41

Creissen H., Jones P., Tranter R., Girling R., Jess S., Burnett F., Gaffney M., Thorne F., and Kildea S., 2021, Identifying the drivers and constraints to adoption of IPM amongst arable farmers in the UK and Ireland, Pest Management Science, 77(9): 4148-4158.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6452

D'Auria E., Wohleb C., Waters T., and Crowder D., 2016, Seasonal population dynamics of three potato pests in Washington State, Environmental Entomology, 45: 781-789.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvw046

Deguine J., Aubertot J., Flor R., Lescourret F., Wyckhuys K., and Ratnadass A., 2021, Integrated pest management: good intentions hard realities, A review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41(3): 38.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w

Egan P., Dicks L., Hokkanen H., and Stenberg J., 2020, Delivering Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM), Trends in Plant science, 25(6): 577-589.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2020.01.006

Green K., Stenberg J., and Lankinen Å., 2020, Making sense of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the light of evolution, Evolutionary Applications, 13: 1791-1805.

https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13067

Kabir M., and Rainis R., 2015, Adoption and intensity of integrated pest management (IPM) vegetable farming in Bangladesh: an approach to sustainable agricultural development, Environment Development and Sustainability, 17: 1413-1429.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9613-y

Kroschel J., Mujica N., Alcázar J., Cañedo V., and Zegarra O., 2012, Developing integrated pest management for potato: experiences and lessons from two distinct potato production systems of Peru, Sustainable PotatoProduction: Global Case Studies, 2012: 419-450.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4104-1_25

Lamichhane J., Aubertot J., Begg G., Birch A., Boonekamp P., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S., Hansen J., Hovmøller M., Jensen J., Jørgensen L., Kiss J., Kudsk P., Moonen A., Rasplus J., Sattin M., Streito J., and Messéan A., 2016, Networking of integrated pest management: A powerful approach to address common challenges in agriculture, Crop Protection, 89: 139-151.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CROPRO.2016.07.011

Li Y.W., Dong W.B., Liang L.Y., Liu F.P., Li H.L., Liao H.H., and Wang X., 2024, Application of multi-gene stacking strategies in citrus pest resistance breeding: from theory to practice, Molecular Plant Breeding, 15(5): 209-219.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5376/mpb.2024.15.0021

Lundin O., Rundlöf M., Jonsson M., Bommarco R., and Williams N., 2021, Integrated pest and pollinator management-expanding the concept, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 19(5): 283-291.

https://doi.org/10.1002/FEE.2325

Magarey R., Chappell T., Trexler C., Pallipparambil G., and Hain E., 2019, Social ecological system tools for improving crop pest management, Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 10(1): 2.

https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPM/PMZ004

Munif A., and Rachmawati V., 2020, Knowledge attitude and action of farmers in controlling plant pest and disease of potato in Garut West Java, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 468(1): 012053.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/468/1/012053

Ortiz O., Nelson R., Olanya M., Thiele G., Orrego R., Pradel W., Kakuhenzire R., Woldegiorgis G., Gabriel J., Vallejo J., and Xie K., 2019, Human and Technical Dimensions of Potato Integrated Pest Management Using Farmer Field Schools: International Potato Center and Partners’ Experience With Potato Late Blight Management, Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 10(1): 4.

https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPM/PMZ002

Pecenka J., Ingwell L., Foster R., Krupke C., and Kaplan I., 2021, IPM reduces insecticide applications by 95% while maintaining or enhancing crop yields through wild pollinator conservation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(44): e2108429118.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108429118

Poudel D., Bashyal S., and Gautam B., 2022, A review on cultural practice as an effective pest management approach under integrated pest management, Tropical Agroecosystems, 3: 34-40.

https://doi.org/10.26480/taec.01.2022.34.40

Pretty J., and Bharucha Z., 2015, Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa, Insects, 6: 152-182.

https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6010152

Rejesus R., and Jones M., 2020, Perspective: enhancing economic evaluations and impacts of integrated pest management farmer field schools (IPM-FFS) in low-income countries, Pest Management Science, 76(11): 3527-3536.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5912

Rezaei R., Safa L., and Ganjkhanloo M., 2020, Understanding farmers’ ecological conservation behavior regarding the use of integrated pest management- an application of the technology acceptance model, Global Ecology and Conservation, 22: e00941.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00941

Roubos C., Rodriguez-Saona C., and Isaacs R., 2014, Mitigating the effects of insecticides on arthropod biological control at field and landscape scales, Biological Control, 75: 28-38.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCONTROL.2014.01.006

Wenninger E., Rashed A., Rondon S., Alyokhin A., and Álvarez J., 2020, Insect Pests and Their Management, pp. 283-345.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39157-7_11

Yaguana V., Alwang J., Norton G., and Barrera V., 2016, Does IPM have staying power? revisiting a potato-producing area years after formal training ended, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67: 308-323.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12140

Zhang H., Potts S., Breeze T., and Bailey A., 2018, European farmers’ incentives to promote natural pest control service in arable fields, Land Use Policy, 78: 682-690.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.07.017

Zhu S.J., and Luo M.T., 2024, Advancements in pest management techniques for cotton crops, Bioscience Methods, 15(4): 196-206.

https://doi.org/10.5376/bm.2024.15.0020