Integrated pest and pollinator management – expanding the concept

By O. Lundin, M. Rundlöf, M. Jonsson, R. Bommarco, N. Williams. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2021

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

I pest management (IPM) is a widely established decision support system that emphasizes the use of multiple methods to control pests (Kogan 1998). There are several definitions of IPM that can be broadly divided into two basic approaches, one that focuses on the judicious use of pesticides informed by monitoring and thresholds, and another more comprehensive form that emphasizes capitalizing on agroecosystem functions prior to intervention with reactive pest control options, such as chemical control (Zalucki et al. 2009). Integrated crop pollination (ICP) – a more recent concept that is analogous to IPM but applies to pollinators – emphasizes the integration of multiple strategies to achieve reliable and sustainable crop pollination (Isaacs et al. 2017). Integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM) has been proposed to integrate pollinator management into IPM (Biddinger and Rajotte 2015). Initially, IPPM was essentially analogous to the first general IPM approach mentioned above because it focused on adapting chemical control to protect pollinators, but bypassed more comprehensive opportunities for comanaging pest control and pollination. Here, we expand the IPPM concept by emphasizing proactive landscape and crop field management as a crucial basis of IPPM (see also Egan et al. 2020), which can be supplemented with reactive humanbased inputs like pesticides. A broadened IPPM concept entails management of agroecosystem functions driven by pests, natural enemies, and pollinators, with arthropods as the central group of organisms responsible for each function (Losey and Vaughan 2006; Oerke 2006; Klein et al. 2007). Although traditionally considered separately, there are numerous reasons for comanaging crop pollination and pest control. The overlapping phylogeny and ecology of arthropod pests, natural enemies, and pollinators create potential – as well as challenges – for comanagement. The three functional groups, of which one (pests) provides disservices, share many environmental and anthropogenic drivers (Figure 1). For example, habitat complexity at local and landscape scales can benefit both pollinators and natural enemies that use alternative habitats and resources at different times in their life cycles (Shackelford et al. 2013). The importance of comanagement is magnified by the fact that the same species can be responsible for herbivory, predation, and pollination; for example, larval hoverflies are predators but adult hoverflies are pollinators, and some bee species (eg Trigona spinipes) can be either pollinators or pests depending on the type of crop (Saunders et al. 2016). Challenges for IPPM are clearly evident, particularly in terms of pesticide use that could harm beneficial nontarget arthropods. IPPM approaches comprise strategies that tip the balance in favor of shared benefits for pollination and pest control. An additional reason to comanage pests and pollinators is that the yield of crops pollinated by animals is often interactively determined by both pollination and pest control Integrated pest and pollinator management – expanding the concept

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Insect Science, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d38869accadf478d9ab7738a57fc2997c91e6ef6