Bioscience Methods 2024, Vol.15, No.4, 196-206 http://bioscipublisher.com/index.php/bm 2 03 cost-competitive with conventional cotton production, offering a viable alternative for growers (Bowers et al., 2020). Figure 3 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 Deguine et al., 2021) Image caption: (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. In this figure, the base of the pyramid includes, for example, mechanical and physical actions, while the large mid-section exemplifies ecologically based methods. Modified from Stenberg (2017). (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. Some of the sustainable pest control measures from the IPM pyramid are likely to drive fluctuating selection on their own, for example, inter- or intraspecific field diversity or crop rotation (“temporal intercropping”), while others, for example, biological control or resistance breeding, can change from driving directional selection to diversifying selection through combination with other methods (“Pesticide-free IPM”). In contrast, pesticide application exerts strong directional selection for resistance in the pests (“Non-IPM 1 pesticide”). The directional selection could be decreased through combinations or alterations of pesticides ("Non-IPM >1 pesticide"). However, there may still be a risk for cross-resistance to develop. EIL could thus be a tipping point for which selective regime that operates in the agricultural fields but the risk to evolve pesticide resistance may be reduced when methods across the pyramid are being used in combination (“IPM allowing pesticides”). Several of the preventive and curative actions could, for example, decrease the potential for resistance development if they are used before pesticides are being applied, for example by increasing gene flow or decreasing the gene pool (Liu et al., 2014; Palumbi, 2001). The different pest management approaches also differ in environmental sustainability, as illustrated with the degree of coloration from white (conventional) to blue (sustainable) in the graph, where IPM without reaching EIL is the most sustainable approach. The arrow represents the range of IPM from completely pesticide-free to when EIL is reached and pesticides are allowed (Adopted from Deguine et al., 2021) 7.3 Future research priorities and innovations Future research in cotton pest management should focus on several key areas. First, there is a need for national research programs to develop cotton varieties adapted to specific environmental conditions and regional pest challenges (Rocha-Munive et al., 2018). Advances in genomics and bioinformatics are crucial for understanding plant-pest interactions and developing new biotechnological solutions, such as RNA interference technology and host-induced gene silencing (Huang et al., 2021). Additionally, exploring non-chemical alternatives and enhancing the implementation readiness of IPM tools are essential to reduce reliance on systemic insecticides (Veres et al., 2020). Innovations in plant training for induced defense and the strategic use of cover crops should also be further investigated to enhance the sustainability and effectiveness of pest management practices (Llandres et al., 2018; Bowers et al., 2020). Finally, addressing the challenges of insect resistance to Bt crops through improved refuge strategies and integrated approaches will be vital for the long-term viability of transgenic traits (Gassmann and Reisig, 2022).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODY0NQ==