Field Crop 2025, Vol.8, No.6, 274-283 http://cropscipublisher.com/index.php/fc 281 8 Concluding Remarks and Future Prospects The terms "biological control" and "intercropping" may not sound new, but their significance seems to have only been truly re-recognized in recent years. In the past, people relied more on pesticides and sprayed them whenever they saw insects. However, nowadays, more and more field experiments and studies tell us that these "ecological methods" can actually work. With fewer pests and more natural enemies, the quality and yield of cotton have not declined; instead, they have become more stable. Some farmers were initially skeptical, but after seeing the results in their fields, they gradually began to change their practices. The emergence of the comprehensive prevention and control system has transformed these scattered experiences into a systematic one. When biological control agents, selective pesticides and ecological management are combined, the effect is often no worse than that of chemical control, and may even be better. More importantly, the burden on the environment has been alleviated and farmers' input has also decreased. The update of biological control agents and the promotion of the IPM concept have made the prevention and control of cotton pests no longer just a matter of "preventing pests once", but is transforming towards a more long-term and stable agricultural model. However, there are still many problems. For instance, genetically modified insect-resistant cotton and biological control have indeed reduced the amount of pesticides sprayed, but new pest populations, especially piercing-sucking pests, are becoming new troubles. Drug resistance monitoring and classified management are becoming increasingly necessary. Furthermore, many biological control products perform well in laboratories, but they fail to adapt to the environment in the fields, with poor stability, high costs and unstable supply. This is particularly prominent in developing countries. There is another repeatedly mentioned shortcoming: knowledge. Research on the biological control effects at the landscape scale, how intercropping systems can be optimized, and the integrated application of new technologies (such as nanocarriers and precise pesticide application) remains limited. For small-scale farmers, the problems are more realistic: insufficient labor force, difficulty in obtaining technology, and limited resources of biopesticides and associated plants may all become stumbling blocks to promotion. The path ahead probably needs to be more down-to-earth and systematic. Just having ideas is not enough. Details such as the stability of biological control agents, formula improvement, and application methods must all keep up. What works in the laboratory often "changes its nature" in the field. In addition, the framework for integrated pest management also needs to be further refined. Biological control, companion planting, insect-resistant varieties and precision agriculture should be combined to form a model that farmers can understand and follow. But apart from technology, there are also policy issues. Subsidies, training, and research and development support must all keep up; otherwise, no matter how good the methods are, they will be in vain if farmers can't afford them. Promotion should not merely be confined to documents; someone needs to go down to the fields to enable farmers to participate in experiments and offer suggestions, rather than passively accepting "expert solutions". Pests change rapidly, and ecosystems are also evolving. Therefore, monitoring and adjustment have become the norm. Drug resistance, new pests and environmental feedback all need to be kept on the lookout at all times. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for agriculture. Only by learning and adjusting while working can cotton production truly move towards green, stable and sustainable development. Acknowledgments I deeply appreciate the great support of all teachers and students in the research team throughout the research period. 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 Annells A., Strickland G., and Swanepoel, A., 2003, Assessing the feasibility for cotton production in tropical Australia: systems for Helicoverpa spp. management, In: Proceedings of the World Cotton Research Conference-3: cotton production for the new millennium, pp.9-13.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==