1 Introduction

Gossypium, commonly known as cotton, is a genus that includes several species of significant economic importance due to their fiber production (Zhang and Wang, 2024). Cotton is a vital agricultural commodity, serving as a primary source of natural fiber globally. The crop's significance is underscored by its extensive use in the textile industry, providing raw material for a wide range of products. In the 2021/22 season, global cotton production was projected at 117 million bales, highlighting its economic importance (Razzaq et al., 2023). Cotton cultivation supports the livelihoods of millions of people worldwide, from farmers to those involved in processing, trading, and marketing (Binu and Bhede, 2019). Given its critical role in the global economy, maintaining the health and productivity of cotton crops is essential.

Cotton crops face numerous challenges, particularly from pests, which are a major cause of crop losses. Insect pests and their management represent the highest variable cost in cotton production (Alves et al., 2020). The crop is susceptible to a variety of biotic stresses, including bacteria, viruses, fungi, nematodes, insects, and mites, which can cause substantial losses (Razzaq et al., 2023). The repeated application of synthetic insecticides has been a common practice to manage these pests, but it has led to issues such as resistance development and negative impacts on non-target organisms, including natural enemies of pests (Binu and Bhede, 2019). Additionally, the use of harmful pesticides poses risks to the environment and human health.

This study explores and summarizes the advancements in pest management techniques for cotton crops; covers a range of strategies, from traditional chemical controls to modern biotechnological approaches. It examines the effectiveness of various methods, including the use of genetically modified Bt cotton, which has been developed to resist specific insect pests. It also discusses innovative technologies such as deep learning models for pest identification, which can enhance the precision and efficiency of pest management practices. By providing a comprehensive overview of current and emerging pest management techniques, this study aims to inform and guide future research and practices in sustainable cotton cultivation.

2 Historical Perspective on Pest Management in Cotton

2.1 Traditional pest control methods

Historically, pest management in cotton crops relied heavily on the use of synthetic chemicals. The Green Revolution, which introduced high-yielding crop varieties, also led to an increased use of agrochemicals, including pesticides, to manage the rising intensity of pest infestations (Chaube and Pandey, 2022). This approach, while initially effective, resulted in several ecological and health issues, including the destruction of beneficial insects and the development of pest resistance (Chaube and Pandey, 2022). Traditional methods were largely reactive, focusing on the eradication of pests through chemical means without considering the broader ecological impacts.

2.2 Evolution of pest resistance

The extensive use of synthetic pesticides led to the evolution of pest resistance, a significant challenge in cotton pest management. Over time, pests developed resistance to commonly used insecticides, rendering them less effective and necessitating higher doses or more frequent applications (Wilson et al., 2018). This resistance evolution was driven by the selective pressure exerted by continuous pesticide use, which favored the survival of resistant individuals within pest populations (Green et al., 2020). The recognition of this issue highlighted the need for more sustainable pest management strategies that could mitigate the development of resistance.

2.3 The shift towards Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

In response to the limitations of traditional pest control methods and the growing issue of pest resistance, the cotton industry began to adopt Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. IPM is a holistic approach that combines preventive and curative measures, emphasizing the use of multiple methods to control pests and reduce reliance on synthetic pesticides (Green et al., 2020; Veres et al., 2020). The Australian cotton industry, for example, successfully implemented a systems IPM approach that integrated pest ecology, biology, and resistance management into a flexible, year-round strategy (Wilson et al., 2018). This approach included the use of Bt cotton, selective insecticides, and economic validation, supported by an industry-wide extension campaign (Wilson et al., 2018).

IPM also incorporates techniques such as plant training for induced defense, which enhances the natural defense mechanisms of cotton plants against pests (Liandres et al., 2018). This method, along with other IPM tools like biological control and agronomic strategies, has been shown to significantly reduce insecticide use and improve productivity (Veres et al., 2020). Despite the challenges, the shift towards IPM represents a proactive and sustainable approach to pest management in cotton, focusing on long-term solutions and the integration of new scientific advancements (Wilson et al., 2018; Deguine et al., 2021).

By adopting IPM, the cotton industry aims to create a more resilient and sustainable agricultural system that can effectively manage pest populations while minimizing environmental and health impacts. This transition marks a significant evolution in pest management practices, moving from reactive chemical control to a more integrated and ecologically sound approach.

3 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategies

3.1 Principles of IPM

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a holistic approach to pest control that combines various management strategies and practices to grow healthy crops and minimize the use of pesticides. The core principles of IPM include understanding pest ecology, monitoring pest populations, and using a combination of biological, cultural, mechanical, and chemical control methods only when necessary. This approach aims to reduce the reliance on chemical pesticides, thereby minimizing environmental impact and delaying the development of pest resistance (Wilson et al., 2018; Green et al., 2020; Deguine et al., 2021).

3.2 Biological control methods

3.2.1 Use of natural predators

Biological control is a cornerstone of IPM, involving the use of natural predators to manage pest populations. Mass rearing and release of natural enemies have been pivotal in the success of biological control programs (Xuan, 2024). Predatory insects, such as lady beetles and lacewings, are commonly used to control aphids and other soft-bodied pests in cotton crops. These natural enemies help maintain pest populations below damaging levels, reducing the need for chemical interventions (Figure 1) (Romeis et al., 2019; Baker et al., 2020; Francis et al., 2020).

3.2.2 Parasitoids in cotton pest management

Parasitoids, such as certain species of wasps, play a crucial role in controlling cotton pests. These insects lay their eggs inside or on the bodies of pest insects, and the developing parasitoid larvae eventually kill their hosts. This method has been effective in managing pests like the cotton bollworm and whiteflies, contributing to sustainable pest control in cotton farming (Romeis et al., 2019; Francis et al., 2020).

3.3 Cultural control techniques

3.3.1 Crop rotation

Crop rotation is a cultural control technique that involves alternating the types of crops grown in a particular field from one season to the next. This practice disrupts the life cycles of pests that are specific to certain crops, thereby reducing their populations. For example, rotating cotton with non-host crops can help manage soil-borne pests and diseases, enhancing the overall health of the cropping system (Wilson et al., 2018; Veres et al., 2020).

3.3.2 Intercropping and trap crops

Intercropping involves growing two or more crops in proximity, which can help in pest management by increasing biodiversity and disrupting pest habitats. Trap cropping, a specific type of intercropping, uses plants that attract pests away from the main crop. For instance, planting trap crops around cotton fields can lure pests like bollworms away from the cotton, reducing the need for chemical controls (Veres et al., 2020; Rowen et al., 2022).

3.4 Chemical Control in IPM

3.4.1 Selective use of pesticides

While IPM emphasizes non-chemical methods, the selective use of pesticides is sometimes necessary. The key is to use pesticides judiciously and only when pest populations exceed economic thresholds. Selective pesticides that target specific pests while sparing beneficial organisms are preferred. This approach helps in maintaining the ecological balance and reducing the risk of pest resistance (Wilson et al., 2018; Green et al., 2020; Deguine et al., 2021).

3.4.2 Resistance management strategies

Resistance management is a critical component of IPM, aimed at delaying the development of pest resistance to pesticides. Strategies include rotating pesticides with different modes of action, using pesticide mixtures, and integrating non-chemical control methods. These practices help in sustaining the effectiveness of pesticides and ensuring long-term pest control (Wilson et al., 2018; Green et al., 2020; Deguine et al., 2021).

By integrating these diverse strategies, IPM provides a sustainable approach to managing pests in cotton crops, promoting environmental health and agricultural productivity.

4 Biotechnological Advances in Cotton Pest Management

4.1 Genetic engineering and Bt cotton

4.1.1 Development and adoption of Bt cotton

Bt cotton, genetically engineered to express insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), has revolutionized pest management in cotton crops. The introduction of Bt cotton has significantly reduced the reliance on chemical insecticides, leading to a decrease in environmental impact and production costs. The adoption of Bt cotton has been widespread due to its effectiveness in controlling major pests such as the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) and the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) (Figure 2) (Razzaq et al., 2023; Bally et al., 2020).

Razzaq et al. (2023) illustrates the impact of Bt cotton on pest-community interactions within the agricultural ecosystem. Bt cotton, engineered to produce Cry toxins, targets specific pests like the cotton bollworm (H. armigera). The Cry toxins disrupt the lifecycle of these pests, effectively reducing their populations. The diagram shows how Bt cotton serves as a "death trap" for cotton bollworms, not only controlling their numbers but also indirectly protecting other crops such as corn, peanut, and soybean by breaking the pest's host chain. Additionally, the figure highlights the influence of Bt toxins on the rhizosphere and phyllosphere, affecting soil microbiomes and enzyme activities. The decline in cotton bollworm populations with increased Bt cotton cultivation underscores the effectiveness of this biotechnological approach.

4.1.2 Impact on pest populations and resistance

While Bt cotton has been successful in reducing pest populations and increasing crop yields, the evolution of resistance in target pests poses a significant challenge. Instances of resistance have been documented, leading to increased feeding injury and reduced effectiveness of Bt crops (Gassmann and Reisig, 2022). Strategies such as the refuge strategy, which involves planting non-Bt cotton alongside Bt cotton, and the pyramiding of multiple Bt genes, have been implemented to delay resistance development (Ma and Zhang, 2018; Razzaq et al., 2023). Additionally, integrating Bt with RNA interference (RNAi) technology has shown promise in managing resistance by providing a new mode of action (Ma and Zhang, 2018; Kang et al., 2021).

4.2 RNA interference (RNAi) technology

4.2.1 Mechanisms and applications

RNA interference (RNAi) is a biological process where double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) induces the degradation of specific messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules, effectively silencing target genes. This technology offers high specificity and potency, making it a valuable tool for pest management. RNAi can be delivered through transgenic plants or non-transformative methods such as foliar sprays, trunk injections, and irrigation (Zotti et al., 2018; Cagliari et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2020). The use of RNAi in crop protection extends beyond insect pests to include pathogens and nematodes, providing a broad spectrum of applications (Zotti et al., 2018; Li et al., 2023).

4.2.2 Case studies of RNAi in cotton pest control

Several case studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of RNAi in controlling cotton pests. For instance, transgenic cotton plants expressing dsRNA targeting the juvenile hormone synthesis pathway in Helicoverpa armigera have shown significant pest mortality and delayed resistance development when combined with Bt toxins (Ma and Zhang, 2018). Another study highlighted the potential of plastid-mediated RNAi (PM-RNAi) to protect plants from multiple arthropod pests by engineering the chloroplast genome to produce dsRNA (Li et al., 2023). Additionally, the use of pre-microRNA-based technology (plin-amiR) has been explored to control herbivorous pests like the cotton bollworm, showing promising results in increasing pest mortality and developmental abnormalities (Bally et al., 2020).

4.3 CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing for pest resistance

CRISPR-Cas9 technology offers a powerful tool for gene editing, enabling precise modifications to the genome of both plants and pests. This technology can be used to develop pest-resistant cotton varieties by targeting specific genes involved in pest susceptibility. For example, CRISPR-Cas9 can be employed to knock out genes essential for pest survival or reproduction, thereby reducing pest populations and enhancing crop protection. The integration of CRISPR-Cas9 with other biotechnological approaches, such as Bt and RNAi, holds great potential for sustainable pest management in cotton crops (Razzaq et al., 2023).

5 Precision Agriculture and Digital Tools

5.1 Use of remote sensing and drones

The integration of remote sensing and drone technology has revolutionized pest management in cotton crops. Remote sensing involves the measurement and analysis of electromagnetic radiation reflected from crop fields, which can be used to detect physiological changes in plants caused by pest infestations. This technology allows for early detection and precise monitoring of pest outbreaks, which is crucial for timely intervention and minimizing crop losses (Filho et al., 2019; El-Ghany et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2023).

Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), equipped with advanced imaging technologies such as multispectral and hyperspectral sensors, can capture detailed images of crop fields. These images can be processed to identify pest hotspots and generate prescription maps for targeted pesticide application. This method not only improves the efficiency of pest control but also reduces the environmental impact by minimizing the use of chemical pesticides (Vanegas et al., 2018; Filho et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2023). Additionally, drones can be used for precision spraying, where they deliver pesticides or natural enemies directly to the affected areas, further enhancing the sustainability of pest management practices (Filho et al., 2019; Azfar et al., 2023a; Azfar et al., 2023b).

5.2 Data-driven decision making in pest management

Data-driven decision making is a cornerstone of modern pest management strategies. The use of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, such as motion detection sensors and environmental sensors, enables real-time monitoring of pest activity and environmental conditions in cotton fields. These sensors collect vast amounts of data, which can be analyzed using advanced algorithms to predict pest outbreaks and inform management decisions (Chen et al., 2020; Azfar et al., 2023a; Azfar et al., 2023b).

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning techniques play a significant role in processing and interpreting the data collected from various sources. For instance, AI algorithms can classify and segment images of pests, extract relevant features, and predict pest occurrences based on historical data and environmental conditions. This predictive capability allows farmers to implement proactive pest management measures, reducing the likelihood of severe infestations and crop damage (Chen et al., 2020; Filho et al., 2022; Toscano-Miranda et al., 2022). The integration of AI with IoT and remote sensing technologies creates a comprehensive system for efficient and effective pest management in cotton crops (Chen et al., 2020; Toscano-Miranda et al., 2022; Azfar et al., 2023a).

5.3 Mobile applications for pest identification and management

Mobile applications have emerged as valuable tools for pest identification and management in cotton crops. These applications leverage AI and image recognition technologies to provide farmers with real-time information about pest presence and severity. By simply capturing images of affected plants, farmers can receive instant feedback on the type of pest and recommended control measures (Chen et al., 2020; Toscano-Miranda et al., 2022).

Moreover, mobile applications can integrate data from various sources, including remote sensing, IoT sensors, and weather stations, to provide a holistic view of the pest situation in the field. This integration enables farmers to make informed decisions about pest control, such as the optimal timing and location for pesticide application. Additionally, mobile applications can offer educational resources and best practices for pest management, empowering farmers with the knowledge needed to protect their crops effectively (Chen et al., 2020; Toscano-Miranda et al., 2022).

In summary, the advancements in precision agriculture and digital tools, including remote sensing, drones, data-driven decision making, and mobile applications, have significantly enhanced pest management techniques for cotton crops. These technologies enable early detection, precise intervention, and informed decision-making, ultimately leading to more sustainable and efficient pest control practices.

6 Case Study

6.1 Successful implementation of IPM in a cotton-producing region

The Australian cotton industry provides a compelling example of the successful implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Faced with escalating insecticide resistance, the industry adopted a systems IPM approach that integrated pest ecology, biology, and insecticide resistance management into a flexible, year-round strategy. This approach emphasized both strategic and tactical elements to reduce pest abundance and rationalize pest control decisions, with insecticides used only as a last resort. The introduction of Bt cotton, selective insecticides, and an industry-wide extension campaign facilitated the adoption of IPM. Surveys indicate that IPM is now embedded within the industry, leading to a significant reduction in the amount of insecticide active ingredient applied per hectare. This transition from reactive to proactive pest management has been instrumental in embedding IPM within the farming system, confirming the effectiveness of an industry-led, science-backed approach (Wilson et al., 2018).

6.2 Impact of biotechnological advances on pest management

Biotechnological advances have significantly impacted pest management in cotton crops. The introduction of genetically modified Bt cotton has been a game-changer, providing inherent resistance to key pests and reducing the reliance on chemical insecticides. This has not only lowered the environmental impact but also helped in managing insecticide resistance. Additionally, the development of selective insecticides that target specific pests while sparing beneficial organisms has further enhanced the effectiveness of IPM strategies. These biotechnological innovations have been crucial in advancing sustainable pest management practices, as they allow for more precise and environmentally friendly control measures (Wilson et al., 2018; Veres et al., 2020).

6.3 Lessons learned and recommendations

The successful implementation of IPM in the Australian cotton industry offers several valuable lessons. First, the importance of industry involvement and a science-backed approach cannot be overstated. Engaging stakeholders at all levels ensures that IPM strategies are practical and widely adopted. Second, flexibility in pest management approaches allows for the incorporation of new scientific findings and technologies, making the system more resilient and adaptive. Third, continuous education and training for farmers and advisers are essential for the successful adoption of IPM practices. Finally, the integration of biotechnological advances, such as Bt cotton and selective insecticides, has proven to be highly effective in reducing pest populations and minimizing environmental impact. Future recommendations include further research into biotechnological innovations, enhanced farmer education programs, and the development of more precise and targeted pest management tools to continue improving the sustainability and effectiveness of IPM strategies (Figure 3) (Horrocks et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2018; Deguine et al., 2021).

7 Challenges and Future Directions

7.1 Environmental and ecological considerations

The environmental and ecological impacts of pest management techniques in cotton crops are multifaceted. The introduction of genetically modified (GM) cotton, such as Bt cotton, has significantly reduced the need for chemical insecticides, thereby decreasing the environmental footprint of cotton farming (Rocha-Munive et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2018). However, the long-term ecological effects, including potential gene flow to wild relatives and the impact on non-target organisms, remain areas of concern (Rocha-Munive et al., 2018). Additionally, the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds poses a significant challenge, necessitating the rotation of different herbicides and the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to mitigate resistance (Rocha-Munive et al., 2018). The use of cover crops has shown promise in enhancing natural enemy recruitment and reducing pest populations, thereby contributing to more sustainable pest management practices (Bowers et al., 2020).

7.2 Economic and social impacts

The economic benefits of advanced pest management techniques, such as Bt cotton, are evident in the increased profitability for farmers due to reduced pest damage and lower insecticide costs (Rocha-Munive et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). However, these benefits are variable and depend on factors such as international cotton prices and the costs associated with GM crop inputs (Rocha-Munive et al., 2018). Socially, the adoption of these technologies has been met with mixed reactions. In some regions, there is public misperception and regulatory inaction that hinder wider adoption (Li et al., 2020). Moreover, the economic validation of IPM approaches has been crucial in embedding these practices within farming systems, as seen in the Australian cotton industry (Wilson et al., 2018). The economic analysis of cover crop utilization also suggests that it can be cost-competitive with conventional cotton production, offering a viable alternative for growers (Bowers et al., 2020).

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).

8 Concluding Remarks

The field of pest management in cotton crops has seen significant advancements over recent years, driven by a combination of biotechnological innovations, integrated pest management (IPM) strategies, and ecological approaches. One of the most notable advancements is the widespread adoption of Bt cotton, which has significantly reduced the reliance on chemical insecticides and has led to regional suppression of pest populations. The development of multi-gene pyramiding and RNA interference (RNAi) technologies has further enhanced the effectiveness of genetically engineered crops in managing pest resistance.

Integrated pest management has evolved to incorporate a systems approach that emphasizes pest ecology and biology, insecticide resistance management, and the use of selective insecticides as a last resort. This approach has been successfully embedded within the farming systems, particularly in the Australian cotton industry, leading to a dramatic decline in the amount of insecticide active ingredient applied per hectare. Additionally, the use of cover crops has been shown to improve early-season natural enemy recruitment, thereby reducing pest pressure and the need for insecticide applications.

Advances in controlled release pesticide formulations have also shown promise in reducing the environmental impact of pest management practices. These formulations aim to optimize the delivery and efficacy of pesticides, thereby minimizing their adverse effects on human health and ecosystems. Furthermore, plant training techniques, which involve inducing plant defenses through artificial injury, have emerged as a supplementary tool for IPM, particularly beneficial for smallholders.

The future of sustainable pest management in cotton crops lies in the continued integration of biotechnological innovations with ecological and agronomic strategies. One of the key areas for future research is the development of new transgenic traits that can delay pest resistance. This can be achieved by increasing the prevalence of refuges and enhancing the implementation of IPM practices. Additionally, there is a need for ongoing surveillance of insect resistance and monitoring of grower compliance to ensure the sustainable use of Bt cotton and other genetically engineered crops.

The role of genomics and bioinformatics in understanding plant-pest interactions will be crucial in developing new pest management strategies that are both effective and environmentally friendly. Advances in plant secondary metabolism and immunity, as well as microbiome science, offer promising avenues for enhancing crop resistance to insect pests. Moreover, the adoption of habitat management practices, such as the use of cover crops, can provide stable environments that support natural enemy communities and reduce pest populations.

To achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs) in cotton production, it is essential to promote the adoption of innovative pest management technologies through industry-wide extension campaigns and grower education programs. This will require concerted efforts from researchers, policymakers, and the agricultural industry to address the challenges of public misperception and regulatory inaction. By fostering a collaborative approach, the cotton industry can continue to advance towards more sustainable and resilient pest management practices.

Acknowledgments

BioSci Publisher appreciates the valuable feedback from the reviewers.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

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

Reference

Alves A., Souza W., and Borges D., 2020, Cotton pests classification in field-based images using deep residual networks, Comput. Electron. Agric., 174: 105488.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105488

Azfar S., Nadeem A., Ahsan K., Mehmood A., Almoamari H., and Alqahtany S., 2023a, IoT-Based cotton plant pest detection and smart-response system, Applied Sciences, 13(3): 1851.

https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031851

Azfar S., Nadeem A., Ahsan K., Mehmood A., Siddiqui M., Saeed M., and Ashraf M., 2023b, An IoT-Based system for efficient detection of cotton pest, Applied Sciences, 13(5): 2921.

https://doi.org/10.3390/app13052921

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

Bally J., Fishilevich E., Doran R., Lee K., Campos S., German M., Narva K., and Waterhouse P., 2020, Plin‐amiR, a pre‐microRNA‐based technology for controlling herbivorous insect pests, Plant Biotechnology Journal, 18(9): 1925-1932.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13352

Binu V., and Bhede B., 2019, Impact of repeated application of synthetic insecticides on thrips and their natural enemies of Bt cotton, International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 8(8): 277-289.

https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.808.033

Bowers C., Toews M., Liu Y., and Schmidt J., 2020, Cover crops improve early season natural enemy recruitment and pest management in cotton production, Biological Control, 141: 104149.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104149

Cagliari D., Dias N., Galdeano D., Santos E., Smagghe G., and Zotti M., 2019, Management of pest insects and plant diseases by non-transformative RNAi, Frontiers in Plant Science, 10: 1319.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01319

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

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

Chen C., Huang Y., Li Y., Chang C., and Huang Y., 2020, An AIoT based smart agricultural system for pests detection, IEEE Access, 8: 180750-180761.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3024891

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

El-Ghany N., El-Aziz S., and Marei S., 2020, A review: application of remote sensing as a promising strategy for insect pests and diseases management, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(27): 33503-33515.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09517-2

Filho F., Heldens W., Kong Z., and Lange E., 2019, Drones: innovative technology for use in precision pest management, Journal of Economic Entomology, 113(1): 1-25.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toz268

Filho F., Pazini J., Alves T., Koch R., and Yamamoto P., 2022, How does the digital transformation of agriculture affect the implementation of Integrated Pest Management?, Frontiers In Sustainable Food Systems, 6: 972213.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.972213

Francis F., Jacquemyn H., Delvigne F., and Lievens B., 2020, From diverse origins to specific targets: role of microorganisms in indirect pest biological control, Insects, 11(8): 533.

https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11080533

Gassmann A., and Reisig D., 2022, Management of insect pests with Bt Crops in the United States, Annual Review of Entomology, 68(1): 31-49.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120220-105502

Green K., Stenberg J., and Lankinen Å., 2020, Making sense of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the light of evolution, Evolutionary Applications, 13(8): 1791-1805.

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

Horrocks A., Horne P., and Davidson M., 2018, Demonstrating an integrated pest management strategy in forage- and seed-brassica crops using a collaborative approach, New Zealand Plant Protection, 71: 112-120.

https://doi.org/10.30843/NZPP.2018.71.118

Huang G., Huang J., Chen X., and Zhu Y., 2021, Recent Advances and future perspectives in cotton research, Annual Review of Plant Biology, 72(1): 437-462.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-080720-113241

Kang S., Sun D., Qin J., Guo L., Zhu L., Bai Y., Wu Q., Wang S., Zhou X., Guo Z., and Zhang Y., 2021, Fused: a promising molecular target for an RNAi-based strategy to manage Bt resistance in Plutella xylostella (L.), Journal of Pest Science, 95: 101-114.

https://doi.org/10.1007/S10340-021-01374-3

Li S., Kim D., and Zhang J., 2023, Plastid-mediated RNA interference: a potential strategy for efficient pest control, Plant, Cell & Environment, 46(9): 2595-2605.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14652

Li Y., Hallerman E., Wu K., and Peng Y., 2020, Insect-resistant genetically engineered crops in China: development, application, and prospects for use, Annual Review of Entomology, 65(1): 273-292.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025039

Llandres A., Almohamad R., Brévault T., Renou A., Téréta I., Jean J., and Goebel F., 2018, Plant training for induced defense against insect pests: a promising tool for integrated pest management in cotton, Pest Management Science, 74(9): 2004-2012.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5039

Ma W., and Zhang T., 2018, Next-generation transgenic cotton: pyramiding RNAi with Bt counters insect resistance, Methods in Molecular Biology, 1902: 245-256.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8952-2_21

Razzaq A., Zafar M., Ali A., Li P., Qadir F., Zahra L., Shaukat F., Laghari A., Yuan Y., and Gǒng W., 2023, Biotechnology and solutions: insect-pest-resistance management for improvement and development of Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), Plants, 12(23): 4071.

https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12234071

Rocha-Munive M., Soberón M., Castañeda S., Niaves E., Scheinvar E., Eguiarte L., Mota-Sánchez D., Rosales-Robles E., Nava-Camberos U., Martínez-Carrillo J., Blanco C., Bravo A., and Souza V., 2018, Evaluation of the impact of genetically modified cotton after 20 years of cultivation in Mexico, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 6: 82.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2018.00082

Romeis J., Naranjo S., Meissle M., and Shelton A., 2019, Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control, Biological Control, 130: 136-154.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCONTROL.2018.10.001

Rowen E., Pearsons K., Smith R., Wickings K., and Tooker J., 2022, Early season plant cover supports more effective pest control than insecticide applications, Ecological Applications, 32(5): e2598.

https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2598

Toscano-Miranda R., Toro M., Aguilar J., Caro M., Marulanda A., and Trebilcok A., 2022, Artificial-intelligence and sensing techniques for the management of insect pests and diseases in cotton: a systematic literature review, The Journal of Agricultural Science, 160(1-2): 16-31.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185962200017X

Vanegas F., Bratanov D., Powell K., Weiss J., and Gonzalez F., 2018, A novel methodology for improving plant pest surveillance in vineyards and crops using UAV-Based hyperspectral and spatial data. sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 18(1): 260.

https://doi.org/10.3390/s18010260

Veres A., Wyckhuys K., Kiss J., Tóth F., Burgio G., Pons X., Avilla C., Vidal S., Razinger J., Bažok R., Matyjaszczyk E., Milosavljević I., Le X., Zhou W., Zhu Z., Tarno H., Hadi B., Lundgren J., Bonmatin J., Lexmond M., Aebi A., Rauf A., and Furlan L., 2020, An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic pesticides. Part 4: Alternatives in major cropping systems, Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 27: 29867-29899.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09279-x

Wilson L., Whitehouse M., and Herron G., 2018, The management of insect pests in australian cotton: an evolving story, Annual Review of Entomology, 63(1): 215-237.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043432

Xuan J., 2024, Advances in biological control methods for managing sugarcane insects, Molecular Entomology, 15(1): 23-31

https://doi.org/10.5376/me.2024.15.0004

Yan S., Ren B., Zeng B., and Shen J., 2020, Improving RNAi efficiency for pest control in crop species, Biotechniques, 68(5): 283-290.

https://doi.org/10.2144/btn-2019-0171

Zhang X., and Wang S.J., 2024, The role of interspecific introgression in the adaptation of Gossypium species, Cotton Genomics and Genetics, 15(2): 93-102.

https://doi.org/10.5376/cgg.2024.15.0009

Zhao G., Zhang Y., Lan Y., Deng J., Zhang Q., Zhang Z., Li Z., Liu L., Huang X., and Ma J., 2023, Application progress of UAV-LARS in identification of crop diseases and pests, Agronomy, 13(9): 2232.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13092232

Zotti M., Santos E., Cagliari D., Christiaens O., Taning C., and Smagghe G., 2018, RNA interference technology in crop protection against arthropod pests, pathogens and nematodes, Pest Management Science, 74(6): 1239-1250.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4813