Climate-Smart Integrated Pest Management for Insect Pests under Warming and Climatic Variability: A Critical Narrative Review
Sachin Kumar *
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, VCSG UUHF, Ranichauri, Tehri Garhwal, India.
Vikas Singh Sengar
Agricultural Economics, CoHA, VCSG UUHF, Ranichauri, Tehri Garhwal, India.
Moutushi Das *
School of Agriculture, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Insect pests already remove a substantial share of attainable crop yield, and climate change is altering the conditions under which integrated pest management (IPM) was designed to operate. Rising mean temperatures, greater thermal variability, more frequent heat and drought extremes, and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide act simultaneously on pest development, host-plant quality, natural enemies and the performance of control tactics. This critical narrative review evaluates whether, and under what conditions, IPM can be redesigned to remain effective in a warming and increasingly variable climate, and examines what the concept of climate-smart pest management adds to established IPM principles. Peer-reviewed literature and authoritative institutional reports were identified through structured searches of multidisciplinary and life-science indexes, supplemented by citation tracking, and were appraised for design, scale, ecological realism and relevance to decision-making. The synthesis indicates that evidence is strongest for temperature-driven acceleration of development, additional generations per season and poleward or upslope range change in many pests, although responses are heterogeneous and frequently non-linear. Evidence is weaker and more context-dependent for the net effects of warming on biological control, where thermal asymmetry and phenological mismatch between pests and their natural enemies can erode suppression in some systems but not in others. Laboratory studies consistently show that temperature and its daily fluctuation modify insecticide toxicity, whereas field-scale consequences for control failure and resistance evolution remain poorly quantified. Diversified cropping, push–pull systems, shade trees and complex landscapes show promise as adaptation measures, but several proposed adaptations remain supported mainly by mechanistic, laboratory, short-term or geographically concentrated evidence rather than multi-season field evaluation. The principal unresolved problems concern the reliability of forecasting tools that ignore thermal variability, the absence of climate-responsive economic thresholds, and weak evaluation of adoption, equity and long-term outcomes. The review concludes that climate-smart IPM is best understood not as a new paradigm but as a demanding re-specification of prevention, monitoring, decision rules and evaluation, whose credibility will depend on multi-season, multi-site field evidence rather than on conceptual endorsement.
Keywords: Climate adaptation, thermal ecology, biological control, insecticide efficacy, pest forecasting, phenological mismatch, agroecological diversification, decision support