Integrated pest management relies on insect pest monitoring to support the decision of counteracting a given level of infestation and to select the adequate control method. The classic monitoring approach of insect pests is based on placing in single infested areas a series of traps that are checked by human operators on a temporal basis. This strategy requires high labor cost and provides poor spatial and temporal resolution achievable by single operators. The adoption of image sensors to monitor insect pests can result in several practical advantages. The purpose of this review is to summarize the progress made on automatic traps with a particular focus on camera-equipped traps. The use of software and image recognition algorithms can support automatic trap usage to identify and/or count insect species from pictures. Considering the high image resolution achievable and the opportunity to exploit data transfer systems through wireless technology, it is possible to have remote control of insect captures, limiting field visits. The availability of real-time and on-line pest monitoring systems from a distant location opens the opportunity for measuring insect population dynamics constantly and simultaneously in a large number of traps with a limited human labor requirement. The actual limitations are the high cost, the low power autonomy and the low picture quality of some prototypes together with the need for further improvements in fully automated pest detection. Limits and benefits resulting from several case studies are examined with a perspective for the future development of technology-driven insect pest monitoring and management.

Aphids are one of the most serious pests of crops worldwide, causing major yield and economic losses. To control aphids, natural enemies could be an option but their efficacy is sometimes limited by their dispersal in natural environment. Here we report the first isolation of a bacterium from the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum honeydew, Staphylococcus sciuri, which acts as a kairomone enhancing the efficiency of aphid natural enemies. Our findings represent the first case of a host-associated bacterium driving prey location and ovipositional preference for the natural enemy. We show that this bacterium has a key role in tritrophic interactions because it is the direct source of volatiles used to locate prey. Some specific semiochemicals produced by S. sciuri were also identified as significant attractants and ovipositional stimulants. The use of this host-associated bacterium could certainly provide a novel approach to control aphids in field and greenhouse systems.

The European Food Safety Authority concluded in February 2018 that "most uses of neonicotinoid insecticides represent a risk to wild bees and honeybees". In 2016, the French government passed a law banning the use of the five neonicotinoids previously authorized: clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, acetamiprid and thiacloprid. In the framework of an expert assessment conducted by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety to identify possible derogations, we performed a thorough assessment of the available alternatives to the five banned neonicotinoids. For each pest targeted by neonicotinoids use, we identified the main alternative pest management methods, which we then ranked for (i) efficacy for controlling the target pest, (ii) applicability (whether directly useable by farmers or in need of further research and development), (iii) durability (risk of resistance in targeted pests), and (iv) practicability (ease of implementation by farmers). We identified 152 authorized uses of neonicotinoids in France, encompassing 120 crops and 279 pest insect species (or genera). An effective alternative to neonicotinoids use was available in 96% of the 2968 case studies analyzed from the literature (single combinations of one alternative pest control method or product × one target crop plant × one target pest insect). The most common alternative to neonicotinoids (89% of cases) was the use of another chemical insecticide (mostly pyrethroids). However, in 78% of cases, at least one non-chemical alternative method could replace neonicotinoids (e.g. microorganisms, semiochemicals or surface coating). The relevance of non-chemical alternatives to neonicotinoids depends on pest feeding habits. Leaf and flower feeders are easier to control with non-chemical methods, whereas wood and root feeders are more difficult to manage by such methods. We also found that further field studies were required for many promising non-chemical methods before their introduction into routine use by farmers. Our findings, transmitted to policymakers, indicate that non-chemical alternatives to neonicotinoids do exist. Furthermore, they highlight the need to promote these methods through regulation and funding, with a view to reducing pesticide use in agriculture.