How do growers manage pests while protecting pollinators? Integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM) offers compelling solutions to this challenge, but it remains more of a guiding principle than an operational framework. A new article in the Journal of Integrated Pest Management outlines four common challenges to putting IPPM into practice. Shown here: a honey bee (Apis mellifera) visiting a cucumber flower. (Photo by Joseph LaForest, University of Georgia, Bugwood.org)

By Ashley Leach, Ph.D., and Ian Kaplan, Ph.D.

Ian Kaplan, Ph.D.

Ashley Leach, Ph.D.

As an extension to the traditional IPM paradigm, integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM) offers compelling solutions to the seemingly paradoxical nature of integrated pest management (IPM) in systems that rely on insect pollinators. How do farm managers support one insect without harming another?

Integrated pest and pollinator management expands upon traditional IPM by requiring the joint consideration of pest suppression, pollination services, and economic outcomes within the same decision framework. Rather than treating pollinator protection as a secondary constraint, IPPM asks whether pest management can be optimized without compromising pollination. While this idea is compelling, on-farm implementation remains limited.

In an article published in March in the Journal of Integrated Pest Management, we argue that integrated pest and pollinator management, while appealing in principle, remains oversimplified and understudied as an operational framework. We describe four common challenges with the practice, which are detailed below.

1. Pollinator Dependence and Pest Pressure are Variable

IPPM is often promoted as a “one-size-fits-all” solution for pollinator-dependent crops (e.g., use less pesticides and the bees will benefit). The reality of crop production is more variable. Pollinator dependence differs not only among crops but among cultivars, regions, and management systems. Similarly, pest complexes can also vary regionally. A key pest in one production area may be absent or economically insignificant elsewhere.

We posit that these spatial and temporal mismatches mean that neither pollinator dependence nor pest pressure are fixed attributes, which can, in turn, alter the utility of commonly held IPPM practices. In reality, specialty cropping systems are dynamic and context-dependent and can be misaligned in space and time. IPPM recommendations that do not explicitly account for this variability risk being ineffective.

How do growers manage pests while protecting pollinators? Integrated pest and pollinator management (IPPM) offers compelling solutions to this challenge, but it remains more of a guiding principle than an operational framework. A new article in the Journal of Integrated Pest Management outlines four common challenges to putting IPPM into practice. One key challenge, illustrated in the example here, is the varying seasonal activity of pests in relation to any given crop and its bloom time. The overlap with bloom time and pollinator activity “creates unavoidable trade-offs and illustrates why IPPM must account for dynamic, context-specific interactions rather than assuming consistent benefits,” researchers say. (Image originally published in Leach and Kaplan 2026, Journal of Integrated Pest Management)

2. Pollination Metrics Do Not Always Reflect Marketability

Pollination studies frequently rely on metrics such as fruit set, seed number, or pollen deposition. While these measures describe ecological relationships, they rarely determine crop profitability.

In some cases, we may see pollination efficacy and performance measured using fruit per seed set; however, this may not accurately reflect producer goals. More broadly, traits that determine crop value such as fruit diameter, sugar content, and coloration are often underrepresented in pollination research.

When pollination benefits are assessed using ecological proxies rather than market-based yield metrics, the value of IPPM may become inflated. This disconnect risks promoting practices that appear beneficial in research but deliver little economic return in the field. If IPPM’s ideal is to function as a decision framework, pollination outcomes must be evaluated using the same market-relevant metrics that growers use.

3. Lack of Research Validating Pollinator and Pest Outcomes

A central weakness of IPPM is the lack of evidence that recommended practices consistently improve pollinator health, pollination services, and yield under realistic farm conditions. Together, these mixed results highlight the validation gap. IPPM remains more of a guiding principle than an operational framework.

IPPM has often been conflated with reduced-risk or non-chemical pest management practices. This conflation assumes that “less pesticide” will automatically support pollination. While intuitively appealing, this assumption remains largely untested. A handful of studies have directly tested IPPM-inspired programs, with mixed results. In some systems, threshold-based insecticide use reduced applications while maintaining or enhancing yield. In others, reduced-risk programs produced little change in pollination or yield outcomes.

Further, the research we do have is often biased toward certain insecticide programs. For example, most pesticide–pollinator research disproportionately focuses on honey bees and a narrow set of chemistries (e.g., neonicotinoids). Yet pest management in specialty crops relies on diverse chemical classes applied in varied ways across a season.

4. Limited Understanding of the Potential Economic Tradeoffs

Even when biologically sound, adoption ultimately depends on economics. Profitability and risk management often play a central role in pest control decisions. IPPM is often promoted as though pollinator-friendly practices will be adopted on principle. But reduced-risk products frequently cost more than broad-spectrum alternatives. Selective insecticides may control fewer pests. Habitat plantings require land and labor. Additional scouting increases administrative burden. In reality, growers use product cost, efficacy, and risk when controlling target pests. Without evidence that IPPM-based decisions deliver equal or greater profitability, adoption is unlikely (especially without governmental aid or policy incentives).

Conclusion

IPPM emerged from the urgent need to reduce unintended impacts of pest management on pollinators. As time has gone on and worldwide arthropod declines worsen, this goal is still critical. However, IPPM should be redefined through context-specific research that jointly evaluates pest suppression, pollination services, and economic outcomes. That means clearly defining objectives, adopting market-relevant metrics, validating practices under commercial conditions, and identifying decisions that reduce pollinator risk without imposing additional cost or complexity.

By addressing these deficits IPPM can evolve into a robust, evidence-based approach that meaningfully advances both crop production and pollinator conservation.

Ashley Leach, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of entomology at Ohio State University. Email: [email protected]. Ian Kaplan, Ph.D., is a professor of entomology at Purdue University. Email: [email protected].