Next Article in Journal
Shaded-Side Supplemental Lighting During Winter Enhances the Overall Productivity of Yellow Pitaya (Hylocereus megalanthus)
Next Article in Special Issue
Structural Design, Environmental Regulation, and Cultivation Management in Greenhouse Horticulture
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancement of Cold Tolerance by Drought Stress in Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Peat-Zeolite Substrates Used During Seedling Cultivation on the Growth, Physiology, and Yield of Sweet Peppers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/horticulturae12030273
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sustainable Pest Management Strategies Under Greenhouse Conditions in Countries of the Global South

by
Harold Ubaque
1,
Carlos A. Hincapié
2,* and
Marisol Osorio
3
1
Sustainability Program, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín 050031, Colombia
2
Agroindustrial Research Group (GRAIN), School of Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín 050031, Colombia
3
Technology Management and Innovation Group (GTI), School of Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín 050031, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2026, 12(3), 273; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12030273
Submission received: 24 January 2026 / Revised: 15 February 2026 / Accepted: 24 February 2026 / Published: 26 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cultivation and Production of Greenhouse Horticulture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Greenhouse agricultural production systems are becoming increasingly important as they allow for higher yields and better control of environmental variables, among other advantages. However, these conditions are also ideal for the proliferation of pests and diseases, which are commonly controlled with synthetic chemical products that have a negative impact on the environment and human health. Current conditions in production systems, environmental care, human health, and market trends have led this type of production system to seek new alternatives to the use of such products. These alternatives revolve around biological, ecological, regulatory, technological, and genetic control, among others. Furthermore, technology and most scientific literature on pest and disease control in greenhouses have been developed for countries in the Global North, most of which experience four seasons and have a more advanced industry in this field. These results are not easily adaptable to countries in the Global South, primarily as many are located in tropical regions, owing to the specificity of pests and diseases, the underdevelopment of the biological control industry, and economic reasons. This review found that most research focuses on strategies such as the use of plant extracts and biological control agents, especially fungi and bacteria. This systematic review identified the current status, trends, and best practices in greenhouse pest control in Global South countries. We hope that this information will serve as input for new research and/or implementation in greenhouses in these regions.

1. Introduction

A constant concern in agricultural production is the search for strategies to manage crop pests and diseases. When an organism directly affects humans, crops, animals, or property, it becomes a pest and requires intervention for its management and control. In agricultural terms, a pest is a population of living organisms that cause damage to a crop [1]. One of the most widely used strategies for pest control has been the use of synthetic pesticides. The use of synthetic pesticides has caused, among other things, pest resistance to the active ingredients, as in the case of Tuta absoluta Meyrick, one of the most important pests of tomatoes [2] or Spodoptera frugiperda Walker in corn [3]. Similarly, the excessive use of chemical products not only generates risks for the environment but also causes the death of natural enemies [4,5].
For the control of pests and diseases, several strategies that move away from the excessive use of agrochemicals have been developed in the search for sustainable agriculture. Some of these strategies include varietal resistance, cultural management, physical and mechanical strategies, behavioral actions, and biological control. In the case of the latter, control is carried out using parasitoids, predators, and entomopathogenic fungi, among others [6,7]. In this sense, integrated management schemes are recommended, including vegetation restoration, natural enemies, and sampling, among others [8]. A combination of pest and disease control methods is the best control strategy. Such strategies include biological control, cultural practices, resistant varieties, and environmentally friendly pesticides [9]. The use of alternatives to synthetic products, such as the use of crops associated with flowering plants or with properties that promote the presence of natural enemies and the suppression of phytophagous insects, significantly reduces the damage to crops, compared to that of monocultures [8].
The term “Global South” is commonly used to refer to the regions comprising Latin America, Africa, and much of Asia and Oceania. It is part of a conceptual framework used to describe areas outside Europe and North America that are predominantly, but not exclusively, characterized by lower incomes and frequent political or cultural marginalization [10].
Greenhouse cultivation is widely used in seasonal climates because of its advantages in controlling environmental conditions, which have even allowed them to grow crops in seasons when it is not possible to grow outdoors. Greenhouses also allow better control of pests and diseases [11]. Most scientific literature and technologies for greenhouse pest control have been developed for the Global North, as they are tailored to temperate climates and capital-intensive industries [12]. However, the direct transfer of these findings to the Global South is often ineffective due to fundamental bio-climatic and structural divergences.
Unlike the sealed, climate-controlled greenhouses of the Global North, most tropical greenhouses are less specialized [13], predominantly relying on natural ventilation structures to manage excess heat and humidity [14], featuring plastic roofs and net structures [15]. This structural difference facilitates the continuous migration of organisms into and out of the greenhouse [13]. Furthermore, constant high temperatures in tropical regions accelerate pest metabolic rates and reproductive cycles [16]
Consequently, the uncritical application of temperate-zone models to these regions frequently leads to system failure. The lack of synthesized information on strategies specifically adapted to these tropical and low-tech conditions creates a critical knowledge gap. This review aims to help bridge that gap by analyzing sustainable control strategies that have proven effective within the specific constraints of the Global South.

2. Materials and Methods

The systematic review was carried out following the PRISMA methodology [17] adapted by [18]. This process was conducted in a rigorous and reproducible manner to ensure minimal bias in the searches [19].

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

To ensure the reproducibility of the review and minimize selection bias, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were established in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. These criteria were defined using the PICOS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design) to prioritize high-quality experimental literature relevant to the specific bio-climatic context of the Global South. The detailed eligibility criteria are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Search Strategy and Validation

The literature search was executed using a specific logical string designed to identify studies focused on sustainable pest management systems within greenhouse environments. The primary search string employed was “Integrated Pest Management” AND “Greenhouse”. The databases Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) were used for the search.
The search equations were as follows:
Scopus: TITLES-ABS-KEY Integrated AND pests AND management AND greenhouse) AND PUBYEAR > 2017 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Brazil”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Iran”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “India”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Pakistan”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, ‘Colombia’) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Mexico”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Kenya”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Tunisia”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, ‘Turkey’) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Egypt”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Australia”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, ‘Argentina’) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Saudi Arabia” ) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Ethiopia” ) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Thailand”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Malaysia” ) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Lebanon”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, ‘Iraq’) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Chile”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Vietnam”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Uruguay”) OR LIMIT TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Morocco”) OR LIMIT TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, ‘Kuwait’) OR LIMIT TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Jordan”) OR LIMIT TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Costa Rica”) OR LIMIT TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Senegal”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Rwanda”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, ‘Philippines’) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Peru”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Indonesia”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Democratic Republic of the Congo”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “United Arab Emirates”) OR LIMIT-TO (AFFILCOUNTRY, “Taiwan”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGES, “Spanish”) OR LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGES, “English”)).
Web of Science: Results for integrated AND pest AND management AND greenhouse (All Fields) and 2018 or 2019 or 2020 or 2021 or 2022 or 2023 (Publication Years) and BRAZIL or IRAN or ARGENTINA or CHILE or ETHIOPIA or MOROCCO or PHILIPPINES or RWANDA or THAILAND or VIETNAM or BANGLADESH or PAKISTAN or COLOMBIA or MEXICO or EGYPT or INDIA or KENYA or TUNISIA or SAUDI ARABIA or GHANA or URUGUAY or IRAQ or JORDAN or KUWAIT or LEBANON or MALAYSIA or NIGERIA or PERU or SENEGAL (Countries/Regions) and English or Spanish (Languages).
The Boolean operator AND was utilized to strictly intersect the intervention (Integrated Pest Management) with the production setting (greenhouse). A deliberate decision was made not to employ truncation. This methodological restriction was applied to ensure the specificity of the results and minimize the retrieval of non-relevant records.
To validate the search strategy for the review and rule out terminological biases, a post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed. A complementary search was conducted using alternatives such as “protected cultivation,” “biological control,” and “botanical pesticides.” A review of these additional records revealed that the vast majority were duplicates of the original search or studies that did not meet the eligibility criteria. This validation confirms that the original search strategy was effective in compiling a representative set of studies relevant to the study objectives.

2.3. Study Selection and Location Verification

The selection of countries was based on two criteria: the presence of the scientific studies identified during the initial search and their classification as part of the Global South. During the review, we took great care to identify the country where the work was carried out. In our initial database, which was downloaded from Scopus and WOS after the search, the country of affiliation was obtained as the initial data, but this information was adjusted to the country where the experiment was carried out after reviewing each of the methodologies.

2.4. Information Management

The selected articles were compiled in a database composed of the following items: authors, title, year, country, affiliation, abstract, and keywords. The purpose of the database was to identify and synthesize information of interest for this review.

2.5. Selection and Classification of Information

From the documents obtained, a preliminary selection process was carried out by reading abstracts. In this process, articles that were not related to the subject of interest were discarded. Subsequently, all documents were reviewed to select those that met the inclusion criteria. With the selected articles, categories were established to classify, compile, and graph the information to interpret it systematically and identify the most important elements. These categories were biological target, strategy, and cultivation. After these purification stages, a preliminary selection of articles related to pest management and control in greenhouse crops was obtained. The procedure that was carried out is schematized in Figure 1. With the Scopus and WOS equations, 379 articles were obtained. A total of 256 articles were discarded for the reasons mentioned above. Finally, 123 documents were identified for analysis in this review.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the literature review was divided into three categories: biological target, crop of interest, and control strategies.

3.1. Biological Target

In this review, the documents were classified according to the biological target that was evaluated. These were insects (76 papers), followed by phytopathogenic fungi (16), mites (13), nematodes (eight), biological controllers or control agents (seven), and finally, bacteria (three). The summary of this classification is shown in Figure 2.

3.2. Crops of Interest

The crops on which research was conducted were identified. Tomatoes stand out with 36 articles, and strawberries stood out with nine documents. Corn, flowers, and cucumbers were used in six studies each. Various vegetables were used in five studies. Beans, soybeans, onions, lemons, melons, blueberries, sweet potatoes, and peppers were each mentioned twice, while potatoes, cape gooseberries, eggplants, passion fruit, peanuts, cotton, cacti, bananas, and cashews were each mentioned once. In 30 of the documents reviewed, the crop on which the experiment was conducted was not identified.

3.3. Mentions by Control Strategies

Strategies were categorized into four groups: biological control, chemical control, cultural practices, and other methods. Biological and chemical controls were the most frequently reported strategies, followed by other methods and cultural practices. The values and their corresponding participation are shown in Table 2.
Although Table 2 provides a comprehensive list of the identified literature, a more in-depth analysis of the described effectiveness is necessary. Table 3 summarizes the main quantitative results, application method, mechanism of action, and operational limitations for strategies that recorded effectiveness rates greater than 80%. These studies were selected based on the robustness of their quantitative data and their relevance to the specific constraints of the Global South. It is noteworthy that among these most relevant results, there are several examples of interactions between different organisms or strategies. This reinforces the idea that IPM strategies are the best alternatives for pest control in greenhouses in the Global South.

3.3.1. Biological Control

More than half of the strategies evaluated in the studies reviewed are biological. Within the biological control strategy category, seven groups of organisms used in pest management were identified, as shown in Table 2. The two predominant groups of organisms mentioned in the analyzed papers were fungi and bacteria, followed by parasitoids, predators, and nematodes. The analysis of each category is also shown in Table 2. The most studied fungi were Beauveria sp, Trichoderma sp, and Metarhizium sp. In general, treatments with B. bassiana show significantly high efficacy against different types of pests, such as B. tabaci [27] and T. absoluta [20]. Tests carried out with B. thuringiensis resulted in significant mortality rates in B. tabaci [21]. The bacterial genera most frequently mentioned in this analysis were Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas sp. In some cases, the effect of fungi and bacteria was analyzed within the same study, as was the case in which foliar applications of native strains of the fungus Trichoderma harzianum Rifa and the bacterium B. subtilis were made. This study found that integrated management with these organisms provides better control than different commercial products against downy mildew in cucurbit crops [28].
The predominant parasitoids identified were Encarsia formosa Gahan and various Trichogramma species. E. formosa is one of the most popular and successful biological control agents for controlling whiteflies (Trialeurodes vaporariorum) in greenhouses. E. formosa females lay eggs in immature stages of the whitefly, except for the egg stage and the first mobile stage. The third and fourth nymphal stages are the most suitable for parasitism. E. formosa mainly feeds on honeydew and the body fluid of the first and second stages of the whitefly. Another promising control agent for T. absoluta in tomato cultivation is Trichogramma pretiosum Riley. The release of this agent increased the time that the pest population remained below the economic threshold from 37 to 48 days [61]. A total of eight records corresponding to six entomophagous insect species were identified as pest control agents. The most frequently reported entomophagous insect species were Orius laevigatus Fieber and Dicyphus hesperus Caballero, each documented in two independent studies. The former showed promising results in controlling populations of Frankliniella occidentalis Pergande [66], while the latter achieved significant reductions in Bemisia tabaci and Bactericera cockerelli Šulc populations [64,68]. The remaining four species, identified in single studies, were Chrysopa pallens, Macrolophus pygmaeus, Apanteles gelechiidivoris, and Eriopis connexa (Table 2).
Two entomopathogenic nematodes were mentioned in the reviewed articles, Steinernema sp. and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora. These organisms have been identified as a promising tool in pest control, especially soil pests. Nematodes eliminate their hosts with the help of bacterial symbionts. The genus Steinernema is associated with Xenorhabdus spp. and Heterorhabditis spp. The most infectious stages are the juveniles, which penetrate the host through the anus, mouth, cuticle, or spiracles, followed by bacterial release and subsequent death of the insect from septicemia or toxemia within 48 h. These organisms are harmless to humans and other vertebrates, with few or no effects [22]. The only virus reported in this review was the nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV), which was mentioned three times. The armyworm, Spodoptera litura Fabricius, is one of the pests that cause economic losses in both the quality and production of different crops, especially cotton. The NPV isolates obtained from infected larvae caused significant mortality rates, especially in early-stage larvae [76]. In the control of Spodoptera, different concentrations caused significant mortality rates in second-stage larvae. It was found that mortality decreases with increasing larval age [75].
During the review, we identified studies performed with the predatory mites Amblyseius swirskii Athias-Henriot, Neoseiulus cucumeris Oudemans, and Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot, all from the Phytoseiidae family. Researchers reported that A. swirskii is effective in suppressing chili thrips larvae, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood [73]. N. cucumeris and A. swirskii were evaluated with positive results against F. occidentalis [72]. One study showed the compatibility of petroleum aerosol oils and P. persimilis in integrated management programs for the mite Tetranychus urticae Koch in roses grown in greenhouses [74].

3.3.2. Extracts and Chemical Compounds

This category encompassed 44 records, predominantly involving the use of essential oils and plant extracts. A smaller subset evaluated bacterial metabolites and mineral oils. The details are shown in Table 2. Within this group, essential oils stand out significantly. The use of essential oils of anise, fennel, garlic, and lavender on the biological controller Nesidiocoris tenuis Reuter [78] is noteworthy. It is interesting to note that some studies evaluated the effect of extracts on pests and their controllers, as they are not very common. In this regard, phytoinsecticides derived from a mixture of cedar, eucalyptus, and lemongrass essential oils were evaluated on Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann and its parasitoid Psyttalia concolor Szepligeti [77]. Other studies analyzed the combination of different control strategies, such as the case where the efficacy of the compound azadirachtin extracted from neem seeds, the bacterium B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki, the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema feltiae Filipjev, and the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana (Bals.-Criv.) Vuill. on T. absoluta was evaluated. It was found that the combination of azadirachtin + B. thuringiensis reduced damaged fruits by 90% in experiments conducted in summer and by 96% in experiments conducted in winter. In those same periods, the azadirachtin + B. bassiana mixture achieved reductions of 81% and 91%, respectively [110]. In another study on the same pest, Spinosad (a compound derived from the bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa), B. thuringiensis, azadirachtin, B. bassiana, and the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae Metschn. were evaluated. Spinosad was found to be the most effective control agent [102].
The use of pheromones as a pest control strategy is relevant within this category. A commercial product combining attractants, phagostimulants, and the insecticide spinosad showed promising results in controlling spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii Matsamura), a significant pest in blueberry crops [106]. Tests on F. occidentalis showed that some of the benefits of mass trapping pests using pheromones are that it needs to be applied significantly fewer times compared to control with synthetic chemical products, making it more cost-effective and reducing the possibility of resistance developing in the pest [107]. Mineral oils were also included in this category. These oils block the spiracles and accumulate in the tracheae, causing suffocation. They can also penetrate the insect’s cuticle, accumulating in lipid-containing tissues, destroying nerve cells and cytoplasm, and leading to death [112]. Four experiments on rose crops in greenhouses demonstrated the effectiveness of PSO (petroleum aerosol oil) against the T. urticae mite. Fortnightly applications of 5% PSO provided good protection against mite infestation when the population was not yet established. Applications after infestation only stabilize populations, but they do not reduce them below the economic threshold [74].

3.3.3. Cultural Control

Cultural control comprises the manipulation of the crop environment and production practices to reduce pest and disease pressure. In the reviewed literature, four main strategies were identified: climate management, use of functional biodiversity (insectary, trap or repellent plants), nutritional management, and population management. The number of mentions within each of these classifications is shown in Table 2.
The climate management strategy involves manipulating temperature and relative humidity within the greenhouse to create unfavorable conditions for pest development [131,133] and pathogen sporulation [132]. This strategy is ideally suited for enclosed structures where ventilation can be managed. The primary advantage is its preventive nature, reducing the need for curative fungicides. However, in many Global South regions, the limitation lies in the reliance on passive ventilation, which may be insufficient to lower humidity during tropical rainy seasons [132] compared to the active climate control systems used in the Global North [11].
Functional biodiversity involves the strategic introduction of plant species inside or around greenhouses to sustain populations of predators [126], divert pests away from the commercial crop [127,129] or repel them [128]. This strategy is best suited for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems in crops susceptible to mobile pests like mites [128,130], whiteflies [127] and thrips [129]. Its most notable advantage is that it significantly reduces dependence on synthetic pesticides and increases functional biodiversity [136]. However, a significant limitation is that such vegetation can also harbor plant viruses that are transmitted by insects [136], and the requirement for precise knowledge of plant–pest interactions is necessary to avoid inadvertently increasing pest populations [126,127].
The Nutritional Management practice focuses on balancing fertilization applications, particularly nitrogen and silicon levels, to enhance the plant’s constitutive resistance [134]. This strategy is highly effective in fertigation or hydroponic systems where nutrient delivery can be precisely controlled. One of its advantages is that proper nutrition can strengthen cell walls, as is the case with silicon [134]. In addition, organic fertilization improves the soil microbiota, which could increase plant resistance [137]. One limitation is that excesses of certain minerals, especially nitrogen, can increase the populations of some pests, such as T. urticae, which requires constant monitoring of adequate nutrient levels [87].
Population management encompasses direct physical actions such as pruning, sanitation (removal of infested plant parts), and adjusting planting density [131]. This strategy can be useful for crops with high biomass, such as tomatoes and cucumbers, and is essential in the early stages of infestation. Its main advantages are that it provides an immediate reduction in sources of inoculum and improves aeration, which favors climate management. Although effective, it is labor-intensive [135], which can be a constraint in some regions; however, it is often more feasible in the Global South due to labor availability compared to greenhouses in the Global North [138].
We were particularly interested in studies that evaluated the impact of different environmental factors within greenhouses on the mortality of pests and some predators. Two studies evaluated the incidence of relative humidity (RH) control, one to control F. occidentalis [131] and another evaluated the interaction between this strategy and the action of different strains of B. bassiana on three predatory mites, to assess their compatibility in integrated control systems for T. urticae [26]. Surface water energy balance (SWEB) simulation models can provide early warning of disease incidence by estimating the duration of free water on foliage. These types of models are an optimal early warning tool for fungal disease attacks on greenhouse crops [132]. Another study evaluated the impact of CO2 concentrations on the mortality of Tenebrio molitor L. [133].

3.3.4. Other Strategies

Strategies that could not be included in any of the above categories and did not have sufficient numbers to constitute a category in themselves were classified as other strategies. The details on subcategories are shown in Table 2. The use of colored traps was the first subcategory in terms of mentions. Under greenhouse conditions, adhesive traps, rather than being a control strategy, is an important tool in pest management programs to monitor the infestation of insect pests. In one study, the populations of whiteflies, T. vaporariorum and B. tabacci in greenhouses with tomatoes showed a significant attraction to yellow sticky traps located every 15 or 16 m [113]. In tomatoes and cucumbers, sampling programs based on traps help make timely decisions to control pests, thereby avoiding economic losses [114]. The incorporation of plant residues was the second most important subcategory. In the management of Meloidogyne arenaria in carrots, the incorporation of fresh broccoli, carbofuran, and Pochonia chlamydosporia var. mexicana was evaluated. The combination of the fungus with broccoli or carbofuran was effective in reducing galls caused by M. arenaria without loss of carrot quality under greenhouse conditions [37]. Sludge generated in wastewater treatment plants is one of the sources of organic matter available to increase crop quantities and is rich in nutrients for plants. Applications of these increased soil microbial activity and electrical conductivity and decreased pH caused decreases in Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan populations in both plants and soil [115].
Resistance induction, the use of nanoparticles, light traps, and the use of resistant varieties were each mentioned twice. The following studies stand out among these. Acibenzolar-S-methyl and the harpin protein, applied before harvest, induce resistance to pathogens and mites in strawberry crops [117]. Biologically synthesized copper nanoparticles have excellent insecticidal activity at low concentrations against pests, outperforming chemically synthesized ones [119]. The application of mesoporous alumina sphere nanoparticles showed a potential effect against tomato root rot in the laboratory and greenhouse. An increase in the photosynthetic quantum yield of photosystem II was also observed, leading to greater plant growth [120]. For the control of T. absoluta, an ultraviolet lamp with an electric mosquito trap and a combination of LED light traps with sex pheromones and low-impact insecticides [121] were successfully tested. Herbivore-induced volatiles are substances produced by plants when attacked by pests, attracting predators and parasitoids seeking prey or host plants. In one study, different synthetic herbivore-induced volatile compounds were used to test the attraction of natural enemies. Several blueberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) genotypes were also evaluated to study the expression of genes involved in the biosynthesis or emission of these volatiles using different stimuli. The results obtained were promising in some cases [118].
Population distribution analysis, mathematical algorithms, and mating techniques are each mentioned once. The population density and spatial distribution pattern of T. absoluta depend on the crop variety. In this regard, estimating these two variables can serve as the basis for developing sampling strategies and subsequently establishing integrated management programs [125]. Pest detection and classification are traditionally carried out using traps, followed by manual counting and identification. The use of computer vision techniques showed advantages and allowed the identification of different insect species. The algorithm enables preventive and corrective measures more accurately [123,124]. A mating disruption technique reduced infestation of T. absoluta in leaves and fruits by more than 77% in cherry tomatoes under greenhouse conditions by altering the identification of females by males [109].
An important analysis that was carried out is the cross-referencing of strategies with respect to crops. Figure 3 shows the predominant control strategies and their frequency of use in the crops evaluated. The use of biological and biochemical strategies in tomatoes stands out, followed by studies where the type of crop in which the study was carried out was not specified. With regard to the cross-referencing of control strategies with respect to the biological target (Figure 4), it was found that biological control was mostly carried out on insects, followed by fungi and nematodes. The second most widely used strategy was biochemical, with 19 studies on insects and five on the mite T. urticae. Noteworthy in this strategy are the six studies that evaluated the effect on pest controllers (predators, parasitoids, and entomopathogenic fungi, among others), which is important for determining the feasibility of combining different control strategies. The strategies we classified as technological were only applied to insects.
It is important to clarify that the search for documents for this review was conducted up to 2024 to proceed with the corresponding rigorous analyses and write this document. We have conducted a supplementary search for publications from early 2025. We found 60 initial records, which, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielded 28 documents. After analyzing these documents, we found that they did not significantly alter the topics identified or the main conclusions of this study. We found that, consistent with the other analyzed years, the tomato [139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149] was the most frequently evaluated crop (39.3%), followed by peppers [150,151,152,153,154,155] (21.4%) and strawberries [156,157] (10.7%). Biological methods predominated, accounting for 57.3% of the total studies. This category was led by entomopathogenic fungi [140,158,159,160,161] (28.7%), followed by bacteria [142,145,152,162,163] (17.9%), as well as insects, mites, and entomopathogenic nematodes [144,157,164] (10.7%). Plant extracts and essential oils [141,146,154,165,166] comprised 17.9%, while other methods [143,148,150,167,168,169,170] (cultural practices, mechanical, and genetic methods) accounted for 24.8%. Across the 28 documents, 31 records of target pests or diseases were identified. Insects constituted 51.6% of these records, with whiteflies [144,145,146,149,154,168] being the most prevalent (19.4%). Fungi and bacteria accounted for 22.6% of the records, with fungi of the genus Fusarium [140,156,159] predominating (9.7% of the total). Nematodes represented 16.1% of the total records, with M. incognita as the primary species (9.7%). Finally, mites accounted for 9.7% of the total records, with T. urticae [139,171] representing two-thirds of this value.
When analyzing the various regions of the Global South included in this review (Africa, Asia, and Latin America), several notable regional variations were identified. African countries were distinguished by evaluations focusing on the use of native parasitoids [62,65] and native entomopathogenic nematodes [52]. Following this trend, the assessment of endemic plant extracts also emerged as a differentiating factor [81]. These studies emphasize the implementation of cost-effective methods for smallholder farmers [9,30]. Regarding target pests, there is a marked predominance of research dedicated to the control of T. absoluta [9,20,52,62,65,102,109,122]. In Latin America, T. absoluta also remains the primary pest researched [60,61,70,95,121,126,135]. Differentiating elements in this region include the use of vegetation diversification within greenhouses to conserve natural enemies [126], the application of viral agents in combination with fungi for the control of S. frugiperda [35], and the use of elicitors to induce systemic resistance [46,117,134]. In Asia, the use of entomopathogenic nematodes predominates [53,54,56] alongside the application of essential and mineral oils [99,112]. In addition, Asia has the most robust infrastructure of companies producing and distributing biological control agents compared to other regions [41]. In this region, research efforts were primarily focused on the control of the whitefly [41,58,59,93].
Analysis of the selected documents revealed several research gaps that may serve as a framework for future studies. The most prominent areas involve the exploration of indigenous resources, including insects, fungi, bacteria, and nematodes, as well as native flora for the production of botanical extracts. Another significant gap lies in the limited number of studies evaluating the synergistic integration of different biological control agents with other management strategies. Similarly, there is a notable absence of research regarding the impact of greenhouse environmental conditions (temperature, light, and relative humidity) on the performance of biological control agents. Furthermore, few studies have assessed the simultaneous compatibility of plant extracts and biological control agents. Finally, there is a critical dearth of research analyzing the impacts of climate change on the physiology of biological control agents and their subsequent effect on their efficacy.

4. Conclusions

This type of work allows researchers, technicians, and other stakeholders to identify the state of the art in the subject in question, trends in pest management, and the best and most sustainable strategies to implement in their fields of production or research.
According to the findings of this review, insects were the most studied biological target for pest control in Global South countries’ greenhouses. This may be due to the prevalence of insects in the tropics, their greater negative impact on crops, and the development of resistance to synthetic insecticides. This has generated greater interest and, therefore, a wider variety of control strategies.
Tomatoes stand out significantly in this systematic review. This may be because they have been more widely cultivated in Global South countries’ greenhouses in recent years, have a short production cycle, and are affected by a large number of insect pests, diseases, bacteria, nematodes, and viruses.
The systematic review carried out shows that research into sustainable pest management strategies under greenhouse conditions in recent years has primarily focused on biological control. However, it was found that it is important to evaluate the combination of this type of control with other strategies that do not involve the use of synthetic chemicals.
This systematic review of the literature identified a significant number of different strategies that give producers many alternatives that can be combined within Integrated Pest Management strategies to generate a more sustainable product free of synthetic chemical contaminants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.U. and C.A.H.; methodology, C.A.H.; formal analysis, H.U.; investigation, H.U.; data curation, C.A.H.; writing—original draft preparation, H.U.; writing—review and editing, M.O.; visualization, M.O.; supervision, M.O.; project administration, C.A.H.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia. Grant number MWI026.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ydboc62lcueytb8mmukne/Data_SustainablePestManUnderGreenhouses.xlsx?rlkey=73ondg7iwm1vtdwo0b85z275a&st=y3m0fluu&dl=0 (accessed on 15 February 2026).

Acknowledgments

We thank the Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana and the Master’s Degree Program in Sustainability for their support in carrying out this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses
QtyQuantity
PSOPetroleum aerosol oil
NPVNucleopolyhedrovirus

References

  1. Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; Fuentes, L.S.; Niño, N.E.; Espinosa, L.; De Vis, R.; Escobar, H. Manejo Integrado de Plagas y Enfermedades. In Manual de Producción de Tomate Bajo Invernadero; Editorial Utadeo: Bogotá, Colombia, 2010; pp. 85–117. [Google Scholar]
  2. Qu, C.; Yao, J.; Zhan, Q.; Zhang, D.; Li, Y.; Huang, J.; Wang, R. Risk Assessment, Cross-Resistance, Biochemical Mechanism and Fitness Cost of Tetraniliprole Resistance in the Tomato Pinworm Tuta absoluta. Crop Prot. 2024, 183, 106756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Faria, M.; Souza, D.A.; Sanches, M.M.; Schmidt, F.G.V.; Oliveira, C.M.; Benito, N.P.; Lopes, R.B. Evaluation of Key Parameters for Developing a Metarhizium rileyi -based Biopesticide against Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Maize: Laboratory, Greenhouse, and Field Trials. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 1146–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rashid, B.; Husnain, T.; Riazuddin, S. Herbicides and Pesticides as Potential Pollutants: A Global Problem. In Plant Adaptation and Phytoremediation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 427–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Khan, B.A.; Nadeem, M.A.; Nawaz, H.; Amin, M.M.; Abbasi, G.H.; Nadeem, M.; Ali, M.; Ameen, M.; Javaid, M.M.; Maqbool, R.; et al. Pesticides: Impacts on Agriculture Productivity, Environment, and Management Strategies. In Emerging Contaminants and Plants; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 109–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sindhu, S.S.; Sehrawat, A.; Sharma, R.; Khandelwal, A. Biological Control of Insect Pests for Sustainable Agriculture. Microorg. Sustain. 2017, 4, 189–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moraes Boldini, J.; Prada Millán, Y.; Padilla Osorio, J.C.; Montenegro Gómez, S.P.; Fonseca Lara, M.R.; Mosquera Mena, R.A.; Pulido Pulido, S.Y. Control Biológico. In Servicios Ecosistémicos: Un Enfoque Introductorio con Experiencias del Occidente Colombiano; Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia, UNAD: Bogotá, Colombia, 2019; pp. 201–211. [Google Scholar]
  8. Letourneau, D.K.; Armbrecht, I.; Rivera, B.S.; Lerma, J.M.; Carmona, E.J.; Daza, M.C.; Escobar, S.; Galindo, V.; Gutiérrez, C.; López, S.D.; et al. Does Plant Diversity Benefit Agroecosystems? A Synthetic Review. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Wangari Nderitu, P.; Jonsson, M.; Arunga, E.; Otieno, M.; Jamleck Muturi, J.; Wafula, G.O. Combining Host Plant Resistance, Selective Insecticides, and Biological Control Agents for Integrated Management of Tuta absoluta. Adv. Agric. 2020, 2020, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dados, N.; Connell, R. The Global South. Contexts 2012, 11, 12–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stanghellini, C.; Vaan’t Ooster, B.V.; Heuvelink, E. Greenhouse Horticulture: Technology for Optimal Crop Production, Second Edition; Wageningen Academic: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2024; ISBN 978-90-04-69704-1. [Google Scholar]
  12. van Lenteren, J.C.; Alomar, O.; Ravensberg, W.J.; Urbaneja, A. Biological Control Agents for Control of Pests in Greenhouses. In Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 409–439. [Google Scholar]
  13. van Lenteren, J.C. A Greenhouse without Pesticides: Fact or Fantasy? Crop Prot. 2000, 19, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kumar, K.S.; Tiwari, K.N.; Jha, M.K. Design and Technology for Greenhouse Cooling in Tropical and Subtropical Regions: A Review. Energy Build. 2009, 41, 1269–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Syed, A.R. Pest and Disease Management for Crop Production inside Greenhouses. Acta Hortic. 2006, 710, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Weintraub, P.G. Integrated Control of Pests in Tropical and Subtropical Sweet Pepper Production. Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zuluaga-Hernández, C.D.; Hincapié, C.A.; Osorio, M. Non-Conventional Ingredients for Tilapia (Oreochromis Spp.) Feed: A Systematic Review. Fishes 2023, 8, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rethlefsen, M.L.; Kirtley, S.; Waffenschmidt, S.; Ayala, A.P.; Moher, D.; Page, M.J.; Koffel, J.B.; Blunt, H.; Brigham, T.; Chang, S.; et al. PRISMA-S: An Extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Chouikhi, S.; Assadi, B.H.; Lebdi, K.G.; Belkadhi, M.S. Efficacy of the Entomopathogenic Fungi Beauveria bassiana and Lecanicillium muscarium in the Control of the Tomato Leaf Miner, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2022, 32, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Somoza-Vargas, C.E.; Hernández-Velásquez, V.M.; Peña-chora, G.; Torres-García, G.; Huerta-de la Peña, A.; Ortega-Martínez, L.D.; Salazar-Magallón, J.A. Interaction of Beauveria bassiana Strain HPI-019/14 and Bacillus thuringiensis Strain GP139 for the Biological Control of Bemisia tabaci in Strawberry. Bull. Insectol. 2018, 71, 201–209. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gulzar, S.; Wakil, W.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I. Combined Effect of Entomopathogens against Thrips tabaci Lindeman (Thysanoptera: Thripidae): Laboratory, Greenhouse and Field Trials. Insects 2021, 12, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wakil, W.; Ghazanfar, M.U.; Usman, M.; Hunter, D.; Shi, W. Fungal-Based Biopesticide Formulations to Control Nymphs and Adults of the Desert Locust, Schistocerca gregaria Forskål (Orthoptera: Acrididae): A Laboratory and Field Cage Study. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jaber, L.R.; Araj, S.-E. Interactions among Endophytic Fungal Entomopathogens (Ascomycota: Hypocreales), the Green Peach Aphid Myzus persicae Sulzer (Homoptera: Aphididae), and the Aphid Endoparasitoid Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Biol. Control 2018, 116, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Al Khoury, C.; Guillot, J.; Nemer, N. Lethal Activity of Beauvericin, a Beauveria bassiana Mycotoxin, against the Two-spotted Spider Mites, Tetranychus urticae Koch. J. Appl. Entomol. 2019, 143, 974–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Michereff-Filho, M.; Navia, D.; Alexopoulos Quevedo, I.; de Almeida Magalhães, M.; Wagner da Silva Melo, J.; Biaggioni Lopes, R. The Effect of Spider Mite-Pathogenic Strains of Beauveria bassiana and Humidity on the Survival and Feeding Behavior of Neoseiulus Predatory Mite Species. Biol. Control 2022, 176, 105083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chouikhi, S.; Assadi, B.H.; Lebdi, K.G.; Belkadhi, M.S. Efficacy of the Entomopathogenic Fungus, Beauveria bassiana and Lecanicillium muscarium against Two Main Pests, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) and Tetranychus urticae (Koch), under Geothermal Greenhouses of Southern Tunisia. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2022, 32, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Núñez-Palenius, H.G.; Orosco-Alcalá, B.E.; Espitia-Vázquez, I.; Olalde-Portugal, V.; Hoflack-Culebro, M.; Ramírez-Santoyo, L.F.; Ruiz-Aguilar, G.M.L.; Cruz-Huerta, N.; Valiente-Banuet, J.I. Biological Control of Downy Mildew and Yield Enhancement of Cucumber Plants by Trichoderma harzianum and Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg) under Greenhouse Conditions. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Izquierdo-García, L.F.; Cotes, A.M.; Moreno-Velandia, C.A. Screening for Effective Microbial Consortia against Fusarium Wilt of Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana). BioControl 2021, 66, 713–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Affokpon, A.; Djihinto, A.C.; Coffi, E.N.D.; Coyne, D.L.; Coosemans, J. Root Endophytic Status of West African Biocontrol Agents and Implications for Root-Knot Nematode Management. Nematropica 2018, 48, 92–100. [Google Scholar]
  31. Raj, S.N.; Shetty, N.P.; Shetty, H.S. Synergistic Effects of Trichoshield on Enhancement of Growth and Resistance to Downy Mildew in Pearl Millet. BioControl 2005, 50, 493–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sabir, N.; Deka, S.; Singh, B.; Sumitha, R.; Hasan, M.; Kumar, M.; Tanwar, R.; Bambawale, O. Integrated Pest Management for Greenhouse Cucumber: A Validation under North Indian Plains. Indian J. Hortic. 2011, 68, 357–363. [Google Scholar]
  33. Saravanan, T.; Muthusamy, M.; Marimuthu, T. Development of Integrated Approach to Manage the Fusarial Wilt of Banana. Crop Prot. 2003, 22, 1117–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Limdolthamand, S.; Songkumarn, P.; Suwannarat, S.; Jantasorn, A.; Dethoup, T. Biocontrol Efficacy of Endophytic Trichoderma Spp. in Fresh and Dry Powder Formulations in Controlling Northern Corn Leaf Blight in Sweet Corn. Biol. Control 2023, 181, 105217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gómez-Valderrama, J.; Cuartas-Otálora, P.; Espinel-Correal, C.; Barrera-Cubillos, G.; Villamizar-Rivero, L. Fungal and Viral Entomopathogens as a Combined Strategy for the Biological Control of Fall Armyworm Larvae in Maize. CABI Agric. Biosci. 2022, 3, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Naz, I.; Khan, R.A.A.; Masood, T.; Baig, A.; Siddique, I.; Haq, S. Biological Control of Root Knot Nematode, Meloidogyne incognita, in Vitro, Greenhouse and Field in Cucumber. Biol. Control 2021, 152, 104429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Medina-Canales, M.G.; Terroba-Escalante, P.; Manzanilla-López, R.H.; Tovar-Soto, A. Assessment of Three Strategies for the Management of Meloidogyne arenaria on Carrot in Mexico Using Pochonia chlamydosporia Var. Mexicana under Greenhouse Conditions. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2019, 29, 671–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mejía, C.; Espinel, C. In Vitro versus in Planta: Comparing the Compatibility of Akanthomyces lecanii with Pesticides against Trialeurodes vaporariorum. J. Appl. Entomol. 2022, 146, 1272–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Abo-Elyousr, K.A.M.; Seleim, M.A.A.; Abd-El-Moneem, K.M.H.; Saead, F.A. Integrated Effect of Glomus mosseae and Selected Plant Oils on the Control of Bacterial Wilt Disease of Tomato. Crop Prot. 2014, 66, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. El-Ashry, R.M.; Ali, M.A.S.; Elsobki, A.E.A.; Aioub, A.A.A. Integrated Management of Meloidogyne incognita on Tomato Using Combinations of Abamectin, Purpureocillium lilacinum, Rhizobacteria, and Botanicals Compared with Nematicide. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Singh, H.; Kaur, T. Pathogenicity of Entomopathogenic Fungi against the Aphid and the Whitefly Species on Crops Grown under Greenhouse Conditions in India. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2020, 30, 84. [Google Scholar]
  42. Poitevin, C.G.; Porsani, M.V.; Poltronieri, A.S.; Zawadneak, M.A.C.; Pimentel, I.C. Fungi Isolated from Insects in Strawberry Crops Act as Potential Biological Control Agents of Duponchelia fovealis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2018, 53, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Canassa, F.; D’Alessandro, C.P.; Sousa, S.B.; Demétrio, C.G.; Meyling, N.V.; Klingen, I.; Delalibera, I. Fungal Isolate and Crop Cultivar Influence the Beneficial Effects of Root Inoculation with Entomopathogenic Fungi in Strawberry. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 1472–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Taping, J.M.; Borja, B.T.; Bretaña, B.L.; Tanabe, M.E.; Cabasan, M.T. Fungal Endophytes as Potential Biocontrol Agent of Panama Disease of Banana. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2023, 33, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Elkelany, U.S.; El-Mougy, N.S.; Abdel-Kader, M.M. Management of Root-Knot Nematode Meloidogyne incognita of Eggplant Using Some Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria and Chitosan under Greenhouse Conditions. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2020, 30, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thuler, R.T.; Iost Filho, F.H.; De Oliveira Charlo, H.C.; De Bortoli, S.A. Effects of Rhizobacteria on the Biology and Behavior of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Rev. Colomb. Entomol. 2017, 43, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Esquivel-Cervantes, L.F.; Tlapal-Bolaños, B.; Tovar-Pedraza, J.M.; Pérez-Hernández, O.; Leyva-Mir, S.G.; Camacho-Tapia, M. Efficacy of Biorational Products for Managing Diseases of Tomato in Greenhouse Production. Plants 2022, 11, 1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kamalakannan, A.; Shanmugam, V. Management Approaches of Maize Downy Mildew Using Biocontrol Agents and Plant Extracts. Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung. 2009, 44, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mekonnen, H.; Kibret, M.; Assefa, F. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Biocontrol of Tomato Bacterial Wilt Caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. Int. J. Agron. 2022, 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Valan Arasu, M.; Al-Dhabi, N.A. Biological Control of Root Rot Disease-Causing Rhizoctonia solani in Tomato Plant by an Endophytic Fungus and Analysis of Growth Promoting Activities in Greenhouse and Field. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2023, 127, 102080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vinchira-Villarraga, D.M.; Castellanos, L.; Moreno-Sarmiento, N.; Suarez-Moreno, Z.R.; Ramos, F.A. Antifungal Activity of Marine-Derived Paenibacillus Sp. PNM200 against Fusarium oxysporum f. Sp. Lycopersici, the Causal Agent of Tomato Vascular Wilt. Biol. Control 2021, 154, 104501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ndereyimana, A.; Nyalala, S.; Murerwa, P.; Gaidashova, S. Potential of Entomopathogenic Nematode Isolates from Rwanda to Control the Tomato Leaf Miner, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gulzar, S.; Wakil, W.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I. Potential Use of Entomopathogenic Nematodes against the Soil Dwelling Stages of Onion Thrips, Thrips tabaci Lindeman: Laboratory, Greenhouse and Field Trials. Biol. Control 2021, 161, 104677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gulzar, S.; Usman, M.; Wakil, W.; Wu, S.; Oliveira-Hofman, C.; Srinivasan, R.; Toews, M.; Shapiro-Ilan, D. Virulence of Entomopathogenic Nematodes to Pupae of Frankliniella fusca (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2021, 114, 2018–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Usman, M.; Wakil, W.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I. Entomopathogenic Nematodes as Biological Control Agent against Bactrocera zonata and Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Biol. Control 2021, 163, 104706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, J.; Li, Y.; Wei, X.; Cui, Y.; Gu, X.; Li, X.; Yoshiga, T.; Abd-Elgawad, M.M.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.; Ruan, W.; et al. Direct Antagonistic Effect of Entomopathogenic Nematodes and Their Symbiotic Bacteria on Root-Knot Nematodes Migration toward Tomato Roots. Plant Soil 2023, 484, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. El Aalaoui, M.; Mokrini, F.; Dababat, A.A.; Lahlali, R.; Sbaghi, M. Moroccan Entomopathogenic Nematodes as Potential Biocontrol Agents against Dactylopius opuntiae (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae). Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 7590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Walia, A.; Verma, S.C.; Sharma, P.L.; Sharma, N.; Palial, S. Relative Preference and Demographic Parameters of Encarsia formosa Gahan against Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Walia, A.; Verma, S.C.; Sharma, P.L.; Chandel, R.S.; Palial, S.; Sharma, N. Foraging Behaviour and Mutual Interference of Encarsia formosa Gahan Parasitizing Greenhouse Whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2022, 42, 807–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Castresana, J.; Rosenbaum, J.; Gagliano, E. The Transition from Chemical Pest Control to Biological Pest Management through the Transfer of Integrated Pest Management Techniques in Greenhouse Tomatoes in Concordia-Province of Entre Ríos, Argentina. Idesia 2019, 37, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gontijo, L.M.; Carvalho, R.M.R. Using Life Stage-Structured Matrix Models to Determine Natural Enemy: Pest Release Ratios for Augmentative Biological Control. J. Appl. Entomol. 2020, 144, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cherif, A.; Mansour, R.; Attia-Barhoumi, S.; Zappalà, L.; Grissa-Lebdi, K. Effectiveness of Different Release Rates of Trichogramma cacoeciae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) against Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in Protected and Open Field Tomato Crops in Tunisia. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2019, 29, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ahmadi, S.; Poorjavad, N. Behavioral and Biological Effects of Exposure to Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) Sex Pheromone on Several Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) Populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2667–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Calvo, F.J.; Torres-Ruiz, A.; Velázquez-González, J.; Rodríguez-Leyva, E.; Lomeli-Flores, J.R. Improved Sweetpotato Whitefly and Potato Psyllid Control in Tomato by Combining the Mirid Dicyphus hesperus (Heteroptera: Miridae) With Specialist Parasitic Wasps. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mama Sambo, S.; Ndlela, S.; du Plessis, H.; Obala, F.; Mohamed, S.A. Identification, Microhabitat, and Ecological Niche Prediction of Two Promising Native Parasitoids of Tuta absoluta in Kenya. Insects 2022, 13, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Elimem, M.; Harbi, A.; Limem-Sellemi, E.; Ben Othmen, S.; Chermiti, B. Orius laevigatus (Insecta; Heteroptera) Local Strain, a Promising Agent in Biological Control of Frankliniella occidentalis (Insecta; Thysanoptra) in Protected Pepper Crops in Tunisia. EuroMediterr. J. Environ. Integr. 2018, 3, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kordestani, M.; Mahdian, K.; Baniameri, V.; Sheikhi Garjan, A. Effect of Three Oviposition Feeding Substrates on Biology and Life Table Parameters of Orius laevigatus. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 41, 1523–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Calvo, F.J.; Torres-Ruiz, A.; Velázquez-González, J.C.; Rodríguez-Leyva, E.; Lomeli-Flores, J.R. Evaluation of Dicyphus hesperus for Biological Control of Sweet Potato Whitefly and Potato Psyllid on Greenhouse Tomato. BioControl 2016, 61, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, J.; Li, S.; Yang, J.; Guo, M.; Dai, H.; Ramirez-Romero, R.; Jin, Z.; Wang, S. The Fitness of Mass Rearing Food on the Establishment of Chrysopa pallens in a Banker Plant System under Fluctuating Temperature Conditions. Insects 2021, 12, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Morales, J.A.; Muñoz, L.Y.; Rodríguez Caicedo, D.; Cantor, F. Combined Action of Sex Pheromone and Wasp Apanteles gelechiidivoris in Greenhouse Tomato Crops. Acta Biolo. Colomb. 2014, 19, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lira, R.; Nascimento, D.V.; Torres, J.B.; Siqueira, H.A.A. Predation on Diamondback Moth Larvae and Aphid by Resistant and Susceptible Lady Beetle, Eriopis Connexa. Neotrop. Entomol. 2019, 48, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Dalir, S.; Hajiqanbar, H.; Fathipour, Y.; Khanamani, M. A Comprehensive Picture of Foraging Strategies of Neoseiulus cucumeris and Amblyseius swirskii on Western Flower Thrips. Pest Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 5418–5429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lahiri, S.; Yambisa, A. Efficacy of a Biopesticide and Predatory Mite to Manage Chilli Thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in Strawberry. Fla. Entomol. 2021, 104, 322–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nicetic, O.; Watson, D.M.; Beattie, G.A.C.; Meats, A.; Zheng, J. Integrated Pest Management of Two-Spotted Mite Tetranychus urticae on Greenhouse Roses Using Petroleum Spray Oil and the Predatory Mite Phytoseiulus persimilis. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2001, 25, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ayyub, M.B.; Nawaz, A.; Gogi, M.D.; Ahmad, J.N. Comparative Toxicity Assessment of Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus and Spinosad against Spodoptera litura (FABRICIOUS) in Semi Field Conditions. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 57, 445–450. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ayyub, M.B.; Nawaz, A.; Arif, M.J.; Amrao, L. Individual and Combined Impact of Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus and Spinosad to Control the Tropical Armyworm, Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in Cotton in Pakistan. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Alves, T.J.S.; Murcia-Meseguer, A.; Azpiazu, C.; Wanumen, A.; Wanderley-Teixeira, V.; Teixeira, Á.A.C.; Ortiz, A.; Medina, P. Side Effects of a Mixture of Essential Oils on Psyttalia concolor. Ecotoxicology 2020, 29, 1358–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Passos, L.C.; Ricupero, M.; Gugliuzzo, A.; Soares, M.A.; Desneux, N.; Campolo, O.; Carvalho, G.A.; Biondi, A.; Zappalá, L. Sublethal Effects of Plant Essential Oils toward the Zoophytophagous Mirid Nesidiocoris tenuis. J. Pest Sci. 2022, 95, 1609–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mostafiz, M.M.; Hassan, E.; Shim, J.K.; Lee, K.Y. Insecticidal Efficacy of Three Benzoate Derivatives against Aphis gossypii and Its Predator Chrysoperla carnea. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 184, 109653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. da Silva Santana, A.; Luiz Lopes Baldin, E.; Paula Santana Lima, A.; Braga dos Santos, L.; Clezia dos Santos, M.; Manzini Vieira, T.; Miller Crotti Renata Takeara, E. New Challenges Demand New Solutions: Selected Essential Oils as an Alternative to Control Bemisia tabaci MED in Brazil. Crop Prot. 2022, 2, 105909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jaoko, V.; Taning, C.N.T.; Backx, S.; Motti, P.; Mulatya, J.; Vandenabeele, J.; Magomere, T.; Olubayo, F.; Mangelinckx, S.; Werbrouck, S.P.O.; et al. Laboratory and Greenhouse Evaluation of Melia volkensii Extracts for Potency against African Sweet Potato Weevil, Cylas puncticollis, and Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Marouf, A.E. Efficacy of Mandarin Crust Oil, Marigold Extract and Their Nanoemulsions, on Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) Larvae. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 25, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hassan, E.; Mostafiz, M.M.; Iramu, E.T.; George, D.; Lee, K.Y. Evaluation of the Effect of Fungatol and Gamma-T-Ol on the Emergence and Adult Parasitoid Survival of Mummies of Cotton Aphids Parasitized by Aphidius Colemani. Insects 2022, 13, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. de Araújo, M.J.; da Câmara, C.A.; Born, F.D.; de Moraes, M.M. Acaricidal Activity of Binary Blends of Essential Oils and Selected Constituents against Tetranychus urticae in Laboratory/Greenhouse Experiments and the Impact on Neoseiulus californicus. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2020, 80, 423–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Costa, E.M.; Silva, F.E.L.; Araujo, E.L. Effect of Aqueous Neem Seed Extract via Irrigation on Larvae of Liriomyza sativae in Melon Crop. Hortic. Bras. 2018, 36, 353–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kishore, G.K.; Pande, S. Integrated Management of Late Leaf Spot and Rust Diseases of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) with Prosopis juliflora Leaf Extract and Chlorothalonil. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2005, 51, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  87. Marques-Francovig, C.R.; Mikami, A.Y.; Dutra, V.; Carvalho, M.G.; Picareli, B.; Ventura, M.U. Organic Fertilization and Botanical Insecticides to Control Two-Spotted Spider Mite in Strawberry. Cienc. Rural 2014, 44, 1908–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ribeiro, R.C.; Zanuncio, T.V.; de Sousa Ramalho, F.; da Silva, C.A.; Serrão, J.E.; Zanuncio, J.C. Feeding and Oviposition of Anticarsia gemmatalis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with Sublethal Concentrations of Ten Condiments Essential Oils. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 74, 139–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Adolfo Montes-Molina, J.; Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.; Manuel Ruíz-Valdiviezo, V. Characteristics of Tomato Plants Treated with Leaf Extracts of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss. (L.)) and Mata-Raton (Gliricidia sepium (Jacquin)): A Greenhouse Experiment. J. Environ. Biol. 2014, 35, 935. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sabir, N.; Deka, S.; Tanwar, R. Comparative Evaluation of Pesticides and Biorationals against Key Pests of Greenhouse Chrysanthemum. Indian J. Hortic. 2012, 69, 101–105. [Google Scholar]
  91. Singh, R.; Koul, O.; Rup, P.J.; Jindal, J. Oviposition and Feeding Behavior of the Maize Borer, Chilo partellus, in Response to Eight Essential Oil Allelochemicals. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2011, 138, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Souza, C.M.; Baldin, E.L.L.; Ribeiro, L.P.; Silva, I.F.; Morando, R.; Bicalho, K.U.; Vendramim, J.D.; Fernandes, J.B. Lethal and Growth Inhibitory Activities of Neotropical Annonaceae-Derived Extracts, Commercial Formulation, and an Isolated Acetogenin against Helicoverpa armigera. J. Pest Sci. 2017, 90, 701–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hussein, H.S.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Soliman, A.M. Repellent, Attractive, and Insecticidal Effects of Essential Oils from Schinus terebinthifolius Fruits and Corymbia citriodora Leaves on Two Whitefly Species, Bemisia tabaci, and Trialeurodes ricini. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 216, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Salgado-Garciglia, R.; Molina-Torres, J.; López-Meza, J.E.; Damián, P.; Lara, L. Effect of Crude Extract and Bioactive Compounds of Heliopsis longipes on Anthracnose Incidence, Mycorrhization, and Nodulation of Bean. Agrociencia 2008, 42, 679–688. [Google Scholar]
  95. Cajias, E.; Vargas, H.; Estefane, F.; Bobadilla, D.D. Biological Activity of Lonchocarpus guaricensis Pittier in the Control of Larvae of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick). Rev. Fac. Cienc. Agrar. 2013, 45, 117–125. [Google Scholar]
  96. Castresan, J.E.; Rosenbaum, J.; González, L.A. Study of the Effectiveness of Three Essential Oils to Control Aphids on Pepper Plants, Capsicum annuum L. Idesia 2013, 31, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Greenhill, M.; Cole, P.; Griffin, D. Evaluation of Pyrethrum for Use in Integrated Pest Management in Protected Cropping—A Review of Recent Research in Australia. Acta Hortic. 2015, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hajji-Hedfi, L.; Rebai, E.; Larayedh, A.; Regaieg, H.; Horrigue-Raouani, N. Biological control of Meloidogyne javanica on tomato with Dazitol® and soil solarization. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 17278–17282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Rashidi, F.; Ganbalani, G.N. Toxicity and Sublethal Effects of Selected Insecticides on Life Parameters of Encarsia formosa (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), a Parasitoid of Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 2018, 53, 543–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bashiri, M.; Moharramipour, S.; Negahban, M. Developing a Vegetable Oil Formulation as a Safe Acaricide against Tetranychus urticae. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2021, 23, 1281–1295. [Google Scholar]
  101. Balanza, V.; Mendoza, J.E.; Cifuentes, D.; Bielza, P. Genetic Improvement of Spinosad Resistance in the Biocontrol Agent Orius laevigatus. BioControl 2021, 66, 673–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Abd El-Ghany, N.M.; Abdel-Razek, A.S.; Djelouah, K.; Moussa, A. Efficacy of Bio-Rational Insecticides against Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on Tomatoes. Biosci. Res. 2018, 15, 28–40. [Google Scholar]
  103. Farahani, S.; Bandani, A.R.; Amiri, A. Toxicity and Repellency Effects of Three Essential Oils on Two Populations of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). Persian J. Acarol. 2020, 9, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Awad, S.E.; Salah, K.B.H.; Jghef, M.M.; Alkhaibari, A.M.; Shami, A.A.; Alghamdi, R.A.; El-Ashry, R.M.; Ali, A.A.I.; El-Maghraby, L.M.M.; Awad, A.E. Chemical Characterization of Clove, Basil and Peppermint Essential Oils; Evaluating Their Toxicity on the Development Stages of Two-Spotted Spider Mites Grown on Cucumber Leaves. Life 2022, 12, 1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Born, F.D.; da Camara, C.A.; de Melo, J.P.; de Moraes, M.M. Acaricidal Property of the Essential Oil from Lippia Gracilis against Tetranychus urticae and a Natural Enemy, Neoseiulus californicus, under Greenhouse Conditions. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2018, 75, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Urbaneja-Bernat, P.; Holdcraft, R.; Hernández-Cumplido, J.; Rhodes, E.M.; Liburd, O.E.; Sial, A.A.; Mafra-Neto, A.; Rodriguez-Saona, C. Field, Semi-field and Greenhouse Testing of HOOK SWD, a SPLAT-based Attract-and-kill Formulation to Manage Spotted-wing Drosophila. J. Appl. Entomol. 2022, 146, 1230–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Broughton, S.; Cousins, D.A.; Rahman, T. Evaluation of Semiochemicals for Their Potential Application in Mass Trapping of Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) in Roses. Crop Prot. 2015, 67, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. McCormick, A.L.C.; Karlsson, M.; Ochoa, C.F.B.; Proffit, M.; Bengtsson, M.; Zuluaga, M.V.; Fukumoto, T.; Oehlschlager, C.; Prado, A.M.C.; Witzgall, P. Mating Disruption of Guatemalan Potato Moth Tecia solanivora by Attractive and Non-Attractive Pheromone Blends. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Chouikhi, S.; Assadi, B.H.; Ettaib, R.; Lebdi, K.G.; Belkadhi, M.S. Effectiveness of Mating Disruption Applied Alone or in Combination with Bioinsecticides against Tuta absoluta in Heated Greenhouse Tomato Crops of Southern Tunisia. Phytoparasitica 2023, 51, 521–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Jallow, M.F.A.; Dahab, A.A.; Albaho, M.S.; Devi, V.Y.; Jacob, J.; Al-Saeed, O. Efficacy of Mating Disruption Compared with Chemical Insecticides for Controlling Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in Kuwait. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2020, 55, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Abou-Haidar, A.; Sobh, H.; Skinner, M.; Parker, B.; Abou-Jawdah, Y. Efficacy of Phytoseiulus persimilis and Amblyseius swirskii for Integrated Pest Management for Greenhouse Cucumbers under Mediterranean Environmental Conditions. Can. Entomol. 2021, 153, 598–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Lai, D.T.; Khuc, H.D.; Van Nguyen, L.; Hong, K.-J.; Nguyen, H.N. Potential of Using Mineral Oils for the Control of the Mosquito Bugs Helopeltis theivora (Hemiptera: Miridae) in Cashew Plantations. J. Asia. Pac. Entomol. 2022, 25, 101947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Steiner, M.; Spohr, L.; Barchia, I.; Goodwin, S. Rapid Estimation of Numbers of Whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleurodidae) and Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on Sticky Traps. Aust. J. Entomol. 1999, 38, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Pinto-Zevallos, D.M.; Vänninen, I. Yellow Sticky Traps for Decision-Making in Whitefly Management: What Has Been Achieved? Crop Prot. 2013, 47, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Leoni, C.; Ghini, R. Sewage Sludge Effect on Management of Phytophthora nicotianae in Citrus. Crop Prot. 2006, 25, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  116. Sharma, A.; Sharma, S.; Sabir, N.; El-Sheikh, M.A.; Alyemeni, M. Impact Assessment of Karanja Deoiled Cake and Sundried Biogas Slurry as a Mixed Substrate on the Nematicidal Potential of Purpureocillium lilacinum. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2021, 33, 101399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tomazeli, V.N.; Marchese, J.A.; Danner, M.A.; Perboni, A.T.; Finatto, T.; Crisosto, C.H. Improved Resistance to Disease and Mites in Strawberry, through the Use of Acibenzolar-S-Methyl and Harpin to Enhance Photosynthesis and Phenolic Metabolism. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2016, 28, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. De Lange, E.S.; Salamanca, J.; Polashock, J.; Rodriguez-Saona, C. Genotypic Variation and Phenotypic Plasticity in Gene Expression and Emissions of Herbivore-Induced Volatiles, and Their Potential Tritrophic Implications, in Cranberries. J. Chem. Ecol. 2019, 45, 298–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. El-Ashry, R.M.; Nader, M.M.; Shami, A.; Alduwish, M.A.; Ahmed, A.E.; Alamoud, S.A.; Allohibi, A.; Alqahtani, F.S.; Alghamdi, A.M.; Ahmed, A.I.; et al. Ecofriendly Synthesis and Nematicidal Application of Copper Nanoparticles Fabricated from Bacillus subtilis AM18, against Root-Knot Nematode of Cucumber. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2024, 168, 53–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Shenashen, M.; Derbalah, A.; Hamza, A.; Mohamed, A.; El Safty, S. Antifungal Activity of Fabricated Mesoporous Alumina Nanoparticles against Root Rot Disease of Tomato Caused by Fusarium oxysporium. Pest Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 1121–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Nunez, E.; Barbosa, L.S.; Avelino-Capistrano, F. Efficiency of Capture of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) with Mosquito Killer Light Traps. Agron. Colomb. 2023, 41, e106193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Chouikhi, S.; Assadi, B.H.; Abbes, K.; Bkhiti, I.; Grissa Lebdi, K.; Belkadhi, M.S. Effectiveness of Mating Disruption with TUTATEC® Dispensers against Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in Heated Greenhouses in Southern Tunisia. Phytoparasitica 2023, 51, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Solis-Sánchez, L.O.; Castañeda-Miranda, R.; García-Escalante, J.J.; Torres-Pacheco, I.; Guevara-González, R.G.; Castañeda-Miranda, C.L.; Alaniz-Lumbreras, P.D. Scale Invariant Feature Approach for Insect Monitoring. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 75, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Solis-Sánchez, L.O.; García-Escalante, J.J.; Castañeda-Miranda, R.; Torres-Pacheco, I.; Guevara-González, R. Machine Vision Algorithm for Whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) Scouting under Greenhouse Environment. J. Appl. Entomol. 2009, 133, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ghaderi, S.; Fathipour, Y.; Asgari, S. Population Density and Spatial Distribution Pattern of Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on Different Tomato Cultivars. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2018, 20, 543–556. [Google Scholar]
  126. Scarlato, M.; Bao, L.; Rossing, W.A.H.; Dogliotti, S.; Bertoni, P.; Bianchi, F.J.J.A. Flowering Plants in Open Tomato Greenhouses Enhance Pest Suppression in Conventional Systems and Reveal Resource Saturation for Natural Enemies in Organic Systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 347, 108389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Albornoz, M.V.; Flores, M.F.; Calderón, E.; Bahamondes, S.A.; Verdugo, J.A. Reproductive Behavior of Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) Relative to Different Host Plants in an Intensive Tomato Crop Region of Chile. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Hata, F.T.; Ventura, M.U.; Carvalho, M.G.; Miguel, A.L.A.; Souza, M.S.J.; Paula, M.T.; Zawadneak, M.A.C. Intercropping Garlic Plants Reduces Tetranychus urticae in Strawberry Crop. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2016, 69, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Peres, F.S.C.; Fernandes, O.A.; Silveira, L.C.P.; Silva, C.S.B. da Marigold as Attractive Plant for Thrips in Protected Organic Melon Cultivation. Bragantia 2009, 68, 953–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. El-Shafei, G.M.A.; Gotoh, T. Performance of Eighteen Tetranychid Mite Species (Acari: Tetranychidae) on Borage and Strawberry. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2010, 45, 579–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  131. Steiner, M.Y.; Spohr, L.J.; Goodwin, S. Relative Humidity Controls Pupation Success and Dropping Behaviour of Western Flower Thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Aust. J. Entomol. 2011, 50, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Gil, R.; Bojacá, C.R.; Rodríguez, M.Á. Adaptation of a Leaf Wetness Duration Model for Tomato under Colombian Greenhouse Conditions. Agron. Colomb. 2015, 33, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Nur Hasyimah, R.; Nor Atikah, A.; Yaakop, S. The Significance of Free Air CO2 Enrichment and Open Roof Ventilation Greenhouse System in a Study of Mealworm Beetle, Tenebrio molitor L. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Serangga 2018, 122–129. [Google Scholar]
  134. Abreu, R.A.A.; Assis, F.A.; Souza, B.H.S.; Nascimento, A.M.; Latini, A.O.; Pio, L.A.S. Effects of Silicon Application on the Biochemistry of Passion Fruit and Performance of Dione juno juno (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2021, 15, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Rincon, D.F.; Rivera-Trujillo, H.F.; Mojica-Ramos, L.; Borrero-Echeverry, F. Sampling Plans Promoting Farmers’ Memory Provide Decision Support in Tuta absoluta Management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Messelink, G.J.; Lambion, J.; Janssen, A.; van Rijn, P.C.J. Biodiversity in and around Greenhouses: Benefits and Potential Risks for Pest Management. Insects 2021, 12, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Soil Fertility Management and Insect Pests: Harmonizing Soil and Plant Health in Agroecosystems. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 72, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ohyama, K.; Fujioka, J.; Sato, T.; Matsuo, T. System for Determining the Job Status of Individual Laborers in a Large-Scale Greenhouse. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023, 206, 107661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ontiveros-Guerra, J.G.; Ramírez-Barrón, S.N.; Aguirre-Uribe, L.A.; Chacon-Hernandez, J.C.; Sánchez-Vega, M.; Cerna-Chávez, E.; García-López, J.I.; Neira-Vielma, A.A.; Meléndez-Ortíz, H.I.; Hernández-Juárez, A. Effect of Gold Nanoparticles Against Tetranychus urticae and Phytoseiulus persimilis in Tomato. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Rashid, T.S. Efficacy of Trichoderma Harzianum as a Natural Biocontrol and Growth-Promoting Agent Against Selected Tomato Fungal Pathogens. J. Phytopathol. 2025, 173, e70130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sosa, A.L.; Girardi, N.S.; Rosso, L.C.; Salusso, F.A.; Passone, M.A. Integrated Application of Biological and Biorational Strategies for Effective Control of the “False Root-Knot Nematode” in Tomato Plants. J. Pest Sci. 2025, 98, 1699–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Bahoch, S.; Elaasri, A.; Chafiki, S.; Elame, F.; Wifaya, A.; Mayad, E.H.; Bouharroud, R.; Qessaoui, R. Biocontrol Potential of Rhizobacteria Against Passalora fulva and Tuta absoluta: A Sustainable Approach for Tomato Protection. Plants 2025, 14, 2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Magallanes-Tapia, M.A.; Cid del Prado-Vera, I.; Ferris, H.; Nava-Díaz, C.; González-Camacho, J.M.; Ochoa-Martínez, D.L. Pre-Plant Biofumigation and Integrated Post-Plant Strategies for Management of Nacobbus aberrans and Meloidogyne incognita in Greenhouse Tomato. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Xie, D.; Ismoilov, K.; Hu, S.; Wang, Q.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, W.; Ricupero, M.; Biondi, A.; Krutmuang, P.; Rodriguezsaona, C.; et al. Performance-Economy-Environment Multi-Criteria Assessment on an IPM Package Involving Fertilization Manipulation and Biological Pest Control: A Semi-Field Case Study on Tomato. Entomol. Gen. 2025, 45, 1159–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Kaur, S.; Thakur, N.; Yadav, A.N. Exploring the Biopesticidal Potential of Indigenous Bacillus paramycoides EU-SIRCK1266 for Sustainable Management of Greenhouse Whiteflies Trialeurodes vaporariorum. J. Crop Health 2026, 78, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Hyder, M.; Ali, F.; Ghafar, M.A.; Bukero, A.A.; Ul Haq, I.; Lodhi, A.M.; Hou, Y. Toxicity of Ethanolic Plant Extracts to Aphis gossypii, Bemisia tabaci, and Frankliniella occidentalis and Selectivity to Coccinella septempunctata and Menochilus sexmaculatus. Neotrop. Entomol. 2025, 54, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Adss, I.A.A.; R Bayoumi, S.; Heikal, H.M.; Sobhy, S.E.; Saleh, A.A.; Hafez, E.E. Impact of Trichoderma, Abscisic Acid and Polyamines on Resistance Tomato Cultivars against M. incognita Infection. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2025, 52, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Golizadeh, A.; Afshari, F. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Life History Parameters of the Tomato Leafminer, Tuta absoluta on Two Tomato Cultivars. Crop Prot. 2025, 196, 107271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Razmjou, J.; Mardani-Talaee, M.; Perumal, V. Investigating the Alleviatory Ability of Bio-Synthesized Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles from Sargassum ilicifolium (Turner) C. Agardh on the Tomato Plants Exposed to Whitefly Infestation. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 44206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Zayed, M.S.; Hegab, M.A.M.S.; SaadAllah, M.S.; Elnabawy, E.S.M.; El-Beltagi, H.S.; Abo-Ogiala, A.M.; El-Harariy, A. Non- Conventional Agents Enhance Sweet Pepper (Capsicum annuum L. Var. Annuum) Defense against Aphis gossypii, Thrips tabaci, and Their Predators Chrysoperla carnea and Orius insidiosus. Glob. Chall. 2026, 10, e00590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Rezaei, A.; Khanjani, M.; Farrokhi, S. Induced Resistance in Bell Pepper by Trichoderma harzianum and Jasmonic Acid against Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J. Entomol. Soc. Iran 2025, 45, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Caplik, D.; Küsek, M. Biocontrol Potential of Acinetobacter Lactucae and Pseudarthrobacter Polychromogenes in Managing Pepper Bacterial Spot Disease. J. Phytopathol. 2025, 173, e70140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Mardani-Talaee, M.; Nouri-Ganblani, G.; Razmjou, J.; Hassanpour, M.; Perumal, V.; Naseri, B. Bottom-Up Effects of Various Plant Growth Promoting Treatments on Fitness Parameters of Hippodamia variegata. J. Basic Microbiol. 2025, 65, e2400486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Aghazadeh, A.; Negahban, M.; Fathipour, Y. Sublethal Impacts of a Commercial Botanical Pesticide (Salpipest®) Containing Nanoencapsulated Essential Oil of Wild Pistachio on Demographic Parameters of the Predatory Mite Amblyseius swirskii Feed on Greenhouse Whitefly. Neotrop. Entomol. 2025, 54, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Mardani-Talaee, M.; Razmjou, J.; Nouri-Ganbalani, G.; Hassanpour, M.; Naseri, B. Bottom-up Effects of Different Fertilizer on Changes in the Two Sex Life Table of the Ladybug Beetle Adalia bipunctata L. Plant Prot. 2025, 48, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Aziz, B.A.; Marzani, Q.A. Integrated Management of Strawberry Crown and Root Rot Caused by Fusarium Solani in Greenhouse Conditions. Polytech. J. 2025, 15, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Kallali, N.S.; El Alami, N.; Laasli, S.E.; Broulaye, S.; Benseddik, Y.; Khfif, K.; Boutaleb-Joutei, A.; Ouijja, A.; Mokrini, F.; Lahlali, R. Potential of Moroccan Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Controlling Polyphagous Fruit Flies, Drosophila melanogaster (Meigen, 1830) and D. Simulans (Sturtevant, 1919), under Variable Abiotic Conditions in Strawberry Agroecosystems. J. Nat. Pestic. Res. 2025, 14, 100153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Riaz, M.; Kafle, L.N.; Chang, T.; Chen, W. Characterization and Virulence of Metarhizium anisopliae (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) Isolates from Ecologically Distinct Soils Against Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Insect Sci. 2026, 26, ieaf113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Shravani, V.; Govindasamy, J.; Shanthi, A.; Johnson, I.; Nallusamy, S.; Eswaran, K.; Venkatesan, P. One Fungus, Two Foes: Clonostachys rosea as a Biocontrol Agent against Root-Knot Nematode, Meloidogyne incognita and Fusarium Wilt Disease Complex in Ridge Gourd. Arch. Microbiol. 2025, 207, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. El-Qurashi, M.A.; Almasrahi, A.A.; al-Yahya, F.A. Biological Control of Root-Knot Nematodes, Meloidogyne javanica by Antagonistic Fungus Cladosporium sphaerospermum. Plant Pathol. J. 2025, 41, 643–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Ramos, Y.G.; Pineda-Guillermo, S.; Tamez-Guerra, P.; Valle-Mora, J.F.; Figueroa-de la Rosa, J.I.; Ramos-Ortiz, S.; Palma-Castillo, L.J.; Martínez-Castillo, A.M. Biocontrol of Fall Armyworm Larvae by Selected Mexican Metarhizium rileyi Isolates Under Greenhouse and Small-Scale Field Conditions in Maize. Insects 2025, 16, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Grossi Vanacore, M.F.; Sartori, M.V.; Giordanino, F.; Barros, G.G.; García, D. Dual Role of Bacillus velezensis EM-A8 in Maize: Biocontrol of Exserohilum turcicum and Enhancement of Plant Growth. Plants 2025, 14, 3464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Elhalag, K.M.A.; Hassan, M.G.; Hamed, A.A.; Elawady, M.E.; Hassan, A.; El Maaty, S.A.A. Antibacterial Efficacy of Streptomyces rochei Metabolites against Key Bacterial Diseases of Potato. Indian Phytopathol. 2025, 78, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Yamada, M.; Ramos, G.S.; Araújo, A.S.; Thiesen, L.V.; Iost-Filho, F.H.; Yamamoto, P.T. Dynamics of Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) in the Presence of the Predatory Mite Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in Cotton Under Semi-Field Conditions. Neotrop. Entomol. 2025, 54, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Saleh, A.A.; Jabbar, A.S.; Anter, M.A.; Arafa, E.M.; Zawrah, M.F. Bioefficacy of Some Insecticides and Biopesticides Against Aphis gossypii Glover and Its Predator, Chrysoperla carnea (Steph.), in Cucumber Greenhouses. J. Crop Health 2025, 77, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Ezahidi, B.; Amir, S.; Sabour-Alaoui, S. Essential Oils of Lavandula angustifolia and Thymus vulgaris as Biocontrol Agents: Managing Dactylopius opuntiae Infestation and Associated Bacterial Infections. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 34158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Jayapradha, J.; Suganthy, M.; Murugan, M.; Janaki, P.; Rajkishore, S.K.; Sharmila, D.J.S. Silica-Mediated Resistance in Cauliflower against Diamondback Moth (Plutella xylostella). Plant Sci. Today 2025, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Roberts, N.S.; Ndayiragije, J.C.; Özek, T.; Butt, T.M.; Karaca, I.; Shah, F.A.; Allen, W.L. Visual Modelling Can Optimise Sticky Trap Design for Simultaneous Monitoring of Multiple Species of Insect Pests. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 17280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Ansari-Shiri, H.; Hajiqanbar, H.; Zalucki, M.P.; Fathipour, Y. Assessing Population Growth Potential of Phytonemus pallidus (Acari: Tarsonemidae) on Different Strawberry Cultivars Using Group-Rearing Life Table. Syst. Appl. Acarol. 2025, 30, 1223–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Sabet, H.; Asadi-Gharneh, H.A.; Nasr- Esfahani, M. Butternut Pumpkin-Powdery Mildew Disease Interaction as Influenced by Sowing Type and Date. Ecol. Genet. Genom. 2025, 36, 100375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Nouri-Miri, M.; Kheradmand, K.; Saboori, A.; Fathipour, Y. Age-Gender-Specific Functional and Age-Specific Numerical Responses of Neoseiulus californicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on Two-Spotted Spider Mite. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2025, 94, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 12 00273 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart of inclusion and exclusion documents.
Figure 1. Flowchart of inclusion and exclusion documents.
Horticulturae 12 00273 g001
Horticulturae 12 00273 g002
Figure 2. Percentage of documents grouped by biological target.
Figure 2. Percentage of documents grouped by biological target.
Horticulturae 12 00273 g002
Horticulturae 12 00273 g003
Figure 3. Control strategy vs. crop.
Figure 3. Control strategy vs. crop.
Horticulturae 12 00273 g003
Horticulturae 12 00273 g004
Figure 4. Control strategy vs. biological target.
Figure 4. Control strategy vs. biological target.
Horticulturae 12 00273 g004
Table 1. Eligibility criteria based on the PICOS framework.
Table 1. Eligibility criteria based on the PICOS framework.
PICOS
Component		Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Population (P)Crops (vegetables, small fruits, and herbs) grown under protected greenhouses located specifically in the Global South. Open-field cultivation, forestry systems, or crops grown in the Global North. Studies on stored product pests or vectors of human diseases.
Intervention (I)Sustainable pest management strategies, including biological control, cultural practices, physical barriers, botanical extracts, semiochemicals, and Integrated Pest Management programs.Strategies that rely exclusively on synthetic chemical pesticides, without an IPM component or validation of sustainable alternatives, or GMOs.
Comparison (C)Studies that include a control group (untreated check), a conventional chemical control group, or a comparison of different sustainable management strategies.Descriptive studies lack a control group or comparative statistical analysis.
Outcome (O)Quantitative data on pest population reduction, crop damage mitigation, yield impact, or economic viability of the strategy.Studies reporting only qualitative observations, preliminary in vitro results without greenhouse validation, or non-target effects only.
Study
Design (S)		Original peer-reviewed research articles presenting primary empirical data. Reviews, meta-analyses, conference abstracts, book chapters, editorials, and gray literature.
Additional
Limits		Articles published in English or Spanish between 2017 and 2024.Articles in other languages or published outside the defined timeframe.
Table 2. Number of mentions grouped by control strategies.
Table 2. Number of mentions grouped by control strategies.
Control StrategyRecordsSub-TypeRecordsSpeciesRecordsSource
Biological10154.3%Fungi36Beauveria sp.8[20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]
Trichoderma sp.7[28,29,30,31,32,33,34]
Metarhizium sp.5[3,22,23,24,35]
Pochonia sp.3[21,36,37]
Lecanicillium sp.3[20,27,38]
Aspergillus sp.2[30,36]
Glomus sp.1[39]
Penicillium sp.1[36]
Purpureocillium sp.1[40]
Others5[31,41,42,43,44]
Bacteria17Bacillus sp.7[21,22,28,29,45,46,47]
Pseudomonas sp.4[32,33,40,48]
Kluyvera ascorbata2[46,49]
Azospirillium brasilense1[45]
Azotobacter chroococcum1[45]
Paecilomyces formosus1[50]
Paenibacillus sp.1[51]
Nematodes13Steinernema sp.7[22,52,53,54,55,56,57]
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora6[22,52,54,55,56,57]
Parasitoids10Encarsia formosa3[58,59,60]
Trichograma sp.3[61,62,63]
Eretmocerus eremicus1[64]
Tamarixia triozae1[64]
Stenomesius sp.1[65]
Bracon nigricans1[65]
Entomophagous
insects		8Orius laevigatus2[66,67]
Dicyphus hesperus2[64,68]
Chrysopa pallens1[69]
Macrolophus pygmaeus1[9]
Apanteles gelechiidivoris1[70]
Eriopis connexa.1[71]
Predatory
mites		4Amblyseius swirskii2[72,73]
Phytoseiulus persimilis1[74]
Neoseiulus cucumeris1[72]
Virus3Nucleopolyhedrovirus (NPV)3[35,75,76]
Extracts and
chemical compounds		5127.4%Plant extracts39 [32,33,38,39,40,47,48,59,60,73,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]
Pheromones7 [60,70,106,107,108,109,110]
Bacteria
metabolites		3 [102,106,111]
Mineral oils2 [74,112]
Other
strategies		2211.8%Color traps5 [60,106,107,113,114]
Plant residues Incorporation4 [37,47,115,116]
Resistance
induction		2 [117,118]
Nanoparticles2 [119,120]
Light traps2 [60,121]
Variety
evaluation		2 [9,118]
Mating
techniques		2 [109,122]
Math
algorithms		2 [123,124]
Population distribution1 [125]
Cultural practices126.5%Functional biodiversity5 [126,127,128,129,130]
Climate
management		4 [26,131,132,133]
Nutritional management2 [87,134]
Population management1 [135]
Note: The number of mentions is higher than the number of documents because more than one control strategy was evaluated in some documents.
Table 3. Key quantitative findings in representative studies identified in the review.
Table 3. Key quantitative findings in representative studies identified in the review.
Control
Strategy		SubtypeAgent/TargetQuantitative Efficacy
Data		Application Method/
Mechanism of Action		Application LimitationsSource
Biological ControlFungiMetarhizium rileyi vs. Spodoptera frugiperda88% to 96% mortality in greenhouse trials. The application of virulent isolates aimed at the whorls produces effective control.Conventional spraying is ineffective. [3]
Beauveria bassiana (strains ATCC and R444) vs. T. urticae >92.86% reduction in eggs
95.1–99.4% in mobile forms. 		It affects female fertility and has adverse effects on other biological parameters.It should be applied in the early stages of infestation.[20]
Fungi (interaction)Penicillium chrysogenum + Pochonia chlamydosporia (Culture filtrates) vs. Meloidogyne incognita~100% egg hatch inhibition after 72 h. Synergistic effect. Direct parasitism or the release of toxic metabolites. Incompatibility between some control agents.[36]
Bacteria + fungi (interaction)Bacillus thuringiensis (GP139) + B. bassiana (HPI-019/14) vs. Bemisia tabaci>90% mortality against nymphs at high spore concentrations. Additive effect.
Persistent activity against different stages. 		The insect molting process can eliminate the infectious fungal inoculum.[21]
BacteriaBacillus subtilis, Azospirilum brasilense and Azotobacter chroococcum vs. M. incognitaEgg mass reduction:
B. subtilis: 95.4%.
A. brasilense: 90.9%.
A. chroococcum: 90.9%. 		Different mechanisms: Some of them are products with bioactive substances that directly affect the nematode’s egg hatching and mobility. Influenced by soil biota and host plant factors. [45]
B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Btk) vs. T. absoluta. 78–91% reduction in population. Suspension concentrate is more effective than wettable powder. Cry toxins bind to midgut receptors, causing pore formation and lysis of the gut epithelium. Not effective against 4th instar larvae; degrades quickly under UV light. [102]
InsectApanteles gelechiidivoris vs. T. absoluta86.38% maximum parasitism of susceptible larvae. Larval endoparasitism; higher efficacy when combined with pheromones. Susceptible to non-selective insecticides. [70]
Nematode + bacteriaSix nematodes species (Steinernema sp. + Heterorhabditis bacteriophora) + Xenorhabdus spp. and Photorhabdus spp. vs. T. absoluta80% to 100% larval mortality. Synergistic effect with mutualistic bacteria. Nematodes penetrate the insect’s body through the mouth, anus, cuticle, or spiracles. Bacteria cause septicemia.High susceptibility to desiccation and UV light. [52]
Nematode + fungiH. bacteriophora + B. bassiana vs. Thrips tabaci94.73% pre-pupae mortality.
82.45% pupae mortality		Additive and synergistic effects. Fungi infect insects by attaching their conidia to the insect’s cuticle. Nematodes penetrate the insect’s body through the mouth, anus, cuticle, or spiracles.Restricted by soil moisture and temperature; requires soil-dwelling life stages of the pest. [22]
H. bacteriophora + Metarhizium anisopliae vs. T. tabaci85.96% pre-pupae mortality.
Steinernema feltiae + B. bassiana vs. T. tabaci81.57% pre-pupae mortality.
90.43% pupae mortality.
Extracts and CompoundsEssential oilClove (CO), peppermint oil (PO) and basil (BO) vs. T. urticaeCO (24 h): Adult mortality 100% and immatures mortality >80% at concentrations ≥200 µLL−1 Air.
PO (24 h): Adult mortality 88.6% and immatures mortality 82.2% at concentrations 400 µLL−1 Air.
BO: Adult mortality 80.4% (48 h) and immatures mortality 84.6% (72 h) at concentrations 400 µLL−1 Air. 		Spray application.
Additive effect, as essential oils have different phenylpropanoids and monoterpenes with a wide range of mechanisms of action. 		High concentrations may cause phytotoxicity to sensitive greenhouse crops. [104]
Natural compoundChitosan vs. M. incognita81.4% reduction in root galls. 90.9% reduction in egg mass.Induces local/systemic resistance trough elicitation of phytoalexins, lignin, callose and other compounds. Time-dependent.[45]
Plant
extract		Azadirachtin vs. T. absoluta70–83% reduction in population. Antifeedant and repellent effects. Incompatibility with control by entomophagous insects. [102]
Bacteria metabolite Spinosad vs. T. absoluta78–97% reduction in population. Disrupts insect nervous system, leading to paralysis and death. High risk of resistance development in field populations.
PheromonesSynthetic sex pheromones (Isonet®T) vs. T. absoluta87.23% male reduction.
85.97% egg reduction. 		Pheromone dispenser. Mating disruption.High cost. [109]
Other StrategiesMath
algorithm		LOSS Algorithm (Machine Vision) vs. B. tabaciHigh correlation indexes in comparison with other counting methods: sticky screens (R2 = 0.97) and plant leaf images (R2 = 1.0). Sensing the insect presence using hunting traps. High hardware costs; and technical expertise are required. [123,124]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ubaque, H.; Hincapié, C.A.; Osorio, M. Sustainable Pest Management Strategies Under Greenhouse Conditions in Countries of the Global South. Horticulturae 2026, 12, 273. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12030273

AMA Style

Ubaque H, Hincapié CA, Osorio M. Sustainable Pest Management Strategies Under Greenhouse Conditions in Countries of the Global South. Horticulturae. 2026; 12(3):273. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12030273

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ubaque, Harold, Carlos A. Hincapié, and Marisol Osorio. 2026. "Sustainable Pest Management Strategies Under Greenhouse Conditions in Countries of the Global South" Horticulturae 12, no. 3: 273. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12030273

APA Style

Ubaque, H., Hincapié, C. A., & Osorio, M. (2026). Sustainable Pest Management Strategies Under Greenhouse Conditions in Countries of the Global South. Horticulturae, 12(3), 273. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12030273

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop