Effective management of pests throughout the farmland and agriculture premises has been thecentre of attention to farmers, researchers, and the government for facilitating sound agriculture production and rural development [1,2]. The practice of IPM involves adopting ecosystem-based approaches to crop production and protection [3,4] as it combines diverse management strategies and techniques to promote healthy crop growth while reducing the need for pesticides [5]. This approach aims to minimise the environmental impact of agriculture while ensuring sustainable and efficient food production [6,7]. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) stimulates IPM as a recommended crop protection initiative and appraises its ability to maintain environmentally friendly agricultural production intensifying and minimising the hazardous circumstances caused by synthetic pesticides [8,9,10]. According to FAO, integrated pest management (IPM) denotes exploring all alternative crop protection approaches profoundly. It ensures the integrated mechanism of suitable tactics that eventually prevent the severity of pest attacks, maintain efficient use of pesticides and other interventions within the economically reasonable level, and foster minimal human health and ecological hazards [11,12].

However, the primary focus of IPM is to promote the growth of healthy crops with minimal disruption to the agroecosystems, and the approach emphasises the use of natural pest control mechanisms [13,14]. The goal is to reduce pesticide reliance and encourage sustainable and environmentally friendly agricultural practices [15,16]. According to Kogan [17], during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with a lack of apparent and practical pesticides, crop management experts depended on understanding pest biology and cultural practices to deliver multi-dimensional management approaches. These are considered predecessors of advanced IPM frameworks. By the early 1970s, all pests’ domains were incorporated, which quantify as a new era of IPM [18,19,20]. The core basis of IPM is natural control, actively observing pests and diseases, and applying the economic threshold values and critical intensity level to take action [21,22].

Since the Green Climate Fund was established in the 2010 Cancun Conference of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, profound attention has been given to financing climate change and environmental protection activities [101]. Thus, academic studies in the field of IPM have gained much momentum from 2011 to 2022, and a steep rise has been observed from 2018 onwards. Leading publications were completed in 2020 highlighting the increase in academic involvement in identifying strategies for transitioning the financial system towards sustainability. The results also highlight that participation and academic involvement of developed countries have been more than that of developing countries. Among the developing countries, China and India are listed in the top 10 countries regarding the total number of publications.

Regarding journal publications, Climate Policy, Sustainability, and Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment are the top three journals publishing articles on the area related to IPM. Most of the top authors have recently started publishing in the field, and apart from the top, most subject areas like environmental sciences, social sciences and economics, econometrics and finance, various interdisciplinary work have been conducted in recent years. Based on the evaluations of IPM-related studies, researchers observe that IPM mainly comprises three centralistic dimensions: Most IPM-related research framework is mainly derived from ecological and health-related issues. In contrast, the research centred on enhancing the farmer’s health, economic threshold, and environmental safety.

Most IPM-related research framework is mainly derived from ecological and health-related issues. In contrast, the research centred on enhancing the farmer’s health, economic threshold, and environmental safety [17,56,102]. Specifically, the goal of IPM is to minimise the negative impact on the environment by understanding the life cycle and behaviour of pests, maximise the utilisation of organic and biological control and enable farmers to achieve optimal economic and social benefits [91,103]. IPM has received support from nearly all multilateral environmental agreements that have reshaped the worldwide policy framework for managing natural resources, agriculture, and trade [104,105].

The resources provided by ecosystems are advantages to humankind. Biodiversity may be an environmentally conscious-change measure and a cause that alters the environment’s structures and resources [106,107]. Study shows how many flourishing organisms, their diverse variation and their heterogeneity are included in organisms (genetic diversity), between organisms (diversity of species), and within ecosystems (diversity of ecosystems). Along with controlled agroecosystems, biodiversity is critical throughout all settings because it offers various responsive alternatives [108,109]. When an effect like global warming threatens any particular mechanism, a species function’s dynamic variability can act as an alternative with higher resistance towards such threatening circumstances [110,111]. Numerous species could also have a vital attachment component to the environment and could be devastating for maintaining sustainable and balanced ecosystems [112,113].

Throughout the agroecological domain, biodiversity could primarily be affected by the functional views of managing and controlling pests. It is because predominantly chemical-based control can profoundly adversely impact biodiversity and bio-network mechanisms [114,115]. Conversely, structural variation is necessary to maintain a tolerable degree of pests. Insecticides have different impacts on biological organisms and pathogens by nature [116,117]. For evidence, insecticides have more impact on spiders and hymenopteran parasitic organisms that decrease predation, which may induce escapes of “natural foes” to spread pathogenic epidemics and pest outbreaks. Areas with resilient chemicals seem to have fewer habitats and poor biological management systems from their natural enemies and could be vulnerable to insect incursions. Technologies of ecosystem modification will improve natural biodiversity enemies and boost favourable biological management resources [118,119]. However, to be successful towards the IPM transition, environmental engineering concepts must be embraced and pesticide use must be controlled to minimise any adverse effects such that bio-control resources can be maximised [120].

Different plant species require specific minerals at various levels. Mostly different species tend to attract their unique pests and pathogens, which momentarily propagate around those particular crop’s ecosystems [121,122]. There are certain chances for the crops to become more vulnerable to particular pathogens and pests if a particular crop is continuously grown within the same places [123]. It could be thriving for crops continuously exhausted of particular minerals, leading to weaker crop growth that could be more devastating for controlling pests. So intercropping and crop rotations could be crucial alternatives for sufficiently addressing some particular pests and diseases [124].

For this reason, those tactics become a vital part of implementing an effective IPM mechanism [125,126]. Crop rotation tactics should be implemented since many pathogens survive on numerous living and dead plant materials. Burning and slotting crop residues are historically deemed necessary to dissuade pests, pathogens, and weeds for phytosanitary purposes [127,128]. For the fruitful implementation of IPM tactics, the greater extent of pest monitoring could be crucial (if possible transboundary) for availing the earlier detection and warning [31,129]. Contingent settlement and coordination planning, early response, pollution management technology, and strong collaborations with impacted nations, regional and multinational farm research centres, and other organisations are considered monitoring tactics [130,131]. While farmers perform the most significant part in managing several pests and beneficial organisms, they should also know what (if any) the reasonable quantity of pests within the farm will be [132,133]. Various agricultural organisations should accomplish mutual collaboration, but the country’s leading institutes should ideally initiate the collaboration. Communication systems should also be developed (e.g., via cell phones), which can warn other growers and act quickly [132,134]. Applying organic chemicals and manure is much more likely to culminate in a new equilibrium of integrated pest management [135,136]. In contrast, farmers need to gain substantial knowledge about the differences between beneficial organisms and pests, crops, and weeds, more interestingly, understand the behaviour of particular pests and pathogens [64,137].