Integrated Pest Management (IPM) provides an illustration of how crop protection has (or has not) evolved over the past six decades. Throughout this period, IPM has endeavored to promote sustainable forms of agriculture, pursued sharp reductions in synthetic pesticide use, and thereby resolved myriad socio-economic, environmental, and human health challenges. Global pesticide use has, however, largely continued unabated, with negative implications for farmer livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, and the human right to food. In this review, we examine how IPM has developed over time and assess whether this concept remains suited to present-day challenges. We believe that despite many good intentions, hard realities need to be faced. 1) We identify the following major weaknesses: i) a multitude of IPM definitions that generate unnecessary confusion; ii) inconsistencies between IPM concepts, practice, and policies; iii) insufficient engagement of farmers in IPM technology development and frequent lack of basic understanding of its underlying ecological concepts. 2) By diverting from the fundamental IPM principles, integration of practices has proceeded along serendipitous routes, proven ineffective, and yielded unacceptable outcomes. 3) We show that in the majority of cases, chemical control still remains the basis of plant health programs. 4) Furthermore, IPM research is often lagging, tends to be misguided, and pays insufficient attention to ecology and to the ecological functioning of agroecosystems. 5) Since the 1960s, IPM rules have been twisted, its foundational concepts have degraded and its serious (farm-level) implementation has not advanced. To remedy this, we are proposing Agroecological Crop Protection as a concept that captures how agroecology can be optimally put to the service of crop protection. Agroecological Crop Protection constitutes an interdisciplinary scientific field that comprises an orderly strategy (and clear prioritization) of practices at the field, farm, and agricultural landscape level and a dimension of social and organizational ecology.

病虫害综合治理（IPM）提供了过去六十年作物保护如何发展（或没有发展）的例证。在此期间，病虫害综合防治一直致力于促进农业的可持续发展，大力减少合成农药的使用，从而解决了无数的社会经济，环境和人类健康挑战。但是，全球农药的使用在很大程度上没有减弱，这对农民的生计，生物多样性的保护和食物的人权产生了负面影响。在这篇综述中，我们研究了IPM随着时间的推移如何发展，并评估了该概念是否仍然适合当今的挑战。我们认为，尽管有许多良好的意愿，但仍然需要面对现实。1）我们发现以下主要弱点：i）大量的IPM定义会引起不必要的混乱；ii）IPM概念，实践和政策之间的不一致；iii）农民对病虫害综合防治技术开发的参与不足，并且经常缺乏对其基本生态概念的基本了解。2）通过偏离基本的IPM原则，实践的整合已沿着偶然的路线进行，事实证明效果不佳，并且产生了不可接受的结果。3）我们证明，在大多数情况下，化学控制仍然是植物健康计划的基础。4）此外，IPM研究经常滞后，容易被误导，并且对生态学和农业生态系统的生态功能没有给予足够的重视。5）自1960年代以来，IPM规则一直在扭曲，它的基本概念已经退化，严重的（农场级）实施还没有进展。为了解决这个问题，我们提出了“农业生态作物保护”这一概念，该概念涵盖了如何将农业生态学最佳地用于作物保护。农业生态作物保护构成了一个跨学科的科学领域，包括在田间，农场和农业景观一级的实践的有序战略（和明确的优先次序）以及社会和组织生态学的一个维度。