Next Article in Journal
Prediction of Potential Habitats of Zanthoxylum armatum DC. and Their Changes under Climate Change
Next Article in Special Issue
Validation of the Scale Knowledge and Perceptions about Edible Insects through Structural Equation Modelling
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrogen Leakage Simulation and Risk Analysis of Hydrogen Fueling Station in China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Climate Change and Pathways Used by Pests as Challenges to Plant Health in Agriculture and Forestry

1
Agroinnova, University of Torino, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy
2
Agrotecnio Center, Universitat de Lleida, 25002 Lleida, Spain
3
Department of Plant Protection, University of Baghdad, Baghdad 10070, Iraq
4
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Embrapa Semi-arid, Petrolina 56302-970, Brazil
5
Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
6
Center for Advanced Modelling and Geospatial Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
7
Plant Pathology Department and Global Food Systems Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32605, USA
8
Department of Zoology and Entomology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa
9
Central Institute for Decision Support Systems in Crop Protection (ZEPP), 55545 Bad Kreuznach, Germany
10
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, 00023 Helsinki, Finland
11
Ex-National Council for Scientific Research (CNRS), Beirut LB 2260, Lebanon
12
Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing 100176, China
13
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology, The University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona, Kingston 7, Jamaica
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12421; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912421
Submission received: 25 August 2022 / Revised: 22 September 2022 / Accepted: 23 September 2022 / Published: 29 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Change, a Threat for Food Safety and Nutritional Quality)

Abstract

:
Climate change already challenges people’s livelihood globally and it also affects plant health. Rising temperatures facilitate the introduction and establishment of unwanted organisms, including arthropods, pathogens, and weeds (hereafter collectively called pests). For example, a single, unusually warm winter under temperate climatic conditions may be sufficient to assist the establishment of invasive plant pests, which otherwise would not be able to establish. In addition, the increased market globalization and related transport of recent years, coupled with increased temperatures, has led to favorable conditions for pest movement, invasion, and establishment worldwide. Most published studies indicate that, in general, pest risk will increase in agricultural ecosystems under climate-change scenarios, especially in today’s cooler arctic, boreal, temperate, and subtropical regions. This is also mostly true for forestry. Some pests have already expanded their host range or distribution, at least in part due to changes in climate. Examples of these pests, selected according to their relevance in different geographical areas, are summarized here. The main pathways used by them, directly and/or indirectly, are also discussed. Understanding these pathways can support decisions about mitigation and adaptation measures. The review concludes that preventive mitigation and adaptation measures, including biosecurity, are key to reducing the projected increases in pest risk in agriculture, horticulture, and forestry. Therefore, the sustainable management of pests is urgently needed. It requires holistic solutions, including effective phytosanitary regulations, globally coordinated diagnostic and surveillance systems, pest risk modeling and analysis, and preparedness for pro-active management.

1. Introduction

Climate change affects biological systems at multiple scales, from genes to ecosystems [1,2,3]. It can have important effects on plant pests, where “pest” here is any species, strain, or biotype of plant, animal, or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products. On average, between 10 and 28 percent of crop production is lost to pests at a global scale [4]. Post-harvest losses also occur, and mycotoxins in food and feed can severely threaten the health of humans and livestock [5,6].
Climate change may threaten food security through impacts on food crops and plant-based animal feed, in terms of both quality and quantity. For wheat, rice, soybean, and maize, the worst impacts are expected in the tropics and subtropics, with climate change projected to negatively impact production, where the local temperature increases by 2 °C or more above late-twentieth-century levels. While some higher altitude or latitude locations may benefit from this change, these will likely be the exception [7]. Plant protection and plant biosecurity may also be adversely impacted [8,9,10,11], and thus, improved biosecurity measures and climate-smart plant protection methods will be needed [12,13].
We review the effect of climate change on plant pests and methods for studying these effects and future pest risks. Case studies on insect pests and plant pathogens affected by climate change are provided. We also discuss the main pathways of pest invasion and how these are influenced by global trade. We emphasize that preventive, mitigation, and adaptation measures are needed to reduce the projected increase in pest risk, and investments in these measures will have benefits beyond adaptation to climate change.

2. Effects of Climate Change on Plant Pests

Climate-change effects on pest species are complex. They include indirect and direct effects and their potential interactions [14]. Examples of likely impacts of climate change on plant pests in different climate zones are reported in Table 1, where from this point we do not include weeds in the term “pest”.
Possible indirect and direct effects on pests include: changes in their geographical distribution, such as range expansion or retreat, or increased risk of pest introduction; changes in seasonal phenology, such as the timing of spring activity or the synchronization of pest life-cycle events with their host plants and natural enemies; and changes in aspects of population dynamics, such as overwintering and survival, population growth rates, or the number of generations of polycyclic species [27,28,29].
In general, all important life-cycle stages of pests (growth, maturation, and reproduction for insect pests, survival, reproduction, and dispersal for plant pathogens) are more or less directly influenced by humidity, temperature, light quantity or quality, wind, or combinations of these factors [30]. The physiological processes of most pest species are particularly sensitive to temperature [31,32]. For example, plant pathogens may be particularly favored by high temperatures until their upper-temperature threshold is reached [33,34]. Indirect effects are mediated through the host plant or through climate-change-driven adaptations to crop management [30]. Warmer mean air temperatures, especially in early spring under temperate climatic conditions, may result in earlier occurrence of life-cycle stages in the host plant [35]. This can affect pathogens that infect the host during a particular life-cycle stage [36], for instance, wheat pathogens such as Fusarium species that infect wheat during flowering [13,18,37,38].

2.1. Methodology to Investigate the Effects of Climate Change on Plant Pests

Over the past 30 to 40 years, the effects of several factors—increased temperature, CO2, ozone or ultraviolet-B irradiation, and changing water or humidity patterns—on the incidence and severity of pests have been evaluated, mostly on field crops, such as wheat, barley, rice, soybean, and potato [39,40,41,42,43], horticultural crops [23,44], including tropical and plantation crops [25], and forest trees [45,46,47,48].
Many complementary research approaches have been used, including experiments to evaluate the effects of changes in one or more weather parameters (Table 2). Other observational studies have investigated species along latitudinal or elevational gradients as a proxy for changes in climate over time. In addition to these empirical approaches, “theoretical” approaches have also been adopted, such as the meta-analysis of published results [49,50] or the analysis of long-term datasets [51,52]. Finally, some studies have drawn upon expert opinion or have generated simulation models to predict how projected changes in climate or atmospheric composition will alter the distribution, prevalence, severity, and management of pests and other organisms [13].
Experimental approaches can yield valuable insights into the effects of climate change on plant pests, but few studies have realistically mimicked a changing climate [42,63,64,65,66]. Climate-change studies carried out in free-air CO2 enrichment facility (FACE) systems and in open-topped chambers have led to a better understanding of the effects of different parameters on the development of plant diseases in several crops [67]. Such systems have also been used to investigate effects on weeds [68] and insects [69]. In general, most of the insect and disease problems studied in FACE systems under high CO2 conditions have shown increased impact, as recently summarized by Ainsworth and Long [70].
Phytotrons, environmental chambers built to test the effect of combinations of environmental parameters [71,72], have been used to study the effects of short-term increases in CO2 and temperature on host–pathogen relationships [23]. They are used to understand how specific diseases may evolve in the future and to develop practical solutions to cope with future scenarios. For example, these studies can provide support to the plant-breeding industry. Phytotrons have also been used to investigate more indirect effects of climate change on plants, such as effects on mycotoxin production or on disease-management practices [73,74].
Field approaches in natural environments include research along an elevation gradient from low- to high-elevation sites [55,75], with associated changes in temperature and air humidity. Another approach is research in habitats along a latitudinal gradient, including, for example, subtropical, temperate, and semi-arid climatic conditions [56,76]. The first approach has the advantage of the photoperiod being the same along the elevational gradient. In the second approach, the photoperiod is likely to vary across the latitudinal gradient. For example, in the tropics, days are shorter, and nights are longer during summer and the other way round in winter, compared to temperate climatic conditions. These differences in photoperiod need to be considered when interpreting results. Nevertheless, both approaches can help identify broad patterns across wide environmental gradients and a range of climatic regions under real-world conditions. Such studies can help to determine whether a certain species is limited to a specific climate or is widely occurring, indicating whether it is likely to invade locations that are getting warmer [13,27].
Meta-analyses of published datasets have been performed to search for general patterns in the responses of specific pests to differences in climate variables [77,78,79]. In addition, long-term datasets from field observations have been used to study climate change effects that are already apparent owing to warming in recent decades [57,80,81,82,83,84,85], and they can help researchers distinguish impacts due to climate change from those due to other factors [1,86]. Attempts have been made to improve estimates of climate-warming effects on insects by combining data from long-term datasets, large-scale experiments, and computer modeling [17,87,88]. For example, a meta-analysis of data from laboratory studies concluded that higher trophic levels (e.g., predators) are more susceptible to climate change than lower-order organisms (plants or herbivorous insects) [89]. This is relevant when studying the changing role of natural enemies on insect pest dynamics and biological control under climate change—a subject addressed by very few field data [13,90].
Simulation models can be used to project future climate change impacts on pests [2,91], and to help determine tactics and strategies to control pests [92,93,94,95]. One modeling approach, for example, uses “climate matching”, whereby a geographical area that has a present-day climate analogous to the future climate in the area of interest is studied (for pest dynamics in this case), and then the findings extrapolated to a future scenario in the area of interest [60]. Other modeling approaches may rely on long-term datasets for weather parameters, crop development, and pest distribution and prevalence to develop and validate “pest-crop-climate” models [26,37]. Other recent examples of modeling studies, listed in Table 2, consider parameters such as the number of generations per year for insect pests, the timing of plant flowering and related disease severity [13].

2.2. Future Pest Risk

Simulation studies to determine future pest risks under climate change scenarios have mostly employed species-distribution models, population-dynamics models, or hybrids of both (Table 3). Climatic factors considered include temperature, precipitation and humidity, but elevated CO2 has generally not been considered [13,19,67]. The effects of climate change are probably easier to predict for those pest species that are primarily affected by temperature. Prediction is more difficult for pests whose reproduction and dispersal are strongly related to water availability, wind, and crop management [13]. This is also true for pests that are strongly affected by interactions with other organisms, such as vectors of pathogens [31], unless their interactions are well studied [27,96,97], and thus, predictable (see the case study for Xylella fastidiosa).
The outcome of simulations depends on the data and methods used, including the global climate model used, the emission scenarios, the regional climate model, the specific pest model, and the precise parameters used in the simulation [18]. All of these contribute to the outcome of pest risk projections [62,113,114] and should be borne in mind when reading and interpreting the results from simulation studies such as those listed in Table 3; consequently, generalizations should be treated with extreme caution and researchers need to be careful when extrapolating their results [30]. In addition, the effect of climate change on pest risk can vary across a country (e.g., lowlands vs mountains, north vs south, summer vs winter, hot and wet vs cool and dry season) [18] and according to geographical location [13,115].
According to Juroszek and von Tiedemann (2015) [19], in general, the projected change (increase or decrease) in pest risk will be more pronounced by the end of the twenty-first century than earlier in the century if increasing temperature is the primary driver of results. This reflects the fact that global warming is projected to be greater by the end compared to the middle and the beginning of the twenty-first century (e.g., 3 °C vs. 2 °C vs. 1 °C global temperature increase, respectively).
Recently, Seidl et al. (2017) [16] published a comprehensive, global analysis of available results (more than 1600 single observations) and concluded that around two-thirds of all observations show that the risk of abiotic (e.g., fire, drought) and biotic (e.g., insect pests, pathogens) stress factors will increase in forestry worldwide. Warmer and drier conditions favor disturbances by insects, whereas warmer and wetter conditions favor disturbances by pathogens. The same trend is expected for many crop diseases (e.g., [19]) and insect pests (e.g., [21]), with increasing pest risk in most cases, at least in locations with currently relatively cool temperature conditions until supra-optimal temperature and/or sub-optimal humidity conditions are reached for plant pest species [13].

2.3. Case Studies

Some pests have already expanded their host range or distribution, at least in part due to changes in climate. Examples of these pests, selected according to their relevance in different geographical areas indicated between brackets, are summarized below.

2.3.1. Insects

Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) (Asia, Europe, North America) is a phloem-feeding beetle that infests ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) [116]. Native to north-east China, the Korean peninsula and the east of the Russian Federation, this pest has spread to other parts of Asia, North America (Canada and the United States of America) [117], and Europe (e.g., the western and southern parts of the Russian Federation, and Ukraine) [118]. It was probably introduced to North America in 2002, via wood packaging material, about a decade before its detection. The subsequent spread of the beetle was perhaps facilitated by the movement of infested nursery stock, logs, and firewood [119]. It is the most destructive and costly invasive forest insect in the United States of America [120], with economic losses exceeding USD 12.5 billion as well as negative effects on biodiversity and human health [121]. Modeling by Liang and Fei (2014) [122] has projected that climate change would result in a more northern distribution of the beetle in North America, and a subsequent long-lasting risk to ash in those areas. However, it is expected that the southward invasion of the emerald ash borer in North America would be limited within a warming climate change scenario, as the beetle requires strong seasonality with a long winter season. Extreme climate events associated with climate change could reduce the efficacy of biological control of the beetle with larval parasitoid species [123].
Tephritids are a diverse family of flies containing several invasive species causing substantial economic damage when their larvae develop in fruits of high market value. Bactrocera oleae on olive trees, B. dorsalis on several dozen fruit plant species, and Ceratitis capitata on a moderate number of tree crops are among the most relevant invasive species in the family. Tephritids have been able to expand geographically following the expansion of cultivation of their hosts, international trade, and because climate change has allowed their winter survival and reproduction in habitats otherwise unsuitable for the species. This has been the case of B. oleae and the new areas of olive trees in California and Mexico and potentially in areas where olives could be grown in the future [124]; although B. dorsalis is primarily tropical and subtropical, the risk of direct economic losses from an incursion into temperate areas is low, but climate modification by global warming could allow a rapid increase in fly populations in mild seasons [125]. C. capitata, which occurs in rather temperate areas, could expand to colder areas due to its capacity to overwinter as larvae in fruits stored in warm places and then spread through the international trade of oranges, mandarins, and lemons [126].
Red palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus) (Near East, Africa, Europe) is one of the most economically damaging insect pests of various palm species, including coconut and date palm [127,128]. Native to south-east Asia and Melanesia, the annual losses due to death and removal of palms severely infested by red palm weevil in the Gulf region of the Near East have been estimated to range from USD 5.2 million to 25.9 million, despite all means of integrated control [129,130]. First detected on date palms in the Near East in the mid-1980s, it subsequently spread to other countries in the Near East, and to Africa and Europe. Its global distribution has probably been assisted by the movement of palm offshoots as planting material. It has been reported in 45 countries, and ecological-niche modeling predicts that it could expand its range even further [131], resulting in its expansion towards the north of China [132].
Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) (native to tropical and-subtropical areas of the Americas) is a noctuid moth with a host range of hundreds of plant species, causing damages in forage grasses and cereals, causing particularly high losses on maize. In the last ten years, it has spread to sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt, all over southern and eastern Asia [133], several eastern Mediterranean areas [134], and the Australian continent. Such expansion in warmer climates is due to its adaptability to different environments, high dispersal capacity, the wide range of potential hosts, and the intense international trade of commodities attacked by the larvae or pupae of the moth [135]. A reduction or even partial disappearance of the species in the southern American hemisphere, due to the warmer and drier conditions expected there, is predicted [135]. In the European Union, some southern warm Mediterranean areas could provide suitable climatic conditions for the establishment of the species [136].
Desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria) (Africa, western and southern Asia [137], and occasionally south-west Europe) swarms and voraciously feeds on key crops such as maize and sorghum, pastures, and any green vegetation, thereby significantly affecting smallholder farmers and pastoralists [138]. It shows periodic changes in its body form and can change over generations, in response to environmental conditions, from a non-migratory form to a gregarious, migratory phase in which it may travel long distances, finally invading new areas. In general, the desert locust breeds extensively in semi-arid zones, threatening the livelihoods of people in over 65 countries. However, there is also a much less well-known subspecies, S. gregaria subsp. flaviventris, that occupies a limited area in southern Africa; the potential of these subspecies to pose a threat in the future should be investigated [139]. Outbreaks of desert locusts have been recorded over many centuries. The increases in temperature and rainfall over desert areas, and the strong winds associated with tropical cyclones, provide a new favorable environment for breeding, development, and migration. Consequently, climate change may have an impact on future migration routes of the desert locust.
The old world date bug (dubas bug), Ommatissus lybicus, has caused heavy yield losses over the last ten years in the Arabian Peninsula [140]. Evidence for the effect of current climate change on date palm pests is still limited. The northern part of Oman is currently at significant risk of dubas bug infestation. The infestation level is predicted to remain high in 2050 and 2070, and integrated pest management will be of great importance in the future to control this insect pest [141]. Climatic suitability studies have been used to develop distribution maps that also indicate areas projected to become unsuitable for the dubas bug and, therefore, potentially suitable for expansion of date palm production [141]. Changes in the pest’s biology and ecology due to global warming have also been observed over the last decade in Iraq.
Parlatoria date scale insect (Parlatoria blanchardii) (Near East) is widely distributed throughout most of the date-growing regions of the world, namely Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. It is easily spread to new locations through offshoots of the host plants [142], and it infests all parts of the date palm and cause the fruits to shrink, rendering them unmarketable [143]. The Parlatoria date scale is one example of an insect pest that may be less of a problem in the future. In the climate change scenarios, considering three time series (2011–2040, 2041–2070, and 2071–2100) for a district near Luxor in Egypt, all expected values for the number of nymphs, adult females, and the total population across all-time series and RCP scenarios were smaller compared with the current population [144]. The total population was, therefore, projected to be smaller in 2071–2100.
Among forest pests, some bark beetle species are examples of insects in which the impact of climate change has been projected to predict intra- and inter-continental movement. In the pine beetle of western North America, Dendroctonus ponderosae, and the bark beetle in European Picea, Ips typographus, a physiological model was used and concluded that the strategy to maintain univoltine populations will promote both populations to shift northward in native areas with warming throughout the century. However, the tendency of expansion of Pinus and Picea habitats supporting a second generation in both continents can cause inter-continental establishment of both species [145].

2.3.2. Plant Pathogens

Faba bean necrotic yellows virus (FBNYV) (Near East) is insect-transmitted and causes yellowing, stunting, and poor pod setting in chickpea, faba bean, and lentil crops. During the past three decades, a high incidence of insect-transmitted viruses has led to a substantial reduction in crop yield in Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic, and Tunisia [146]. With changes in the weather and the crop varieties used, viruses that previously occurred rarely may suddenly dominate, as happened in central Egypt during the 1991/1992 growing season. This has had substantial long-term impacts, with the production of faba bean subsequently having been forced to move from central to northern Egypt (the Nile Delta), where the weather and possibly other conditions do not permit the frequent occurrence of high populations of aphid vectors that carry the virus. The average temperature in the delta region is lower than in central Egypt, which is presumably one reason why aphid populations are often lower in the delta region. However, with climate change and higher temperatures expected in the years to come, epidemics of FBNYV (or possibly other viruses) on faba bean may perhaps emerge in the delta region of Egypt in the near future, unless appropriate agricultural practices and crop protection methods are developed and implemented.
Coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix) (Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean) is one of the main factors limiting arabica coffee yield worldwide. It has caused serious losses (up to 50–60 percent yield losses) in some Central American countries, such as Colombia and Mexico, in the past few years. One of the factors that promoted the occurrence of the rust epidemics in Central America was a reduction in the diurnal thermal amplitude, decreasing the latency period of the disease [147], which promotes the rapid increase of the pathogen population. Similarly, the pathogen’s incubation period may be reduced with global warming with more pathogen cycles within a growing season [25]. Consequently, the risk of coffee leaf rust epidemics might increase in the future unless other factors, such as a reduced ability of the pathogen to infect coffee plants, change. Less cold winters can increase the amount of inoculum in anticipation of pathogen infection [147], but cold temperatures may not present a problem for the pathogen [148] and the pathogen can adapt to different climates [147].
Banana Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense tropical race 4) (Australia, Jordan, Mozambique, Colombia, Asia, Near East) was found in 1990 in eastern Asia, parts of south-east Asia, and northern Australia, attacking ‘Cavendish’ clones in the tropics [149,150]. The planting of ‘Cavandish’, a resistant cultivar, was the solution found for the devastation caused by race 1 of the pathogen [149,151]. Since 2010, tropical race 4 (TR4) has spread to south and south-east Asian countries (India, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Vietnam), the Near East (Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Oman), Africa (Mozambique) [152], and South America (Colombia) [153]. High temperatures (24–34 °C) and extreme environmental events, including cyclones and tropical storms, may increase the risk of the disease, particularly when ‘Cavandish’ banana plants suffer from waterlogged soil [154,155].
Xylella fastidiosa (Americas, southern Europe, Near East) is a xylem-limited, Gram-negative bacterium that causes diseases on economically important crops, such as grapevine, citrus, olive, almond, peach, and coffee, and in ornamental and forestry plants [156,157]. It was reported in North and South America and Asia in the 1980s [158] and Italy in 2013 [159]. X. fastidiosa is transmitted by numerous species of sap-sucking hopper insects, including spittlebug and sharpshooter leafhoppers, mainly of the Aphrophoridae and Cicadellidae families [158,160]. Models of species bioclimatic distribution have shown that the bacterium has the potential to expand beyond its current distribution and may reach other areas in Italy and elsewhere in Europe [161,162]. The subspecies fastidiosa represents a threat to most of Europe [163] and the Mediterranean basin, particularly Lebanon, runs the highest risk for the establishment and spread of X. fastidiosa [164], followed by Turkey, Greece, Morocco, and Tunisia. Based on disease symptoms and laboratory analysis, X. fastidiosa has been found also associated with almond leaf scorch and Pierce’s disease in grapevine in several provinces of the Islamic Republic of Iran [165], indicating that it will start to spread to neighboring countries in the Near East. However, the complete “host plant-vector-bacterium” relationship should also be considered when predicting future risk [161]. Fortunately, vector performance is likely to suffer due to supra-optimal temperature and suboptimal humidity conditions, as recently simulated by Godefroid et al. (2020) [166].
Oomycetes, including Phytophthora infestans and Plasmopara viticola (global), will potentially be displaced poleward because of climate change and will present a challenge for plant protection, mainly in the northern hemisphere [20]. P. infestans, the oomycete that causes late blight in potatoes and tomato, has a great capacity to adapt to changing conditions. It first occurred in Europe in the 1840s and caused the Great Irish Potato Famine and still today continues to be the main threat to potato production. It is favored by cold summers and wet weather conditions, particularly in northern European countries, with risk of severe epidemics in the future and several studies suggested an increased risk in several countries [167,168,169,170]. Studies in Egypt on the impact of climate change on tomato and potato late blight have shown how warmer winter weather affects their incidence and management [171,172]. Up to three additional fungicide sprays would, therefore, be needed each growing season in Egypt during the coming decades (2025–2100). Favorable conditions in the winter allow a build-up of pathogen inoculum on early cultivars early in the growing season, leading to a tendency for the blight to appear in later-planted potato crops. It can, therefore, be expected that climate change will promote late blight epidemics in the future [172].
Downy mildew of grapevine, caused by the oomycete P. viticola, is another serious disease resulting in 5–40% production losses, in most grape-growing regions. As many of these regions have a temperate climate with suboptimal temperatures for the pathogen, an increase in air temperature will favor the occurrence of the disease. Studies considering future climate change scenarios have, therefore, projected earlier disease outbreaks that require more treatments to control [26,94,111]. Short-term studies carried out in phytotrons have also confirmed an increased severity of grape downy mildew under simulated climate change conditions [173].
The presence of mycotoxin-producing fungi in crops are in general expected to increase as a result of climate change. However, the complexity of the fungal flora associated with each crop and its interaction with the environment makes it difficult to draw conclusions without conducting specific studies. For instance, the work carried out by Battilani et al. (2016) [174] indicates that global warming could extend the northern limit of aflatoxin risk in maize in Europe, and [6] have made quantitative estimations of the impact of climate change on mycotoxin occurrence. Medina et al. (2017) [175] reviewed the impact of climate change on mycotoxigenic fungi by key spoilage fungi in cereals and nuts, including Alternaria, Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Penicillium species. The growth of Aspergillus flavus, responsible for producing aflatoxin B1, appears to be unaffected by simulated climate change scenarios. However, a significant stimulation of aflatoxin B1 production has been found both in vitro and in vivo in maize. In contrast, the behavior of other Aspergillus species, responsible for ochratoxin A contamination, and Fusarium verticillioides, producing fumonisins, suggests that some species are more resilient to climate change than others, especially in terms of mycotoxin production. In addition, climate change could also influence the mycotoxin production of emerging pathogens, such as the increases shown experimentally by Siciliano et al. (2017) [176,177] in Alternaria and Myrothecium species. Furthermore, acclimatization of mycotoxigenic fungal pathogens to climate change factors may result in increased disease and perhaps mycotoxin contamination of staple cereals as well as other crops. Thus, managing mycotoxin risks will remain a great challenge in the future [114], as climate change could worsen the situation [178].

2.4. Main Pathways Used by Pests, Also in Relation to Global Trade

Pest dispersal occurs through both natural and anthropogenic processes, accelerated during the past decades by the globalization of markets for plants and plant products, including food, planting material, and wood. Global travel and the trade of agricultural products have moved crops, weeds, pathogens, and insect pests away from their native environments to new ones. Horticultural trade is known to improve the spread of emerging plant pathogens outside of their distributional range [179]. In total, 5 to 61 new arrivals of plant pathogens by 2020 were forecasted in the US using historical data on merchandise import volumes and non-native species arrival rates [180]. Indeed, US border inspection points intercepted more than 50,000 non-indigenous plant pests in 2000, compared to around 20,000 in 1984 [181]. Trade network connectivity is a strong predictor of plant pest invasion in Europe and the Mediterranean region. Patterns of invasion are mainly governed by global trade networks connecting source areas for non-native species and the dispersal of those species through multiple trade networks [182].
In fact, the increased market globalization in recent years, coupled with increased temperatures, has led to a situation that is highly favorable to pest movement and establishment, with concomitant increases in the risk of severe yield losses [4,31]. Newly introduced crops may expand pest distribution, and the introduction of new pests into a completely new ecosystem may cause extremely serious damage because pests and hosts may not have coevolved together. The coevolution of plants and their pests [183] can create a stable balance between hosts and pests in their endemic ecosystems. Anderson et al. (2004) [184] reported that half of all emerging diseases of plants were spread by global travel and trade, while natural spread, assisted by weather events, is the second most important factor. Since the early 2000s, global trade has expanded exponentially, with effects on pest movement. Considerable national and international efforts have been made to reduce the risk of the international movement of pests [185], including the publication and implementation of International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs), with guidance on how to conduct pest risk analysis (PRA) to determine the risk of introduction (entry and establishment) and spread of pests and to select which measures to apply to prevent introduction. Such phytosanitary measures are generally applied with reference to pathway risks and are periodically reviewed.
Wood packaging, such as pallets and dunnage, has played a major role in spreading plant pests, such as the wood beetle Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) [133,186], a polyphagous species. Native to China and the Republic of Korea, it has been introduced to the United States of America and Canada through infested wood packaging and it has also been detected in several European countries. Careful inspection and treatment of wood packaging material is an international requirement to prevent new introductions. Modeling efforts to predict the geographical distribution of the beetle have shown that climate change may alter its distribution and impact [187]. Wood packaging has also been indicated as the likely pathway of many bark beetle species. Movement of the pine wilt nematode, Bursaphelencus xylophilus, or its insect vector through untreated wood packaging material, has also been reported [188].
Seeds, planting material, soil, and growing media, due to the globalization of their production and marketing, are among the main causes of the recent and rapid spread of pests to new regions. Some newly introduced pathogens and insect pests typical of warm areas have spread readily in temperate regions because of temperature increases. Mature plants can be an important source of live insects, including mites, aphids, caterpillars, leaf miners, and thrips. Particularly in the vegetable sector, the recent spread of old and new seed-borne pathogens, such as Alternaria spp., Fusarium equiseti, and Myrothecium spp., in several countries is linked to the fact that their diffusion is favored by market globalization and amplified by global warming [189]. Tomato brown rugose fruit virus is another example of a pathogen that emerged in the last few years and spread quickly with seed movement. Even low levels of seed infection can lead to the rapid emergence of new diseases in distant geographical areas [190,191,192].
The ornamental industry, due to its international nature, is greatly affected by the introduction of pests through infected material [193]. A vast pool of alien pests and diseases of ornamental species may already be present in gardens, but not able to establish or spread until there are novel climatic conditions [194]. Only ornamental plants micropropagated through tissue culture (generally foliage plants) have a considerably reduced risk of infection by pathogens, provided that they are kept clean, consequently avoiding reinfection [195]. Ornamental plants, whether started from seed, from cuttings, or from cane sections, can easily harbor pests [196]. Several of the most damaging insect and mite pests of greenhouse crops have originated by importing infected plant material and have established quickly because of the favorable environmental conditions in greenhouses [197,198]. Ornamental coffee plants imported from Costa Rica and infected by Xylella fastidiosa subsp. pauca are considered the possible source of this destructive pathogen in Europe [199].
Soil and potting media, often imported, can harbor soil-borne pathogens (e.g., Fusarium spp., nematodes), the larvae of insect pests, and weed seeds. This has been well documented in relation to peat and other media used in the ornamental industry and in nurseries. Contamination of growing substrates by soil-borne pathogens (e.g., Fusarium oxysporum, Pythium spp., Rhizoctonia solani) results in incomplete disinfestation and in early infection of young plants [200].
In addition to the pest risk posed by the movement of seed, planting material, soil and growing media described above, the increasing online market that spreads planting material around the world poses a new type of threat. This planting material is often of low quality and generally not subject to phytosanitary control. This potential new pathway for pest introduction should be given due consideration in the future.
Conveyances, cargo, and movement of animals are other important pathways. Tractors, cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, containers, re-sold used agricultural equipment, and other vehicles are common means for passively moving pests. Historically, the spread of pests is considered to be directly related to the speed of conveyances. The global shipping network is widely recognized as a pathway for vectoring invasive species. One insect species that is known to have spread throughout the world by shipping, including transportation by ships and shipping containers, is the spongy moth, Lymantria dispar. This species may be introduced into a new area when the port has a suitable climate for the survival and establishment of the species. Two subspecies, with different geographical origins, are known today, and the global distribution threat from the Asian subspecies has been estimated using a CLIMEX model [201]. The heteropteran brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), is another example of an invasive insect travelling mainly through international trade as a contaminant of non-regulated goods such as machinery, containers, and vehicles, but also by passengers and to a lesser extent through movement of plant material. It is highly polyphagous, feeding on more than 300 plant-host species, including food crops, forest trees, and ornamentals. This pest has caused severe economic losses in hazelnut crops in the Republic of Georgia and fruit crops in Italy since its introduction—most likely from North America. A detailed report of a pest risk assessment for the introduction and establishment of H. halys can be found in Burne (2019) [202].
Business travelers and tourists can readily introduce pests, particularly in the absence of strict controls at points of entry. Leisure travel, in particular, is often associated with people bringing food, seeds, or exotic plants, and these can be infested with pests or can themselves be a pest. To counter this, an increasing number of countries are establishing campaigns at points of entry (airports and harbors), aimed at increasing public awareness of the threat to biosecurity posed by the movement of plants and plant parts. Many countries inspect baggage and mail for food and other biosecurity-risk material and encourage incoming passengers to declare potential biosecurity risks. They screen passengers and their luggage using X-rays, detector dogs, and manual inspections. Passengers with risk materials may be fined or even refused entry. In this respect, countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America [181] have a long history of strict control, as well as of collecting and reporting data on interceptions.
Natural dispersal, without direct human assistance, remains important for pest introduction. There are examples where native and non-native pests have significantly expanded their geographical ranges naturally, usually in response to significant changes in host distribution or climate. Increasing temperatures are likely the major climate factor facilitating range expansion in pests, especially at higher latitudes and altitudes. In Europe, for example, higher winter temperatures have increased larval survival and nocturnal adult dispersal of the pine processionary moth, Thaumetopoea pityocampa, allowing the northern expansion of its range [203]. In addition, wind and storms can transport spores of pathogens over long distances, even across continents. For example, changing wind or storm patterns are projected to promote the future distribution of wheat stem rust caused by Puccinia graminis [204]. Additionally, myrtle rust (Austropuccinia psidii), detected for the first time in Australia in 2010 on the central coast of New South Wales, is spreading and can now be found in a range of native forest ecosystems, with disease impacts ranging from minor leaf spots to severe shoot and stem blight and tree dieback [205]. The distribution of several pests, including fruit flies, can be affected by hurricanes in the Caribbean, Central America, and the southeastern United States of America. For example, Flitters (1963) [206] observed that several insect species emerged in unusually large numbers in Texas after Hurricane Carla, suggesting that they had been transported there by the cyclone from distant locations.

3. Concluding Remarks

Most studies indicate that pest risk will generally increase in agricultural ecosystems under climate change scenarios [21,22,30,207,208], especially in today’s cooler arctic, boreal, temperate, and subtropical regions. Evidence suggests that all climates will be impacted, but that the nature and extent of the impact will vary with the ability of production systems and natural ecosystems to adapt and evolve. This is also mostly true for pathogens and insect pests in forestry [16]. The impacts of global trade and invasion pathways may interact with climate change in many and often complex ways. Understanding them can guide choices about mitigation and adaptation measures.
To conclude, preventive (including biosecurity), mitigation, and adaptation measures are strongly needed [13,209,210,211,212,213] to reduce the projected increases in pest risk in agriculture, horticulture, and forestry. Therefore, research to support these measures should have priority in the future. Taken together, climate change and globalization support the spread of current plant pests and also the emergence of new pest threats. Sustainable management of pests is urgently needed. It requires holistic solutions, including effective quarantine and phytosanitary regulations, globally coordinated diagnostic and surveillance systems, pest risk and epidemic modeling integrated in risk analysis, and preparedness for proactive management [214]. More information related to holistic, effective and sustainable strategies to manage various plant pests can be derived in recently published articles (e.g., [3,12,13,214]). These approaches are needed to reduce the detrimental effects of pests on the quality and quantity of plant production, to provide food security for an increasing human population.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L.G. and M.P.; Writing—original draft preparation, M.L.G., R.A., I.A.-J., F.A., S.C., K.A.G., B.P.H., P.J., R.L., K.M., X.P., M.P. and T.S.; Writing—review and editing, M.L.G., R.A., I.A.-J., F.A., S.C., K.A.G., B.P.H., P.J., R.L., K.M., X.P., M.P. and T.S.; Supervision, M.L.G.; Funding acquisition, M.L.G., P.J. and M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This article is a follow-up of a Scientific Review [13] of the impact of climate change on plant pests carried out in the occasion of the International Year of Plant Health. Peter Juroszek acknowledges the project SIMKLIMA (granted to Benno Kleinhenz, grant no. FKZ 281B202616), supported by funds of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) based on a decision of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany via the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) under the innovation support program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Garrett, K.A.; Dendy, S.P.; Frank, E.E.; Rouse, M.N.; Travers, S.E. Climate change effects on plant disease: Genomes to ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Phytopath 2006, 44, 489–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sutherst, R.W.; Constable, F.; Finlay, K.J.; Harrington, R.; Luck, J.; Zalucki, M.P. Adapting to crop pest and pathogen risks under a changing climate. WIREs Clim. Change 2011, 2, 220–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Garrett, K.A.; Bebber, D.P.; Etherton, B.A.; Gold, K.M.; Sula, A.P.; Selvaraj, M.G. Climate change effects on pathogen emergence: Artificial intelligence to translate big data for mitigation. Ann. Rev. Phytopath 2022, 60, 357–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Savary, S.; Willocquet, L.; Pethybridge, S.J.; Esker, P.; McRoberts, N.; Nelson, A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Magan, N.; Medina, A.; Aldred, D. Possible climate-change effects on mycotoxin contamination of food crops pre-and postharvest. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Liu, C.; Battilani, P. Modelling climate change impacts on mycotoxin contamination. World Mycotox. J. 2016, 9, 717–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jägermeyr, J.; Müller, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Elliott, J.; Balkovic, J.; Castillo, O. Climate impacts on global agriculture emerge earlier in new generation of climate and crop models. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 873–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Desaint, H.; Aoun, N.; Deslandes, L.; Vailleau, F.; Roux, F.; Berthome, R. Fight hard or die trying: When plants face pathogens under heat stress. N. Phytol. 2021, 229, 712–734. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gregory, P.J.; Johnson, S.N.; Newton, A.C.; Ingram, J.S.I. Integrating pests and pathogens into the climate change/food security debate. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 2827–2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stack, J.; Fletcher, J.; Gullino, M.L. Climate change and plant biosecurity: A new world disorder? In Global Environmental Change: New Drivers for Resistance, Crime and Terrorism; Bodo, B., Burnley, C., Comardicea, I., Maas, A., Roffey, R., Eds.; Nomos: Baden Baden, Germany, 2013; pp. 161–181. [Google Scholar]
  11. Juroszek, P.; Laborde, M.; Kleinhenz, B.; Mellenthin, M.; Racca, P.; Sierotzki, H. A review on the potential effects of temperature on fungicide effectiveness. Plant Pathol. 2022, 71, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Heeb, L.; Jenner, E.; Cock, M.J.W. Climate-smart pest management: Building resilience of farms and landscapes to changing pest threats. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 951–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gullino, M.L.; Albajes, R.; Al-Jboory, I.; Angelotti, F.; Chakraborty, S.; Garrett, K.A.; Hurley, B.P.; Juroszek, P.; Makkouk, K.; IPPC Secretariat; et al. Scientific Review of the Impact of Climate Change on Plant Pests—A Global Challenge to Prevent and Mitigate Plant Pest Risks in Agriculture, Forestry and Ecosystems; FAO on behalf of the IPPC Secretariat: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Richard, B.; Qi, A.; Fitt, B.D.L. Control of crop diseases through Integrated Crop Management to deliver climate-smart farming systems for low- and high-input crop production. Plant Pathol. 2022, 71, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Revich, B.; Tokarevich, N.; Parkinson, A.J. Climate change and zoonotic infections in the Russian Arctic. Int. J. Circum. Health 2012, 71, 18792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Seidl, R.; Thom, D.; Kautz, M.; Martin-Benito, D.; Peltoniemi, M.; Vacchiano, G.; Wild, J. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nature 2017, 7, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Grünig, M.; Mazzi, D.; Calanca, P.; Karger, D.N.; Pellissier, L. Crop and forest pest metawebs shift towards increased linkage and suitability overlap under climate change. Comm. Biol. 2020, 3, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Miedaner, T.; Juroszek, P. Climate change will influence disease resistance breeding in wheat in Northwestern Europe. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 1771–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Juroszek, P.; von Tiedemann, A. Linking plant disease models to climate change scenarios to project future risks of crop diseases: A review. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2015, 122, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bebber, D.P.; Ramotowski, M.A.T.; Gurr, S.J. Crop pests and pathogens move polewards in a warming world. Nature 2013, 3, 985–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Choudhary, J.S.; Kumari, M.; Fand, B.B. Linking insect pest models with climate change scenarios to project against future risks of agricultural insect pests. CAB Rev. 2019, 14, 055. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/cabreviews/review/20193460085 (accessed on 18 March 2021). [CrossRef]
  22. Clements, D.R.; Di Tommaso, A.; Hyvönen, T. Ecology and management of weeds in a changing climate. In Recent Advances in Weed Management; Chauhan, B.S., Mahajan, G., Eds.; Springer Science + Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 13–37. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gullino, M.L.; Pugliese, M.; Gilardi, G.; Garibaldi, A. Effect of increased CO2 and temperature on plant diseases: A critical appraisal of results obtained in studies carried out under controlled environment facilities. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 100, 371–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Deutsch, C.A.; Tewksbury, J.J.; Huey, R.B.; Shelton, K.S.; Ghalambor, C.K.; Haak, D.C.; Martin, P.R. Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 6668–6672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ghini, R.; Hamada, E.; Pedro Júnior, M.J.; Gonçalves, R.R.V. Incubation period of Hemileia vastatrix in coffee plants in Brazil simulated under climate change. Summa Phytop 2011, 37, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Angelotti, F.; Hamada, E.; Magalhaes, E.E.; Ghini, R.; Garrido, L.D.R.; Junior, M.J.P. Climate change and the occurrence of downy mildew in Brazilian grapevines. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2017, 52, 426–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Juroszek, P.; von Tiedemann, A. Plant pathogens, insect pests and weeds in a changing global climate: A review of approaches, challenges, research gaps, key studies and concepts. J. Agric Sci. 2013, 151, 163–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Richerzhagen, D.; Racca, P.; Zeuner, T.; Kuhn, C.; Falke, K.; Kleinhenz, B.; Hau, B. Impact of climate change on the temporal and regional occurrence of Cercospora leaf spot in Lower Saxony. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2011, 118, 168–177. [Google Scholar]
  29. Trebicki, P.; Finlay, K. Pests and diseases under climate change; its threat to food security. In Food Security and Climate Change; Yadav, S.S., Redden, R.J., Hatfield, J.L., Ebert, A.W., Hunter, D., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 229–249. [Google Scholar]
  30. Juroszek, P.; Racca, P.; Link, S.; Farhumand, J.; Kleinhenz, B. Overview on the review articles published during the past 30 years relating to the potential climate change effects on plant pathogens and crop disease risks. Plant Pathol. 2020, 69, 179–193. [Google Scholar]
  31. Deutsch, C.A.; Tewksbury, J.J.; Tigchelaar, M.; Battisti, D.S.; Merrill, S.C.; Huey, R.B.; Naylor, R.L. Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate. Science 2018, 361, 915–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fones, H.N.; Bebber, D.P.; Chaloner, T.M.; Kay, W.T.; Steinberg, G.; Gurr, S.J. Threats to global food security from emerging fungal and oomycete crop pathogens. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chaloner, T.M.; Gurr, S.J.; Bebber, D.P. Plant pathogen infection risk tracks global crop yield under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2021, 11, 710–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Trebicki, P. Climate change and plant virus epidemiology. Virus Res. 2020, 286, 198059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Racca, P.; Kakau, J.; Kleinhenz, B.; Kuhn, C. Impact of climate change on the phenological development of winter wheat, sugar beet and winter oilseed rape in Lower Saxony, Germany. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2015, 122, 16–27. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tresson, P.; Brun, L.; de Cortazar-Atauri, I.G.; Audergon, J.M.; Buléon, S.; Chenevotot, H.; Combe, F. Future development of apricot blossom blight under climate change in Southern France. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 112, 125960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Madgwick, J.W.; West, J.S.; White, R.P.; Semenov, M.A.; Townsend, J.A.; Turner, J.A.; Fitt, B.D.L. Impacts of climate change on wheat anthesis and fusarium ear blight in the UK. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2011, 130, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Skelsey, P.; Newton, A.C. Future environmental and geographic risks of Fusarium head blight of wheat in Scotland. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2015, 142, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bregaglio, S.; Donatelli, M.; Confalonieri, R. Fungal infections of rice, wheat, and grape in Europe in 2030–2050. Agro. Sust. Dev. 2013, 33, 767–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Evans, N.; Baierl, A.; Semenov, M.A.; Gladders, P.; Fitt, B.D.L. Range and severity of a plant disease increased by global warming. J. Roy Soc. Interf. 2008, 5, 625–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Launay, M.; Caubel, J.; Bourgeois, G.; Huard, F.; de Cortazar-Atauri, I.G.; Bancal, M.O.; Brisson, N. Climatic indicators for crop infection risk: Application to climate impacts on five major foliar fungal diseases in Northern France. Agri. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 197, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Luck, I.; Spackman, M.; Freeman, A.; Trebicki, P.; Griffiths, W.; Finlay, K.; Chakraborty, S. Climate change and diseases of food crops. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mikkelsen, B.L.; Jørgensen, R.B.; Lyngkjær, M.F. Complex interplay of future climate levels of CO2, ozone and temperature on susceptibility to fungal diseases in barley. Plant Pathol. 2014, 64, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Koo, T.H.; Hong, S.J.; Yun, S.C. Changes in the aggressiveness and fecundity of hot pepper anthracnose pathogen (Colletotrichum acutatum) under elevated CO2 and temperature over 100 infection cycles. Plant Pathol. J. 2016, 32, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Battisti, A. Forests and climate change; lessons from insects. Iforest Biogeosci. 2008, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jactel, H.; Koricheva, J.; Castagneyrol, B. Responses of forest insect pests to climate change: Not so simple. Curr. Op. Insect Sci. 2019, 35, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sturrock, R.N.; Frankel, S.J.; Brown, A.V.; Hennon, P.E.; Kliejunas, J.T.; Lewis, K.J. Climate change and forest diseases. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dudney, J.; Willing, C.E.; Das, A.J.; Latimer, A.M.; Nesmith, J.C.B.; Battles, J.J. Nonlinear shifts in infectious rust disease due to climate change. Nat. Comm. 2021, 12, 5102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Beillouin, D.; Ben-Ari, T.; Malezieux, E.; Seufert, V.; Makowski, D. Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 4697–4710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vialatte, A.; Tibi, A.; Alignier, A.; Angeon, V.; Bedoussac, L.; Bochan, D.A. Promoting crop pest control by plant diversification in agricultural landscapes: A conceptual framework for analysing feedback loops between agro-ecological and socio-economic effects. Adv. Ecosyst. Res. 2022, 65, 133–165. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bebber, D.P.; Castillo, A.D.; Gurr, S.J. Modelling coffee leaf rust risk in Colombia with climate reanalysis data. Phil. Trans. Roy Soc. B 2016, 371, 20150458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cabaleiro, C.; Pesqueira, A.M.; Segura, A. Planococcus ficus and the spread of grapevine leafroll disease in vineyards: A 30-year-long case study in north-west Spain. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2022. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10658-022-02513-x (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  53. Raderschall, C.A.; Vico, G.; Lundin, O.; Taylor, A.R.; Bommarco, R. Water stress and insect herbivory interactively reduce crop yield while the insect pollination benefit is conserved. Glob Change Biol. 2021, 27, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Torresen, K.S.; Fykse, H.; Rafoss, T.; Gerowitt, B. Autumn growth of three perennial weeds at high latitude benefits from climate change. Glob Change Biol. 2020, 26, 2561–2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Betz, O.; Srisuka, W.; Puthz, V. Elevational gradients of species richness, community structure, and niche occupation of tropical roove beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Steninae) across mountain slopes in Northern Thailand. Evolut. Ecol. 2020, 34, 193–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Scalone, R.; Lemke, A.; Stefanic, E.; Kolseth, A.K.; Rasic, S.; Andersson, L. Phenological variation in Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. facilitates near future establishment at northern latitudes. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0166510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Huang, J.; Hao, H. Effects of climate change and crop planting on the abundance of cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 1324–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Palmer, G.; Platts, P.J.; Brereton, T.; Chapman, J.W.; Dytham, C.; Fox, R.; Pearce-Higgins, J.W.; Roy, D.B.; Hill, J.K.; Thomas, C.D. Climate change, climatic variation and extreme biological responses. Phil. Trans. Roy Soc. B 2017, 372, 20160144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Karkanis, A.; Ntatsi, G.; Alemardan, A.; Petropoulos, S.; Bilalis, D. Interference of weeds in vegetable crop cultivation, in the changing climate of Southern Europe with emphasis on drought and elevated temperatures: A review. J. Agri. Sci. 2018, 156, 1175–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sutherst, R.W.; Maywald, G.F.; Russell, B.L. Estimating vulnerability under global change: Modular modelling of pests. Agri. Ecos. Environ. 2000, 82, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Biber-Freudenberger, L.; Ziemacki, J.; Tonnang, H.E.Z.; Borgemeister, C. Future risks of pest species under changing climatic conditions. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Launay, M.; Zurfluh, O.; Huard, F.; Buis, F.; Bourgeois, G.; Caubel, J.; Huber, L.; Bancal, M.O. Robustness of crop disease response to climate change signal under modelling uncertainties. Agr. Syst. 2020, 178, 102733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Loustau, D.; Ogee, J.; Dufrene, E.; Deque, M.; Duponey, J.I.; Badeau, V.; Viovy, N. Impacts of climate change on temperate forests and interaction with management. In Forestry and Climate Change; Freer-Smith, P.H., Broadmeadow, M.S.J., Lynch, J.M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2007; pp. 243–250. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ingram, J.S.I.; Gregory, P.J.; Izac, A.-M. The role of agronomic research in climate change and food security policy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 126, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chakraborty, S.; Newton, A.C. Climate change, plant diseases and food security: An overview. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pautasso, M.; Doring, T.F.; Garbelotto, M.; Pellis, L.; Jeger, M.J. Impacts of climate change on plant diseases—Opinions and trends. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 133, 295–313. [Google Scholar]
  67. Eastburn, D.M.; McElrone, A.J.; Bilgin, D.D. Influence of atmospheric and climate change on plant-pathogen interactions. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 54–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Williams, A.L.; Wills, K.E.; Janes, J.K.; Van der Schoor, J.K.; Newton, P.C.D.; Hovenden, M.J. Warming and free-air CO2 enrichment alter demographics in four co-occurring grassland species. N. Phytol. 2007, 176, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Delucia, E.H.; Nabity, P.D.; Zavala, J.A.; Berenbaum, M.R. Climate change: Resetting plant-insect interactions. Plant Phys. 2012, 160, 1677–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Ainsworth, E.A.; Long, S.P. 30 years of free-air carbon enrichment (FACE): What have we learned about future crop productivity and its potential for adaptation? Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Gullino, M.L.; Pugliese, M.; Paravicini, A.; Casulli, E.; Rettori, A.; Sanna, M.; Garibaldi, A. New phytotron for studying the effect of climate change on plant pathogens. J. Agric Eng. 2011, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hakata, M.; Wada, H.; Masumoto-Kubo, C.; Tanaka, R.; Sato, H.; Morita, S. Development of a new heat tolerance assay system for rice spikelet sterility. Plant Meth 2017, 13, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gilardi, G.; Gisi, U.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 and temperature on the chemical and biological control of powdery mildew of zucchini and the Phoma leaf spot of leaf beet. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 148, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gullino, M.L.; Tabone, G.; Gilardi, G.; Garibaldi, A. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and temperature on the management of powdery mildew of zucchini. J. Phytopath 2020, 168, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Garibaldi, L.A.; Kitzberger, T.; Chaneton, E.J. Environmental and genetic control of insect abundance and herbivory along a forest elevational gradient. Oecologia 2011, 167, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bairstow, K.A.; Clarke, K.L.; McGeoch, M.A.; Andrew, N.R. Leaf miner and plant galler species richness on Acacia: Relative importance of plant traits and climate. Oecologia 2010, 163, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Koricheva, J.; Larsson, S. Insect performance on experimentally stressed woody plants: A meta-analysis. Ann. Rev. Entom. 1998, 43, 195–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Massad, T.J.; Dyer, L.A. A meta-analysis of the effects of global environmental change on plant–herbivore interactions. Arthropod-Plant Interact 2010, 4, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vila, M.; Beaury, E.M.; Blumenthal, D.M.; Bradley, B.A.; Early, R.; Laginhas, B.B.; Trillo, A.; Dukes, J.S.; Sorte, C.J.B.; Ibanez, I. Understanding the combined impacts of weeds and climate change on crops. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 034043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Altermatt, F. Climatic warming increases voltinism in European butterflies and moths. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 277, 1281–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bebber, D.P. Climate change effects on Black Sigatoka disease of banana. Philos. Trans. Roy Soc. B 2020, 374, 20180269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Jeger, M.J.; Pautasso, M. Plant disease and global change–the importance of long-term data sets. N. Phytol. 2008, 177, 8–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Van der Heyden, H.; Dutilleul, P.; Charron, J.B.; Bilodeau, G.J.; Carisse, O. Factors influencing the occurrence of onion downy mildew (Peronospora destructor) epidemics: Trends from 31 years of observational data. Agronomy 2020, 10, 738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Radons, S.Z.; Heldwein, A.B.; Puhl, A.J.; Nied, A.H.; da Silva, J.R. Climate risk of Asian soybean rust occurrence in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2021, 46, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wang, C.; Wang, X.; Jin, Z.; Müller, C.; Pugh, T.A.M.; Chen, A. Occurrence of crop pests and diseases has largely increased in China since 1970. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Garrett, K.A.; Nita, M.; De Wolf, E.D.; Esker, P.D.; Gomez-Montano, L.; Sparks, A.H. Plant pathogens as indicators of climate change. In Climate Change: Observed Impacts on Planet Earth, 3rd ed.; T.M. Letcher, Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 499–513. [Google Scholar]
  87. Diamond, S.E. Contemporary climate-driven range shifts: Putting evolution back on the table. Fun Ecol. 2018, 32, 1652–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lehmann, P.; Ammunet, T.; Barton, M.; Battisti, A.; Eigenbrode, S.D.; Jepsen, J.U.; Kalinkat, G. Complex responses of global insect pests to climate warming. Front Ecol. Environ. 2020, 18, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Fussmann, K.E.; Schwarzmüller, F.; Brose, U.; Jousset, A.; Rall, B.C. Ecological stability in response to warming. Nat. Clim. Change 2014, 4, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Thomson, L.J.; MacFadyen, S.; Hoffmann, A.A. Predicting the effects of climate change on natural enemies of agricultural pests. Biol. Control 2010, 52, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sutherst, R.W. Pest risk analysis and the greenhouse effect. Rev. Agri. Entom. 1991, 79, 1177–1187. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ghini, R.; Hamada, E.; Bettiol, W. Climate change and plant diseases. Scientia Agrícola 2008, 65, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hill, M.P.; Thomson, L.J. Species distribution modelling in predicting response to climate change. In Climate Change and Insect pests; Björkman, C., Niemelä, P., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015; pp. 16–37. [Google Scholar]
  94. Salinari, F.; Giosuè, S.; Rossi, V.; Tubiello, F.N.; Rosenzweig, C.; Gullino, M.L. Downy downy mildew outbreaks on grapevine under climate change: Elaboration and application of an empirical-statistical model. EPPO Bull. 2007, 37, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Shaw, M.W.; Osborne, T.M. Geographic distribution of plant pathogens in response to climate change. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gimenez-Romero, A.; Galvan, J.; Montesinos, M.; Bauza, J.; Godefroid, M.; Fereres, A. Global predictions for the risk of establishment of Pierce’s disease of grapevines. bioRxiv 2022. preprint. [Google Scholar]
  97. Godefroid, M.; Morente, M.; Schartel, T.; Cornara, D.; Purcell, A.; Gallego, D. Climate tolerances of Philaenus spumarius should be considered in risk assessment of disease outbreaks related to Xylella fastidiosa. J. Pest Sci. 2022, 95, 855–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zacarias, D.A. Global bioclimatic suitability for the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and potential co-occurrence with major host crops under climate change scenarios. Clim. Change 2020, 161, 555–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Litkas, V.D.; Migeon, A.; Navajas, M.; Tixier, M.S.; Stavrinides, M.C. Impacts of climate change on tomato, a notorious pest and its natural enemy: Small scale agriculture at higher risk. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 084041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wang, C.; Hawthorne, D.; Qin, Y.; Pan, X.; Li, Z.; Zhu, S. Impact of climate and host availability on future distribution of Colorado potato beetle. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Junk, J.; Jonas, M.; Eickermann, M. Assessing meteorological key factors influencing crop invasion by pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus F.)—Past observations and future perspectives. Met. Zeit. 2016, 25, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jönsson, A.M.; Harding, S.; Krokene, P.; Lange, H.; Lindelöw, Ǻ.; Økland, B.; Ravn, H.P. Modelling the potential impact of global warming on Ips typographus voltinism and reproductive diapause. Clim. Change 2011, 109, 606–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Stoeckli, S.; Felber, R.; Haye, T. Current distribution and voltinism of the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys, in Switzerland and its response to climate change using a high-resolution CLIMEX model. Int. J. Biom. 2020, 64, 2019–2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Taylor, R.A.J.; Herms, D.A.; Cardina, J.; Moore, R.H. Climate change and pest management: Unanticipated consequences of trophic dislocation. Agro 2018, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ramirez-Cabral, N.Y.Z.; Kumar, L.; Shabani, F. Suitable areas of Phakopsora pachyrhizi, Spodoptera exigua, and their host plant Phaseolus vulgaris are projected to reduce and shift due to climate change. Theor. Appl. Clim. 2019, 135, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. St-Marseille, A.F.G.; Bourgeois, G.; Brodeur, J.; Mimee, B. Simulating the impacts of climate change on soybean cyst nematode and the distribution of soybean. Agri For Meteo 2019, 264, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wang, R.; Li, Q.; He, S.; Liu, Y.; Wang, M.; Jiang, G. Modeling and mapping the current and future distribution of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae under climate change in China. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192153. [Google Scholar]
  108. Ikegami, M.; Jenkins, T.A.R. Estimate global risks of a forest disease under current and future climates using distribution model and simple thermal model – pine wilt disease as a model case. For Ecosyst. Man 2018, 409, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kremer, P.; Schlüter, J.; Racca, P.; Fuchs, H.J.; Lang, C. Possible impact of climate change on the occurrence and the epidemic development of Cercospora leaf spot disease (Cercospora beticola sacc.) in sugar beets for Rhineland-Palatinate and the southern part of Hesse. Clim Change 2016, 137, 481–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Viswanath, K.; Sinha, P.; Kumar, S.N.; Sharma, T.; Saxena, S.; Panjwani, S.; Pathak, H.; Shukla, S.M. Simulation of leaf blast infection in tropical rice agro-ecology under climate change scenario. Clim. Change 2017, 142, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Salinari, F.; Giosuè, S.; Rettori, A.; Rossi, V.; Tubiello, F.N.; Spanna, F.; Rosenzweig, C.; Gullino, M.L. Downy downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola) epidemics on grapevine under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 2006, 12, 1299–1307. [Google Scholar]
  112. Salvacion, A.R.; Cumagun, C.J.R.; Pangga, I.B.; Magcale-Macandog, D.B.; Cruz, P.C.S.; Saludes, R.B.; Solpot, T.C.; Aguilar, E.A. Banana suitability and Fusarium wilt distribution in the Philippines under climate change. Spat. Inf. Res. 2019, 27, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Gouache, D.; Bensadoun, A.; Brun, F.; Page, C.; Makowski, D.; Wallach, D. Modelling climate change impact on Septoria tritici blotch (STB) in France: Accounting for climate model and disease uncertainty. Agr. For. Met 2013, 170, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Juroszek, P.; von Tiedemann, A. Climate change and potential future risks through wheat diseases. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2013, 136, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Sidorova, I.; Voronina, E. Terrestrial fungi and global climate change. In Climate Change and Microbial Ecology: Current Research and Future Trends, 2nd ed.; Marxsen, J., Ed.; Caister Academic Press: Poole, UK, 2020; Chapter 5; pp. 132–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). Agrilus planipennis. EPPO Datasheet as Updated January 2021. 2021. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/AGRLPL/datasheet (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  117. Haack, R.A.; Jendek, E.; Liu, H.P.; Marchant, K.R.; Petrice, T.R.; Poland, T.M.; Ye, H. The emerald ash borer: A new exotic pest in North America. N. Mich. Ent. Soc. 2002, 47, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  118. CABI. Agrilus planipennis (emerald ash borer) datasheet. In Invasive Species Compendium; [online]; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2021; Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/3780#todistribution (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  119. Ramsfield, T.D.; Bentz, B.J.; Faccoli, M.; Jactel, H.; Brockerhoff, E.G. Forest health in a changing world: Effects of globalization and climate change on forest insect and pathogen impacts. Forestry 2016, 89, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Aukema, J.E.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K.; Chivers, C.; Britton, K.O.; Englin, J.; Frankel, S.J. Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Donovan, G.H.; Butry, D.T.; Michael, Y.L.; Prestemon, J.P.; Liebhold, A.M.; Demetrios Gatziolis, D.; Mao, M.Y. The relationship between trees and human health: Evidence from the spread of the emerald ash borer. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 44, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Liang, L.; Fei, S. Divergence of the potential invasion range of emerald ash borer and its host distribution in North America under climate change. Clim. Change 2014, 122, 735–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Duan, J.J.; Bauer, L.S.; Van Driesche, R.; Schmude, J.M.; Petrice, T.; Chandler, J.L.; Elkinton, J. Effects of extreme low winter temperatures on the overwintering survival of the introduced larval parasitoids Spathius galinae and Tetrastichus planipennisi: Implications for biological control of emerald ash borer in North America. J Ecosyst. Entomol. 2020, 113, 1145–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. CABI. Bactrocera oleae (Olive Fruit Fly) Datasheet. In Invasive Species Compendiuml; [online]; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2021; Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/17689#todistribution (accessed on 14 May 2022).
  125. EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). Current Global Distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis (DACUDO) as Registered on January 2021 and Reporting Service Articles. In EPPO Global Database. 2021. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/DACUDO/distribution and https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/DACUDO/reporting (accessed on 14 May 2022).
  126. Fedchock, C.; Gould, W.P.; Hennessey, M.K.; Mennig, X.; Sosa, E. Trip Report–Spanish Lemon Site Visit: 23–30 September 2006; United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services: Riverdale, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  127. El-Mergawy, R.A.A.M.; Al-Ajlan, A.M. Red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier): Economic importance, biology, biogeography and integrated pest management. J. Agr. Sci. Technol. 2011, 1, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  128. FAO. Red Palm Weevil: Guidelines on MANAGEMENT Practices; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; p. ix + 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. El-Sabea, A.M.; Faleiro, J.; Abo-El-Saa, M.M. The threat of red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus to date plantations of the Gulf region in the Middle-East: An economic perspective. Out Pest Man 2009, 20, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Al-Ayedh, H.Y. The current state of the art research and technologies on RPW management. Paper Presented at the Scientific Consultation and High-Level Meeting on Red Palm Weevil Management, Rome, Italy, 27–31 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
  131. Fiaboe, K.K.M.; Peterson, A.T.; Kairo, M.T.K.; Roda, A.L. Predicting the potential worldwide distribution of the red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) using ecological niche modeling. Flor. Entomol. 2012, 95, 559–673. [Google Scholar]
  132. Ge, X.; He, S.; Wang, T.; Yan, W.; Zong, S. Potential distribution predicted for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in China under different climate warming scenarios. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). A1 list of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests, version 2020-09. In European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. 2020. Available online: https://www.eppo.int/ACTIVITIES/plant_quarantine/A1_list (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  134. EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). First report of Spodoptera frugiperda in Israel. EPPO Reporting Service No. 08-2020: 2020/161. In EPPO Global Database. 2020. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/article-6839 (accessed on 14 May 2022).
  135. Ramirez-Cabral, N.Y.Z.; Kumar, L.; Shabani, F. Future climate scenarios project a decrease in the risk of fall armyworm outbreaks. J. Agr. Sci. 2017, 155, 1219–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Jeger, M.; Bragard, C.; Caffier, D.; Candresse, T.; Chatzivassiliou, E.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Gilioli, G. Pest risk assessment of Spodoptera frugiperda for the European Union. EFSA J. 2018, 16, 5351. [Google Scholar]
  137. FAO. Desert Locust Upsurge—Progress Report on the Response in Southwest Asia (May–December 2020); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; 18 p, Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/cb2358en/cb2358en.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  138. Kimathi, E.; Tonnang, H.E.Z.; Subramanina, K.; Abdel-Rahman, E.M.; Tesfayohannes, M.; Niassy, S.; Torto. Prediction of breeding regions for the desert locust Schistocerca gregaria in East Africa. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Meynard, C.N.; Gay, P.E.; Lecoq, M.; Foucart, A.; Piou, C.; Chapuis, M.P. Climate-driven geographic distribution of the desert locust during recession periods: Subspecies’ niche differentiation and relative risks under scenarios of climate change. Glob Change Biol. 2017, 23, 4739–4749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Al-Jboory, I. Survey and identification of the biotic factors in the date palm environment and its application for designing IPM-Program of date palm pests in Iraq. Univ. Aden J. Nat. Appl. Sci. 2007, 11, 423–457. [Google Scholar]
  141. Shabani, F.; Kumar, L.; Hamdan Saif al-Shidi, R. Impact of climate change on infestations of Dubas bug (Ommatissus lybicus Bergevin) on date palms in Oman. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. El-Haidari, H.S.; Al-Hafidh, E.M.T. Palm and Date Arthropod Pests in the Near East and North Africa; Regional Project for palm and dates Research Center in the Near East and North Africa: Baghdad, Iraq, 1986; p. 126. [Google Scholar]
  143. Blumberg, D. Date palm arthropod pests and their management in Israel. J. Phytoparasitica 2008, 36, 411–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Bakry, M.M.S.; Abdrabbo, M.A.A.; Mohamed, G.H. Implementing of RCPs scenarios to estimate the population density of parlatoria date scale insect, Parlatoria blanchardii (Targioni-Tozzetti) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) infesting date palm trees in Luxor Governorate. Egypt. J. Phytopath Pest Man 2015, 2, 34–53. [Google Scholar]
  145. Bentz, B.J.; Jönsson, A.M.; Schroeder, M.; Weed, A.; Wilcke, R.A.I.; Larsson, K. Ips typographus and Dendroctonus ponderosae Models Project Thermal Suitability for Intra- and Inter-Continental Establishment in a Changing Climate. Front. For. Glob. Change 2019, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Makkouk, K.M. Plant pathogens which threaten food security: Viruses of chickpea and other cool season legumes in West Asia and North Africa. Food Secur. 2020, 12, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Avelino, J.; Cristancho, M.; Georgiou, S.; Imbach, P.; Aguilar, L.; Bornemann, G.; Läderach, P.; Anzueto, F.; Hruska, A.J.; Morales, C. The coffee rust crises in Colombia and Central America (2008–2013): Impacts, plausible causes and proposed solutions. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Iscaro, J. The impact of climate change on coffee production in Colombia and Ethiopia. Glob. Major. E J. 2014, 5, 33–43. [Google Scholar]
  149. Ploetz, R.C. Panama disease, an old nemesis rears its ugly head: Part 1—The beginnings of the banana export trades. Plant Health Prog. 2005, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Ploetz, R.C.; Pegg, K.G. Fungal diseases of root, corm and pseudostem. In Diseases of Banana Abacá and Enset; Jones, D.R., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2000; pp. 143–172. [Google Scholar]
  151. Stover, R.H. Disease management strategies and the survival of the banana industry. Ann. Rev. Phytopath 1986, 24, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Dita, M.; Barquero, M.; Heck, D.; Mizubuti, E.S.G.; Staver, C.P. Fusarium wilt of banana: Current knowledge on epidemiology and research needs toward sustainable disease management. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Garcίa-Bastidas, F.A.; Quintero-Vargas; Ayala-Vasquez, M.; Schermer, T.; Seidl, M.F.; Santos-Paiva, M.; Noguera, A.M. First report of Fusarium wilt tropical race 4 in Cavendish bananas caused by Fusarium odoratissimum in Colombia. Plant Dis. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Pegg, K.G.; Coates, L.M.; O’Neill, W.T.; Turner, D.W. The epidemiology of Fusarium wilt of banana. Front Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Peng, H.X.X.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Turner, D.W.W. Chlamydospore germination and Fusarium wilt of banana plantlets in suppressive and conducive soils are affected by physical and chemical factors. Soil. Biol. Bioch. 1999, 31, 1363–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Janse, J.D.; Obradovic, A. Xylella fastidiosa: Its biology, diagnosis, control and risks. J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 92, 35–48. [Google Scholar]
  157. Wells, J.M.; Raju, B.C.; Hung, H.Y.; Weisburg, W.G.; Mandelco-Paul, L.; Brenner, D.J. Xylella fastidiosa gen. nov., sp. nov.: Gram-negative, xylem-limited, fastidious plant bacteria related to Xanthomonas spp. Int. J. Syst. Bact. 1987, 37, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Cornara, D.; Morente, M.; Markheiser, A.; Bodino, N.; Tsai, C.-W.; Fereres, A.; Redak, R.A.; Perring, T.M.; Lopes, J.R.S. An overview on the worldwide vectors of Xylella fastidiosa. Entom. Gen. 2019, 39, 157–181. [Google Scholar]
  159. Saponari, M.; Boscia, D.; Nigro, F.; Martelli, G.P. Identification of DNA sequences related to Xylella fastidiosa in oleander, almond and olive trees exhibiting leaf scorch symptoms in Apulia (Southern Italy). J. Plant Pathol. 2019, 95, 668. [Google Scholar]
  160. Almeida, R.P.P.; Blua, M.J.; Lopes, J.R.S.; Purcell, A.H. Vector transmission of Xylella fastidiosa: Applying fundamental knowledge to generate disease management strategies. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2005, 98, 775–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Bosso, L.; Russo, D.; Febbraro, M.D.; Cristinzio, G.; Zoina, A. Potential distribution of Xylella fastidiosa in Italy: A maximum entropy model. Phytopath Med. 2016, 55, 62–72. [Google Scholar]
  162. Godefroid, M.; Cruaud, A.; Streito, J.C.; Rasplus, J.Y.; Rossi, J.P. Climate change and the potential distribution of Xylella fastidiosa in Europe. bioRxiv 2018, hal-02791548f. [Google Scholar]
  163. Godefroid, M.; Cruaud, A.; Streito, J.-C.; Rasplus, J.-Y.; Rossi, J.-P. Xylella fastidiosa: Climate suitability of European continent. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Frem, M.; Chapman, D.; Fucilli, V.; Choueiri, E.; Moujabber, M.E.; Notte, P.L.; Nigro, F. Xylella fastidiosa invasion of new countries in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: Ranking the potential exposure scenarios. NeoBiota 2020, 59, 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Amanifar, N.; Taghavi, M.; Izadpanah, K.; Babaei, G. Isolation and pathogenicity of Xylella fastidiosa from grapevine and almond in Iran. Phytopath Med. 2014, 53, 318–327. [Google Scholar]
  166. Godefroid, M.; Morente, M.; Schartel, T.; Cornara, D.; Purcell, A.; Gallego, D.; Moreno, A.; Pereira, J.A.; Fereres, A. The risk of Xylella fastidiosa outbreaks will decrease in the Mediterranean olive-producing regions. bioRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Hannukkala, A.O.; Kaukoranta, T.; Lehtinen, A.; Rahkonen, A. Late-blight epidemics on potato in Finland, 1933–2002: Increased and earlier occurrence of epidemics associated with climate change and lack of rotation. Plant Pathol. 2007, 56, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Perez, C.; Nicklin, C.; Dangles, O.; Vanek, S.; Sherwood, S.; Halloy, S.; Garrett, K.A.; Forbes, G. Climate change in the high Andes: Implications and adaptation strategies for small-scale farmers. Int J En Cult Econ Soc Sust 2010, 6, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Skelsey, P.; Cooke, D.E.L.; Lynott, J.S.; Lees, A.K. Crop connectivity under climate change: Future environmental and geographic risks of potato late blight in Scotland. Glob Change Biol. 2016, 22, 3724–3738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Sparks, A.H.; Forbes, G.A.; Hijmans, R.J.; Garrett, K.A. Climate change may have limited effect on global risk of potato late blight. Glob Change Biol. 2014, 20, 3621–3631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Fahim, M.A.; Hassanein, M.K.; Mostafa, M.H. Relationships between climatic conditions and potato late blight epidemic in Egypt during winter seasons 1999–2001. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2003, 1, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Fahim, M.A.; Hassanein, M.K.; Abou Hadid, A.F.; Kadah, M.S. Impacts of climate change on the widespread and epidemics of some tomato diseases during the last decade in Egypt. Acta Hort 2011, 914, 317–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Pugliese, M.; Gullino, M.L.; Garibaldi, A. Effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on interactions of grapevine and powdery mildew: First results under phytotron conditions. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2010, 117, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Battilani, P.; Toscano, P.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Moretti, A.; Camardo Leggieri, M.; Brera, C.; Rortais, A. Aflatoxin B1 contamination in maize in Europe increases due to climate change. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Medina, A.; Akbar, A.; Baazeem, A.; Rodriguez, A.; Managan, N. Climate change, food security and mycotoxins. Do we know enough? Fung Biol. Rev. 2017, 31, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Siciliano, I.; Berta, F.; Bosio, P.; Gullino, M.L.; Garibaldi, A. Effect of different temperatures and CO2 levels on Alternaria toxins produced on cultivated rocket, cabbage and cauliflower. W Mycotox J. 2017, 10, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Siciliano, I.; Bosio, P.; Gilardi, G.; Gullino, M.L.; Garibaldi, A. Verrucarin A and roridin E produced on spinach by Myrothecium verrucaria under different temperatures and CO2 levels. Mycotox Res. 2017, 33, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Miedaner, T.; Juroszek, P. Global warming and increasing maize cultivation demand comprehensive efforts in disease and insect resistance breeding in north-western Europe. Plant Pathol. 2021, 70, 1032–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Mumford, J.D. Model frameworks for strategic economic management of invasive species. In New Approaches to the Economics of Plant Health; Lansink, A.G.J.M.O., Ed.; Springer: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 181–190. [Google Scholar]
  180. Levine, J.M.; D’Antonio, C.M. Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international trade. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17, 322–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. McCullough, D.G.; Work, T.T.; Cavey, J.F.; Liebhold, A.M.; Marshall, D. Interceptions of non-indigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period. Biol. Invest. 2006, 8, 611–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Chapman, D.; Purse, B.V.; Roy, H.E.; Bullock, J.M. Global trade networks determine the distribution of invasive non-native species. Glob Ecol. Biogeogr. 2017, 26, 907–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Woolhouse, M.E.J.; Webster, J.P.; Domingo, E.; Charlesworth, B.; Levin, B.R. Biological and biomedical implications of the co-evolution of pathogens and their hosts. Nat. Gen. 2002, 32, 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Anderson, P.K.; Cunningham, A.A.; Patel, N.G.; Morales, F.J.; Epstein, P.R.; Daszak, P. Emerging infectious diseases of plants: Pathogen pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Meurisse, N.; Rassati, D.; Hurley, B.P.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Haack, R.A. Common pathways by which non-native forest insects move internationally and domestically. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). Anoplophora glabripennis. In EPPO Datasheets on Pests Recommended for Regulation [online]. 2021. Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/ANOLGL/datasheet (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  187. Hu, J.; Angeli, S.; Schuetz, S.; Luo, Y.; Hajek, A.E. Ecology and management of exotic and endemic Asian longhorned beetle Anoplophora glabripennis. Agr. For. Entomol. 2009, 11, 359–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Sousa, E.; Naves, P.; Bonifácio, L.; Henriques, J.; Inácio, M.L.; Evans, H. Survival of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and Monochamus galloprovincialis in pine branches and wood packaging material. EPPO Bull. 2011, 41, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Gullino, M.L.; Gilardi, G.; Garibaldi, A. Ready-to-eat salad crops: A plant pathogen’s heaven. Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 2153–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Gitaitis, R.; Walcott, R. The epidemiology and management of seedborne bacterial diseases. Ann. Rev. Phytopath 2007, 45, 371–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Gullino, M.L.; Gilardi, G.; Garibaldi, A. Seed-borne pathogens of leafy vegetable crops. In Global Perspectives on the Health of Seeds and Plant Propagation Material; Gullino, M.L., Munkvold, G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 47–53. [Google Scholar]
  192. Munkvold, G.P. Seed pathology progress in the academia and industry. Ann. Rev. Phytopath 2009, 47, 285–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Daughtrey, M.; Buitenhuis, R. Integrated pest and disease management in greenhouse ornamentals. In Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops; Gullino, M.L., Albajes, R., Nicot, P.C., Eds.; Springer Nature: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 625–679. [Google Scholar]
  194. Pautasso, M.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Holdenrieder, O.; Pietravalle, S.; Salama, N.; Jeger, M.J.; Lange, E.; Hehl-Lange, S. Plant health and global change-some implications for landscape management. Biol. Rev. 2010, 85, 729–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Chen, J.; Henny, R.J. Somaclonal variation: An important source for cultivar development of floriculture crops. In Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology; Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Ed.; Global Science Books: London, UK, 2006; Volume II, pp. 244–253. [Google Scholar]
  196. Guarnaccia, V.; Peduto Hand, F.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Bedding plant production and the challenge of fungal diseases. Plant Dis. 2021, 105, 1241–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Albajes, R.; Gullino, M.L.; van Lenteren, J.C.; Elad, Y. Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  198. Wang, C.; Zhang, X.; Pan, X.; Li, Z.; Zhu, S. Greenhouses: Hotspots in the invasive network for alien species. Biodiv. Cons. 2015, 24, 1825–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Bergsma-Viami, M.; van de Bilt, J.L.J.; Tjou-Tam-Sin, N.N.A.; van de Vossenberg, B.T.L.H.; Westenberg, M. Xylella fastidiosa in Coffea arabica ornamental plants imported from Costa Rica and Honduras in The Netherlands. J. Plant Pathol. 2015, 97, 395. [Google Scholar]
  200. Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Focus on critical issues in soil and substrate disinfestation towards the year 2000. Acta Hort. 1995, 382, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Paini, D.R.; Mwebaze, P.; Kuhnert, P.M.; Kriticos, D.J. Global establishment threat from a major forest pest via international shipping: Lymantria dispar. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Burne, A.R. Pest Risk Assessment: Halyomorpha halys (Brown Marmorated Stink Bug), Version 1; Ministry for Primary Industries: Wellington, New Zealand, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  203. Battisti, A.; Stastny, M.; Buffo, E.; Larsson, S. A rapid altitudinal range expansion in the pine processionary moth produced by the 2003 climatic anomaly. Glob Change Biol. 2006, 12, 662–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Prank, M.; Kenaley, S.C.; Bergstrom, G.C.; Acevedo, M.; Mahowald, N.M. Climate change impacts the spread of wheat stem rust, a significant crop disease. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 124053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Pegg, G.; Taylor, T.; Entwistle, P.; Guymer, G.; Giblin, F.; Carnegie, A. Impact of Austropuccinia psidii (myrtle rust) on Myrtaceae-rich wet sclerophyll forests in south east Queensland. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0188058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Flitters, N.E. Observations on the effect of hurricane “Carla” on insect activity. Int. J. Biomet. 1963, 6, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Björkman, C.; Niemelä, P. Climate Change and Insect Pests; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  208. Peterson, A.T.; Menon, S.; Li, X. Recent advances in the climate change biology literature: Describing the whole elephant. WIREs Clim Change 2010, 1, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Edmonds, R.L. General strategies of forest disease management. In Infectuous Forest Diseases; Gonthier, P., Nicolotti, G., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK; Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 29–49. [Google Scholar]
  210. Gaudio, N.; Louarn, G.; Barillot, R.; Meunier, C.; Vezy, R.; Launay, M. Exploring complementarities between modelling approaches that enable upscaling from plant community functioning to ecosystem services as a way to support agroecological transition. Plants 2021, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Gigot, C.; Hamerning, D.; Deytieux, V.; Diallo, I.; Deudon, O.; Gourdain, E. Developing a method to simulate and evaluate effects of adaptation strategies to climate change on wheat crop production: A challenging multi-criteria analysis. Eng. Proc. 2021, 9, 29. [Google Scholar]
  212. Pautasso, M. Responding to diseases caused by exotic tree pathogens. In Infectious Forest Diseases; Gonthier, P., Nicolotti, G., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK; Boston, USA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  213. Lopian, R. Climate Change, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Agricultural Trade. The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets (SOCO) 2018: Background Paper. Rome, FAO. 2018, p. 48. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/CA2351EN/ca2351en.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  214. Prasanna, B.M.; Carvajal-Yepes, M.; Kumar, P.L.; Kawarazuka, N.; Liu, Y.; Mulema, A.A.; McCutcheon, S.; Ibabao, X. Sustainable management of transboundary pests requires holistic and inclusive solutions. Food Secur. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Examples of some likely effects of climate change on plant pests in different climate zones (modified after [13]).
Table 1. Examples of some likely effects of climate change on plant pests in different climate zones (modified after [13]).
Climate Zones Likely Effects of Climate Change on Future Pest Risk (Mainly 2050–2100)References
ArcticIncreasing pest risk in the tundra.[15]
BorealIncreasing insect pest and plant disease risk in boreal forests.[16]
TemperateIncreasing insect pest risk in agriculture and forestry.[17]
Increasing insect pest and plant disease risk in forests.[16]
Increasing disease risk in agriculture and horticulture (mostly based on western European studies).[18,19]
Often poleward shift of insect pest and pathogen risk in different managed and unmanaged ecosystems.[20]
Often range expansion of important insect pests in agriculture and horticulture.[21]
Increasing risk of weeds in different managed and unmanaged ecosystems.[22]
SubtropicalIncreasing saturation of insect pest risk in agriculture and forestry in southern Europe.[17]
Increasing disease risk in agriculture and horticulture.[23]
Often range expansion of important insect pests in agriculture and horticulture.[21]
TropicalInsects will often face supra-optimal temperature conditions in the future, presumably resulting in decreasing insect pest risk.[24]
Conflicting information and expert opinions on disease risk in agriculture and forestry with respect to Brazil.[19,25,26]
Table 2. Some examples of experimental and theoretical approaches in climate-change biology research (modified after [27]).
Table 2. Some examples of experimental and theoretical approaches in climate-change biology research (modified after [27]).
Type of Research ApproachDescription and CommentsSelected References
Experiments under controlled conditionsControlled conditions are not realistic, but it is easier to study one or a few environmental parameters because of lower variability and fewer interactions.[23]
Experiments on-station, on-farm, and under natural conditionsField conditions are realistic, but the environmental parameters are difficult to control because of variability and complex interactions.[53,54]
Studies along an elevation gradient from low to high elevation sitesEffects of changes in temperature and precipitation can be studied over a short distance, with day length the same (e.g., characteristics of a single species can be compared).[55]
Studies along a latitudinal gradientResearch can be implemented along a climate gradient from temperate to tropical, with long-distance changes in temperature and precipitation, although day length may also vary (e.g., characteristics of a single species, or the biodiversity of species in general, can be compared in different climates).[56]
Meta-analysis of published dataInvolves searches for general patterns in responses of specific taxa to variations in climate factors. A sufficient number of published results should be available to draw meaningful conclusions.[16]
Data monitoring, long-term datasets of different parametersInvolves long-term field observations to study effects already apparent due to climate warming in recent decades. Long-term weather records are necessary and, if available, other long-term datasets to search for other possible reasons for observed changes (particularly in managed systems).[57,58]
Expert opinionLong-term experiences and knowledge of experts can be used. The complete life cycle of a pest species can be considered in theory; however, this approach is somewhat subjective.[59]
“Climate matching” approachA present-day climate analogue to the future climate for an area of interest is found, and the pest dynamics in that location are studied in order to gain an appreciation of the comparative dynamics (e.g., dynamic climate matching model CLIMEX). Other tools can also be used, such as MaxEnt, to compare the habitat suitability of different locations for the species of interest.[60,61]
A modeling approach using one or several climate-change scenarios or models, or comprehensive ensembles of climate-change scenarios or models, to simulate future pest riskIt is possible to categorize scenarios or models used from “conservative” to “worst case”, and this is also possible within a single climate-change model if different representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios are applied.[26,62]
Table 3. Examples of pest risk simulation studies where pest models were linked to climate change scenarios and time spans indicated future projections (modified after [13]).
Table 3. Examples of pest risk simulation studies where pest models were linked to climate change scenarios and time spans indicated future projections (modified after [13]).
Country or RegionTime Span or SpansCrops Affected, Pest Species and Projection of ChangeSelected Reference
Insects
Global2050, 2100Multiple crops: Area suitable for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) is projected to increase. [98]
Global2050Tomato: It is projected that several nations face a potential increase in two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) outbreaks, while biological control by its key predator Phytoseiulus persimilis will not improve.[99]
Global2041–2060
2061–2080
Potato: Expansion of Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) into northern regions is projected.[100]
Africa2041–2060Multiple crops: Habitat suitability for oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis), mango fruit fly (Ceratitis cosyra), and tomato leafminer (Tuta absoluta) is projected to partially increase across the continent.[61]
Luxembourg2021–2050, 2069–2098Oilseed rape: Pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus) is projected to invade crops earlier in the year.[101]
Scandinavia and central parts of Europe2011–2040, 2071–2100Forest trees, spruce: Increased frequency and length of late-summer swarming events of the European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) are projected. A second generation in southern Scandinavia is possible and a third generation in the lowlands of central Europe. [102]
Switzerland2070–2099Multiple crops: Brown marmorated stinkbug (Halyomorpha halys), which has a wide range of potential hosts, is projected to expand into higher altitudes, produce more generations per year, and be active earlier in spring.[103]
United States of America, Midwest2001–2050, 2051–2100Corn and soybean: The pressure of nine different insect pests is projected to increase in general. Insect pests will move northward, because “optimal climatic conditions” will be further north. [104]
Pathogens (diseases)
Global2050, 2100Bean: The area favorable for soybean rust (caused by Phakopsora pachyrhizi) is projected to decrease.[105]
Brazil2011–2040, 2041–2070, 2071–2100Grapevine: The area favorable for downy mildew (caused by Plasmopara viticola) is projected to decrease across Brazil, although there are differences across regions or states.[26]
Canada, Quebec2041–2070Soybean: The number of generations of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) is projected to increase. [106]
China, central2030s, 2050s, 2070s, 2080sKiwi: The area favorable for bacterial canker (caused by Pseudomonas syringae) is projected to increase.[107]
Europe2070Pine trees: Pine wilt disease risk (caused by the pine wilt nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) is projected to increase.[108]
France2020–2049, 2070–2099Wheat: Risk of leaf rust (caused by Puccinia triticina) is projected to increase in spring time.[62]
France2020–2049, 2070–2099Apricot: Risk of blossom blight and twig blight (caused by Monilinia laxa) is projected to decrease or increase, depending on the cultivar grown (early vs late flowering).[36]
Germany, south-west2050, 2100Sugar beet: Risk of Cercospora leaf spot (caused by Cercospora beticola) is projected to increase.[109]
India2010–2039, 2040–2069Rice: Infection ability of leaf blight (caused by Magnaporthe oryzae) is projected to increase during the winter season (December to March), whereas during the monsoon season (July to October), it is projected to remain unchanged or to decrease slightly.[110]
Italy2030, 2050, 2080Grapevine: Increased importance of downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola), due to more spring days with favorable conditions, with earlier attacks and more treatments needed. [111]
Philippines2050Banana: The area favorable for Fusarium wilt (caused by Fusarium oxysporum) is projected to increase.[112]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gullino, M.L.; Albajes, R.; Al-Jboory, I.; Angelotti, F.; Chakraborty, S.; Garrett, K.A.; Hurley, B.P.; Juroszek, P.; Lopian, R.; Makkouk, K.; et al. Climate Change and Pathways Used by Pests as Challenges to Plant Health in Agriculture and Forestry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12421. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912421

AMA Style

Gullino ML, Albajes R, Al-Jboory I, Angelotti F, Chakraborty S, Garrett KA, Hurley BP, Juroszek P, Lopian R, Makkouk K, et al. Climate Change and Pathways Used by Pests as Challenges to Plant Health in Agriculture and Forestry. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12421. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912421

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gullino, Maria Lodovica, Ramon Albajes, Ibrahim Al-Jboory, Francislene Angelotti, Subrata Chakraborty, Karen A. Garrett, Brett Phillip Hurley, Peter Juroszek, Ralf Lopian, Khaled Makkouk, and et al. 2022. "Climate Change and Pathways Used by Pests as Challenges to Plant Health in Agriculture and Forestry" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12421. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912421

APA Style

Gullino, M. L., Albajes, R., Al-Jboory, I., Angelotti, F., Chakraborty, S., Garrett, K. A., Hurley, B. P., Juroszek, P., Lopian, R., Makkouk, K., Pan, X., Pugliese, M., & Stephenson, T. (2022). Climate Change and Pathways Used by Pests as Challenges to Plant Health in Agriculture and Forestry. Sustainability, 14(19), 12421. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912421

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