Paper · 2026 · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment

Short-term ecological and economic performance of transitioning from conventional practices to organic pest management in cotton-based cropping systems

Dètondji Lucien Tomagnankodo; Anicet Gbèblonoudo Dassou; Pierrot Lionel Yemadje; et al.

15
claims
26
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Conventional cotton cultivation relies heavily on synthetic inputs, driving environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, serious human health impacts, and widespread pest resistance. Transitioning to organic systems integrating agroecological practices offers a promising pathway toward more sustainable production. This study assessed short-term pest management performance and economic viability of five cotton-based management systems during the first year of conversion in Benin, West Africa: a conventional farmer-practice system and four systems transitioning from conventional to organic production combining sole-cotton cropping or cotton-soybean intercropping, with or without biopesticide applications. Across sites, pest species composition and abundance varied markedly, yet plant injury metrics showed consistent patterns: pesticide use (synthetic or biopesticides) reduced crop damage and increased the proportion of healthy cotton. In central Benin, where bollworm pressure was lower, biopesticide-treated intercrops reduced key bollworms ( Earias spp. and endocarpics) but increased the sucking pest Bemisia tabaci , while in northern Benin conventional systems reduced Earias spp. and Diparopsis watersi but slightly increased B. tabaci . Transition-to-organic systems generally supported higher abundances of natural enemies than conventional ones, although diversification effects were site-dependent. Biopesticides did not suppress predator communities, indicating their potential to sustain pest regulation without disrupting ecological functions. Despite lower cotton yields, intercropping improved overall profitability relative to sole-crops in transition to organic and, in several cases, performed similarly to or better than conventional cotton, mainly due to additional soybean production. These findings demonstrate that biopesticide-treated cotton-soybean intercropping can enhance pest regulation and farm profitability during the first year of transition to organic cotton in West Africa. • Biopesticides reduced cotton pest injury in transition-to-organic systems. • Transition-to-organic systems supported more natural enemies than conventional. • Transition intercrops increased profitability relative to transition sole crops. • Soybean income enabled intercrops to match or exceed conventional profitability. • Cotton–soybean intercrops offer a viable entry point for early organic transition.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pesticide use reduced crop damage in cotton

Treatment
pesticide usee1
Outcome
crop damagee1
Direction
reducede1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“pesticide use (synthetic or biopesticides) reduced crop damage and increased the proportion of healthy cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 837–946 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pesticide use increased the proportion of healthy cotton

Treatment
pesticide usee1
Outcome
proportion of healthy cottone1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“pesticide use (synthetic or biopesticides) reduced crop damage and increased the proportion of healthy cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 837–946 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pest species composition and abundance in cotton varied markedly across sites

Outcome
pest species composition and abundancee0
Qualifier
varied markedlye0
Setting
Across sitese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e0

“Across sites, pest species composition and abundance varied markedly”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 714–782 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biopesticide-treated intercrops reduced key bollworms in cotton in central Benin

Treatment
biopesticide-treated intercropse2
Interactor
Earias spp. and endocarpicse2pest
Outcome
key bollwormse2
Direction
reducede2
Qualifier
where bollworm pressure was lowere2
Setting
central Benine2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e2

“In central Benin, where bollworm pressure was lower, biopesticide-treated intercrops reduced key bollworms ( Earias spp. and endocarpics)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 948–1085 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biopesticide-treated intercrops increased the sucking pest Bemisia tabaci in cotton in central Benin

Treatment
biopesticide-treated intercropse2
Interactor
Bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacie3pest
Outcome
sucking pest Bemisia tabacie3
Direction
increasede3
Setting
central Benine2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e2

“In central Benin, where bollworm pressure was lower, biopesticide-treated intercrops reduced key bollworms ( Earias spp. and endocarpics)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 948–1085 · show in text ↑
e3

“but increased the sucking pest Bemisia tabaci”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1086–1131 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional systems reduced Earias spp. in cotton in northern Benin

Treatment
conventional systemse4
Interactor
Earias spp.Eariase4pest
Outcome
Earias spp.e4
Direction
reducede4
Setting
northern Benine4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Earias
Earias · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryKyu3a · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e4

“in northern Benin conventional systems reduced Earias spp. and Diparopsis watersi but slightly increased B. tabaci”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1140–1254 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional systems reduced Diparopsis watersi in cotton in northern Benin

Treatment
conventional systemse4
Interactor
Diparopsis watersie4pest
Outcome
Diparopsis watersie4
Direction
reducede4
Setting
northern Benine4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e4

“in northern Benin conventional systems reduced Earias spp. and Diparopsis watersi but slightly increased B. tabaci”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1140–1254 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional systems slightly increased Bemisia tabaci in cotton in northern Benin

Treatment
conventional systemse4
Interactor
B. tabaciBemisia tabacie4pest
Outcome
B. tabacie4
Direction
slightly increasede4
Setting
northern Benine4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e4

“in northern Benin conventional systems reduced Earias spp. and Diparopsis watersi but slightly increased B. tabaci”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1140–1254 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Transition-to-organic systems supported higher abundances of natural enemies than conventional systems in cotton

Treatment
Transition-to-organic systemse5
Interactor
natural enemiese5biocontrol_agent
Outcome
abundances of natural enemiese5
Direction
highere5
Qualifier
generallye5
Comparator
conventional onese5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e5

“Transition-to-organic systems generally supported higher abundances of natural enemies than conventional ones, although diversification effects were site-dependent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1257–1420 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Diversification effects on pest and natural enemy communities in cotton were site-dependent

Outcome
diversification effectse5
Qualifier
site-dependente5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e5

“Transition-to-organic systems generally supported higher abundances of natural enemies than conventional ones, although diversification effects were site-dependent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1257–1420 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biopesticides did not suppress predator communities in cotton

Treatment
Biopesticidese6
Interactor
predator communitiese6biocontrol_agent
Outcome
predator communitiese6
Direction
did not suppresse6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e6

“Biopesticides did not suppress predator communities, indicating their potential to sustain pest regulation without disrupting ecological functions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1422–1568 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Biopesticides are suggested to sustain pest regulation in cotton without disrupting ecological functions

Outcome
sustain pest regulatione6
Qualifier
without disrupting ecological functionse6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in cotton-based cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–151 · show in text ↑
e6

“Biopesticides did not suppress predator communities, indicating their potential to sustain pest regulation without disrupting ecological functions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1422–1568 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping improved overall profitability relative to sole-crops in transition to organic cotton systems

Treatment
intercroppinge7
Outcome
overall profitabilitye7
Direction
improvede7
Qualifier
mainly due to additional soybean productione7
Comparator
sole-cropse7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e7

“Despite lower cotton yields, intercropping improved overall profitability relative to sole-crops in transition to organic and, in several cases, performed similarly to or better than conventional cotton, mainly due to additional soybean production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1570–1817 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton yields were lower under intercropping in the transition to organic systems

Treatment
intercroppinge7
Outcome
cotton yieldse7
Direction
lowere7

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e7

“Despite lower cotton yields, intercropping improved overall profitability relative to sole-crops in transition to organic and, in several cases, performed similarly to or better than conventional cotton, mainly due to additional soybean production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1570–1817 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In several cases, intercropping in transition to organic cotton performed similarly to or better than conventional cotton in profitability

Treatment
intercroppinge7
Outcome
profitabilitye7
Direction
performed similarly to or better thane7
Qualifier
in several casese7
Comparator
conventional cottone7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e7

“Despite lower cotton yields, intercropping improved overall profitability relative to sole-crops in transition to organic and, in several cases, performed similarly to or better than conventional cotton, mainly due to additional soybean production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1570–1817 · show in text ↑

insecticide · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

76 papers: 51 positive, 25 negative or no effect

50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

72 papers more in this group

See all 76 papers →

intercropping · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

104 papers: 85 positive, 19 negative or no effect

84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

100 papers more in this group

See all 104 papers →

biocontrol · ecology: diversity · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

biocontrol · Bemisia tabaci · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

intercropping · Bemisia tabaci · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

insecticide · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 8 positive, 4 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.