These data were extracted from 55 studies across 20 countries to conduct a meta-analysis that quantifies the benefits and limitations of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in apple systems. Each study was assigned a number (Column A). The first author (Column B), year of publication (Column C), journal name (Column D), the title (Column E) and location of the study (Column F) was recorded.

Data were categorised into five variables (Column G) and specific metrics (Column H), sub-metrics (Column I) and units of measurement (Column J) associated with the variables were recorded.

The common or scientific name (type; Column K, species; Column L) of the insect or plant disease was recorded. The Order (Column M), Family (Column N) and feeding guild (i.e. feeding strategy; Column O) of crop pest and ecologically-beneficial insects was recorded.

The level of IPM was scaled for each study according to the level of IPM adoption (based on the presence of four facets of IPM; cultural [C], biological [B], mechanical [M] and reduced/alternative chemical pesticides [P]. As such, the conventional or control treatment [Column P], the IPM treatment (Column R) and organic treatment (Column U) was assigned a score (Column Q, S and V, respectively). The difference between conventional and IPM production (Column T) and conventional and organic production (Column W) was calculated.

The source of data extraction within the study was recorded (Column X). The number of replicates (Columns Y, Z and AA), mean values (Columns AB, AC and AD) and standard deviations were extracted for conventional, IPM and organic systems, respectively. These were recorded for the five variables, where data were available.