Can synthetic pesticides be replaced with biologically-based alternatives?—an industry perspective

Agricultural chemical companies have invested in the discovery and development of biological pesticides to complement synthetic pesticides for the control of insects, diseases, and weeds on agronomic and horticultural crops. For plant disease control, companies envisage biological fungicides entering markets where they have the best chance of performing and which are most receptive to using biological control methods. Fewer regulatory requirements can mean faster registration for a biological than a synthetic pesticide. However, industry’s requirements for competitive performance, effective formulations, and economic production can mean significant investments in time and money for a biological pesticide, although total investment may be less than for a synthetic pesticide. One biocontrol project in which industry has invested is baculoviruses for insect control. Insect baculoviruses, genetically modified to kill insects faster than wild-type viruses, are attractive biocontrol agents because their selectivity to insect pests and safety to beneficial insects and mammals enable them to compete with synthetic insecticides. Industry is looking for similar biocontrol opportunities in disease control. Biocontrol agents for seedling disease, root rot, and postharvest disease control have been registered by the EPA and are trying to compete with synthetic fungicides for market share. To date, effective biocontrol agents have not been identified for the control of serious foliar diseases, such as grape downy mildew, potato late blight, wheat powdery mildew, and apple scab. Farmers must rely on synthetic fungicides and agronomic methods to control these diseases for the foreseeable future. Received 06 February 1997/ Accepted in revised form 01 June 1997     

PROSPECTS FOR THE CLASSICAL BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF MAJOR INSECT PESTS AND WEEDS IN SOUTHERN CHINA

Abstract  This paper deals with the prospects for the classical biological control of major insect pests and weeds in southern China. One hundred and seventy-four species of insect pests in southern China are nominated and their broad distribution and origin or possibly origin in other countries are discussed. An attempt is made to draw together information relevant to where a search might be made for natural enemies if an arthropod pest is being considered as the target for classical biological control. The success of classical biological control of the six insect pests and five weeds elsewhere in the world has been indicated. It is recommended to take urgent measures to strengthen and expand projects in classical biological control in China.     

中国南方主要害虫和杂草传统生物防治的前景(英文)

中国很重视害虫生物防治,但与欧美国家相比,对更经济有效的传统生物防治重视较少。对那些源于外国、特别是最近从国外侵入的害虫来说,传统生物防治更是一本万利。本文列举了174种中国南方的有害节肢动物及它们在外国的分布和可能的发源地。还举出了分布于中国南方的6种害虫及5种杂草在外国传统生防成功的情况。     

Avoiding conflicts between insect and weed biological control: selection of non-target species to assess host specificity of cabbage seedpod weevil parasitoids

Abstract:  Classical biological control of insect pests and weeds may lead to potential conflicts, where insect pests are closely related to weed biological control agents. Such a conflict may occur in the classical biological control of the cabbage seedpod weevil, Ceutorhynchus obstrictus (Marsham) in North America, which belongs to the same subfamily, Ceutorhynchinae, as a number of agents introduced or proposed for introduction against non-indigenous invasive weed species. We propose a step-by-step procedure to select non-target species and thereby to develop a non-target species test list for screening candidate entomophagous biological control agents of a herbivore pest insect in a way that would simultaneously evaluate non-target potential on weed biological control agents and other non-target species. Using these recommendations, we developed a non-target test list for host specificity evaluations in the area of origin (Europe) and the area of introduction (North America) for cabbage seedpod weevil parasitoids. Scientifically based predictions on expected host–parasitoid interactions and ecological information about the ecological host range in the area of origin can help avoid conflicts, while still allowing the introduction of safe and effective agents against both insect pests and weeds.     

Rearing beneficial insects for biological control purposes in resource poor areas of africa

Biological control of insect pest and weeds using beneficial insects in resource poor areas is not very well supported. Poor funding has affected in particular the importation of classical biological control agents, quarantine, rearing, research facilities, and the research programmes. Donor agencies, commercial and semi-commercial enterprises in a number of African countries have, however, been able to contribute to biological control efforts using beneficial insects by providing some of the resources needed. This has led to biological control becoming a real possibility to control insect pests and weeds in several resource poor countries. Examples are provided of the “spin-offs” of such programmes for resource poor areas in South Africa, Zambia, Kenya, Malawi, Benin and Nigeria. Conventional insect rearing, insect conservation and habitat management as an aid to biological control programmes are discussed.     

Biological Control not on Target

Non-target effects of exotic biological control agents, parasitoids and predators, released worldwide to control insect pests, are becoming more apparent. This paper summarizes previously recorded information on the diet breadth of natural enemies released to control insect pests worldwide. It also summarizes the diet breadth of native parasitic hymenoptera in North America to determine whether the diet breadths of native and exotic parasitoids differ. Of released biocontrol agents, 48% were recorded as generalists (attacking more than one genus of host) and another 29.2% attacked more than one species in a genus. Only 22.5% were recorded as specialists on the target pests. This suggests that many natural enemies released in biocontrol programs against insect pests have broad diets and that non-target effects are likely. Data from native hymenoptera in North America also show that many species attack multiple host genera and species, with an average of 5.8 genera and 7.3 species attacked, indicating broad agreement with data from biological control releases.     

Success and safety in the biological control of environmental weeds in New Zealand

Biological control, using specialist insect herbivores and plant pathogens, can be a self‐sustaining, cost‐effective and low‐risk tool for the management of environmental weeds. Agents have been recorded attacking non‐target plants in New Zealand and elsewhere, but the effects are usually minor and/or transitory. It seems probable that only two cases, worldwide, will result in significant damage to non‐target plants (representing 0.5% of the nearly 400 insect, mite, or fungal species used in classical weed biocontrol). Both of these cases were predictable from host range testing. Negative indirect, or ‘downstream’, ecological effects from specific weed biocontrol agents are difficult to predict and measure. They are probably insignificant compared to the impacts of the invasive plants that the agents are introduced to control. However, it is necessary to balance the risks associated with any introduction against the environmental benefits from controlling a weed to a predicted level. Recent analyses suggest that success rates are better than generally perceived. For New Zealand programmes, where enough time has lapsed to allow assessment, we calculate a full/partial success rate of 83%. Many of the costs associated with environmental weeds are difficult to quantify. Detailed risk assessment will make biological control programmes more expensive and time‐consuming, so that reliance on non‐biological management methods for environmental weeds may actually increase. The costs of biocontrol programmes against some New Zealand weeds can be kept down by using research already carried out in Australia and other countries, and the process is reciprocal. Developing international consortia of sponsors is also a potential way to fund programmes against weeds shared by several countries.     

Can biological control benefit from genetically‐modified crops? Tritrophic interactions on insect‐resistant transgenic plants

Abstract. The use of recombinant DNA technology to develop genetically‐modified crops is considered as a major breakthrough for agriculture by many scientists. However, some scientists, and an even larger proportion of the general public, are sceptical about the advantages and are even more concerned about the potential risk of this new technology. To evaluate this novel technology, cost‐benefit analyses are needed in which the real risks are measured and judged against the benefits. A tiered risk assessment scheme is described herein. This allows comparisons to be made with other insect‐control technologies (e.g. insecticides) and risks to be determined, rather than only hazards being identified. Recombinant DNA technology could allow plants to be designed that are well suited for use alongside biological control programmes. Unfortunately, plant breeders have continued to attempt to breed for total resistance, and biocontrol specialists have ignored the role of the plant in ensuring successful foraging behaviour by insect natural enemies. Although some scientists have highlighted the need to consider both the bottom‐up (plant defence) and top‐down (biocontrol) control of insect pests, there have been few serious attempts to combine these approaches. As more is understood about the proximate and ultimate causes of direct and indirect defences, the potential exists for engineering plants that combine both strategies. This new possibility for controlling insect pests, which will combine both ‘nature’s' own defences with man's ingenuity, may stack the odds in our favour in the continual struggle against insect pests.     

Integration of Herbicides with Arthropod Biocontrol Agents for Weed Control

Classical biological control of weeds using arthropods is being attempted on a large scale in a number of countries, sometimes with spectacularly successful outcomes. However, in many cases biocontrol is not completely effective and use of herbicides on weeds continues to occur, either in the presence of biocontrol agents or as an alternative to them. The ways in which the two techniques may interact are discussed, including direct toxicity of herbicides to biocontrol agents, responses to death of host plants and responses to sublethal changes caused by herbicides with different modes of action. A literature review for selected weed taxa showed that the great majority of publications relate to either chemical or to biological control techniques separately, with integration of the two seldom addressed. Possible reasons for this situation are discussed and some suggestions for future priorities are made.     

Biological control of weeds: an analysis of introductions,rates of establishment and estimates of success,worldwide

The foremost document that comprehensively reports on biological control introductions against weeds—‘Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds’—has been updated and now includes all deliberate releases made through 2012. It includes data on 1555 intentional releases of 468 biological control agent species used against 175 species of target weeds in 48 plant families, in 90 countries. For 55 (31.4%) of the target weed species, only one biocontrol agent was introduced. The largest number of agent species (44) was introduced for the biological control of Lantana camara (Verbenaceae). Three insect orders (Coleoptera, Lepidoptera and Diptera) comprised about 80% of all biocontrol agent species released and releases made. Of the 468 biocontrol agent species introduced, 332 (70.9%) established in at least one instance. Of the 313 species, for which impact could be categorized, 172 (55.0%) caused medium, variable or heavy levels of damage (impacts). Of all releases made through 2012, 982 (63.2%) led to establishment. Forty-two releases were judged too early post-release to categorize impact, leaving 940 releases for which impact analyses were conducted. Similar to agent species, approximately half of the established releases (503 or 53.5%) caused medium, variable or heavy levels of damage on the target weeds, and almost a quarter of releases (225 or 23.9%) caused heavy impact. Across all countries and regions, 65.7% of the weeds targeted for biological control experienced some level of control. These data indicate the value of this practice, on its own, or as a supplement to other methods, in the management of invasive plants.     

Biological control of fungal plant diseases

Research has demonstrated the agricultural potential of biological control. For airborne pathogens as well as for soilborne pathogens similar strategies based on different targets in the life cycle of the pathogen can be distinguished, viz. (1) microbial protection of the host against infection, (2) microbial reduction of pathogen sporulation and (3) microbial interference with pathogen survival. Some successes and failures with respect to these targets will be discussed and include (1) biocontrol of seedling diseases, root pathogens, and post-harvest diseases (2) biocontrol of powdery mildew and Botrytis cinerea (3) biocontrol of sclerotial pathogens. Despite of a lot of research on biological control of plant diseases, the number of products available is limited and their market size is marginal. The market for biological control products is not only determined by agricultural aspects such as the number of diseases controlled by one biocontrol product in different crops but also by economic aspects as cost-effective mass production, easy registration and the availability of competing means of control including fungicides. The future development of low-chemical input sustainable agriculture and organic farming will determine the eventual role of biological control in agriculture.     

Safety of Microorganisms Intended for Pest and Plant Disease Control: A Framework for Scientific Evaluation

Microorganisms are enormous but largely untapped natural resources for biological control of pests and diseases. There are two primary reasons for their underployment for pest or disease control: (1) the technical difficulties of using microorganisms for biological control, owing to a lack of fundamental information on them and their ecology, and (2) the costs of product development and regulatory approvals required for each strain, formulation, and use. Agriculture and forestry benefit greatly from the resident communities of microorganisms responsible for naturally occurring biological control of pest species, but additional benefits are achieved by introducing/applying them when or where needed. This can be done as (1) an inoculative release, (2) an augmentative application, or (3) an inundative application. Because of their specificity, different microbial biocontrol agents typically are needed to control different pests or the same pest in different environments. Four potential adverse effects are identified as safety issues (hazards) associated with the use of microorganisms for the biological control of plant pests and diseases. These are: (1) displacement of nontarget microorganisms, (2) allergenicity to humans and other animals, (3) toxigenicity to nontarget organisms, and (4) pathogenicity to nontarget organisms. Except for allergenicity, these are the same attributes that contribute to the efficacy of microbial biocontrol agents toward the target pest species. The probability of occurrence of a particular adverse nontarget effect of a microbial biocontrol agent may be a function of geographic origin or a specific trait genetically added or modified, but the safety issues are the still the same, including whether the microorganism intended for pest or disease control is indigenous, nonindigenous (imported and released), or genetically modified by traditional or recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology. Likewise, the probability of occurrence of a particular adverse nontarget effect may vary with method of application, e.g., whether as an aerosol, soil treatment, baits, or seed treatment, and may increase with increased scale of use, but the safety issues are still the same, including whether the microorganism is used for an inoculative release or augmentative or inundative application. Existing practices for managing microorganisms in the environment (e.g., plant pathogens,Rhizobium,plant inoculants) provide experience and options for managing the risks of microorganisms applied for pest and disease control. Moreover, experience to date indicates that any adverse nontarget effects, should they occur, are likely to be short-term or transitory effects that can, if significant, be eliminated by terminating use of the microbial biocontrol agent. In contrast, production agriculture as currently practiced, such as the use of tillage and crop rotations, has significant and long-term effects on nontarget organisms, including the intentional and unintentional displacement of microorganisms. Even the decision to leave plant pests and diseases unmanaged could have significant long-term environmental effects on nontarget organisms. Potential safety issues associated with the use of microbial biocontrol must therefore be properly identified and compared with the impact of other options for managing the pest or leaving the pest unmanaged. This paper provides a scientific framework for this process.     

Exotic wildland weeds serve as reservoirs for a newly introduced cole crop pest,Bagrada hilaris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)

The role of wildland weeds that serve as alternate hosts for insect pests has not been directly examined for the potential to sustain pest populations or facilitate pest outbreaks. The development of weed biological control programmes is also complicated by weed species that are closely related to economically important or native plants, especially rare or special status species. In recent surveys in southern California, USA, we found a newly introduced insect pest of cole crops, Bagrada hilaris Burmeister (Bagrada bug), feeding on Brassicaceae weeds in riparian areas adjacent to agricultural fields where cole crops are routinely grown. Insect populations grew to levels well over action thresholds and caused severe damage to populations of the invasive weed, Lepidium latifolium (perennial pepperweed). The numerical response of B. hilaris on L. latifolium and other Brassicaceae weeds in natural areas may pose a significant challenge to effectively managing pest populations in crops. However, the accidental introduction of this insect provides the opportunity to examine plant–insect interactions with important implications for development of biologically based control methods for weeds.     

Constraints in weed biological control: contrasting responses by implementing nations

The compilation of papers in this Special Issue (SI) derives from a Symposium at the 25th International Congress of Entomology, in 2016, entitled “Rise or demise? A global outlook on the future of classical biological weed control”. In the SI-opening-paper, a summary of the 5th edition of the world catalogue of weed biocontrol agents and their target weeds provides a comprehensive international perspective. Weed biocontrol implementation is beleaguered by perceptions of risk and restrictive regulatory procedures, notably in the USA, and less so in Canada. Thus, most of the papers in this SI comprise accounts of innovative responses to these challenges from scientists in the USA. Political and funding issues have inhibited weed biocontrol in Australia over the past decade, but there appears to be a gradual reversal of this trend in recent years. In contrast, in New Zealand and in South Africa, the practice is flourishing, and there are significant recent initiatives in Europe. Overall, the contributions in the SI suggest an optimistic prognosis for weed biological control.     

Perspectives of non-phytoseiid predators for the biological control of plant pests

Non-phytoseiid mites of potential importance in the biocontrol of plant pests include a dozen families. The host plant constitutes the universe in which pests and predators interact; thus plant growth pattern, leaf structure and various available nutrients may affect the control potential of the mites. The role of infochemicals in prey finding by non-phytoseiids probably differs among the various families. Prey size may be important in control success when predaceous mites feed on insect pests. Interactions between phytoseiids and members of other families may hinder or complement pest control. Little is known of the effects of plant-protection chemicals on non-phytoseiid predators, but they appear to be quite variable. Current research onHemisarcoptes, a parasite of armored scale insects, is reviewed, including a successful introduction into New Zealand. Active mite slicing into host shields and deutonymph interactions with its vector-beetle are important aspects of the predator's effectiveness. Further research should include: collecting (with emphasis on the tropics and subtropics), describing and testing additional mite species against more pests; assaying pesticide effects; studying interactions between predators of different families, especially on uncultivated plants; and trying more predaceous mites against nematodes, plant diseases and weeds.     

The applicability of the plant vigor and resource regulation hypotheses in explaining Epiblema gall moth–Parthenium weed interactions

A basic question in insect–plant interactions is whether the insects respond to, or regulate plant traits, or a complex mixture of the two. The relative importance of the directions of the influence in insect–plant interactions has therefore been articulated through both the plant vigor hypothesis (PVH) and the resource regulation hypothesis (RRH). This study tested the applicability of these hypotheses in explaining the interactions between Parthenium hysterophorus L. (Asteraceae) and its stem‐galling moth, Epiblema strenuana Walker (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Parthenium plants exposed to galling were sampled at three sites in north Queensland, Australia, over a 2‐year period, and the relationship between gall abundance and plant vigor (plant height, biomass, flowers per plant, and branches per plant) was studied. To test the predictions of PVH and RRH, the vigor of parthenium plants protected from galling using insecticides was compared to galled plants and plants that escaped from galling. The vigor of ungalled plants was less than the vigor of galled plants. The higher plant vigor in galled plants was not due to galling, as was evident from insecticide exclusion trials. The insect seemed to preferentially gall the more vigorous plants. These findings support the predictions of the PVH and are contrary to those of RRH. Since gall abundance is linked to plant vigor, galling may have only a limited impact on the vigor of parthenium. This has implications for weed biological control. If the objective of biological control is to regulate the population of a plant by a galling insect, a preference for more vigorous plants by the insect is likely to limit its ability to regulate plant populations. This may explain the paucity of successes against biocontrol of annual weeds using gall insects.     

Commercialisation of entomopathogenic nematodes: should import regulations be revised?

Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) in the families Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae are obligate insect pathogens. Their favourable characteristics as biocontrol agents have resulted in some species of EPNs being released globally and widely used for the control of diverse insect pests. In this review, we consider the occurrence of currently described EPN species, including those that have been released globally for commercial purposes. We also discuss the contribution of regulation policies to the global distribution of these species and issues that influence import regulations. Possible non-target effects, the use of commercial versus native EPNs and the possible interaction between these species are considered. Finally, we provide a view as to whether existing policies adequately deal with the risks associated with the global movement of EPNs and we suggest future directions that should be considered for the use of EPNs as biological control agents.     

Biological control of arthropod pests in citrus orchards in China

China has a very long history of biological control in citrus. Hundreds years ago, predatory ants (Oecophylla smaragdina Fabricius) were used to manage pests by Chinese citrus growers. Considerable effort has been placed on the use of biological control in citrus plant landscapes during last three decades. Many scientific studies have now been published, and some additional implementations have already working. In this paper, we review the research, development and application of biological control of citrus insect pests in China. In addition, the importance of biological control for the future control of citrus insect pests is also discussed.     

Entomopathogenic Nematodes for Control of Insect Pests Above and Below Ground with Comments on Commercial Production

Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) have been utilized in classical, conservation, and augmentative biological control programs. The vast majority of applied research has focused on their potential as inundatively applied augmentative biological control agents. Extensive research over the past three decades has demonstrated both their successes and failures for control of insect pests of crops, ornamental plants, trees and lawn and turf. In this paper we present highlights of their development for control of insect pests above and below ground. The target insects include those from foliar, soil surface, cryptic and subterranean habitats. Advances in mass-production and formulation technology of EPNs, the discovery of numerous efficacious isolates/strains, and the desirability of reducing pesticide usage have resulted in a surge of commercial use and development of EPNs. Commercially produced EPNs are currently in use for control of scarab larvae in lawns and turf, fungus gnats in mushroom production, invasive mole crickets in lawn and turf, black vine weevil in nursery plants, and Diaprepes root weevil in citrus in addition to other pest insects. However, demonstrated successful control of several other insects, often has not lead to capture of a significant share of the pesticide market for these pests.