Hubbry Logo
Biological pest controlBiological pest controlMain
Open search
Biological pest control
Community hub
Biological pest control
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Biological pest control
Biological pest control
from Wikipedia

Syrphus hoverfly larva (below) feed on aphids (above), making them natural biological control agents.
A parasitoid wasp (Cotesia congregata) adult with pupal cocoons on its host, a tobacco hornworm (Manduca sexta, green background), an example of a hymenopteran biological control agent

Biological control or biocontrol is a method of controlling pests, whether pest animals such as insects and mites, weeds, or pathogens affecting animals or plants by using other organisms.[1] It relies on predation, parasitism, herbivory, or other natural mechanisms, but typically also involves an active human management role. It can be an important component of integrated pest management (IPM) programs.

There are three basic strategies for biological control: classical (importation), where a natural enemy of a pest is introduced in the hope of achieving control; inductive (augmentation), in which a large population of natural enemies are administered for quick pest control; and inoculative (conservation), in which measures are taken to maintain natural enemies through regular reestablishment.[2]

Natural enemies of insects play an important part in limiting the densities of potential pests. Biological control agents such as these include predators, parasitoids, pathogens, and competitors. Biological control agents of plant diseases are most often referred to as antagonists. Biological control agents of weeds include seed predators, herbivores, and plant pathogens.

Biological control can have side-effects on biodiversity through attacks on non-target species by any of the above mechanisms, especially when a species is introduced without a thorough understanding of the possible consequences.

History

[edit]

The term "biological control" was first used by Harry Scott Smith at the 1919 meeting of the Pacific Slope Branch of the American Association of Economic Entomologists, in Riverside, California.[3] It was brought into more widespread use by the entomologist Paul H. DeBach (1914–1993) who worked on citrus crop pests throughout his life.[4][5] However, the practice has previously been used for centuries. The first report of the use of an insect species to control an insect pest comes from "Nanfang Caomu Zhuang" (南方草木狀 Plants of the Southern Regions) (c. 304 AD), attributed to Western Jin dynasty botanist Ji Han (嵇含, 263–307), in which it is mentioned that "Jiaozhi people sell ants and their nests attached to twigs looking like thin cotton envelopes, the reddish-yellow ant being larger than normal. Without such ants, southern citrus fruits will be severely insect-damaged".[6] The ants used are known as huang gan (huang = yellow, gan = citrus) ants (Oecophylla smaragdina). The practice was later reported by Ling Biao Lu Yi (late Tang dynasty or Early Five Dynasties), in Ji Le Pian by Zhuang Jisu (Southern Song dynasty), in the Book of Tree Planting by Yu Zhen Mu (Ming dynasty), in the book Guangdong Xing Yu (17th century), Lingnan by Wu Zhen Fang (Qing dynasty), in Nanyue Miscellanies by Li Diao Yuan, and others.[6]

Biological control techniques as we know them today started to emerge in the 1870s. During this decade, in the US, the Missouri State Entomologist C. V. Riley and the Illinois State Entomologist W. LeBaron began within-state redistribution of parasitoids to control crop pests. The first international shipment of an insect as a biological control agent was made by Charles V. Riley in 1873, shipping to France the predatory mites Tyroglyphus phylloxera to help fight the grapevine phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) that was destroying grapevines in France. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiated research in classical biological control following the establishment of the Division of Entomology in 1881, with C. V. Riley as Chief. The first importation of a parasitoidal wasp into the United States was that of the braconid Cotesia glomerata in 1883–1884, imported from Europe to control the invasive cabbage white butterfly, Pieris rapae. In 1888–1889 the vedalia beetle, Novius cardinalis, a lady beetle, was introduced from Australia to California to control the cottony cushion scale, Icerya purchasi. This had become a major problem for the newly developed citrus industry in California, but by the end of 1889, the cottony cushion scale population had already declined. This great success led to further introductions of beneficial insects into the US.[7][8]

In 1905 the USDA initiated its first large-scale biological control program, sending entomologists to Europe and Japan to look for natural enemies of the spongy moth, Lymantria dispar dispar, and the brown-tail moth, Euproctis chrysorrhoea, invasive pests of trees and shrubs. As a result, nine parasitoids (solitary wasps) of the spongy moth, seven of the brown-tail moth, and two predators of both moths became established in the US. Although the spongy moth was not fully controlled by these natural enemies, the frequency, duration, and severity of its outbreaks were reduced and the program was regarded as successful. This program also led to the development of many concepts, principles, and procedures for the implementation of biological control programs.[7][8][9]

Cactoblastis cactorum larvae feeding on Opuntia prickly pear cacti

Prickly pear cacti were introduced into Queensland, Australia as ornamental plants, starting in 1788. They quickly spread to cover over 25 million hectares of Australia by 1920, increasing by 1 million hectares per year. Digging, burning, and crushing all proved ineffective. Two control agents were introduced to help control the spread of the plant, the cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum, and the scale insect Dactylopius. Between 1926 and 1931, tens of millions of cactus moth eggs were distributed around Queensland with great success, and by 1932, most areas of prickly pear had been destroyed.[10]

The first reported case of a classical biological control attempt in Canada involves the parasitoidal wasp Trichogramma minutum. Individuals were caught in New York State and released in Ontario gardens in 1882 by William Saunders, a trained chemist and first Director of the Dominion Experimental Farms, for controlling the invasive currantworm Nematus ribesii. Between 1884 and 1908, the first Dominion Entomologist, James Fletcher, continued introductions of other parasitoids and pathogens for the control of pests in Canada.[11]

Types of biological pest control

[edit]

There are three basic biological pest control strategies: importation (classical biological control), augmentation and conservation.[12]

Importation

[edit]
Rodolia cardinalis, the vedalia beetle, was imported from Australia to California in the 19th century, successfully controlling cottony cushion scale on orange trees.

Importation or classical biological control involves the introduction of a pest's natural enemies to a new locale where they do not occur naturally. Early instances were often unofficial and not based on research, and some introduced species became serious pests themselves.[13]

To be most effective at controlling a pest, a biological control agent requires a colonizing ability which allows it to keep pace with changes to the habitat in space and time. Control is greatest if the agent has temporal persistence so that it can maintain its population even in the temporary absence of the target species, and if it is an opportunistic forager, enabling it to rapidly exploit a pest population.[14]

One of the earliest successes was in controlling Icerya purchasi (cottony cushion scale) in Australia, using a predatory insect Rodolia cardinalis (the vedalia beetle). This success was repeated in California using the beetle and a parasitoidal fly, Cryptochaetum iceryae.[15] Other successful cases include the control of Antonina graminis in Texas by Neodusmetia sangwani in the 1960s.[16]

Damage from Hypera postica, the alfalfa weevil, a serious introduced pest of forage, was substantially reduced by the introduction of natural enemies. 20 years after their introduction the population of weevils in the alfalfa area treated for alfalfa weevil in the Northeastern United States remained 75 percent down.[17]

The invasive species Alternanthera philoxeroides (alligator weed) was controlled in Florida (U.S.) by introducing alligator weed flea beetle.

Alligator weed was introduced to the United States from South America. It takes root in shallow water, interfering with navigation, irrigation, and flood control. The alligator weed flea beetle and two other biological controls were released in Florida, greatly reducing the amount of land covered by the plant.[18] Another aquatic weed, the giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) is a serious pest, covering waterways, reducing water flow and harming native species. Control with the salvinia weevil (Cyrtobagous salviniae) and the salvinia stem-borer moth (Samea multiplicalis) is effective in warm climates,[19][20] and in Zimbabwe, a 99% control of the weed was obtained over a two-year period.[21]

Small, commercially-reared parasitoidal wasps,[12] Trichogramma ostriniae, provide limited and erratic control of the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis), a serious pest. Careful formulations of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis are more effective. The O. nubilalis integrated control releasing Tricogramma brassicae (egg parasitoid) and later Bacillus thuringiensis subs. kurstaki (larvicide effect) reduce pest damages more than insecticide treatments [22]

The population of Levuana iridescens, the Levuana moth, a serious coconut pest in Fiji, was brought under control by a classical biological control program in the 1920s.[23]

Augmentation

[edit]
Hippodamia convergens, the convergent lady beetle, is commonly sold for biological control of aphids.

Augmentation involves the supplemental release of natural enemies that occur in a particular area, boosting the naturally occurring populations there. In inoculative release, small numbers of the control agents are released at intervals to allow them to reproduce, in the hope of setting up longer-term control and thus keeping the pest down to a low level, constituting prevention rather than cure. In inundative release, in contrast, large numbers are released in the hope of rapidly reducing a damaging pest population, correcting a problem that has already arisen. Augmentation can be effective, but is not guaranteed to work, and depends on the precise details of the interactions between each pest and control agent.[24]

An example of inoculative release occurs in the horticultural production of several crops in greenhouses. Periodic releases of the parasitoidal wasp, Encarsia formosa, are used to control greenhouse whitefly,[25] while the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis is used for control of the two-spotted spider mite.[26]

The egg parasite Trichogramma is frequently released inundatively to control harmful moths. New way for inundative releases are now introduced i.e. use of drones. Egg parasitoids are able to find the eggs of the target host by means of several cues. Kairomones were found on moth scales. Similarly, Bacillus thuringiensis and other microbial insecticides are used in large enough quantities for a rapid effect.[24] Recommended release rates for Trichogramma in vegetable or field crops range from 5,000 to 200,000 per acre (1 to 50 per square metre) per week according to the level of pest infestation.[27] Similarly, nematodes that kill insects (that are entomopathogenic) are released at rates of millions and even billions per acre for control of certain soil-dwelling insect pests.[28]

Conservation

[edit]

The conservation of existing natural enemies in an environment is the third method of biological pest control.[29] Natural enemies are already adapted to the habitat and to the target pest, and their conservation can be simple and cost-effective, as when nectar-producing crop plants are grown in the borders of rice fields. These provide nectar to support parasitoids and predators of planthopper pests and have been demonstrated to be so effective (reducing pest densities by 10- or even 100-fold) that farmers sprayed 70% less insecticides and enjoyed yields boosted by 5%.[30] Predators of aphids were similarly found to be present in tussock grasses by field boundary hedges in England, but they spread too slowly to reach the centers of fields. Control was improved by planting a meter-wide strip of tussock grasses in field centers, enabling aphid predators to overwinter there.[29]

An inverted flowerpot filled with straw to attract earwigs

Cropping systems can be modified to favor natural enemies, a practice sometimes referred to as habitat manipulation. Providing a suitable habitat, such as a shelterbelt, hedgerow, or beetle bank where beneficial insects such as parasitoidal wasps can live and reproduce, can help ensure the survival of populations of natural enemies. Things as simple as leaving a layer of fallen leaves or mulch in place provides a suitable food source for worms and provides a shelter for insects, in turn being a food source for such beneficial mammals as hedgehogs and shrews. Compost piles and stacks of wood can provide shelter for invertebrates and small mammals. Long grass and ponds support amphibians. Not removing dead annuals and non-hardy plants in the autumn allow insects to make use of their hollow stems during winter.[31] In California, prune trees are sometimes planted in grape vineyards to provide an improved overwintering habitat or refuge for a key grape pest parasitoid.[32] The providing of artificial shelters in the form of wooden caskets, boxes or flowerpots is also sometimes undertaken, particularly in gardens, to make a cropped area more attractive to natural enemies. For example, earwigs are natural predators that can be encouraged in gardens by hanging upside-down flowerpots filled with straw or wood wool. Green lacewings can be encouraged by using plastic bottles with an open bottom and a roll of cardboard inside. Birdhouses enable insectivorous birds to nest; the most useful birds can be attracted by choosing an opening just large enough for the desired species.[31]

In cotton production, the replacement of broad-spectrum insecticides with selective control measures such as Bt cotton can create a more favorable environment for natural enemies of cotton pests due to reduced insecticide exposure risk. Such predators or parasitoids can control pests not affected by the Bt protein. Reduced prey quality and abundance associated with increased control from Bt cotton can also indirectly decrease natural enemy populations in some cases, but the percentage of pests eaten or parasitized in Bt and non-Bt cotton are often similar.[33]

Biological control agents

[edit]

Predators

[edit]
Predatory lacewings are available from biocontrol dealers.

Predators are mainly free-living species that directly consume a large number of prey during their whole lifetime. Given that many major crop pests are insects, many of the predators used in biological control are insectivorous species. Lady beetles, and in particular their larvae which are active between May and July in the northern hemisphere, are voracious predators of aphids, and also consume mites, scale insects and small caterpillars. The spotted lady beetle (Coleomegilla maculata) is also able to feed on the eggs and larvae of the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata).[34]

The larvae of many hoverfly species principally feed upon aphids, one larva devouring up to 400 in its lifetime. Their effectiveness in commercial crops has not been studied.[35]

The running crab spider Philodromus cespitum also prey heavily on aphids, and act as a biological control agent in European fruit orchards.[36]

Predatory Polistes wasp searching for bollworms or other caterpillars on a cotton plant

Several species of entomopathogenic nematode are important predators of insect and other invertebrate pests.[37][38] Entomopathogenic nematodes form a stress–resistant stage known as the infective juvenile. These spread in the soil and infect suitable insect hosts. Upon entering the insect they move to the hemolymph where they recover from their stagnated state of development and release their bacterial symbionts. The bacterial symbionts reproduce and release toxins, which then kill the host insect.[38][39] Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita is a microscopic nematode that kills slugs. Its complex life cycle includes a free-living, infective stage in the soil where it becomes associated with a pathogenic bacteria such as Moraxella osloensis. The nematode enters the slug through the posterior mantle region, thereafter feeding and reproducing inside, but it is the bacteria that kill the slug. The nematode is available commercially in Europe and is applied by watering onto moist soil.[40] Entomopathogenic nematodes have a limited shelf life because of their limited resistance to high temperature and dry conditions.[39] The type of soil they are applied to may also limit their effectiveness.[38]

Species used to control spider mites include the predatory mites Phytoseiulus persimilis,[41] Neoseilus californicus,[42] and Amblyseius cucumeris, the predatory midge Feltiella acarisuga,[42] and a ladybird Stethorus punctillum.[42] The bug Orius insidiosus has been successfully used against the two-spotted spider mite and the western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis).[43]

Predators including Cactoblastis cactorum (mentioned above) can also be used to destroy invasive plant species. As another example, the poison hemlock moth (Agonopterix alstroemeriana) can be used to control poison hemlock (Conium maculatum). During its larval stage, the moth strictly consumes its host plant, poison hemlock, and can exist at hundreds of larvae per individual host plant, destroying large swathes of the hemlock.[44]

The parasitoid wasp Aleiodes indiscretus parasitizing a spongy moth caterpillar, a serious pest of forestry[45]

For rodent pests, cats are effective biological control when used in conjunction with reduction of "harborage"/hiding locations.[46][47][48] While cats are effective at preventing rodent "population explosions", they are not effective for eliminating pre-existing severe infestations.[48] Barn owls are also sometimes used as biological rodent control.[49] Although there are no quantitative studies of the effectiveness of barn owls for this purpose,[50] they are known rodent predators that can be used in addition to or instead of cats;[51][52] they can be encouraged into an area with nest boxes.[53][54]

In Honduras, where the mosquito Aedes aegypti was transmitting dengue fever and other infectious diseases, biological control was attempted by a community action plan; copepods, baby turtles, and juvenile tilapia were added to the wells and tanks where the mosquito breeds and the mosquito larvae were eliminated.[55]

Even amongst arthropods usually thought of as obligate predators of animals (especially other arthropods), floral food sources (nectar and to a lesser degree pollen) are often useful adjunct sources.[56] It had been noticed in one study[57] that adult Adalia bipunctata (predator and common biocontrol of Ephestia kuehniella) could survive on flowers but never completed its life cycle, so a meta-analysis[56] was done to find such an overall trend in previously published data, if it existed. In some cases floral resources are outright necessary.[56] Overall, floral resources (and an imitation, i.e. sugar water) increase longevity and fecundity, meaning even predatory population numbers can depend on non-prey food abundance.[56] Thus biocontrol population maintenance – and success – may depend on nearby flowers.[56]

Parasitoids

[edit]

Parasitoids lay their eggs on or in the body of an insect host, which is then used as a food for developing larvae. The host is ultimately killed. Most insect parasitoids are wasps or flies, and many have a very narrow host range. The most important groups are the ichneumonid wasps, which mainly use caterpillars as hosts; braconid wasps, which attack caterpillars and a wide range of other insects including aphids; chalcidoid wasps, which parasitize eggs and larvae of many insect species; and tachinid flies, which parasitize a wide range of insects including caterpillars, beetle adults and larvae, and true bugs.[58] Parasitoids are most effective at reducing pest populations when their host organisms have limited refuges to hide from them.[59]

Encarsia formosa, widely used in greenhouse horticulture, was one of the first biological control agents developed.
Life cycles of greenhouse whitefly and its parasitoid wasp Encarsia formosa

Parasitoids are among the most widely used biological control agents. Commercially, there are two types of rearing systems: short-term daily output with high production of parasitoids per day, and long-term, low daily output systems.[60] In most instances, production will need to be matched with the appropriate release dates when susceptible host species at a suitable phase of development will be available.[61] Larger production facilities produce on a yearlong basis, whereas some facilities produce only seasonally. Rearing facilities are usually a significant distance from where the agents are to be used in the field, and transporting the parasitoids from the point of production to the point of use can pose problems.[62] Shipping conditions can be too hot, and even vibrations from planes or trucks can adversely affect parasitoids.[60]

Encarsia formosa is a small parasitoid wasp attacking whiteflies, sap-feeding insects which can cause wilting and black sooty moulds in glasshouse vegetable and ornamental crops. It is most effective when dealing with low level infestations, giving protection over a long period of time. The wasp lays its eggs in young whitefly 'scales', turning them black as the parasite larvae pupate.[25] Gonatocerus ashmeadi (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) has been introduced to control the glassy-winged sharpshooter Homalodisca vitripennis (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) in French Polynesia and has successfully controlled ~95% of the pest density.[63]

The eastern spruce budworm is an example of a destructive insect in fir and spruce forests. Birds are a natural form of biological control, but the Trichogramma minutum, a species of parasitic wasp, has been investigated as an alternative to more controversial chemical controls.[64]

There are a number of recent studies pursuing sustainable methods for controlling urban cockroaches using parasitic wasps.[65][66] Since most cockroaches remain in the sewer system and sheltered areas which are inaccessible to insecticides, employing active-hunter wasps is a strategy to try and reduce their populations.

Pathogens

[edit]

Pathogenic micro-organisms include bacteria, fungi, and viruses. They kill or debilitate their host and are relatively host-specific. Various microbial insect diseases occur naturally, but may also be used as biological pesticides.[67] When naturally occurring, these outbreaks are density-dependent in that they generally only occur as insect populations become denser.[68]

The use of pathogens against aquatic weeds was unknown until a groundbreaking 1972 proposal by Zettler and Freeman. Up to that point biocontrol of any kind had not been used against any water weeds. In their review of the possibilities, they noted the lack of interest and information thus far, and listed what was known of pests-of-pests – whether pathogens or not. They proposed that this should be relatively straightforward to apply in the same way as other biocontrols.[69] And indeed in the decades since, the same biocontrol methods that are routine on land have become common in the water.

Bacteria

[edit]

Bacteria used for biological control infect insects via their digestive tracts, so they offer only limited options for controlling insects with sucking mouth parts such as aphids and scale insects.[70] Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil-dwelling bacterium, is the most widely applied species of bacteria used for biological control, with at least four sub-species used against Lepidopteran (moth, butterfly), Coleopteran (beetle) and Dipteran (true fly) insect pests. The bacterium is available to organic farmers in sachets of dried spores which are mixed with water and sprayed onto vulnerable plants such as brassicas and fruit trees.[71][72] Genes from B. thuringiensis have also been incorporated into transgenic crops, making the plants express some of the bacterium's toxins, which are proteins. These confer resistance to insect pests and thus reduce the necessity for pesticide use.[73] If pests develop resistance to the toxins in these crops, B. thuringiensis will become useless in organic farming also.[74][72] The bacterium Paenibacillus popilliae which causes milky spore disease has been found useful in the control of Japanese beetle, killing the larvae. It is very specific to its host species and is harmless to vertebrates and other invertebrates.[75]

Bacillus spp.,[M 1] fluorescent Pseudomonads,[M 1] and Streptomycetes are controls of various fungal pathogens.[M 2]

Colombia mosquito control

[edit]

The largest-ever deployment of Wolbachia-infected A. aegypti mosquitoes reduced dengue incidence by 94–97% in the Colombian cities of Bello, Medellín, and Itagüí. The project was executed by non-profit World Mosquito Program (WMP). Wolbachia prevents mosquitos from transmitting viruses such as dengue and zika. The insects pass the bacteria on to their offspring. The project covered a combined area of 135 square kilometres (52 sq mi), home to 3.3 million people. Most of the project area reached the target of infecting 60% of local mosquitoes. The technique is not endorsed by WHO.[76]

Fungi

[edit]
Green peach aphid, a pest in its own right and a vector of plant viruses, killed by the fungus Pandora neoaphidis (Zygomycota: Entomophthorales) Scale bar = 0.3 mm.

Entomopathogenic fungi, which cause disease in insects, include at least 14 species that attack aphids.[77] Beauveria bassiana is mass-produced and used to manage a wide variety of insect pests including whiteflies, thrips, aphids and weevils.[78] Lecanicillium spp. are deployed against white flies, thrips and aphids. Metarhizium spp. are used against pests including beetles, locusts and other grasshoppers, Hemiptera, and spider mites. Paecilomyces fumosoroseus is effective against white flies, thrips and aphids; Purpureocillium lilacinus is used against root-knot nematodes, and 89 Trichoderma species against certain plant pathogens.[M 3] Trichoderma viride has been used against Dutch elm disease, and has shown some effect in suppressing silver leaf, a disease of stone fruits caused by the pathogenic fungus Chondrostereum purpureum.[79]

Pathogenic fungi may be controlled by other fungi, or bacteria or yeasts, such as: Gliocladium spp., mycoparasitic Pythium spp., binucleate types of Rhizoctonia spp., and Laetisaria spp.

The fungi Cordyceps and Metacordyceps are deployed against a wide spectrum of arthropods.[80] Entomophaga is effective against pests such as the green peach aphid.[81]

Several members of Chytridiomycota and Blastocladiomycota have been explored as agents of biological control.[82][83] From Chytridiomycota, Synchytrium solstitiale is being considered as a control agent of the yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) in the United States.[84]

Viruses

[edit]

Baculoviruses are specific to individual insect host species and have been shown to be useful in viral biological pest control. For example, the Lymantria dispar multicapsid nuclear polyhedrosis virus has been used to spray large areas of forest in North America where larvae of the spongy moth are causing serious defoliation. The moth larvae are killed by the virus they have eaten and die, the disintegrating cadavers leaving virus particles on the foliage to infect other larvae.[85]

A mammalian virus, the rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus was introduced to Australia to attempt to control the European rabbit populations there.[86] It escaped from quarantine and spread across the country, killing large numbers of rabbits. Very young animals survived, passing immunity to their offspring in due course and eventually producing a virus-resistant population.[87] Introduction into New Zealand in the 1990s was similarly successful at first, but a decade later, immunity had developed and populations had returned to pre-RHD levels.[88]

RNA mycoviruses are controls of various fungal pathogens.[M 2]

Oomycota

[edit]

Lagenidium giganteum is a water-borne mold that parasitizes the larval stage of mosquitoes. When applied to water, the motile spores avoid unsuitable host species and search out suitable mosquito larval hosts. This mold has the advantages of a dormant phase, resistant to desiccation, with slow-release characteristics over several years. Unfortunately, it is susceptible to many chemicals used in mosquito abatement programmes.[89]

Competitors

[edit]

The legume vine Mucuna pruriens is used in the countries of Benin and Vietnam as a biological control for problematic Imperata cylindrica grass: the vine is extremely vigorous and suppresses neighbouring plants by out-competing them for space and light. Mucuna pruriens is said not to be invasive outside its cultivated area.[90] Desmodium uncinatum can be used in push-pull farming to stop the parasitic plant, witchweed (Striga).[91]

The Australian bush fly, Musca vetustissima, is a major nuisance pest in Australia, but native decomposers found in Australia are not adapted to feeding on cow dung, which is where bush flies breed. Therefore, the Australian Dung Beetle Project (1965–1985), led by George Bornemissza of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, released forty-nine species of dung beetle, to reduce the amount of dung and therefore also the potential breeding sites of the fly.[92]

Combined use of parasitoids and pathogens

[edit]

In cases of massive and severe infection of invasive pests, techniques of pest control are often used in combination. An example is the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis, an invasive beetle from China, which has destroyed tens of millions of ash trees in its introduced range in North America. As part of the campaign against it, from 2003 American scientists and the Chinese Academy of Forestry searched for its natural enemies in the wild, leading to the discovery of several parasitoid wasps, namely Tetrastichus planipennisi, a gregarious larval endoparasitoid, Oobius agrili, a solitary, parthenogenic egg parasitoid, and Spathius agrili, a gregarious larval ectoparasitoid. These have been introduced and released into the United States of America as a possible biological control of the emerald ash borer. Initial results for Tetrastichus planipennisi have shown promise, and it is now being released along with Beauveria bassiana, a fungal pathogen with known insecticidal properties.[93][94][95]

Secondary plants

[edit]

In addition, biological pest control sometimes makes use of plant defenses to reduce crop damage by herbivores. Techniques include polyculture, the planting together of two or more species such as a primary crop and a secondary plant, which may also be a crop. This can allow the secondary plant's defensive chemicals to protect the crop planted with it.[96]

Target pests

[edit]

Fungal pests

[edit]

Botrytis cinerea on lettuce, by Fusarium spp. and Penicillium claviforme, on grape and strawberry by Trichoderma spp., on strawberry by Cladosporium herbarum, on Chinese cabbage by Bacillus brevis, and on various other crops by various yeasts and bacteria. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum by several fungal biocontrols. Fungal pod infection of snap bean by Trichoderma hamatum if before or concurrent with infection.[M 4] Cryphonectria parasitica, Gaeumannomyces graminis, Sclerotinia spp., and Ophiostoma novo-ulmi by viruses.[M 2] Various powdery mildews and rusts by various Bacillus spp. and fluorescent Pseudomonads.[M 1] Colletotrichum orbiculare will suppress further infection by itself if manipulated to produce plant-induced systemic resistance by infected the lowest leaf.[M 5]

Difficulties

[edit]

Many of the most important pests are exotic, invasive species that severely impact agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and urban environments. They tend to arrive without their co-evolved parasites, pathogens and predators, and by escaping from these, populations may soar. Importing the natural enemies of these pests may seem a logical move but this may have unintended consequences; regulations may be ineffective and there may be unanticipated effects on biodiversity, and the adoption of the techniques may prove challenging because of a lack of knowledge among farmers and growers.[97]

Side effects

[edit]

Biological control can affect biodiversity[14] through predation, parasitism, pathogenicity, competition, or other attacks on non-target species.[98] An introduced control does not always target only the intended pest species; it can also target native species.[99] In Hawaii during the 1940s parasitic wasps were introduced to control a lepidopteran pest and the wasps are still found there today. This may have a negative impact on the native ecosystem; however, host range and impacts need to be studied before declaring their impact on the environment.[100]

Cane toad (introduced into Australia 1935) spread from 1940 to 1980: it was ineffective as a control agent. Its distribution has continued to widen since 1980.

Vertebrate animals tend to be generalist feeders, and seldom make good biological control agents; many of the classic cases of "biocontrol gone awry" involve vertebrates. For example, the cane toad (Rhinella marina) was intentionally introduced to Australia to control the greyback cane beetle (Dermolepida albohirtum),[101] and other pests of sugar cane. 102 toads were obtained from Hawaii and bred in captivity to increase their numbers until they were released into the sugar cane fields of the tropic north in 1935. It was later discovered that the toads could not jump very high and so were unable to eat the cane beetles which stayed on the upper stalks of the cane plants. However, the toad thrived by feeding on other insects and soon spread very rapidly; it took over native amphibian habitat and brought foreign disease to native toads and frogs, dramatically reducing their populations. Also, when it is threatened or handled, the cane toad releases poison from parotoid glands on its shoulders; native Australian species such as goannas, tiger snakes, dingos and northern quolls that attempted to eat the toad were harmed or killed. However, there has been some recent evidence that native predators are adapting, both physiologically and through changing their behaviour, so in the long run, their populations may recover.[102]

Rhinocyllus conicus, a seed-feeding weevil, was introduced to North America to control exotic musk thistle (Carduus nutans) and Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense). However, the weevil also attacks native thistles, harming such species as the endemic Platte thistle (Cirsium neomexicanum) by selecting larger plants (which reduced the gene pool), reducing seed production and ultimately threatening the species' survival.[103] Similarly, the weevil Larinus planus was also used to try to control the Canadian thistle, but it damaged other thistles as well.[104][105] This included one species classified as threatened.[106]

The small Asian mongoose (Herpestus javanicus) was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rat population. However, the mongoose was diurnal, and the rats emerged at night; the mongoose, therefore, preyed on the endemic birds of Hawaii, especially their eggs, more often than it ate the rats, and now both rats and mongooses threaten the birds. This introduction was undertaken without understanding the consequences of such an action. No regulations existed at the time, and more careful evaluation should prevent such releases now.[107]

The sturdy and prolific eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) is a native of the southeastern United States and was introduced around the world in the 1930s and '40s to feed on mosquito larvae and thus combat malaria. However, it has thrived at the expense of local species, causing a decline of endemic fish and frogs through competition for food resources, as well as through eating their eggs and larvae.[108] In Australia, control of the mosquitofish is the subject of discussion; in 1989 researchers A. H. Arthington and L. L. Lloyd stated that "biological population control is well beyond present capabilities".[109]

Grower education

[edit]

A potential obstacle to the adoption of biological pest control measures is that growers may prefer to stay with the familiar use of pesticides. However, pesticides have undesired effects, including the development of resistance among pests, and the destruction of natural enemies; these may in turn enable outbreaks of pests of other species than the ones originally targeted, and on crops at a distance from those treated with pesticides.[110] One method of increasing grower adoption of biocontrol methods involves letting them learn by doing, for example showing them simple field experiments, enabling them to observe the live predation of pests, or demonstrations of parasitised pests. In the Philippines, early-season sprays against leaf folder caterpillars were common practice, but growers were asked to follow a 'rule of thumb' of not spraying against leaf folders for the first 30 days after transplanting; participation in this resulted in a reduction of insecticide use by 1/3 and a change in grower perception of insecticide use.[111]

[edit]

Related to biological pest control is the technique of introducing sterile individuals into the native population of some organism. This technique is widely practised with insects: a large number of males sterilized by radiation are released into the environment, which proceed to compete with the native males for females. Those females that copulate with the sterile males will lay infertile eggs, resulting in a decrease in the size of the population. Over time, with repeated introductions of sterile males, this could result in a significant decrease in the size of the organism's population.[112] A similar technique has recently been applied to weeds using irradiated pollen,[113] resulting in deformed seeds that do not sprout.[114]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Biological pest control, also known as biocontrol, is the deliberate use of living organisms such as predators, parasitoids, and pathogens to suppress populations of harmful pests, thereby reducing their damage to crops, forests, , and ecosystems without relying primarily on synthetic chemical pesticides. This approach leverages natural enemy-pest interactions to achieve long-term population regulation, forming a cornerstone of (IPM) strategies that promote . The primary types of natural enemies employed in biological control include predators, which actively hunt and consume multiple prey individuals during their lifetime, such as lady beetles that feed on aphids or spiders that target various insects; parasitoids, which are typically insects like wasps or flies that lay eggs inside or on a host pest, eventually killing it as their larvae develop; and pathogens, consisting of microorganisms such as bacteria (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt), fungi, viruses, or nematodes that infect and cause disease in pests. These agents are often highly specific to target pests, minimizing harm to non-target species, beneficial organisms, and the environment. Biological control is implemented through three main methods: classical biological control, which involves importing and releasing non-native natural enemies to establish permanent populations against invasive exotic pests, as exemplified by the introduction of the vedalia beetle (Rodolia cardinalis) in the 1880s to control the cottony cushion scale in California citrus orchards; augmentative biological control, where commercially reared natural enemies are periodically released in large numbers to boost suppression, such as using parasitic wasps like Encarsia formosa against whiteflies in greenhouses; and conservation biological control, which focuses on protecting and enhancing existing natural enemy populations through habitat modifications (e.g., planting flowering plants for nectar sources) and selective pesticide use. Historical successes, like the vedalia beetle program that saved California's citrus industry, demonstrate the potential for self-sustaining control with high cost-benefit ratios, often exceeding 1:250 for classical approaches. Key advantages of biological pest control include its environmental , as it avoids the pollution and residue issues associated with chemical pesticides; its , since enemies can self-perpetuate and adapt over time; and its role in combating by reducing chemical dependency, thereby preserving and supporting food production systems. However, challenges such as slower initial pest suppression compared to chemicals and the need for precise pest identification persist, underscoring the importance of integrating biocontrol with other IPM tactics for optimal efficacy.

Overview

Definition and Principles

Biological pest control is defined as the suppression of pest populations by the introduction or enhancement of natural enemies, such as predators, parasitoids, pathogens, or competitors, to reduce reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. This approach leverages living organisms to target pests at densities below economic injury levels, promoting more sustainable agricultural and environmental practices. Natural enemies interact directly with pests through predation, , or , thereby decreasing pest numbers without the broad-spectrum effects often associated with chemical controls. Key principles underlying biological pest control include trophic interactions, population dynamics, host specificity, and the distinction between self-sustaining and supplemented systems. Trophic interactions form the foundation, where natural enemies occupy higher levels in food chains or webs, exerting top-down control on pest populations at lower trophic levels. are modeled using predator-prey frameworks like the Lotka-Volterra equations, which predict oscillatory stability in host-natural enemy interactions essential for effective control. The classic equations are: dNdt=rNαNP\frac{dN}{dt} = rN - \alpha NP dPdt=βNPqP\frac{dP}{dt} = \beta NP - qP Here, NN represents the prey (pest) population, PP the predator population, rr the prey intrinsic growth rate, α\alpha the encounter (attack) rate, β\beta the conversion efficiency of prey into predator biomass, and qq the predator death rate; these parameters help forecast control efficacy by simulating cycles where pests are kept in check without eradication, though real-world applications often require spatial heterogeneity for stability. Host specificity ensures that natural enemies preferentially target the pest, minimizing non-target impacts, while self-sustaining systems rely on established populations for long-term regulation, contrasted with supplemented systems that involve periodic introductions to bolster control. Ecological balance in biological pest control emphasizes natural regulation within ecosystems, where food webs facilitate pest suppression through interconnected species interactions. Keystone species, such as certain predatory insects, can disproportionately influence these webs by maintaining diversity and preventing pest outbreaks, thereby enhancing overall stability. This principle underscores the importance of preserving or mimicking natural processes to achieve enduring pest management without disrupting broader biodiversity.

Comparison to Other Pest Control Methods

Biological pest control offers distinct advantages over chemical methods, primarily in long-term and reduced environmental impact. Unlike chemical pesticides, which often require repeated applications and contribute to , water, and , biological approaches use natural enemies that can self-perpetuate, providing ongoing suppression without leaving harmful residues. For instance, classical biological control has demonstrated cost-benefit ratios as high as 1:250, far exceeding the economic returns of synthetic pesticides, which can cost up to $180 million to develop a single compound. This helps preserve ecosystem services, such as by beneficial insects, which chemical broad-spectrum applications frequently disrupt by killing non-target . In terms of pest resistance, biological control minimizes the risk of resistance development due to the natural in control agents, contrasting with chemical pesticides where pests evolve resistance rapidly—over 500 have developed resistance to at least one . Biological methods also reduce risks, as they avoid the associated with chemicals, which cause millions of poisonings annually. However, biological control acts more slowly, often taking weeks to months to establish effective populations, compared to the immediate effects of chemicals within hours or days, making it less suitable for acute infestations. Additionally, its specificity requires precise matching of agents to pests, and there is potential for non-target effects if agents impact beneficial , though these are generally rarer and less severe than chemical off-target damage. Compared to physical methods, such as barriers or traps, biological control provides broader, more scalable suppression without the labor-intensive nature of manual interventions, though physical controls are non-toxic and immediate for small-scale applications. Cultural methods, like or habitat modification, share biological control's preventive focus and low environmental footprint but lack the active targeting of pests; biological agents enhance these by naturally regulating populations that cultural practices alone may not fully suppress. Biological control integrates seamlessly with both in (IPM), offering selective targeting absent in standalone physical barriers, while avoiding the broad-spectrum harm of chemicals.
AspectBiological ControlChemical ControlPhysical/Cultural Control
Speed of ActionWeeks to months for establishmentHours to daysImmediate (physical) or preventive (cultural)
Long-term CostHigh initial, low ongoing (e.g., 1:250 benefit ratio)Moderate initial, high due to repeatsLow, but labor-intensive (physical)
Environmental FootprintLow; minimal , preserves High; residues, non-target harmLow; no chemicals, but habitat alteration possible
Resistance DevelopmentLow; natural variation in agentsHigh; rapid in pestsNone; non-chemical
SelectivityHigh; targets specific pestsLow; broad-spectrumVariable; depends on method
This table highlights key trade-offs, emphasizing biological control's role in sustainable IPM despite its slower onset.

History

Early Developments

The earliest documented practices of biological pest control trace back to ancient , where citrus growers around 300 CE utilized predatory s to manage pests such as caterpillars and beetles in orchards. Farmers placed nests of the ant species in trees and connected them with bridges to encourage foraging across the canopy, allowing the ants to prey on foliage-feeding effectively. In medieval , farmers similarly encouraged the use of insectivorous birds, such as sparrows and , to suppress pest populations in fields and orchards, reflecting an intuitive recognition of natural predation dynamics. A pivotal breakthrough in the 19th century occurred in , where the invasive cottony cushion scale (Icerya purchasi) threatened to devastate the burgeoning industry by the 1880s. State entomologist Charles Valentine Riley, recognizing the potential of natural enemies, dispatched explorer Albert Koebele to in 1888 to search for predators of the scale. Koebele identified the vedalia beetle (Rodolia cardinalis) as an effective predator and arranged five shipments of the beetles to between November 1888 and 1889. The rapid establishment and reproduction of the beetles led to a dramatic decline in scale populations within a year, rescuing the industry and demonstrating the viability of classical biological control through exotic introductions. In the early , biological control initiatives proliferated, particularly in tropical regions like , where parasitic wasps were released to combat sugarcane pests such as the (Perkinsiella saccharicida). Beginning around 1905, entomologists imported parasites including Opius perpallidus from other areas, achieving notable suppression of populations and protecting vital yields. This period also saw the creation of the first dedicated insectaries for mass-rearing beneficial , with facilities established in shortly after the vedalia success to propagate predators and parasitoids for broader distribution. Prominent entomologists like Leland Ossian Howard, who served as chief of the USDA Bureau of Entomology from 1894 to 1927, played a crucial role in advancing these methods by advocating for the prioritization of natural enemies over chemical poisons in pest management strategies. Howard's publications and policies emphasized importation and conservation of beneficial insects, influencing federal support for biological approaches amid growing concerns over pesticide reliance. However, early efforts were not without setbacks, as unintended introductions sometimes exacerbated problems; for instance, the European earwig (Forficula auricularia) was accidentally brought to around 1910 via shipping routes and rapidly became a widespread pest of crops and gardens, necessitating subsequent control measures.

Modern Advancements

Following , the widespread use of synthetic pesticides like initially dominated pest management, but environmental concerns emerged prominently in the 1960s, prompting a shift toward biological control. Rachel Carson's 1962 book highlighted the ecological harms of , including and harm to non-target species, which catalyzed public and policy support for alternatives. This led to the U.S. Agency's 1972 ban on for most uses and spurred international efforts, such as the (FAO) of the launching IPM programs in the 1970s to integrate biological methods in agriculture, particularly in developing regions. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) expanded its biological control research in the 1960s, establishing new laboratories to develop and test natural enemies of pests. Key milestones from the 1970s to the 2000s institutionalized biological pest control globally. The International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC), founded in 1955 and reorganized in subsequent decades, facilitated international collaboration on safe pest management practices, with significant symposia starting in 1969. In , the 1991 Council Directive 91/414/EEC established uniform standards for authorizing plant protection products, including biological agents, emphasizing reduced-risk options like beneficial insects. Concurrently, advances in enabled widespread augmentative releases; for instance, Trichogramma wasps, egg parasitoids of lepidopteran pests, saw scaled-up rearing techniques developed in the 1960s in and refined globally by the 1980s, allowing billions of wasps to be produced annually for field applications. Regulatory frameworks further supported this growth by addressing importation and safety. In the U.S., the 1912 Plant Quarantine Act provided foundational protocols for inspecting and quarantining imported biological agents to prevent unintended introductions, with expansions under the 2000 Plant Protection Act enhancing oversight of natural enemies. The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), streamlining registration for biopesticides by requiring less extensive data on low-risk microbial and biochemical agents compared to conventional chemicals. These measures balanced efficacy with , facilitating the safe deployment of agents like predatory mites. The global adoption of biological control expanded through integrated programs, though not without lessons from setbacks. In , the 1935 introduction of cane toads (Rhinella marina) to control sugarcane beetles failed due to the toads' lack of specificity—they ignored the target pests but proliferated, causing native —and underscored the need for rigorous host-testing before releases. This informed subsequent IPM initiatives in developing countries, where FAO-supported programs from the onward promoted biological agents alongside cultural practices, reducing reliance in crops like and in and . By the , such efforts had demonstrated yield stability with 20-50% lower chemical inputs in pilot regions. Commercialization accelerated pre-2020, transforming biological control from to market-driven . Dutch Koppert Biological Systems, founded in 1967, pioneered large-scale production of predatory insects like Phytoseiulus persimilis for greenhouse use, expanding to over 100 countries by the 2000s. Similarly, Biobest, established in in the late , specialized in augmentative releases of parasitoids and pollinators, achieving annual sales of millions of units for berry and vegetable crops by 2010. These firms enabled growers to adopt biological methods at scale, contributing to a global biocontrol market valued at over $500 million by 2019. By 2023, the market had grown to approximately $1 billion, reflecting continued expansion in .

Types of Biological Pest Control

Classical Biological Control

Classical biological control, also known as the importation method, involves the intentional introduction of non-native natural enemies from the pest's region of origin to establish permanent, self-sustaining populations that suppress exotic invasive pests in the introduced area. This approach targets pests that have escaped their natural regulators, aiming for long-term population regulation without ongoing human intervention. It relies on the principle that exotic pests often lack effective natural enemies in new environments, allowing biological control agents—such as predators, parasitoids, or pathogens—to restore ecological balance by reducing pest densities to non-damaging levels. The process begins with surveys in the pest's native range to identify promising natural enemies, focusing on areas with climates similar to the target invasion site to enhance establishment potential. Collected agents are then imported into secure quarantine facilities for host-specificity testing, which uses choice and no-choice experiments to evaluate their ability to attack non-target species, ensuring minimal risk to native biodiversity and preventing the agents themselves from becoming invasive. Upon regulatory approval, agents are released at selected sites with high pest densities, followed by monitoring to assess establishment, dispersal, reproduction, and impact on pest populations through field sampling and parasitism rates. This rigorous protocol, guided by international standards like ISPM 3, emphasizes genetic diversity in release stocks—often involving multiple strains or biotypes—to improve adaptability and avoid inbreeding depression, alongside climate matching and provision of refuges such as untreated host plants to support initial population growth. One of the most celebrated historical examples is the 1888 introduction of the vedalia beetle (Rodolia cardinalis) from Australia to California, where it achieved near-complete suppression of the cottony cushion scale (Icerya purchasi), a devastating citrus pest that had threatened the state's $15 million industry just two years prior; within one year, the beetle reduced scale infestations dramatically, enabling economic recovery without further interventions. Similarly, in the 1920s, the cactus moth (Cactoblastis cactorum), sourced from South America, was released in Australia against invasive prickly pear cacti (Opuntia spp.), which had overrun approximately 24 million hectares of farmland; the moth's larvae devastated the cacti, clearing over 80% of infested areas in Queensland by 1933 and restoring vast tracts for agriculture and grazing. These cases highlight classical biological control's potential for high-impact, cost-effective suppression, with long-term pest reductions often reaching 80-100% in successful programs. Despite these successes, establishment rates for introduced agents typically range from 10-30%, influenced by factors like environmental mismatches or low , while complete is achieved in only about 10% of programs. Risks include the of agents becoming pests themselves, as seen with the harlequin ladybird (), introduced to in the 1990s for aphid control but now invasive, outcompeting native ladybirds, preying on beneficial , and nuisance-aggregating in homes, underscoring the need for stringent pre-release testing.

Augmentative Biological Control

Augmentative biological control supplements naturally occurring populations of natural enemies through the intentional, periodic release of reared organisms to achieve pest suppression. This method contrasts with classical biological control by focusing on short-term interventions rather than . It is widely applied in enclosed systems like greenhouses and increasingly in open-field for crops such as , fruits, and ornamentals. The primary strategies are inundative and inoculative releases. Inundative releases deploy massive quantities of agents to directly overwhelm pests and provide immediate control, typically without reliance on reproduction or persistence of the released organisms. A classic example is the application of (Bt) bacterial sprays against lepidopteran larvae, where high doses target pests like the or , achieving rapid mortality through toxin ingestion. Similarly, the nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) has been used inundatively against the gypsy moth (), with aerial applications suppressing larval populations by up to 90% in outbreak areas when timed to early instars. In contrast, inoculative releases involve smaller numbers of agents to initiate population growth and sustain control over a season or crop cycle, allowing the enemies to reproduce and establish temporarily. For instance, annual inoculative releases of the Trichogramma spp. target moth eggs in field crops like corn and , with typical rates of 100,000 to 200,000 wasps per distributed in multiple applications. Another common example is the release of lady beetles (Hippodamia convergens or ) in greenhouses to manage infestations on tomatoes or cucumbers, where initial low-density introductions build predatory pressure over weeks. Production of augmentative agents occurs via or methods, each with trade-offs in cost and scalability. production rears organisms on live hosts or prey in controlled environments, such as parasitoids on host eggs or nematodes in insect larvae; this approach minimizes startup costs but is labor-intensive and limited in scale due to host availability and handling expenses. production, conversely, uses artificial media like liquid cultures or solid substrates to rear agents such as entomopathogenic nematodes or fungal pathogens, enabling higher yields and for commercial operations, though it requires greater initial investment in facilities. For Trichogramma wasps, methods on factitious hosts like eggs or artificial media support sufficient for treating millions of hectares annually. Efficacy hinges on precise timing aligned with pest phenology, optimal release rates (e.g., a 1:10 predator-to-prey for control with lady beetles), and integration with farm practices to avoid disruptions like applications that harm released agents. Studies show that releases exceeding optimal rates provide and increase costs without proportional pest reduction. Commercially, biological control supports a growing industry, with the global market for biological control agents valued at approximately USD 4.01 billion as of 2025, driven largely by demand for and microbial products in and row crops. This sector emphasizes scalable production to meet periodic release needs, with companies supplying pre-packaged agents for farmer application. Despite successes, economic viability depends on balancing production costs—often 10-20 times higher than chemical alternatives—with reduced reliance and .

Conservation Biological Control

Conservation biological control involves modifying agricultural environments to support and enhance populations of existing natural enemies, such as predators, parasitoids, and pathogens, thereby promoting sustainable pest suppression without introducing new agents. This approach emphasizes habitat manipulation and reduced disturbances to foster self-sustaining enemy communities that provide ongoing ecosystem services. Key tactics include provisioning floral nectar and sources to sustain adult parasitoids and predators, offering alternative hosts or prey during crop off-seasons, creating shelters like beetle banks—mounded grass strips that serve as overwintering sites for ground beetles—and minimizing applications or other disturbances that harm beneficial . For instance, selective timing avoids peak enemy activity periods, preserving their populations. Reduced practices further aid by minimizing soil disruption, allowing ground-dwelling predators like carabid beetles to thrive and contribute to . Farmscape design plays a central role, incorporating , hedgerows, and cover crops to elevate and resource availability for natural enemies. with flowering plants such as attracts parasitoids like Microplitis mediator by providing nectar, while hedgerows offer corridors for movement and refuge. Cover crops, including sweet alyssum, support syrphid flies and lady beetles by supplying and alternative prey, thereby boosting overall enemy abundance in the . Notable examples include push-pull systems developed in eastern Africa since the , where is intercropped with repellent desmodium (push component) and bordered by trap crops like Napier grass (pull component) to deter stem borer moths (Chilo partellus and Busseola fusca) while attracting their parasitoids, resulting in up to 2.3 Mg/ha yield increases in . Another is reduced in temperate cropping systems, which has been shown to enhance (Carabidae) populations, correlating with lower pest densities in fields. Effectiveness is often measured using diversity indices, such as the Shannon index, to quantify natural enemy abundance and richness, with higher values indicating more robust communities linked to pest suppression. Correlations between these indices and outcomes show pest reductions that can translate to 20-50% yield gains in systems like push-pull, establishing the scale of impact without exhaustive metrics. A primary barrier is landscape fragmentation, which hinders natural enemy dispersal by isolating habitats, thereby limiting colonization and reducing control efficacy across larger scales. This effect is pronounced for mobile parasitoids and predators reliant on connectivity between fields and semi-natural areas.

Biological Control Agents

Predators

Predators in biological pest control are organisms that actively hunt, capture, and consume pest species, thereby reducing their populations. These agents include both vertebrate predators, such as birds and , and invertebrate predators, like and spiders, which directly kill and feed on prey. Predators are distinguished by their feeding habits: polyphagous predators consume a wide range of prey, offering broader pest suppression but potentially risking non-target species, while monophagous predators target specific pests, enhancing specificity in control efforts. A prominent example of predators is the lady beetle family (), which effectively targets populations in agricultural settings. Adult and larval lady beetles can consume 50-100 per day, depending on species and environmental conditions, making them highly efficient for management. Another key example is the green lacewing (Chrysopidae family), whose larvae, known as aphid lions, voraciously prey on and other soft-bodied insects by grasping and sucking out their body fluids. These predators are widely used in augmentative releases to bolster natural populations in crops like and . The biology of predators often involves specialized adaptations for locating and subduing prey. For instance, predatory mites in the Phytoseiidae family, such as Phytoseiulus persimilis, target spider mites through chemosensory mechanisms, detecting prey volatiles and silk trails to navigate plant surfaces efficiently. These mites exhibit rapid reproduction and dispersal, synchronizing their life cycles with pest outbreaks to maintain control. Life cycle synchronization is crucial across predator groups, ensuring that predator development aligns with peak pest densities for optimal impact. Deployment of predators requires careful consideration of release rates, prey preferences, and potential risks like , where predators consume each other. Typical augmentative release rates for lacewing larvae range from 1,000 to 5,000 individuals per in or field settings, adjusted based on pest density and type. Prey preferences must be matched to avoid inefficacy; for example, polyphagous lady beetles may shift to alternative prey if decline, sustaining populations but complicating targeted control. can reduce overall efficacy by 20-50% in mixed predator assemblages, necessitating species selection or timed releases. Field studies demonstrate the efficacy of predators in achieving substantial pest reductions. In orchard applications, releases of lady beetles and lacewings have resulted in 70-90% control of populations, often comparable to chemical insecticides while preserving beneficial insects. Vertebrate predators, such as insectivorous birds, contribute to long-term suppression in integrated systems, with studies showing up to 40% reduction in pest damage in diversified agroecosystems. These outcomes underscore the importance of habitat management to support predator establishment and persistence.

Parasitoids

Parasitoids are insects whose larvae develop as parasites on or within the body of a single host, ultimately killing it upon emergence, making them effective agents in biological pest control. The majority belong to the order Hymenoptera, such as wasps in families like Trichogrammatidae and Braconidae, or Diptera, including tachinid flies, which exhibit specialized life cycles adapted for host exploitation. Parasitoids are classified as endoparasitoids, which develop internally within the host's body, feeding on non-vital tissues before consuming vital organs, or ectoparasitoids, which feed externally on the host after it has been paralyzed. This distinction influences their host range and impact; endoparasitoids often target concealed stages like eggs or larvae inside plant tissue, while ectoparasitoids typically attack exposed pupae or late-instar larvae. Host-seeking relies heavily on chemical cues, particularly kairomones—host-derived semiochemicals that benefit the —emitted from the host, its , or host plant volatiles, enabling precise location even in complex environments. A prominent example is the genus Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), tiny egg parasitoids that target lepidopteran and eggs, parasitizing over 200 worldwide. Females lay multiple eggs inside a host egg, where larvae develop and pupate, preventing the host from hatching; adults emerge by chewing an exit hole, leaving the host egg collapsed. These wasps are deployed in control, with mass-rearing on factitious hosts like eggs of the (Anagasta kuehniella) or Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella), which provide a reliable, scalable food source despite not being natural hosts. Releases are timed pre-infestation, often at rates of 50,000 to 200,000 wasps per depending on pest pressure, achieving rates up to 90% in targeted crops. Another key example is Aphidius species (Hymenoptera: ), endoparasitoids specialized on , where the female oviposits a single egg into the or adult, inducing a process called mummification as the feeds internally and the host's body hardens into a protective . Common species include A. colemani for green peach and A. ervi for larger like the pea ; they parasitize dozens of species across crops. Mass-rearing occurs on factitious hosts or artificial diets, with releases at 1,000–5,000 per to establish populations early in the season. Efficacy in suppressing outbreaks can reach 70–90% under optimal conditions, enhanced by the parasitoids' ability to avoid superparasitism through host discrimination, where females assess prior parasitization via mechanical probing or chemical marking. In field applications, such as , parasitoids like Trichogramma have demonstrated 50–80% suppression of lepidopteran pests when integrated into programs, reducing the need for chemical inputs. This avoidance of superparasitism optimizes resource use, as parasitoids mark or reject already parasitized hosts to prevent wasteful multiple oviposition. Parasitoids often synergize with predators in conservation biological control, where habitat enhancements support both groups for broader pest suppression without detailed interference.

Pathogens

Pathogens represent a key category of biological control agents in pest management, utilizing microorganisms such as , viruses, fungi, and to induce in target pests, often leading to mortality through and replication within the host. These agents are particularly effective against pests, including larvae of mosquitoes and caterpillars, as they can be mass-produced, formulated for field application, and integrated into (IPM) strategies with minimal environmental persistence compared to chemical pesticides. Unlike predators or parasitoids, pathogens typically spread passively via contaminated surfaces or host-to-host transmission, exploiting the pest's physiology to cause systemic . Entomopathogenic nematodes are also classified here as pathogen-like agents due to their reliance on to kill hosts. Bacterial pathogens, notably Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), are among the most widely used microbial agents due to their specificity and safety profile. Bt produces crystalline inclusions containing Cry and Cyt toxins during sporulation; upon ingestion by susceptible insects, these protoxins solubilize in the alkaline midgut, where Cry proteins bind to specific receptors on epithelial cells, leading to pore formation, cell lysis, and subsequent septicemia. Different Bt strains target specific pest orders: for instance, kurstaki strains are effective against Lepidoptera (e.g., caterpillars), while tenebrionis strains control Coleoptera (e.g., beetles). A subspecies, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis (Bti), is highly specific to Diptera, particularly mosquito larvae, and has been applied in breeding sites since the 1980s; in Colombia, routine Bti treatments in water containers reduced Aedes aegypti populations by up to 80% in urban areas, demonstrating sustained efficacy in dengue vector control. Viral pathogens, primarily baculoviruses like nucleopolyhedroviruses (NPVs), are highly host-specific and cause lethal infections in lepidopteran larvae such as caterpillars. NPVs exist as occlusion bodies—protein matrices that encapsulate virions, protecting them from until ingested by the host—whereupon the virions are released in the , invade hemocytes, and replicate, leading to tissue liquefaction and death within days. For example, nucleopolyhedrovirus (HzNPV) targets Helicoverpa species, including the cotton bollworm, with field applications showing high virulence and natural occurrence in pest populations. These viruses are safe for non-target organisms and have been commercialized for augmentative control in crops like and . Fungal pathogens, including entomopathogenic species like and , infect pests through direct penetration, bypassing the need for ingestion. Conidia (spores) adhere to the insect , germinate under humid conditions, and produce enzymes such as proteases, chitinases, and lipases that degrade the waxy , allowing hyphae to invade the hemocoel and cause mycosis. is versatile against a broad range of , including and , while species, particularly var. acridum, have been deployed against locusts, reducing swarms in arid regions through epizootics. Efficacy depends on environmental factors, with optimal infection requiring prolonged leaf wetness. Oomycetes, fungus-like organisms such as Lagenidium giganteum, target aquatic pests like larvae in their specialized habitats. This pathogen produces biflagellate zoospores that encyst on the larval , germinate, and grow hyphally inside the host, disrupting respiration and leading to rapid mortality within 24-48 hours. L. giganteum is particularly suited for or container breeding sites, offering an alternative to bacterial agents in persistent water bodies. Entomopathogenic nematodes, such as Steinernema feltiae, function through bacterial symbiosis for pest suppression. These nematodes infect soil-dwelling pests by entering through natural openings like the mouth, anus, or spiracles, then releasing symbiotic Xenorhabdus into the host's hemocoel, inducing septicemia and death within 24-48 hours. The nematodes feed on the liquefied host tissues, completing 2-3 generations before exiting as infective juveniles to seek new hosts. applications typically require 2.5 × 10^9 to 5 × 10^9 infective juveniles per hectare, delivered via sprayers, , or drenches under moist conditions (10-20% ) and temperatures of 15-30°C for optimal efficacy against pests like root weevils. Formulations enhance the stability and delivery of these pathogens, addressing vulnerabilities like (UV) degradation and . Bacterial and viral agents are often powdered or granulated for direct application, while fungal and propagules—such as conidia or zoospores—are suspended in oils, wettable powders, or emulsions to improve adhesion and protect against UV exposure; for instance, humic acid additives can provide over 90% UV protection for conidia. High is critical for , with entomopathogenic fungi requiring at least 93-96% relative (RH) for development and 96.5-98.5% RH for optimal conidial , influencing application timing in field programs.

Competitors and Other Agents

In biological pest control, competitors and other agents refer to organisms that suppress pest populations through non-predatory and non-parasitic mechanisms, primarily by denying resources, occupying niches, or exerting chemical antagonism. These agents include microbial competitors, antagonistic , and plant-based competitors such as trap crops or allelopathic . Unlike direct pathogens, which cause , these agents often integrate into ecosystems to reduce pest reproduction and survival via indirect interactions. Key mechanisms involve resource denial and niche overlap, where competitors limit pest access to essential nutrients, , or habitats, thereby reducing pest reproduction rates. For instance, gut bacteria in can outcompete invading pathogens by consuming critical nutrients like iron and sugars, or by producing inhibitory metabolites such as that suppress pathogen growth and virulence. represents another mechanism, particularly through root exudates that release allelochemicals inhibiting germination and growth; examples include sorgoleone from roots, which suppresses like common , and m-tyrosine from fine fescue grasses, which limits large crabgrass establishment. These processes promote sustainable suppression without lethal host invasion. Competitors within pest guilds, such as non-pest guild members, further exemplify resource-based suppression. In microbial contexts, symbiotic gut bacteria like Enterobacter spp. in mosquitoes inhibit pathogen development, such as Plasmodium, by competitive exclusion, offering potential for vector control. Competitive displacement also occurs among pests, as seen when soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens) alter manure substrates to semi-liquid states, eliminating house fly (Musca domestica) breeding through habitat unsuitability. Antagonistic microbes, including root-associated Pseudomonas spp., suppress soil and root pests through competition and chemical antagonism. These bacteria colonize plant rhizospheres, producing siderophores to outcompete pathogens for iron and other nutrients while secreting secondary metabolites that directly inhibit pest growth; for example, strains like P8 and S25 reduce Fusarium oxysporum populations in banana roots by stimulating plant defenses such as and chitinase activity. In integrated systems, enhances microbiome diversity, enriching beneficial taxa like to amplify suppression of root-knot nematodes and fungal pests. Secondary plants serve as competitors via trap cropping or , drawing pests into non-reproductive traps or chemically inhibiting them. Mustard () acts as a trap crop for plant-parasitic s, attracting species like root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) to its roots; termination after 4-5 weeks via maceration and tilling releases glucosinolates that convert to toxic isothiocyanates, suppressing populations by up to 50% and improving subsequent crop yields, such as increasing fruit weight. Similarly, white clover () competes with s in agricultural settings by forming dense stolons that shade and outcompete for light and space, reducing weed biomass by over 50% when mowed frequently in undersown systems like or vineyards. These plant-based agents integrate well with conservation practices to enhance overall ecosystem resilience.

Target Pests

Insect Pests

Insect pests represent a primary target for biological control strategies in , where major orders such as , , and Coleoptera cause significant crop damage through feeding on leaves, fruits, and roots. These strategies leverage natural enemies like predators, parasitoids, and pathogens to suppress populations below economically damaging levels, reducing reliance on chemical insecticides while maintaining balance. Common pests include moths and in Lepidoptera that defoliate crops like and apples, sap-feeding and scales in Hemiptera that transmit plant viruses, and root- or leaf-feeding beetles in Coleoptera that affect staples like potatoes and corn. For , biological control often employs viral pathogens, such as the granulovirus (CpGV) against Cydia pomonella, a key pest of apple and orchards. CpGV, applied at dosages of 4.6 × 10¹² to 10¹³ occlusion bodies per hectare, achieves 75–96% reduction in larval populations when timed to first egg hatch, integrating effectively into IPM programs across and North America on over 100,000 hectares annually. In , predators like the midge target aphids (Myzus persicae) and scales, providing 78–95% control in greenhouse and field settings by preferentially ovipositing on high-density colonies, though efficacy varies with crop stage and prey distribution. For Coleoptera, (Bt) toxins, particularly Cry3 and Cry8 families, are widely used against beetles like the (Leptinotarsa decemlineata), with LC₅₀ values as low as 1.84 μg/mg diet, enabling suppression in both spray formulations and transgenic crops. Key challenges in controlling insect pests biologically include their high mobility, which allows rapid reinvasion of treated areas, rapid rates enabling multiple generations per season, and potential for developing resistance to control agents. For instance, can produce up to 20 generations annually through parthenogenetic reproduction, with each yielding 60–100 nymphs over 20–30 days, complicating sustained suppression. Resistance has emerged in at least 27 species to Bt toxins via mutations in receptors or enzymes, and up to 60,000-fold to CpGV in codling moths due to overuse of single isolates, underscoring the need for diverse agent rotations. Effective strategies emphasize multi-agent approaches to enhance resilience, such as combining predators (e.g., lady beetles Delphastus spp. and lacewings spp.) with fungal pathogens (, ) for whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci), achieving preventive regulation in horticultural crops through sequential releases. High specificity of agents is critical to minimize impacts on beneficial insects; for example, parasitoids like Aphidiinae wasps target only aphids, and selective Bt strains spare non-target predators, preserving orchard and field biodiversity. Notable examples include classical biological control of the (Plutella xylostella) using the introduced Diadegma semiclausum in , where releases reduced cabbage yield losses from 31% (US$452.9/ha) to below economic thresholds, generating an estimated US$28.3 million surplus over 25 years with a 24:1 benefit-cost ratio. For the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in , nucleopolyhedrovirus (SfMNPV) mixtures with granulovirus achieve 90.6% larval mortality at reduced doses (8 × 10¹¹ occlusion bodies/ha), shortening time to death by 96 hours and supporting IPM in invaded regions. Success metrics focus on achieving high larval mortality to stay below economic thresholds, typically targeting 80–95% reduction in pest density to prevent losses exceeding 5–10% yield. Such levels ensure economic viability, as seen in IPM programs where biological agents maintain pest populations at sub-threshold densities, cutting use by up to 95% without yield penalties.

Weed Pests

Biological control of weed pests primarily targets invasive species that disrupt ecosystems, , and rangelands by employing host-specific herbivores, pathogens, and competitors to suppress their growth and spread. This approach emphasizes classical introductions, where natural enemies from the weed's native range are released to establish self-sustaining populations, accounting for the majority of weed biocontrol programs worldwide. Unlike chemical herbicides, biological methods offer long-term, environmentally sustainable suppression but require rigorous safety assessments to prevent impacts on non-target . Key agents include insect herbivores such as weevils, fungal pathogens like species, and grazing animals. Insect agents, often leaf-feeding or stem-boring species, damage plant tissues to reduce biomass and reproduction; for instance, Neochetina weevils target water hyacinth by feeding on leaves and stems. Fungal pathogens induce diseases that weaken or kill weeds, with species producing phytotoxins that cause necrosis and stunted growth in invasive broadleaf weeds. Grazing animals, including goats, sheep, and , act as herbivores by selectively consuming weeds, particularly spiny or unpalatable species, through targeted stocking to alter plant competition dynamics. The process begins with extensive host-range testing to ensure agent specificity, using no-choice trials where the agent is isolated with potential host plants to assess fundamental host acceptance under deprivation conditions. These trials, combined with choice tests simulating field preferences, help predict non-target risks and confirm safety for desirable species; open-field no-go trials further validate that agents avoid non-targets in natural settings. Classical introductions dominate, comprising over 70% of agent releases in documented programs, with establishment rates around 71% leading to substantial control in 66% of targeted weeds. Prominent examples illustrate efficacy against invasive weeds. In Africa during the 1970s, Neochetina eichhorniae and N. bruchi leaf beetles were introduced against water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), achieving 50-90% biomass reduction in infested waterways through sustained feeding that stunted growth and increased susceptibility to other stressors. For rangeland invaders like cheatgrass (), indigenous fungal pathogens such as the smut bullata have been explored, replacing seed heads with spores to reduce by up to 80% in infected populations, though full establishment can take years. Bioherbicides, including Phoma macrostoma formulations, integrate fungal agents for targeted control of broadleaf weeds like hemp dogbane (), causing and without harming grasses when applied as spore suspensions. Despite successes, challenges persist, including slow action where agents require 5-10 years to establish and impact populations, limiting immediate control in rapidly spreading invasions. Climate mismatches exacerbate issues, as tropical agents often fail in temperate regions due to overwintering intolerance, reducing efficacy by 50% or more in mismatched zones and necessitating adaptive strain selection. These factors underscore the need for integrated strategies combining biological agents with other methods for optimal of weed pests.

Plant Pathogen Pests

Plant pathogen pests, including fungi, , and viruses, cause significant crop losses by infecting , leaves, stems, and fruits, leading to diseases such as wilts, blights, and mosaics. Biological control targets these pathogens using antagonistic microorganisms that compete for resources, produce compounds, or parasitize the pathogens directly. This approach is particularly relevant for soilborne and foliar diseases, where chemical fungicides may be ineffective or environmentally harmful. Fungal pathogens, such as species causing wilt diseases, are primary targets for biological control. For instance, species act as mycoparasites by colonizing and degrading the hyphae of through enzymatic action and nutrient competition. Bacterial pathogens like , responsible for leaf spots and blights, are controlled using bacteriophages that lyse host cells, preventing bacterial proliferation. Viral pathogens pose greater challenges due to their intracellular nature, with control often limited to managing vectors that transmit viruses like tomato spotted wilt virus, rather than direct antagonism. Key biological control agents include mycoparasitic fungi like , which penetrate and kill fungal pathogens via mycoparasitism, and such as , which secrete antibiotics like surfactin and iturin to inhibit pathogen growth. Hyperparasites, exemplified by Ampelomyces species, specifically target powdery mildew fungi by invading their conidia and mycelia, reducing spore production. These agents often work synergistically, with inducing systemic resistance in plants by activating defense pathways like signaling. Common application methods involve seed treatments to protect emerging seedlings, soil drenches for root pathogens at densities of around 10^6 colony-forming units (CFU) per gram of , and foliar sprays for leaf diseases. These methods enhance colonization by agents and trigger induced systemic resistance (ISR), where plants upregulate defenses against subsequent infections without direct contact. ISR elicited by strains, for example, can reduce disease severity by 30-50% in treated crops. Representative examples demonstrate efficacy: controls Fusarium wilt in tomatoes by parasitizing the pathogen and promoting plant growth, achieving up to 70% disease reduction in field trials. Ampelomyces quisqualis suppresses powdery mildew on cucumbers by hyperparasitizing Erysiphe cichoracearum, with applications reducing mildew coverage by 50-80%. For bacterial control, bacteriophages targeting limit bacterial blight in , while non-pathogenic strains antagonize Streptomyces scabies in scab, yielding 50-70% lesion reduction through competition and production. Despite these successes, challenges persist, including environmental sensitivity where agents like perform inconsistently under varying temperature, , or moisture conditions, often reducing efficacy from laboratory levels of 80% to field results below 50%. Inconsistent field performance arises from interactions with microbiota and pathogen resistance, necessitating formulation improvements for stability.

Applications and Examples

Agricultural and Horticultural Uses

In row crops, biological pest control has been notably successful with the adoption of , which expresses toxins targeting bollworm pests such as . Introduced commercially in 1996, Bt cotton has controlled bollworm damage by producing Cry proteins that disrupt the pests' digestive systems, leading to widespread global adoption covering approximately 25 million hectares as of 2022, primarily in countries like , the , and . This approach has reduced the need for chemical insecticides against bollworms by up to 50% in adopting regions, enhancing crop protection while integrating with broader pest management strategies. Another key example in row crops is the use of against sugarcane borers (Diatraea saccharalis) in , where augmentative releases of the egg parasitoid Trichogramma galloi have become a standard practice. These lay eggs in borer eggs, preventing larval development and achieving rates of 40-60% in treated fields, which has helped maintain sugarcane yields in one of the world's largest producers. Combined with the larval parasitoid Cotesia flavipes, this biological control has suppressed borer populations across millions of hectares, reducing crop losses estimated at 10-20% without heavy reliance on synthetic pesticides. In orchards, predatory mites such as Galendromus occidentalis have been used for managing mite pests in California , with conservation strategies like planting cover crops supporting their populations and enhancing biological control in perennial systems. Greenhouse production benefits significantly from augmentative biological control, as seen in the where parasitoids are released against (Trialeurodes vaporariorum) on crops like and cucumbers. This parasitoid oviposits in whitefly nymphs, leading to host death and black pupal cases as indicators of success; routine releases have contributed to high adoption of biological control, reducing chemical pesticide use substantially across Dutch vegetable greenhouses since the 1970s. Similarly, the predatory bug Macrolophus pygmaeus controls multiple pests including and tomato leafminers () in greenhouses, with releases minimizing damage and supporting plant resistance mechanisms. In , var. israelensis (Bti) is applied in fields to target larvae (such as spp.) that vector . Applied as granules or sprays during flooding, Bti achieves over 90% larval mortality without harming plants or beneficial insects, supporting that reduces vector-borne disease risks and chemical inputs in tropical systems.

Forestry and Environmental Uses

Biological pest control plays a vital role in managing pest outbreaks in forestry settings, where chemical interventions are often impractical due to vast landscapes and ecological sensitivities. In , the nucleopolyhedrovirus (NPV) has been employed against the forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria), a native defoliator that causes widespread damage to forests during cyclic outbreaks covering up to 200,000 km². This infects larval stages, leading to high mortality rates and natural population crashes, as documented in long-standing biological control programs that leverage the virus's specificity to minimize non-target impacts. Similarly, in U.S. national forests, entomopathogenic fungi such as have been tested against bark s like the red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens) and Ips species, which threaten stands by vectoring tree diseases and causing extensive mortality. Field applications of fungal formulations on bark surfaces demonstrate efficacy in reducing beetle populations, offering a sustainable alternative to broad-spectrum insecticides in managed timberlands. In rangelands, biological control agents have achieved significant reductions in invasive weeds, enhancing availability and . The introduction of flea beetles (Aphthona spp.) in the United States during the 1990s targeted leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), an invasive perennial that displaces native grasses across western rangelands. Releases of black (A. lacertosa) and brown (A. czwalinai) flea beetles, which feed on roots and foliage, resulted in up to 70-90% reductions in spurge stem densities over large areas, as observed in multi-state monitoring efforts. This classical biocontrol approach, initiated through coordinated federal programs, has persisted without the need for reintroduction, demonstrating the agents' establishment and self-sustaining impact on infested landscapes. Environmental applications focus on restoring natural areas by controlling invasives in riparian and wildland habitats. In the , tamarisk leaf beetles (Diorhabda carinulata and related species) were released starting in the early to combat non-native tamarisk ( spp.), which dominates riparian zones and alters by excessive water consumption. These beetles cause repeated defoliation, weakening tamarisk stands and facilitating native vegetation recovery in riverine ecosystems along the basin. Long-term surveys, including 10-year post-release tracking, evaluate agent establishment, spread, and pest suppression through metrics like defoliation rates and plant density changes, ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. Successful implementations have led to measurable recovery, with native plants resurging in treated areas. Post-weed control in rangelands and riparian zones, beetles and tamarisk beetles have promoted the return of indigenous species, increasing plant diversity and supporting wildlife without evidence of unintended ecological disruptions in monitored sites. These outcomes underscore biological control's contribution to restoration, aligning with broader conservation tactics that enhance natural enemy populations.

Public Health and Urban Uses

Biological pest control plays a crucial role in by targeting vectors and urban pests that pose risks to human populations in densely populated areas. In urban environments, where chemical insecticides may raise concerns about resistance and non-target effects, biological agents offer sustainable alternatives for reducing vector-borne diseases like dengue, Zika, and , as well as infestations by and that can spread pathogens. These methods emphasize the use of natural enemies, such as , predators, and fungi, integrated into community-based programs to minimize risks without broad environmental disruption. A primary application involves controlling mosquito vectors, which transmit diseases affecting millions annually. (Bti), a soil bacterium producing toxins lethal to mosquito larvae, is widely used in urban water bodies and containers to target species like and , with no toxicity to humans or vertebrates. Field applications have demonstrated up to 90% larval reduction in treated sites, supporting its role in integrated vector management. Similarly, bacteria, introduced into mosquitoes via community releases starting in 2011 in Cairns, , inhibit dengue virus transmission; studies show a 77% reduction in dengue cases following successful establishment in local populations. Copepods, small aquatic crustaceans like Mesocyclops aspericornis, serve as predators of mosquito larvae in urban water storage, achieving up to 90% control in trials across semi-urban habitats in and the . For expanded applications, deployments in as of 2023 have reduced dengue incidence by 70-80% in treated areas. For urban rodent control, which can exacerbate diseases like through contamination of food and water, barn owls (Tyto alba) are deployed as natural predators via nest box installations in cities and peri-urban areas. A pair of barn owls can consume 1,000–3,000 annually, leading to substantial local population reductions of 20–50% in monitored urban-adjacent sites, as observed in conservation programs. infestations in buildings, vectors for bacteria like , are managed using entomopathogenic fungi such as , applied as dust or spray formulations; these infect and kill German cockroaches (Blattella germanica) with 80–100% mortality in lab and field tests within urban apartments. The endorses such biological approaches in guidelines for , recommending community releases and habitat management to sustain predator populations and achieve long-term efficacy. Notable examples include the use of mosquitoes, non-blood-feeding predators whose larvae consume larvae, in control efforts in during the 2015–2016 outbreak; releases in urban containers reduced populations by up to 70%, indirectly lowering transmission risks. Emerging biological controls for bed bugs (), which cause allergic reactions and psychological distress in urban housing, involve biopesticides like fungi, showing 90% mortality in treated infestations and reducing reliance on chemicals. Overall efficacy in trials is evident in disease reductions, such as 30–50% lower incidence in areas using biological larval controls alongside other integrated methods, highlighting their impact on community health scales.

Challenges and Limitations

Ecological and Biodiversity Impacts

Biological pest control agents, while effective against target pests, can exert non-target effects on native species and ecosystems, potentially leading to host shifts and disruptions in trophic interactions. Host shifts occur when introduced agents expand their diet to include non-target natives, as seen with the cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum, originally released in the early 20th century to control invasive prickly pear cacti (Opuntia spp.) in Australia and later in the Americas; in the southeastern United States, it has shifted to native Opuntia species, causing defoliation and mortality that threatens cacti-dependent wildlife such as birds and insects. Similarly, trophic cascades arise when control agents reduce populations of non-target predators, indirectly affecting herbivores and plants; for example, the decline of native predators due to competition or predation can lead to herbivore outbreaks, altering community structure. These effects underscore the need for rigorous evaluation to balance pest suppression with ecosystem stability. Introduced agents have documented impacts on , often resulting in localized losses of while potentially conferring gains through pest reduction. Parasitoids and predators can cause significant declines in non-target ; for instance, the multicolored Asian lady beetle , introduced in the 1980s–1990s for control in , has displaced native ladybird species () via and resource competition, leading to reductions in native coccinellid abundance by up to 50% in some agricultural landscapes during the . Another prominent case is the cane toad Rhinella marina, introduced to in 1935 to control sugarcane beetles but instead causing precipitous declines (>80% in some areas) in native predators like quolls, snakes, and frogs due to toad toxicity, with cascading effects on and reptile across tropical regions. Conversely, successful pest suppression can enhance by reducing pressure, allowing native plants and associated to recover, though such benefits are site-specific and require monitoring to confirm. Risk assessment frameworks mitigate these impacts through pre- and post-release protocols. Pre-release testing employs no-choice tests, where agents are confined with potential non-target hosts to assess physiological host range and development potential, complemented by choice tests to evaluate behavioral preferences; these methods, standardized since the mid-20th century, help predict non-target risks by simulating isolation scenarios. Post-release monitoring adheres to IUCN guidelines for conservation translocations, involving long-term of agent establishment, dispersal, and effects to detect and address early. strategies include genetic screening to ensure specificity, such as genomic analyses of agent populations to identify strains with narrow host ranges, thereby reducing the likelihood of host shifts or broad ecological disruptions.

Practical and Economic Challenges

Adoption of biological pest control faces significant practical challenges related to grower knowledge and implementation skills. Effective use requires training in key practices such as regular field scouting to monitor pest populations and the precise timing of agent releases to maximize efficacy. Extension programs, including those from the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), provide resources and workshops to address these needs, supporting research and on bio-based pest for safer alternatives to chemicals. University-led initiatives, such as online courses from and , further equip greenhouse and field growers with research-based information on biological control fundamentals. Economically, biological pest control often involves higher upfront costs compared to conventional chemical pesticides, with release programs typically ranging from $300 to $900 per hectare depending on the agent and crop, while chemical applications often have lower upfront costs. These elevated expenses stem from the production and distribution of living organisms, leading to longer-term return on investment calculations where break-even may require yield improvements to offset initial outlays, though empirical evidence indicates biological methods can be among the most cost-effective over time when successfully implemented. Threshold-based management integrating biological agents has demonstrated potential to reduce overall insecticide costs by up to 40% without yield losses, highlighting economic viability in optimized systems. Regulatory hurdles also impede widespread adoption, as the approval process for new biological control agents can take 2 to 5 years, involving extensive and evaluations; in 2025, the proposed reforms to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to fast-track approvals and reduce timelines. In the , regulations are generally stricter than in the United States, with EU processes historically averaging longer than U.S. approvals (e.g., around 3-4 years vs. 2 years as of the early 2020s), due to rigorous requirements and across member states, though recent reforms aim to streamline this. Delays persist in some cases, limiting the pace of innovation. Market dynamics present additional barriers, with the global biological control market valued at approximately $7 billion as of 2023, representing around 8% of the global market dominated by synthetic products. Supply chain vulnerabilities, including seasonal production constraints for live agents like beneficial insects, exacerbate availability issues and increase costs during peak demand periods. Practical implementation is further complicated by environmental dependencies and scalability limitations. Weather conditions significantly influence the establishment and performance of biological agents, with mismatches in climate between agents and target pests reducing control efficacy in variable conditions. Scalability to large fields remains challenging, as spatial and temporal crop dynamics affect agent dispersal and pest suppression, often requiring landscape-level strategies that are difficult to apply uniformly across extensive monocultures. These factors contribute to inconsistent outcomes, particularly in regions with unpredictable or large-scale farming operations.

Recent Advances

Biotechnological Innovations

Biotechnological innovations in biological pest control have advanced rapidly from 2020 to 2025, leveraging genetic and molecular tools to enhance specificity, efficacy, and sustainability. (RNAi) and CRISPR-Cas9 technologies enable targeted or editing in pests, while engineered symbiotic microbes offer novel suppression mechanisms. These approaches address limitations of classical agents by minimizing non-target effects and countering resistance, with applications spanning and . RNAi-based strategies utilize double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) sprays to silence essential pest , triggering sequence-specific degradation of and disrupting physiological processes. In 2020 field trials, dsRNA targeting the gene (encoding a smooth septate junction protein) in (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) larvae achieved 84–95% mortality after seven days when sprayed on potato foliage, comparable to the chemical insecticide spinosad but with a slower onset. This method demonstrated high specificity, sparing beneficial insects, and highlighted RNAi sprays' potential for foliar application in . Similarly, transgenic potatoes expressing hairpin RNAi against the ecdysone receptor (EcR) reduced beetle survival by impairing molting, offering plant-mediated delivery options. CRISPR-Cas9 has facilitated drives and direct editing to induce sterility or broaden control spectra. In mosquitoes, CRISPR-based drives targeting fertility , such as , have been engineered for population suppression; a 2025 study developed a self-limiting male-drive female-sterile (MDFS) system in , achieving near-complete female sterility in lab trials while confining spread to released cohorts. Field trial considerations for low-threshold drives in vectors emphasize cage validations from 2022 onward, with no widespread open releases by 2025 but promising suppression in simulations. For bacterial agents, CRISPR editing of (Bt) strains has enhanced toxin production and overcome pest resistance by targeting , expanding efficacy against lepidopteran pests beyond native spectra. Engineered symbiotic agents, including , block viral transmission in vectors through cytoplasmic incompatibility and pathogen inhibition. Expansions in 2021 included large-scale releases of Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes, reducing dengue incidence by 69% in treated areas like , , by limiting replication. Microbial consortia, combining and fungi, have emerged as multi-target biocontrols; omics-driven assemblies enhance colonization and antagonist activity against soil pests, with 2020–2025 studies showing synergistic virulence over single strains. Notable examples include SmartStax PRO corn, approved by the U.S. EPA in 2017 and commercially launched in 2022, which integrates RNAi targeting the western corn rootworm DvSnf7 gene for root protection alongside Bt traits. Additionally, CRISPR-edited entomopathogenic fungi like overproduce oosporein toxin, enhancing virulence against insect larvae such as greater wax moth (), with reduced LT50 by up to 43% in 2024 lab assays. Ethical and safety considerations focus on containment and off-target risks. Self-limiting gene drives incorporate kill switches to prevent unintended spread, while RNAi assessments use bioinformatics to predict cross-species , revealing low non-target impacts in vertebrates due to rapid dsRNA degradation. CRISPR off-target edits are mitigated via high-fidelity Cas variants, but ecological monitoring is essential to avoid disruption; 2020–2025 guidelines emphasize adaptive risk frameworks for field deployment.

Technological Integrations

Technological integrations in biological pest control have advanced significantly since 2020, leveraging (AI), (IoT) devices, and precision technologies to improve monitoring, , and deployment of natural enemies such as predators and parasitoids. These tools enable collection and , allowing for targeted interventions that enhance the of biological agents while minimizing environmental impacts. For instance, IoT sensors integrated with AI algorithms facilitate continuous tracking of pest populations and beneficial organisms, optimizing release strategies in dynamic field conditions. AI and IoT systems have revolutionized pest and natural enemy monitoring through sensors and drone-based imagery. Multispectral drone imagery combined with machine learning (ML) models, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), identifies pest hotspots and suitable release sites for biological agents, achieving detection accuracies up to 92.5% mean average precision (mAP). In 2024 systems, these technologies have demonstrated efficiency gains of approximately 30% in scouting and deployment by reducing manual surveys and enabling precise mapping of infestation areas for parasitoid releases. For example, unmanned aerial systems (UAS) equipped with GPS-guided dispensers release egg parasitoids like Trichogramma spp. along preprogrammed paths, covering up to 125 release points per hectare in maize fields with parasitism rates reaching 87.42%. Predictive models further support this by employing neural networks to forecast outbreaks; deep learning autoencoders analyze sequential environmental data (e.g., temperature, humidity) to predict pest risks with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.917, informing timely deployment of natural enemies. Platforms like Farmonaut exemplify these integrations, utilizing and AI-driven Jeevn analytics for biocontrol scouting in 2025, providing real-time insights into pest dynamics and recommending agent releases to boost yields by up to 20%. Blockchain technology enhances traceability of biological control agents by creating decentralized ledgers for supply chain data, ensuring secure tracking of batches and biological risk factors. approaches integrate climate simulations to adapt biological control to warming trends; ecoinformatics models analyze temperature-abundance relationships for multiple natural enemy species, enabling agent matching that accounts for thermal ecology shifts in systems like vineyards. Adoption of these technologies has led to notable cost reductions, with AI systems cutting labor by up to 40% in applications through automated monitoring and precision releases of agents like predatory mites. Global pilots, such as those in fields using drone-AI and predatory mites for control, report reductions exceeding 90% while maintaining high efficacy, with similar applications in vineyards.

Integrated Pest Management

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) represents a holistic, ecosystem-based approach to pest suppression that integrates biological control with multiple tactics to achieve while minimizing environmental impacts. Developed as a to reduce reliance on synthetic pesticides, IPM emphasizes prevention and long-term management of pest populations through coordinated methods that maintain ecological balance. Biological control plays a central role within this framework, serving as a foundational tier that leverages natural enemies to regulate pests, often complemented by cultural, physical, and judicious chemical interventions when necessary. The core components of IPM include regular monitoring of pest and beneficial populations, establishment of economic or action thresholds to determine intervention needs, of biological and chemical controls to prevent resistance, and incorporation of cultural practices such as , habitat manipulation, and sanitation to disrupt pest life cycles. Monitoring involves systematic to assess pest levels and the presence of enemies, enabling data-driven decisions. Thresholds define acceptable pest densities below which no action is taken, promoting selective use of controls. Biological controls, including conservation of resident predators and augmentation through releases, are prioritized, with chemicals reserved for situations where biological options are insufficient, ensuring to preserve efficacy. Cultural practices enhance overall system resilience by altering the to favor beneficial organisms. Within IPM, biological control forms a core tier, often comprising the primary line of defense in organic systems where it can account for substantial pest suppression through enemy conservation and augmentation. Scouting for enemies informs decisions on releases, such as introducing predatory mites when populations fall below supportive levels, thereby integrating biological agents as a proactive rather than reactive measure. This approach fosters among tactics, with biological methods enhancing the effectiveness of others by maintaining diverse enemy populations. Practical examples illustrate IPM's application. In almond orchards, IPM programs since the have relied on predators like the western predatory (Galendromus occidentalis) and sixspotted (Scolothrips sexmaculatus) to manage spider , combined with minimal selective sprays and cultural practices such as dust mitigation, establishing a standard that reduces chemical inputs while sustaining yields. In African smallholder farming, the push-pull system integrates biological control by with repellent trap crops like desmodium, which attracts stemborers away while fostering parasitoids and predators, alongside pull crops like Napier grass, effectively suppressing pests like the fall armyworm in systems. IPM yields key benefits, including enhanced resistance management by alternating tactics to slow pesticide resistance development in pests and cost savings through optimized inputs and reduced treatment frequency. The (FAO) endorses IPM guidelines that promote biological integration for these outcomes, emphasizing reduced chemical dependency and improved farm economics. Implementation of IPM often employs decision trees or flowcharts to guide actions based on monitoring data, such as releasing biological agents if natural enemy densities fall below a threshold despite pest levels being manageable. For instance, if reveals insufficient predators, augmentation via releases is recommended, escalating to targeted chemicals only if thresholds are exceeded and biological options fail. This structured process ensures biological control remains central, adapting to site-specific conditions for effective, sustainable pest management.

Complementary Non-Chemical Methods

Complementary non-chemical methods encompass cultural, physical, and mechanical techniques that disrupt pest life cycles, exclude pests from crops, or suppress their populations without relying on chemical interventions, often serving as foundational supports for biological control strategies. These approaches modify the agricultural environment to make it less favorable for pests while promoting and resilience. By altering planting practices, physical structures, or conditions, they reduce pest pressure and can enhance the efficacy of natural enemies. Cultural methods involve agronomic practices that prevent pest establishment or reproduction. Crop rotation, one of the oldest techniques, alternates host crops to break pest life cycles, particularly effective for soil-dwelling with limited host ranges, such as wireworms in corn rotated to oats or . Sanitation removes crop residues, weeds, and debris that harbor pests, eliminating overwintering sites; for instance, collecting dropped apple reduces populations of apple maggots and codling moths. Varietal resistance selects crop cultivars inherently tolerant or resistant to pests, such as locally adapted varieties that withstand specific damage, integrating seamlessly into broader rotation schemes. Physical methods employ barriers and environmental manipulations to exclude or trap pests. Floating row covers, made of lightweight spun-bonded polyethylene, create a physical shield over crops like cole crops and strawberries, preventing insect access while allowing light and water penetration. Pheromone lures in traps attract and capture male insects, disrupting mating and aiding population monitoring, as seen in applications for various lepidopteran pests. Heat and cold treatments, such as soil solarization, use clear plastic sheeting to trap solar energy, raising soil temperatures to lethal levels for pathogens; this achieves up to 90% kill of mesophilic fungi at 99°F (37°C) over 2-4 weeks, effectively targeting nematodes and soilborne diseases like Verticillium wilt. Mechanical methods directly remove or suppress pests through manual or equipment-based actions, suitable for small-scale or organic systems. , including plowing and disking, buries seeds and disrupts pest habitats, with postplant cultivation using rotary hoes at 10-12 mph reducing emerged seedlings in row crops like soybeans. Mulching applies organic materials like or residues to block light and suppress ; for example, 3 tons of biomass per acre can reduce emergence by 95%, while layers of 7.6 cm provide 90% . Hand-picking remains viable for small areas, manually removing visible pests like beetles or caterpillars to prevent reproduction. These methods often synergize with biological control by creating habitats that bolster natural enemies. Mulches, such as strips in fields, provide nectar resources that enhance activity against potato moths, increasing control efficiency. supports parasitoids by diversifying landscapes, as in systems where rotations with non-hosts boost Cotesia sesamiae populations, reducing stemborer damage and yielding 15-20% higher outputs. Reflective mulches exemplify this integration, repelling through reflection to lower colonization by up to several-fold in early-season , thereby preserving predator populations like ladybugs.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.