Best practices for the use and exchange of invertebrate biological control genetic resources relevant for food and agriculture

Mason, Peter G.; Cock, Matthew J.W.; Barratt, B. I. P.; Klapwijk, J.; Lenteren, J.C. van; Brodeur, Jacques; Hoelmer, Kim A.; Heimpel, George E.

doi:10.1007/s10526-017-9810-3

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There has been extensive work on establishing guidance for compliance with ABS requirements in Biocontrol (Cock et al, 2010;IOBC, 2009;Mason et al, 2018) where research groups and the International Organisation for Biological and Integrated Control have defined general practical and implementable guidance. Efforts are also being made by the EU who has drafted guidance on Biocontrol and biostimulants with compliance with the EU Regulation on ABS in mind.…”

Section: Specific Recommendations For Compliance In Biocontrolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological control and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing – a case of effective due diligence

Smith

Hinz

Mulema

et al. 2018

Biocontrol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological control agents must be collected and utilised in compliance with the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) which is being implemented independently by each country that is signatory to the Protocol. By March 2018, 50 countries had legislation in place with an additional 54 designing their Legislative, Administrative or Policy Measures having become Party to the Protocol. Apart from the problem of dealing with the many different mechanisms countries are putting in place, it is often difficult to find relevant information on the ABS Clearing House and to access and receive appropriate responses from the National Focal Points or Competent National Authorities. We feel that a lot of time is lost on both sides (National authorities and scientists seeking information), and the process would benefit from streamlining. Also, open questions remain, such as how to deal with the generation digital sequence information and what specific activities are considered utilisation, especially for biological control. CABI has pro-actively developed an ABS policy and best practices for its staff to try and comply with the Nagoya Protocol. In addition, CABI has started negotiations with several provider countries, beginning with its member countries, to have its ABS policy and best practices recognised, considering the non-monetary benefits typically associated with biological control. The Nagoya Protocol was born out of the necessity to guarantee the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources. However, it should not hinder the development of best practice solutions to protect exactly these genetic resources from threats like invasive species. It is important that research and development that addresses global societal challenges are not impeded and that science and its output are recognised as a way to preserve and use genetic resources in an equitable way.

show abstract

Section: Specific Recommendations For Compliance In Biocontrolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological control and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing – a case of effective due diligence

Smith

Hinz

Mulema

et al. 2018

Biocontrol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the past, the default method for improving biocontrol was to find a more efficient wild species or strain as the biocontrol agent (Hassan & Guo, 1991; Hassan, 1994; Nomikou et al ., 2001; Hoelmer & Kirk, 2005). However, the Nagoya protocol for Access and Benefit Sharing of Genetics Resources has severely limited international exchange of biological materials, so sourcing more‐effective biocontrol agents from the field has become severely restricted (Cock et al ., 2010; Deplazes‐Zemp et al ., 2018; Mason et al ., 2018). Moreover, certain geographical regions strictly regulate which agents can be used, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Next‐generation biological control: the need for integrating genetics and genomics

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological control is widely successful at controlling pests, but effective biocontrol agents are now more difficult to import from countries of origin due to more restrictive international trade laws (the Nagoya Protocol). Coupled with increasing demand, the efficacy of existing and new biocontrol agents needs to be improved with genetic and genomic approaches. Although they have been underutilised in the past, application of genetic and genomic techniques is becoming more feasible from both technological and economic perspectives. We review current methods and provide a framework for using them. First, it is necessary to identify which biocontrol trait to select and in what direction. Next, the genes or markers linked to these traits need be determined, including how to implement this information into a selective breeding program. Choosing a trait can be assisted by modelling to account for the proper agro‐ecological context, and by knowing which traits have sufficiently high heritability values. We provide guidelines for designing genomic strategies in biocontrol programs, which depend on the organism, budget, and desired objective. Genomic approaches start with genome sequencing and assembly. We provide a guide for deciding the most successful sequencing strategy for biocontrol agents. Gene discovery involves quantitative trait loci analyses, transcriptomic and proteomic studies, and gene editing. Improving biocontrol practices includes marker‐assisted selection, genomic selection and microbiome manipulation of biocontrol agents, and monitoring for genetic variation during rearing and post‐release. We conclude by identifying the most promising applications of genetic and genomic methods to improve biological control efficacy.

show abstract

“…vary by country. In addition, following the ratification of the Nagoya Protocol, regulations related to access and benefit sharing also have to be taken into consideration when using introduced biological control agents (Cock et al., ; Mason et al., ). Within their native range, most countries allow the use of indigenous macrobials as biological control agents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of potential biopesticide options for managing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Africa

Bateman

Day

Rwomushana

et al. 2018

J Applied Entomology

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fall armyworm (FAW, Spodoptera frugiperda) originates from the tropical and sub‐tropical regions of the Americas. Recently it was reported for the first time in Africa and has since spread rapidly across more than 30 countries in the continent. Chemical pesticides are being promoted and used for FAW management, but where application practices and/or the active ingredients are unsafe there is a need to make effective, low‐risk products available. Given that biopesticides such as microbials and microbial extracts, macrobials and semiochemicals are generally considered to be lower risk options for pest management, they are a promising avenue for exploration. When used in conjunction with good crop management, they can help to keep pest levels under control, reducing the need to apply other pesticides. This study provides a basis for designing interventions to make biopesticides more widely available for FAW control in Africa. It summarizes assessments of the registered pesticides and biopesticides for 30 countries, 11 in FAW's native range and 19 in Africa. The report identifies biopesticide active ingredients (AI) which are registered for use against FAW and provides an assessment of how appropriate these will be for use by smallholder farmers in Africa. For each biopesticide AI identified, detailed profiles were developed which covered the efficacy of the AI against FAW; the human health and environmental hazards associated with the AI; the agronomic sustainability of the AI; and whether or not the AI is practical for smallholder farmers to use. Using these data, a list of priority biopesticides for which follow‐up action is recommended was compiled. Fifty biopesticide AI were identified, which have been registered in one or more of the 30 countries for FAW management. Twenty‐three of these are recommended for follow‐up, for example field trials or bioassays.

show abstract

Best practices for the use and exchange of invertebrate biological control genetic resources relevant for food and agriculture

Abstract: The

Cited by 34 publications

References 6 publications

Biological control and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing – a case of effective due diligence

Biological control and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing – a case of effective due diligence

Next‐generation biological control: the need for integrating genetics and genomics

Assessment of potential biopesticide options for managing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About