Conservation biological control using selective insecticides – A valuable tool for IPM

Torres, Jorge B.; Bueno, Adeney de Freitas

doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.07.012

Cited by 105 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While conservation biocontrol is considered the oldest form of pest control, it became a more focused sub-discipline of ecology in the 1960s (Gurr et al, 1998). Traditional approaches to conservation biocontrol focused on enhancing natural enemy populations through local farm management practices such as flower strips and beetle banks (Landis et al, 2000) as well as preferential use of more selective pesticides (Torres and de Bueno, 2018). More recently, scientists have increasingly drawn on principles from landscape ecology to consider biocontrol in the context of habitats surrounding the farm (Tscharntke et al, 2005(Tscharntke et al, , 2007.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring What Matters: Actionable Information for Conservation Biocontrol in Multifunctional Landscapes

Chaplin‐Kramer

O’Rourke

Schellhorn

et al. 2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of study, conservation biocontrol via manipulation of landscape elements has not become a mainstream strategy for pest control. Meanwhile, conservation groups and governments rarely consider the impacts of land management on pest control, and growers can even fear that conservation biocontrol strategies may exacerbate pest problems. By finding leverage points among these actors, there may be opportunities to align them to promote more widespread adoption of conservation biological control at the landscape-scale. But are ecologists measuring the right things and presenting the right evidence to enable such alignment? We articulate key concerns of growers, conservation groups, and governments with regards to implementing conservation biological control at the landscape scale and argue that if ecologists want to gain more traction, we need to reconsider what we measure, for what goals, and for which audiences. A wider set of landscape objectives that ecologists should consider in our measurements include risk management for growers and co-benefits of multifunctional landscapes for public actors. Ecologists need to shift our paradigm toward longer-term, dynamic measurements, and build cross-disciplinary understanding with socioeconomic and behavioral sciences, to enable better integration of the objectives of these diverse actors that will be necessary for landscape management for conservation biocontrol to achieve its full potential.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring What Matters: Actionable Information for Conservation Biocontrol in Multifunctional Landscapes

Chaplin‐Kramer

O’Rourke

Schellhorn

et al. 2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Combining control methods has been found as the best control option for highly damaging pest species [1]. Integrated pest management (IPM) tries to minimize environmental impact of pesticides by combining various control strategies such as biological control, cultural practises, resistant varieties, and pesticides in a compatible manner to keep pests below economically injurious levels [2,3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Host Plant Resistance, Selective Insecticides, and Biological Control Agents for Integrated Management of Tuta absoluta

Peris

Jonsson

Arunga

et al. 2020

Advances in Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combination of pest management strategies that minimize pesticide use and conserve natural enemies is important for a sustainable environment. Overreliance on synthetic insecticides in the management of Tuta absoluta has led to pesticide resistance leading to difficulties in managing the pest. In this regard, alternative measures need to be put in place to reduce the effects of this pest. The objective of this study was, therefore, to assess the effectiveness of host plant resistance, biological control, and selective insecticides when used in combination, in the management of T. absoluta in tomato production. The study was set up in a greenhouse in a completely randomized design involving two tomato varieties, an insecticide (chlorantraniliprole), and a biological control agent(Macrolophus pygmaeus), applied singly or in combination. Data were collected on T. absoluta damage from the lower, intermediate, and upper leaves. The results from this study show that a combination of insecticide with a moderately resistant variety had a significantly lower T. absoluta damage as compared with a susceptible variety combined with an insecticide. However, the moderately resistant variety when combined with insecticide showed no effect when the biological control agent was added. The susceptible variety significantly reduced T. absoluta damage when combined with the biological control agent. These results indicate that treatment combinations in insect pest management can be utilized. The present study results indicate that using a moderately resistant variety (Riogrande VF) in combination with the insecticide chlorantraniliprole (Coragen®) and a susceptible variety (Pesa F1) in combination with the biological control agent (M. pygmaeus) can improve T. absoluta management. Under good habitat management, the susceptible variety will perform equally as the moderately resistant variety due to suppression of the T. absoluta populations by natural enemies. These findings show the importance of environmental conservation both by enhancing natural enemy abundance and use of selective insecticide in the management of T. absoluta in tomato production. Combinations in this present study are likely to reduce insecticide doses, thereby reducing the cost of production and enhancing environmental compatibility with natural enemies.

show abstract

“…In addition, the parasitoid Aphelinus certus Yasnosh (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) is becoming a more prominent natural enemy of A. glycines in the North Central Region of the USA . Insecticides commonly used for management of A. glycines have relatively broad‐spectrum activity and are detrimental to predators and parasitoids . In contrast, conservation biological control using selective insecticides (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[17][18][19] Insecticides commonly used for management of A. glycines have relatively broad-spectrum activity and are detrimental to predators and parasitoids. [20][21][22][23] In contrast, conservation biological control using selective insecticides (i.e. those with reduced risk to natural enemies) holds promise to better integrate biological and chemical controls.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of afidopyropen against soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and toxicity to natural enemies

Koch

Queiroz

Aita

et al. 2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Soybean aphid, Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae), remains the most significant soybean insect pest in the North Central Region of the USA. The sustainability of reliance on only a few insecticide groups for this pest is questionable. We evaluate afidopyropen, a novel pyropene insecticide (Group 9D), for efficacy against A. glycines in field and greenhouse experiments and toxicity to common natural enemies in laboratory experiments. RESULTS Across 4 site‐years of field experiments and a greenhouse experiment, afidopyropen reduced A. glycines populations similar to commonly used broad‐spectrum [i.e. lambda‐cyhalothrin (Group 3A) and chlorpyrifos (Group 1B)] insecticides and potential selective insecticides [i.e. sulfoxaflor (Group 4C) and flupyradifurone (Group 4D)]. In the greenhouse, however, A. glycines mortality was delayed slightly for afidopyropen compared to the other insecticides. In laboratory experiments with natural enemies of A. glycines, afidopyropen was not toxic to adult or third instar Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) or adult Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), and was only moderately toxic to Aphelinus certus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). CONCLUSION Afidopyropen is effective against A. glycines and relatively non‐toxic to natural enemies, and appears to be an effective option for integrated pest management and insecticide resistance management programs for A. glycines. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

Conservation biological control using selective insecticides – A valuable tool for IPM

Cited by 105 publications

References 104 publications

Measuring What Matters: Actionable Information for Conservation Biocontrol in Multifunctional Landscapes

Measuring What Matters: Actionable Information for Conservation Biocontrol in Multifunctional Landscapes

Combining Host Plant Resistance, Selective Insecticides, and Biological Control Agents for Integrated Management of Tuta absoluta

Efficacy of afidopyropen against soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and toxicity to natural enemies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About