biological control of arthropod

pests with natural enemies

Dave Chandler
• Farming provides food for 8 billion
people, but industrial agriculture is a
major cause of land degradation and
biodiversity loss.
• Modern farming is highly
sophisticated but also highly
damaging to biodiversity and
ecosystem service provision.

• Can it produce sufficient yields with a

very much lower environmental
footprint?
 Global challenge of sustainable farming
• Rapid expansion and unsustainable management of farmland is the biggest
driver of land degradation on earth and a major cause of climate heating.
• Farmland covers 33% of the Earth’s land surface, with recent clearance of
native habitats being concentrated in the most species-rich ecosystems.
• Inappropriate land-management leads to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem
services, soil erosion, fertility loss, excessive water extraction, eutrophication
of aquatic systems.
• Pesticide and fertilizer use set to double by 2050.
• Conservation agriculture needed urgently.
• (source, IPBES report on Land degradation and restoration 2019)
 Arthropods : a major constraint on crop production
• Currently, crop pest management is based
around regular applications of synthetic
chemical pesticides.
• These harm non-target insects and reduce
biodiversity.

Estimated 70,000 species of crop

pests (insect, mites, pathogens,
weeds).
Reduce potential global harvest by
>10%.
c. 3 million tonnes pesticide used
each year
• Concerns about large scale declines in insect
abundance, driven by land degradation:
– Loss of natural habitats.
– Use of agrochemicals and other
components of industrialized agriculture.

• Loss of insects impacts on ecosystem

functioning:
– Pollination, herbivory and detrivory,
nutrient cycling, food for higher trophic
levels inc. birds, mammals, amphibians.

• Estimated 8 million plant & animal species on

Earth, of which 5.5 million are insects.
Other problems with chemical pesticides: (1) resistance in target pests
and (2) declining product availability as products are banned following
government reviews

Insecticide resistance (world) insecticide availability (USA) (Hajek, 2004).

 Injudicious used of conventional
chemical pesticides

• Environmental damage (effects on

insect biodiversity).
• Evolution of resistance in pest
populations.
• Health concerns for people
(pesticide safety)

Reduction in pesticide availability:

Sustainable crop protection • Products stop working.
• Government restrictions.
 Making pest control more effective through
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Biological Chemical control

control

Decision
Crop breeding for support
resistance

Cultural
techniques

IBMA Global
 Biological control (= biocontrol)
• The use of living organisms to suppress the
population of a pest, making it less abundant or less
damaging.
• Biocontrol agents are also called natural enemies.
They are part of natural capital.
• They can be used for crop protection to reduce
excessive pesticide use.
 3 functional groups of natural enemy
• True predator
– Kills prey immediately after attacking them. Consumes large numbers of
prey.
• Parasite
– Consumes one or very few individuals in a lifetime. Lives on or in the host.
Intimate association with host.
• Parasitoid
– Insect that is free living as adult but lays eggs in other insects. The larvae
develop on or in the host and eventually kill it.
Biocontrol agents used against aphid pests in greenhouse crops

True predator: Adalia Parasitoid, Aphidius

bipunctata Fungal pathogen,
matricariae Lecanicillium muscarium

These are all produced and sold by the biocontrol company Koppert www.koppert.co.uk
Koppert produce 40 different product lines of natural enemies
 Biocontrol of crop pests
with natural enemies.
• Industry can mass produce
them, and farmers can apply
them to their crops.

• Natural populations on
farmland can also be
exploited (ecosystem services
provision).

• Used as part of IPM.

 Biocontrol agents - benefits

• Often very specific. Low risk to non-target insects. No

pesticide residue, safe for farmers and growers.
• Low development costs.
• They can reduce the selection pressures for evolution
of resistance on insecticides.
• Can be self sustaining.
• Attractive features of microbial control agents:
endophytism, growth stimulation, localised
reproduction.
• Maintenance of soil microflora – soil health & carbon
sequestration.
 Biocontrol: challenges
• Many biocontrol agents have proven potential in IPM
– but performance of others is weak or sub-optimal.
– Expensive, variable efficacy, less robust than
chemical pesticides.
– Reasons for poor performance not always known.
– Technical barriers: application; environmental
factors; compatibility.
• Used mainly in high value crops (e.g. greenhouse
crops). Starting to be used in field crops but issues
around scaling up mass productionIn Europe,
• So farmers and growers can be wary of them.
 IPM and biocontrol are a key part of future agriculture in the EU

The EU “farm to fork” strategy 2020:

• “The use of chemical pesticides in agriculture contributes to soil, water and
air pollution, biodiversity loss and can harm non-target plants, insects, birds,
mammals and amphibians”.
• “The Commission will take additional action to reduce the overall use and
risk of chemical pesticides by 50% … by 2030.”
• “The Commission will … facilitate the placing on the market of pesticides
containing biological active substances”.
• https://ec.europa.eu/food/farm2fork_en
There are 3 strategies for biocontrol

• Introduction / classical control

• Augmentation.
• Conservation
 Strategy 1 : ‘introduction’
• The intentional introduction of an exotic biological
control agent for permanent establishment and long
term pest control.
• Based on the ‘natural enemy release hypothesis’.

• Also called ‘classical control’.

 Classical control of cottony cushion scale
• 1868: Cottony cushion scale, Icerya purchasi,
accidentally introduced to California citrus orchards.
• 1886: Nearly destroys citrus farming.
• The scale came from Australia. 2 natural enemies
imported:
– a parasitoid Cryptochaetum (12,000 released),
– A true predator, the vedalia beetle Rodolia cardinalis
(500 released).
• Beetle spread rapidly, controlled the scale by 1890.
Still working now.
• Parasitoid took longer to establish. Effective on the U. California IPM web page
coast. www.ipm.ucdavis.edu
 Classical control
• Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity
loss.
• They include some of our most important crop pests,
diseases and weeds.
• Classical biocontrol is often the only practical solution
for their control.
• Used on 350 million ha worldwide, c. 2000 natural
enemy species released with permanent suppression
of 165 arthropod pest species.
Cassava mealy bug. Arrived
Africa from S America 1973,
destroyed 60% cassava crop.
Classical control by S
American parasitoids.
 Strategy 2: ‘augmentation’
• Intentional release of a species of natural enemy that
occurs already within the area, region or country of use.
• The idea is that the resident natural enemy population is
too low to control the pest, so it has to be ‘augmented’.
• The introduced population falls back to the carrying
capacity of the agro-ecosystem.
 Augmentation control in Europe

• 150 different ‘macro’ natural enemy products, 120 microbial

products. Annual growth 15% (3% for conventional pesticides).
• Used mainly in high value greenhouse crops (tomato, pepper,
cucumber, aubergine).
• Developed because of widespread pesticide resistance & use of
bees as pollinators.
• Uses true predators, parasitoids, parasites.
• The biocontrol companies sell natural enemies and technical advice
to the grower.
 Augmentation: ‘Macro’ natural enemies

Predatory mite Phytoseiulus

persimilis (controls spider mites)

Predatory mite Amblydromalus limonicus

Steinernema (Koppert, controls thrips)
nematode (controls weevils)
Insect pathogenic nematodes
Microbial agents (biopesticides)

Bacillus thuringiensis Granulosis virus

Fungal parasites of insects used as
‘biopesticides’
Augmentation control of glasshouse
pests in Europe
• Glasshouse tomato
crop = £750,000 per
ha.
• Pests are a major
problem: whitefly,
aphids, spider mites,
caterpillars.

• Consumers want
pesticide free
produce.

• Bumblebees used to
pollinate crop:
pesticides will kill
them.
 Integrated biocontrol of spider mite on
glasshouse crops
• Twospotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae.
• Used to be controlled used predatory mites, e.g.
Phytoseiulus + a chemical acaricide (fenbutatin
oxide).
• Slow establishment of predator on tomato.
• High dependence on chemical.
• Acaricide resistance.
• Replace chemical acaricide with a biopesticide?
The insect pathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana
 Integrated control of spider mite on tomato

• Fungal biopesticide Beauveria bassiana.

• ‘second line of defence’.
• Predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis.

Chandler, D., Davidson, G. & Jacobson, R. J. (2005). Laboratory and glasshouse evaluation of
entomopathogenic fungi against the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae (Acari:
Tetranychidae) on tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 15,
37 – 54
 Beauveria bassiana used for spider mite control: a
supplementary treatment to P. persimilis

Sig reduction (p<0.05) . Note effect on eggs.

• Low numbers of predator released to simulate commercial conditions when predator
control starts to break down.
• Now used across Europe on greenhouse crops.
 Strategy 3: ‘conservation’
• Actions that preserve or protect natural enemies that are
already present.
– Use IPM to reduce the effects of pesticides on natural enemies.
– Habitat manipulation to attract and retain natural enemies.
Pesticide use and rice yields for farmers using IPM
compared to those not using IPM

Pesticide use Crop yields

China -79% +11%

India -33% +9%

Sri Lanka -26% +23%

Taken from Gurr et al., (2000). Biological Control: Measures of

success, pp. 105 – 132. Kluwer Academic Publishers
Natural declines in cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii, caused by the fungus
Neozygites fresenii, in the southern USA

• Important cotton pest in USA

since the 1980s.
• Caused by A. gossypii
developing pesticide resistance.

Steinkraus, Arkansas University

 • Neozygites fresenii started causing
epizootics in A. gossypii on cotton in
Mississippi Delta in 1989.

• Common, begin in July, occur at same

time in the same region.

• Prediction service run by U. of Arkansas -

allows farmers to save insecticide sprays.
• Saves money and preserves other natural
enemies.

Steinkraus, Arkansas University

 Epizootic dynamics
• Disease ‘take off’ level = 15%
prevalence. When this is reached, the
disease progresses rapidly and the
aphid population will then ‘crash’.

• When this starts, the aphid population

falls by 80% in 3 - 4 days.

• Fungus detectable up to 10 days before

the aphid population starts to decline
this rapidly.
 • Arkansas University detection service
for 10 states.

• Farmers get sent sampling kits & send

in leaf sample with cotton aphids.
• Aphids examined under microscope.
• If fungus levels reach 15%, farmers told
that aphid crash is imminent.
• Farmer then has option to save
insecticide sprays. It saves c. $30
million pa.

Steinkraus, Arkansas University

http://www.uark.edu/misc/aphid/
 Future
• Can we get augmentation biocontrol to work better, and be
adopted more, in outdoor crops?
• Make best use of ecological features of biocontrol agents.
• Better integration within IPM.
• Better understanding and use of conservation control.
• Pesticide Use data, Food and Agriculture Organisation data presented at https://ourworldindata.org/pes
ticides

• Begg, G.S. et al. (2017). A functional overview of conservation biological control. Crop Protection, 97,
145-158.
• Chandler, D., Davidson, G. & Jacobson, R. J. (2005). Laboratory and glasshouse evaluation of
entomopathogenic fungi against the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)
on tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 15, 37 – 54
• Ann Hajek. Natural enemies: an introduction to biological control. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 2004. pp 378 ISBN 0 521 65295
• Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, et al. (2017) More than 75 percent decline
over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS ONE 12(10): e0185809.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
• IPBES (The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services)
Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration https://ipbes.net/assessment-reports/ldr
• Messing, R., Brodeur, J. Current challenges to the implementation of classical biological control.
BioControl 63, 1–9 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9862-4
• D. C. Steinkraus, R. G. Hollingsworth, P. H. Slaymaker, Prevalence of Neozygites fresenii
(Entomophthorales: Neozygitaceae) on Cotton Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Arkansas Cotton,
Environmental Entomology, Volume 24, Issue 2, 1 April 1995, Pages 465–474,
https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/24.2.465