Biocontrol News and Information 25(4), 81N–104N

General News

Ladybird Strikes Discordant Note

Growing public concern about Harmonia axyridis(multicoloured Asian ladybird or ladybeetle) inEurope reflects deep-seated and long-held misgiv-ings within the biological control community aboutthe inadequacy of regulation of natural enemy intro-ductions. The latest media attention has come fromthe UK, where the identification of a single specimenfrom a garden in the southeastern county of Essexled to alarming press headlines, e.g. “The ladybirdkillers fly in” (Daily Telegraph, 5 October 2004).

Harmonia axyridis is a well-known aphid predator,attacking numerous species in its extensive nativerange in Asia. It is a voracious feeder, preying on notonly aphids but also soft-bodied insects like psyllids,butterfly eggs and many groups of aphid predatorsincluding other ladybirds – and cannibalism is animportant factor in its population dynamics. Studiesin the USA suggest that it may displace native faunaby predation, competition and other indirectmechanisms1.

Harmonia axyridis was introduced to France for thebiological control of various aphid species in 1982.Ten years ago it was commercialized for the controlof aphids in greenhouses and field crops in north-western Europe. Established wild populations werefirst found in Germany in 2000 (Frankfurt am Main)and in Belgium and the Netherlands at the end of2002. Large populations have since been found in allthree countries, together with evidence of its dis-persal to new locations. Currently, scientists in thesecountries are conducting surveys to monitor its pres-ence, abundance and spread. There is considerableconcern about its possible effects on native competi-tors, but at present it is impossible to predict what itsimpact might be.

The ladybird has a far longer history in NorthAmerica1. The first record of its introduction was inCalifornia in 1916. It has been introduced, bothdeliberately and accidentally, many times since, par-ticularly to many eastern US states between 1978and 1982. It is credited with contributing to controlof pests in a wide variety of field and tree crops. Itwas not recorded as established in the wild until1988, when it was collected in the southern US stateof Louisiana (not near any known release site). Sincethen it has spread rapidly and is now found in mostUS states and in southern Canada. On top of thenontarget effects outlined above, it has been identi-fied as a potential pest in the fruit industry asaggregations can occur on fruit. These are particu-larly difficult to remove from grapes and can lead totainted wine. While there are scientific concernsabout its nontarget effects, there is also regularpublic outcry: perennial complaints arise in autumnwhen its habit of aggregating in high numbers toover-winter in crevices in light-coloured substrates

leads it to enter buildings. The sight of massed lady-birds, smell (emitted when stressed), occasional bitesand allergies, and even the noise of the massed rankscrawling around contribute to its nuisance status.

In 2003, a paper in BioControl2 highlighted H.axyridis as having a high risk of nontarget impact(second only to another polyphagous ladybird, Hipp-odamia convergens) in Europe. The paper was anoutput of the ERBIC (Evaluating EnvironmentalRisks of Biological Control Introductions intoEurope) project, funded under the European Union(EU) 4th Framework Programme. It developed a pro-posed risk assessment method for biological controlagents, and applied this to 31 exotic agents commer-cially available in the EU. Briefly, it calculated a riskindex for each species based on the likelihood andmagnitude of nontarget effects from dispersal, estab-lishment, host specificity, direct effects and indirecteffects. It is notable that most of the seven predatoryinsects assessed were given high-risk indices (threeof the five top-scoring species were predatory insects,and only one was outside the top ten).

Despite mounting evidence of its nontarget impacts,H. axyridis is still available commercially in Europe,described as an excellent aphid predator. Alarm-ingly, in the context of this article, it is also noted asseeming to be very tolerant to pesticides. Can andshould anything be done? It is probably too late.Given the spread and abundance of the ladybird,eradication in Europe is not an option. With the sizeof the populations that have built up on the continentthis autumn, its establishment in the UK seemsinevitable if not already reality. Harmonia axyridishas now been confirmed from other locations in thesoutheastern UK and evidence of breeding recordedin south London3. Only with the passage of time willit be possible to assess whether the introductions area disaster, by weighing up the benefits of controlagainst the nontarget impacts.

A prime reason why such apparently high-risk spe-cies are marketed lies in the need for biologicalcontrol producers to make money. There is more eco-nomic sustainability (profit) in a treatment withwide-spectrum application, and this applies as muchto biological control agents as to chemical pesticides.Thus, while biological control theory dictates thatthe best agent, for both efficacy and safety, is a highlyhost-specific one, economics dictates that voraciousgeneralist species with broad host ranges are moreattractive to the commercial producer. The BioCon-trol paper notes, however, that generalist tendenciesdo not by themselves rule out a species as a biologicalcontrol agent: “The likelihood of adverse ecologicaleffects may be high, but the conditions in which theyare released (e.g. greenhouse in temperate climates)may strongly limit the realization of these adverseeffects.” In other words, each introduction needs to beconsidered on its merits. Yet how far European coun-

Are we on your mailing list?Biocontrol News and Information is always pleased to receive news of research, conferences, new products or patents, changes in personnel, collaborative agreementsor any other information of interest to other readers. If your organization sends out press releases or newsletters, please let us have a copy. In addition, the editorswelcome proposals for review topics.

82N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

tries do or do not regulate the introduction ofinvertebrate biological control agents varies, in prac-tice, from strictly to not at all.

The issue of lack of regulation was recognized manyyears ago, ironically when the fledgling ‘green move-ment’ began to throw doubts on the sustainability ofwidespread use of pesticides, which led to the growthof integrated pest management (IPM) with biologicalcontrol as a cornerstone. The advent of IPM meantthat people and countries with no experience of bio-logical control were beginning to make, or want tomake, species introductions, either as natural ene-mies or formulated as biopesticides. Action byinternational biological control organizations andFAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN)led to the drafting of the IPPC (International PlantProtection Convention) ‘Code of conduct for importand release of exotic biological control agents’ (Inter-national Standards for Phytosanitary Measures(ISPM) No. 3)4, which was adopted in 1996. Althoughprimarily aimed at protecting crops, it is regarded asthe general international protocol for countriesimplementing biological control. Nonetheless, it isnot international law at this time (see below). Therevision of ISPM No. 3, as regular readers will know,began in late 2002 and is currently at the countryconsultation stage. EPPO (European and Mediterra-nean Plant Protection Organization) has alsodeveloped standards (PM6)5 to provide guidelines forassessing and reducing risks associated with biolog-ical control agents and, in some cases, for comparingtheir efficacy. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has developed guidanceon information requirements for ecological riskanalysis6. However, although both these focus oncommercial invertebrate biological control agents,they are advisory, not regulatory, documents.

With invasive species now climbing the Europeanagenda, classical biological control, as successfullyimplemented by governments in many other parts ofthe world, offers perhaps the best hope for containingat least some of them. Biological control, properlyimplemented, has a good track record of safety. A fewhigh profile, largely historical, cases have given it anunnecessarily accident-prone public image, but theemerging problem with H. axyridis does little to helppromote modern biological control as a safe option.

Once revised and approved, ISPM No. 3 will havelegal, international status, but at the moment thereis no uniform regulation within Europe. Initiativesare, however, gaining pace. A workshop held inEngelberg, Switzerland in June 2004, reported onlater in this issue7, reviewed methods for assessingenvironmental risks from invertebrate biologicalcontrol agents and a book based on the meeting willbe published next year. Another workshop in Zurich,Switzerland in July 2004 marked the establishmentof the IOBC/WPRS (International Organization forBiological and Integrated Control of Noxious Ani-mals and Plants - West Palaearctic Regional Section)Commission on Harmonization of IBCAs (CHIBCA)to harmonize the regulation of invertebrate biolog-ical control agents in the EU and other Europeancountries.

Many biological control producers view the imple-mentation of a regulatory procedure for biologicalcontrol agents with considerable alarm. They fearthat lengthy, cumbersome processes will increasecosts and may prevent useful agents from reachingthe market. However, without buy-in by the commer-cial sector to the importance of safety, the future ofbiological control is far from assured. For themoment, perhaps the best we can hope is that thehigh profile achieved by H. axyridis may help fosterthe message that safety must come first for all in thebiological control sector.

Further Information1Koch, R.L. (2003) The multicolored Asian ladybeetle, Harmonia axyridis: a review of its biology,uses in biological control, and non-target impacts.Journal of Insect Science 3, 1–16.www.insectscience.org/3.32[For more recent papers on H. axyridis, see AmericanEntomologist 50(3)]

2Van Lenteren, J.C.; Babendreier, D.; Bigler, F.;Burgio, G.; Hokkanen, H.M.T.; Kuske, S.; Loomans,A.J.M.; Menzler-Hokkanen, I.; Van Rijn, P.C.J.;Thomas, M.B.; Tommasini, M.G. and Zeng, Q.Q.(2003) Environmental risk assessment of exotic nat-ural enemies used in inundative biological control.BioControl 48, 3–38.

3Ladybird survey, Harmonia axyridis:www.ladybird-survey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/H_axyridis.htm#britain

4ISPM No. 3, original and revision process:www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp

5EPPO Standards:www.eppo.org/STANDARDS/biocontrol.htm

6OECD (2004) Guidance for information require-ments for regulation of invertebrates as biologicalcontrol agents (IBCAs). Series on Pesticides, No. 21.www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/20/28725175.pdf

7Menzler-Hokkanen, I., Babendreier, D., Bigler, F.,Hokkanen, H. & Kuhlmann, U. (2004) Environ-mental impact of invertebrates for biological controlof arthropods: methods and risk assessment. BNI25(4) [Conference reports, this issue].

Classical Biocontrol Introduced to Timor-Leste

The release of the coccinellid Chilocorus politusagainst coconut scale, Aspidiotus destructor, in theDemocratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor) inJuly 2004 was the first official release of a biocontrolpredator in this small island country.

Aspidiotus destructor is a widespread and seriouspest of coconut, and also infests bananas and a widerange of other crops. On coconut, it has been a fre-quent target around the world for biological control.Severe infestations cause characteristic completeyellowing of older coconut fronds, which is visiblefrom a distance and even from the air. In the worstcases the trees die. Yellowing symptoms were first

News 83N

noticed in Timor-Leste in May 2001 around the townof Baucau, but the pest may have been present forsome time by then. By 2003 the outbreak wasaffecting most trees in the area. Anecdotal evidencesuggests that it was having serious consequences onthe livelihoods of Baucau farmers. It is possible thatthe pest outbreak was associated with potassiumdeficiency in the trees. The area is characterized bycoral limestone, which is mineral deficient, especiallyin potassium. The infestation has spread beyondBaucau and it is anticipated that it will spread else-where in Timor-Leste as a result of air currents andmovement of infested coconut and banana plantmaterial.

Three management options were considered by theTimor-Leste Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry andFisheries (MAFF) in consultation with CIRAD(Centre de Coopération Internationale en RechercheAgronomique pour le Développement, France):

1. Chemical control is notoriously difficult inmature coconut palms because of their height, andwould have been expensive given the number ofaffected trees. Safety concerns also contributed tothe decision not to used insecticides. If withholdingperiods for compounds such as dimethoate werebreached, the population would have been exposedto health risks.

2. Cultural management – cutting off and burninginfested older fronds – was promoted via radio pro-grammes in 2003. However, this is very labourintensive, and also hazardous as it involves climbingtrees that can be more than 10 m tall. Although themeasure seems to have had success in reducinginfestations, farmers’ calls for financial incentives toimplement the measure could not be met and itspromotion lapsed.

3. Classical biological control would give muchslower impact than either option above, but did holdpromise. It has been successfully implemented inother countries (but, as a note of caution, not univer-sally so). Nonetheless, agents were known, testedand available, together with protocols for rearingand release. More than 40 natural enemies havebeen recorded on A. destructor. Coccinellids haveproved the most effective for biological control,although their success in any new locality is notguaranteed.

The coconut scale biocontrol project has received gen-erous financial support from USAID (US Agency forInternational Development) and German TechnicalCooperation (GTZ, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Tech-nische Zusammenarbeit). Advice from CIRAD andGadjahmada University (Jogyakarta, Indonesia) ledto C. politus being selected for introduction. Collec-tions were made in Jogyakarta in September 2003and a culture was established in Triloca, west ofBaucau. Aspidiotus destructor colonies were estab-lished on pumpkins. The coccinellids were reared onthese, supplemented with cut, scale-infested palmfronds, inside locally made wood and cloth cages.Other adaptations were devised by experimentingwith ways to maintain a healthy colony:

• Laboratory windows were partially papered overto prevent direct sunlight heating the cages andcausing temperature fluctuations.

• Good hygiene practices included removing sweat-ing, rotting or damaged pumpkins promptly. Venti-lators above the windows aided air circulation.

• Scale-infested palm fronds were supplied regu-larly, and used ones removed.

• Discarded palm material was examined carefullyfollowing removal, and again later; any coccinellidlarvae found were replaced in the cage.

• The cages were on a shelf, which was supported onlegs sitting in Petri dishes of water to exclude ants.

• Cannibalism was minimized by separating adultcoccinellids from young larvae and avoiding crowd-ing in cages.

Even so, predator numbers were slow to increase.The first releases were not made until May 2004,when 100 adults (40 males and 60 females) werereleased at each of four sites. The releases featured anovel bamboo release cage, lined with banana leavescovered in scales, which was suspended in the palmcanopy by plastic cable clips. By October 2004 some1800 ladybirds had been released at 23 locations.

Local people have also been trained in how to collectthe ladybirds, and how to carry them and releasethem at sites of infestation where the predatorsappear to be absent. As A. destructor inevitablyspreads further in Timor-Leste, new releases arelikely to be necessary, but providing such trainingwill allow the predator to be redistributed on a locallevel.

Because the introduction of coccinellids against A.destructor has had mixed results elsewhere, signs ofestablishment were awaited with some anxiety.However, early signs in Timor-Leste gave reason tobe optimistic. Numerous larvae were detected at thefirst sites within 2 weeks of the adults beingreleased. Several months on, the predators seem tobe thriving in the field. Where releases have takenplace, it is now common to find dense aggregations ofthe black pupae (up to 300 on a single frond), oftenclustered towards the base of the frond. This is beingused as one of the indices of establishment in thepost-release surveys that began in November, 6months after the first releases. Thus, although it isstill very early days, signs are promising that Timor-Leste’s first foray into classical biological control maybe a successful one. If so, it will doubtless make bio-logical control an option to be seriously considered forother pests in this country.

By: J. Mark Ritchie, UNDP Integrated Pest Management Adviser, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,Democratic Republic of Timor Leste, c/o UNDP Dili Pouch Unit, P.O. Box 2436,Darwin, NT 0801, Australia.Email: JMarkRitchie@Compuserve.com

Americo Brito, Head, Plant Protection Section,MAFF, Fomento Building, Mandarin, Dili,

84N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

Democratic Republic of Timor Leste.Email: bamerico@hotmail.com

Lourenço Fontes, Director, Research and Extension Centre, MAFF, Fomento Building, Mandarin, Dili, Democratic Republic of Timor Leste.Email: risonlia@yahoo.com

Coconut Community Highlights Hispine Beetle Pest

The coconut hispine beetle (Brontispa longissima) isproving a devastating pest as it spreads to new partsof Asia and the Pacific. IPM specialists from theAsian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC) warnthat it could threaten coconut production in some ofthe world's major coconut growing countries if thespread continues unchecked. They point out that thepest has been successfully controlled in the past bythe introduction and enhancement of natural ene-mies, and call for new surveys in the area of origin ofthe pest.

APCC is an intergovernmental organization of 15member countries (Federated States of Micronesia,Fiji, India, Indonesia, Kiribati, Malaysia, MarshallIslands, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa,Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vanuatu andVietnam). Established in 1969 as the first com-modity-based organization in the region, the APCC istasked to promote, coordinate and harmonize allactivities in the coconut industry which sustains thelives of millions of coconut farmers as well as thoseengaged in the processing, marketing and other sec-tors of the industry. The coconut IPM programme,currently concentrating on coconut mite and rhinoc-eros beetle, is working in four countries (Papua NewGuinea, Philippines, India and Sri Lanka) withanother five set to join next year (Malaysia, Tan-zania, Samoa, Thailand and Indonesia).

Brontispa longissima was originally described fromthe Aru Islands (Maluku Province) of Indonesia. Thechrysomelid is native to Indonesia (Aru Islands andpossibly Papua Province, formerly known as IrianJaya) and Papua New Guinea (including the Bis-marck Archipelago), where it seldom causes seriousproblems. It has now spread widely in Asia, Austral-asia and the Pacific Islands attacking not onlycoconut palm but also several other cultivated andwild palms. In recent times it has spread to Singa-pore, Vietnam, Nauru, Thailand, the Maldives andHainan Island (China) and possibly to Cambodia andLaos. In the absence of natural antagonists it hasbecome a very serious and devastating pest in itsnew areas of spread. Furthermore, it is feared that B.longissima will find its way from the Maldives to SriLanka and the southern parts of India to derail theeconomy of these important coconut-growingregions. Emergency operations are thus necessary totry and substantially reduce its population in theMaldives. Similarly, its control in South East Asia isnecessary to prevent its entry into Myanmar andBangladesh.

The pest prefers young palms, and both larval andadult beetles are usually found in the still-foldedheart leaf. They feed on the mesophyll tissue, thedamage visible as long white streaks. Heavy infesta-tions reduce photosynthetic activity to zero. Loss ofeight or more leaves per tree impacts on productionand prolonged attack can even kill the trees.

The first pest outbreaks of B. longissima, in SouthSulawesi and Java, began to be reported in 1919 andcontinued until the pest was brought under biolog-ical control in the mid 1930s. In this firstprogramme, control was achieved with the eulophidpupal parasitoid, Tetrastichus brontispae. As thepest spread through Indonesia, further outbreakswere brought under control by redistributing theparasitoid. Since then, it has been successful in sev-eral Pacific island countries. A eulophid larvalparasitoid, Aescodes hispinarum, from WesternSamoa has been successfully introduced to a numberof countries. Spraying with the fungus Metarhiziumanisopliae, isolated from B. longissima in WesternSamoa, has also shown promise in Western Samoaand Taiwan. A number of other promising naturalenemies have been recorded in the region, includingegg parasitoids (the trichogrammatids Hispidophila(= Haeckeliania) brontispae and Trichogramma-toidea nana and the encyrtid Ooencyrtus podontiae),another fungus (Beauveria bassiana) and an uniden-tified bacteria. Predators have also been recorded,including the dermapteran Chelisoches morio andthe ant Oecophylla smaragdina, together withgeckoes, skinks and tree frogs. Mites (Anoplocelaenosp. and Celaenopsis sp.) have been recorded on adultbeetles.

Biological control will take some time to implementin the new areas of spread. Alternative measures areneeded to replace chemical control as most of theinsecticides that were recommended have beenphased out owing to their harmful side effects.Although difficult to implement, an integratedapproach including the use of tolerant cultivars, theadoption of phytosanitary measures, and the imposi-tion of strict quarantine measures is recommended.In addition, relatively safer pesticides could be usedto knock down the pest until biological controlbecomes operative and effective.

There is an urgent need to initiate an internationalproject to provide training to coconut entomologistsand create awareness in the affected countries andthe countries to where the hispine beetle may spread.

By: Dr S.P. Singh, Project Coordinator–IPM,Asian and Pacific Coconut Community, 3rd Floor,Lina Building, Jl. H.R. Rasuna Said Kav. B7,Kuningan, Jakarta 12920, Indonesia.Email: spdoad@rediffmail.com / apcc@indo.net.id

First Release against Mile-a-Minute in the USA

Polygonum perfoliatum or mile-a-minute weed(MAM) is an annual vine with sharp, reflexed pricklyspines on the stem and petioles that adhere to andclimb over native species. MAM infests roadsides,disturbed forest sites, stream banks, and old field

News 85N

and tree plantations in invaded habitats in the USA.The release of a weevil from China is an importantmilestone in the control programme against thisweed.

MAM is native to Asia, ranging from Japan in thenorth to the Philippines in the south, and west toIndia. It is mainly limited to wetter habitats in itsnative range.

The first established infestation of MAM in the USAwas traced to a nursery in York County, Pennsyl-vania in the 1940s. It was suspected that MAM wasintroduced along with holly (Ilex spp.) seeds or rhodo-dendron (Rhododendron spp.) plants from Japan.The infestation in York, Pennsylvania has been con-sidered as the centre of spread in the eastern USA.However, MAM was also reported to be present inthe Glenn Dale Introduction Garden in Maryland,where it was introduced with Meliosa seed from Nan-jing, China in 1937. Since these first recordedintroductions about 60 years ago, MAM has beenrecorded in ten states and continues to spreadaggressively in various habitats. Fifteen additionalstates, all within Plant Hardiness Zones 6 and 7 haveclimates favourable for MAM.

The first biological control initiatives focused onpotential natural enemies of MAM in the USA. Oneof the earliest surveys for these was conducted in theeastern USA (e.g. south-central Pennsylvania in1981–83) by Wheeler and Mengel. They recovered 34species that developed on MAM and 12 species thatfed on it only as adults. However, none of themcaused significant damage to the weed. In 1997, asurvey was initiated by the US Department of Agri-culture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS) forarthropods associated with MAM in four states(Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia).By the end of the 2000 field season, specimens repre-senting over 112 families and seven orders had beenrecovered from MAM; only ten showed potential asbiological control agents but none had sufficientimpact on MAM to reduce its damage or spread.

The search then switched to the weed’s native range.In 1996, a collaborative project was initiated betweenthe Institute of Biological Control, Chinese Academyof Agricultural Sciences (BCI–CAAS) and the USFSForest Health Technology Enterprise Team(FHTET) to survey for and screen potential biologicalcontrol agents in China for release against MAM inthe USA. A team led by Ding Jianqing conducted sur-veys for phytophagous insects from 1996 to 2001 in23 provinces including northeastern China, wherethe climate is similar to that of the eastern USA, andsouthwest China, which is considered the centre oforigin of the family Polygonaceae. A total of 111 spe-cies of insects representing six orders and 29 familieswas collected during the surveys. Most of these wererecovered from leaves, although several stem borersand fruit- and seed-feeders were found. No insectswere recovered from roots.

There are about 40 genera and 800 species of Polyg-onaceae (buckwheat family) in the USA and Canada.They include 14 economically important plant spe-cies including those grown as human and animal

food (e.g. Fagopyrum spp. – buckwheat and Rheumspp – rhubarb), so host specificity in candidateagents from China was of prime importance. Amongthe 111 species found associated with MAM inChina, 11 were initially regarded as importantbecause of either their severe damage to MAM ortheir narrow host range. Based on additional infor-mation from the literature and results from lab andfield tests on host range, distribution, populationdensity and severity of damage to MAM, one speciesemerged that appeared to have the greatest poten-tial, the stem-boring weevil Rhinoncomimus latipes.Adult weevils eat young leaves of P. perfoliatum andlay eggs on leaves and stems. After hatching, larvaebore into the stem where they complete development,then exit the stem and drop to the soil for pupation.Development from egg to adult takes about 26 daysunder laboratory conditions. Damage to the plantoccurs primarily from larval feeding, which kills thestem from the exit hole to the stem terminal.

No other plant species was found to be attacked by R.latipes during all the field surveys in China. Choice,no-choice, and open-field tests for the weevil wereconducted with more than 50 plant species from 17families in China from 1999 to 2002. No-choice testsshowed both adult and larva fed on only a few plantspecies in the family Polygonaceae. Based on thisinformation, R. latipes was introduced into quaran-tine in the USA in 1999. Further feeding andoviposition tests in US quarantine gave resultsfavourable for its release. Rhinoncomimus latipeswas recommended for release by TAG (TechnicalAdvisory Group for Biological Control Agents ofWeeds), and approved by USDA–APHIS (USDAAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service) and thestates of Delaware and New Jersey. On 19 July 2004,R. latipes adults were released at two sites in WhiteClay Creek State Park in Delaware and on 29 July2004 at one site in southern New Jersey. Protocolsfor monitoring the abundance of both MAM and theweevil and evaluating the weevil’s long-term impacthave been developed.

In 2005, further releases are planned in New Jerseyand Delaware. Releases are also expected in Penn-sylvania, West Virginia and Ohio as the biologicalcontrol programme against mile-a-minute weed inthe USA takes to the road.

By: Richard Reardon, Ding Jianqing and Yun Wu.

Contact: Richard Reardon, FHTET,USDA Forest Service, 180 Canfield Street,Morgantown, WV 26505, USA.Email: rreardon@fs.fed.usFax: +1 304 285 1564

First Rust Fungus Fully Approved for Biological Control of Yellow Starthistle in the USA

A rust fungus from Turkey has joined five introducedinsect species in the battle against yellow starthistle(Centaurea solstitialis) in the USA. The first releaseof the rust, Puccinia jaceae var. solstitialis, was madein Napa Valley, California in July 2003 and suc-cessful infection in the field was confirmed later in

86N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

the month. The fungus attacks the thistle’s leavesand stem, forming rust-coloured pustules that robthe plant of nutrients. In sufficient numbers, thesereduce root growth and seed production. The jointprogramme that released the P. jaceae var. solsti-tialis includes scientists from the US Department ofFood and Agriculture – Agricultural ResearchService (USDA–ARS) and the California Depart-ment of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).

The release marked the culmination of 25 years workon the pathogen, which included testing it against 65species of plants in ten families, gaining permissionto release from USDA–APHIS (USDA Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service), the State of Cali-fornia and the Napa County AgriculturalCommissioner, and optimizing a release protocolwhich involves spraying the inoculum onto plantsprotected by a plastic tent.

Yellow starthistle is an invasive weed introducedfrom the Mediterranean region in the mid nine-teenth century, probably in contaminated seedshipments. It has adapted to a wide range of habitatsin the USA, aided by its ability to cope with both wetand dry conditions. It infests annual and perennialgrasslands, pastures, shrub and open woodlands anddisturbed habitats. It is now found in most of theUSA apart from some southeastern states and is con-tinuing to spread. The worst infestations are found inwestern states, where it infests some 7.3 million hec-tares of rangeland. California has the by far thelargest infestations (5.8 million hectares) followed byIdaho, Oregon and Washington.

Yellow starthistle is a winter annual. Seeds germi-nate in autumn and grow into overwinteringrosettes. Given sufficiently high temperatures andmoisture, germination continues throughout thewinter and into the early spring. Established seed-lings are in a good position, come spring, tooutcompete other plants. Long tap roots allow themto absorb soil moisture and nutrients, and they growquickly to produce large plants whose multipleflower heads can produce as many as 100,000 seeds.Thorny spines around the flower head, often up to 2–3 times its width, interfere with livestock grazing,recreation, and wildlife management. The plant istoxic to horses, causing a chronic and potentiallyfatal neurological disorder, ‘chewing disease’. Infes-tations also displace native vegetation. Biologicalcontrol is one part of a long-term managementstrategy, which also includes cultivation, handweeding and mowing, herbicides, burning, managedgrazing and other practices to suppress the weed andenhance competition by desirable species. Under thebiological control programme, three weevils and twoflies, each for impact on seed production, have beenreleased at various sites over the last 20 years. Therust is the first field release of a pathogen againstyellow starthistle in the USA, and it can attack allaboveground plant parts throughout the growingseason.

Although infection was observed soon after the path-ogen was released in the field, immediate secondaryspread was not expected and not observed. Neitherwere new infections detected in spring 2004, indi-

cating it had not over-wintered at the release site.Nonetheless, the winter provided an opportunity tobuild up inoculum in the laboratory and this year hasseen more releases of the fungus. These have led toinfections being established at 24 sites in 20 coun-ties. Little secondary spread has yet been observeddespite very good infections at a number of locations,but the team anticipate that dispersal of the path-ogen will gather pace over the next year. Plans for2005 include monitoring release sites for infectionand spread of the fungus, and making more releasesin other areas of yellow starthistle infestation in Cal-ifornia. The team hope that eventually the rust willcomplement the impact of the established insectagents and allow other plant species to begin to out-compete yellow starthistle.

Information/contact: William Bruckart,USDA–ARS–FDWSRU, 1301 Ditto Ave.,Ft. Detrick, MD 21702, USA.Email: wbruckart@fdwsr.ars.usda.gov

Additional Information:

Wilson, L.M., Jette, C., Connett, J. & McCaffrey, J.P.(2003) Biology and biological control of yellow star-thistle. USDA Forest Service FHTET-1998-17, 2ndEd.www.invasive.org/weeds/starthistle/

Suskiw, J. (2004) Fungus unleashed to combatyellow starthistle. Agricultural Research Magazine52(8), 20–22.www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/aug04/

California Department of Food and Agriculture, Bio-logical Control Program:www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/biocontrol/84ystrust.htm

Giant Salvinia Feels the Strain

A strain of Cyrtobagous salviniae imported from Aus-tralia has effected a dramatic decrease in giantsalvinia (Salvinia molesta) populations at releasesites in the USA. Some water bodies once completelycovered by the weed are now mostly open water, asituation comparable with the best biological controlachieved by the weevil against giant salvinia in otherparts of the world.

Salvinia species native to South America, in commonwith many invasive weeds, have been transportedaround the globe as ornamental plants. Giant sal-vinia is now recognized as one of the world’s mostimportant invasive aquatic weeds.

Like so many invasive aquatic weeds, giant salviniahas a rapid growth rate and can regenerate fromfragments; it can also tolerate a wide range of envi-ronments. The species was first recorded in the wildin the USA in 1995 in South Carolina where it waseradicated from a pond. It appeared again in 1998(although it may have been there longer) in easternTexas. It now creates havoc in slow-moving, fresh-water systems in Texas and Louisiana. The densemats have a negative impact on other aquatic speciesbecause they block out sunlight and use up oxygen.

News 87N

They make recreational activities such as boating,swimming and fishing impossible, which harms localeconomies. The weed also interferes with water use,clogging irrigation channels and hydroelectricturbines.

Classical biological control was first attemptedduring the 1960s in Africa, Asia and Australia, buttaxonomic confusion over both the plant and its nat-ural enemies dogged these early programmes. Oncegiant salvinia had been assigned species status as S.molesta and its native range identified, spectacularsuccess followed. A weevil from Brazil in S. molesta’shome range, then thought to be a strain of C. singu-laris, was introduced to Lake Moondarra inAustralia in 1980. It destroyed 30,000 tonnes of theweed in less than a year. The ‘before and after’ pho-tographs have illustrated various biological controltextbooks. The weevil was later described as Cyrto-bagous salviniae and has since provided control ofthe weed in many countries.

Reaction to news that the weed was present in thewild in the USA was rapid. A biological control pro-gramme was initiated by Ted Center and PhilTipping from the USDA–ARS (US Department ofAgriculture – Agricultural Research Service) Inva-sive Plant Research Laboratory at Fort Lauderdale,Florida. There were regulatory hurdles to be over-come before the population that had been usedelsewhere could be imported into the USA. The firstcontrol attempt, in 1999, involved releasing C. sal-viniae collected from common salvinia (S. minima) inFlorida. The weevil has been found on S. minima inFlorida since the 1960s, presumably inadvertentlyimported on plants from South America at some timein the past. Hopes that the locally available weevilwould provide a rapid solution were dashed becauseherbicides, floods and drought between themdestroyed all the release sites.

As this sorry tale was unfolding, molecular evidencebegan to suggest that there were differences betweenthe local ‘Florida’ population of the weevil and the‘tried and tested’ Brazil population that had con-trolled the weed elsewhere. The latest, yet to bepublished, molecular evidence now indicates that thetwo populations of weevils are very close to eachother, especially when compared to a different spe-cies, Cyrtobagous singularis. However, at the timeinterest was refocused on the Brazil population. Anew release permit had to be obtained before it couldbe released in the USA, and this was not achieveduntil late 2001 [see BNI 23(1), 1N (March 2002), Sal-vinia: USA begins round two]. Scientists at theUSDA–ARS Australian Biological Control Labora-tory in Indooroopilly, near Brisbane field-collectedand shipped weevils to Fort Lauderdale. Once cul-tures had been established, releases were made atfour sites. Regular surveys of these sites since thenhave shown a steady, sometimes spectacular, reduc-tion in giant salvinia. By September 2003, it coveredjust 1% of the water’s surface at sites where theimported weevils had been released, and at two sites(one in Texas, one in Louisiana) the mats havealmost completely collapsed. In contrast, at controlsites giant salvinia continues to cover the water sur-faces completely.

A Common Foe

Common salvinia, which has caused few problemssince its arrival in Florida, is becoming a problem inTexas and Louisiana. Although not yet a weed on thescale of giant salvinia, it typically occurs in densepopulations which show a tendency to expand. At theJean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preservenear New Orleans, Louisiana, the results of an 8-year study show that common salvinia has com-pletely displaced native duckweed species(Lemnaceae). This also threatens waterfowl popula-tions for which duckweed, with its high proteincontent, is an important food source.

Tipping and team have been releasing and evalu-ating the effectiveness of weevils from the Floridapopulation. Regular recoveries of weevils indicatethat a viable population has been established.Although still early, indications are that this popula-tion of weevils will be able to suppress commonsalvinia in Louisiana as it does in Florida.

The team is continuing to monitor both populationsof the weevils against both Salvinia species, and fur-ther releases are planned for new infestations inLouisiana and Texas.

Source: Flores, A. (2004) Tiny weevil beats backgiant salvinia. USDA–ARS Agricultural Research,September 2004.www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov01/

Contact: Phil Tipping and Ted Center, USDA–ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, 3205 College Ave., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, USA.Email: ptipping@saa.ars.usda.gov ortcenter@saa.ars.usda.gov

Kenyan Efforts towards Integrated Biological Control of Water Hyacinth

Although water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) wasfirst recorded in Africa from the River Nile in Egyptin the 1890s, it did not reach Lake Victoria until theend of the 1980s. It is thought to have reached thelake through the Kagera River whose headwaterswere invaded during the 1980s. It was reported inLake Naivasha in the mid 1980s, in Lake Victoria(Ugandan waters) in 1990 and in the Kenyan watersof the same lake in 1992. It has since spread to manyother water bodies in Kenya including rivers andponds.

The water hyacinth cover in the Winam Gulf, a largeinlet in the northeastern corner of Lake Victoria,occurred as both stationary and mobile fringes, butgenerally the plant was observed to form stationaryfringes on shoreline environments that are shelteredfrom violent offshore winds and wave action. Theplant preferred flat to gently sloping shores (rarelydeeper than 5 metres) with a soft muddy bottom, richin organic matter, such as found along the south-eastern shoreline of the gulf, extending from Nyakachto Kendu Bay. At its peak infestation in 1998, cov-erage of 17,230 ha was recorded in the Winam Gulf

88N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

through satellite imagery analysis by USGS (US Geo-logical Survey).

In cooperation with relevant organizations inUganda and Tanzania, and several internationalorganizations (International Institute of TropicalAgriculture, IITA; South Africa’s Plant ProtectionResearch Institute, PPRI; Australia's Common-wealth Scientific and Industrial ResearchOrganisation, CSIRO), the Kenya AgriculturalResearch Institute (KARI) implemented a biologicalcontrol programme for water hyacinth. This involvedimportation, mass rearing and releases of exotic bio-logical control agents. It imported 13,800 adultNeochetina eichhorniae and Neochetina bruchi wee-vils from Australia, Benin, Uganda and South Africafor mass rearing and releases and produced over200,000 weevils, of which approximately 180,000were released together with 40,000 weevil eggs at 40littoral and riverine sites in Kenya. By 1999, a reduc-tion of over 80% of water hyacinth was recorded inthe Kenyan waters of the lake, and this was mainlyattributed to action by the weevils.

However, in 2000 a resurgence of water hyacinth inthe Winam Gulf was noted. Nyakach Bay, to thesouth, was the first to experience the weed’s re-inva-sion between August and September 2000. Theemergent plants were young, healthy and rapidgrowing, and were the result of the germination ofseeds deposited in the sediment before the previouswater hyacinth mats disintegrated. Seedling germi-nation was stimulated by light penetration of thewater column following the mats’ collapse. Growthwas enhanced by high levels of nitrates and phos-phates in the water due to runoff from agricultureand to the release of nutrients from the decayingmats. By May 2001, the coverage was 1347 ha.

The resurgence necessitated a continued supply of theNeochetina weevils to the lake. To ensure this, com-munity-based weevil rearing units were establishedand the community taught aspects of weevil rearing,harvesting and release. So far a total of 15 such unitshave been established, mainly in primary schoolsalong the shoreline in areas with persistent mats ofwater hyacinth. A total of 28 teachers and youthsfrom the beach management units have been trained.

Seven years after the Neochetina weevils were firstreleased into Lake Victoria for the control of waterhyacinth, the population of the weed is now down toless than 15% of the peak infestation levels. Satelliteimages taken in December 2003 show that the infes-tation on the Kenyan side of the lake stands at 384ha as compared to the peak infestation of 17,230 harecorded in November 1998.

Water hyacinth monitoring and surveillance over thepast 5 years revealed the presence of persistentwater hyacinth ‘hot-spots’ in the lake. In Kenya,these were at Sio Port/Bukoma (Berkeley Bay) to theNorth, Kisumu (Kisumu Bay) to the East and SangoRota/Kusa (Nyakach Bay), Kendu Bay, Homa Bay,Luanda Konyango (Karungu Bay) and Rakwaro(Osodo Bay) to the South. Also noted are infestationsat the mouths of certain rivers entering the lake,namely the Yala, Kisat, Lambwe, Sondu and Kuja

rivers. Elsewhere in Kenya, many inland waterbodies such as dams and ponds are also infested. Sev-eral factors contribute to the persistence of waterhyacinth at these sites. These include land-use cover,shoreline topography, pollution, urban and indus-trial activities/centres and human populationdensity and distribution.

At these sites, particularly at the river mouths, theturbid and polluted conditions cannot sustain norcomplete the growth cycle of the weevils. To enhancecontrol in these areas, KARI has been undertakingstudies on additional methods of control and lookinginto possibilities of integrated biological controlstrategies. Apart from the two weevil species a mite,Orthogalumna terebrantis, was also imported fromSouth Africa and released in the lake in 1999. Themites have now established and damage to plants isvisible in many parts of the lake. Also to this end,KARI recently imported the moth Niphograpta albi-guttalis from IITA, Benin. The moths are currentlycontained under quarantine facilities at the KARICentre, Muguga. The three East African partnerstates (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) have agreed toundertake host specificity tests on the moth beforeany releases can be made. As required by the Envi-ronmental Management Authorities and the EastAfrican Community Secretariat, an EnvironmentalImpact Assessment will be undertaken before arelease permit can be issued. The moths are expectedto be more effective in the river mouths and pondswhere the short-bulbous type of water hyacinthprevails.

The development of a fungal-based mycoherbicide tocomplement the action of the Neochetina weevils andthe mites is also being undertaken at the KARI labo-ratories at Muguga. Surveys carried out incollaboration with CABI, under the InternationalMycoherbicide Programme for Eichhorniae crassipesControl in Africa (IMPECCA), revealed over 200fungal isolates associated with diseased water hya-cinth plants collected from infested water bodies.Among these were species that have been isolatedelsewhere in the world and have been evaluated andfound to have potential for the biological control ofwater hyacinth. These include Alternaria eichhor-niae, Alternaria alternata, Acremonium zonatum,Cercospora rodmanii, Rhizoctonia solani andMyrothecium spp. Pathogenicity tests carried outunder semi-controlled conditions have shown thatAlternaria eichhorniae caused high incidence andseverity of disease on water hyacinth. A host-rangetest was designed for A. eichhorniae and the fungustested against ten food and cash crops growingaround the lake region. These included cotton, rice,cassava, sweet potato, maize, beans, tomato, onionand cabbage. Water hyacinth was used as the controlplant. The fungus was not found to cause disease onany test plant other than water hyacinth. The nextstep is to undertake formulation tests. Studies on thesynergism of the various control agents will also beundertaken.

By: Teresa Kusewa, KARI/LVEMP, P.O. Box 1490,Kisumu, Kenya.Email: tkusewa@hotmail.com, whc@lvempor.ke ormkusewa@lvemp.or.ke

News 89N

Water Hyacinth: Ugandan Postscript

The situation with water hyacinth (Eichhorniacrassipes) on the Ugandan side of Lake Victoria hasremained largely unchanged over the past 2 years –the resurgence in weed growth appears to have sta-bilized. [See BNI 23(2) 40N–41N (June 2002),Resurgence in Lake Victoria: a case for optimism.]Neochetina weevils are found on the plants in var-ying numbers, and some pockets have no weevils atall. Although water hyacinth remains a problem insome places, which biological control agents might bebeneficial is a matter for debate. Factors such aswater quality, the growth form of the water hyacinthand the life cycle of the potential agent need to beconsidered, and it may be that the best choice turnsout to be location-specific.

At Nakivubo Channel, where waste from Kampalaempties into the lake, there remains, as there hasalways been, very healthy ‘bull’ water hyacinth (upto one metre tall). From the outset, the weevils failedto establish here because of pollution. Any new agentwhose life cycle does not involve the roots (as is thecase with Neochetina) and can therefore ‘escape’ thepollution would be very useful. Niphograpta albigut-talis (see preceding article) fits the bill in terms of alarval life cycle restricted to the leaves and petioles,but it is most effective against bulbous forms of waterhyacinth. These are almost completely absent fromthe Nakivubo Channel, so on balance it is doubtfulwhether the moth would enhance control there.

By: Dr James A. Ogwang,Head, Biological Control Unit, NamulongeAgricultural and Animal Production Research Unit,P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda.Email: jogwang@naro-ug.org

Hopper Hope for Water Hyacinth Control

South Africa understands only too well the complex-ities of effective water hyacinth (Eichhorniacrassipes) control. The weed remains a problem in itsdams and rivers despite attempts to control it usingchemical, mechanical and biological methods. Fivearthropod and one pathogen species have beenreleased against water hyacinth in South Africa andalthough these agents do provide good control insome areas, they have been less effective in areasthat are characterized by cold and a high level ofnutrients. Recent efforts have focused on identifyingsuitable agents for habitats where water hyacinthhas evaded control. An application for release hasnow been lodged for the grasshopper Cornops aquat-icum. This article discusses why this agent, rejectedelsewhere because of its polyphagous habit, is nowseen as a good candidate to add to the suite of intro-duced agents already established in South Africa.

The grasshopper was identified by David Perkins in1974 during surveys conducted by USDA (USDepartment of Agriculture) as one of the most dam-aging insects associated with water hyacinth in itsregion of origin in South America. Its initial promise

faltered, however, as studies of its biology and hostspecificity progressed. Silveira-Guido and Perkinsfound that under laboratory starvation trial condi-tions C. aquaticum was able to feed and develop onspecies in the Pontederiaceae and limited feeding,but no development, was recorded on three specieswithin the Commelinaceae and on rice and sugarcane. They concluded that C. aquaticum is an oli-gophagous species in the Pontederiaceae and thatsome feeding could be expected on pickerel weed(Pontederia cordata), which is native to the NewWorld including the USA. As a consequence, thegrasshopper was not introduced into the USA. Itappears that concerns about the insect’s host specifi-city have also prevented it from being considered asa biological control agent for the weed elsewhere.

As it became apparent that the available measureswere not going to control water hyacinth in all theinvaded habitats, South African scientists began tosurvey for new agents and re-examine those previ-ously rejected to see whether biological control couldprovide something new. Given the fairly cool climateof its native range in Argentina, C. aquaticum has thepotential to control water hyacinth in South Africa'scolder habitats. In addition, it is heavily parasitizedin Argentina and could potentially build up large pop-ulations, in the absence of its natural enemies,following an introduction. However, its release inSouth Africa could only be sanctioned if nontargetspecies could be shown not to be threatened. In recentyears, an evaluation of C. aquaticum as a potentialagent in South Africa has focused on this question.

Grasshoppers used in these studies came from mate-rial originally collected from water hyacinth inManaus, Brazil in October 1995, from Trinidad andVenezuela in April 1996 and from Mexico in October1996. Once the cultures derived from the collectionshad all been confirmed as C. aquaticum, they werecombined into a single culture.

The laboratory host range of C. aquaticum was deter-mined through studies of nymphal development,using no-choice trials on 65 plant species in 32 fami-lies selected on the basis of relatedness to waterhyacinth, degree of similarity of habitat and eco-nomic importance. If plant species were found tosupport nymphal development, adult no-choice ovi-position and feeding trials were conducted. No-choicetrials are the most cautious of all specificity tests,prone to throw up the most ‘false positives’, yet com-plete nymphal development was recorded in onlythree species (apart from water hyacinth):

• Heteranthera callifolia (Pontederiaceae, indige-nous)

• Pickerel weed – see above – (Pontederiaceae,introduced and potentially invasive in South Africa

• Canna indica or canna (Cannaceae, invasive inwetlands in South Africa

Feeding and limited nymphal development (up to 3rdand 4th instar) was recorded on species in the Com-melinaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Musaceae and otherspecies in the Pontederiaceae.

90N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

Oviposition in no-choice trials in the laboratory wasrecorded on only:

• Monochoria africana (Pontederiaceae)

• Pickerel weed

• Canna

Subsequent multi-choice trials showed that thegrasshopper preferred water hyacinth as an oviposi-tion site and only limited oviposition was recorded oncanna and M. africana.

Three survey trips for new agents were made toSouth America between 1999 and 2001. During thesevisits, the host plants of C. aquaticum in its nativehabitat, besides water hyacinth, were found to beEichhornia azurea, Pontederia rotundifolia and pick-erel weed, which are either not present in or notnative to South Africa.

Using the results, an evaluation could be made of thethreat posed by C. aquaticum to nontarget species inSouth Africa. Of indigenous plants, only H. callifoliasupports complete nymphal development but it doesnot attract oviposition, and only M. africana attractsoviposition but it does not support complete nymphaldevelopment. Pickerel weed and canna support bothoviposition and complete nymphal development, butthese are introduced species, and are either poten-tially or actually invasive in South Africa.

Thus, although C. aquaticum is an oligophagous spe-cies and capable of utilizing several species ofPontederiaceae, it is argued that the results providesufficient evidence to suggest that no native AfricanPontederiaceae is at risk and that the insect is thussafe for release in South Africa. Despite the height-ened awareness of the importance of consideringnontarget effects on native biodiversity since theUSDA assessment was made in the 1970s, some 11biological control experts (both local and interna-tional) support the release of C. aquaticum in SouthAfrica. A release application has been lodged withthe National Department of Agriculture and theDepartment of Environmental Affairs and Tourismin South Africa. It is hoped that this very effectiveagent will be cleared for release for the Australsummer.

By: Martin Hill, Department of Zoology andEntomology, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa.Email: m.p.hill@ru.ac.zaFax: +1 954 476 9169

Azolla Biocontrol Grows in the UK

The floating fairy fern, Azolla filiculoides, native tothe New World, was first recorded in the UK in the1840s. It has been imported ever since as a popularornamental for garden ponds. It is now a majoraquatic invasive in the UK, ranking third in terms ofdistribution. Yet despite warnings about this, and aban on it at Royal Horticultural Society shows, it con-tinues to be imported and sold.

Azolla can grow from tiny fragments and is often acontaminant of purchases of other aquatic plants atgarden centres. From garden ponds it has escapedinto freshwater ponds, lakes, rivers and canalsthroughout the UK, including areas of conservationimportance such as Romney Marsh and the NeneWashes. During the winter the plants’ growth slowssignificantly, although they can tolerate all but themost severe British winters and can even surviveencasement in ice. Growth resumes the followingspring from vegetative fragments or via germinationof spores that are produced in millions during theautumn, and sink into the substrate. During thesummer, Azolla can form mats up to 30 cm thick,which may double in surface area every 5 days in hotweather. Consequently the weed impedes flooddefences, blocks irrigation pumps and interferes withrecreational activities. It also blocks out light andreduces oxygen in the water, which kills otheraquatic biota. Last but not least, it can be mistakenfor solid ground by animals and children.

Controlling Azolla in the UK has become more diffi-cult with the banning of diquat, leaving glyphosateas the only available chemical control option.Glyphosate, although it can be effective, is non-selec-tive, and when mats are thick will kill only thesurface layers. There is, however, strong public pres-sure to reduce pesticide use. Manual control isdoomed to failure as the plants fragment easily andsoon regrow. Biological control is therefore an attrac-tive alternative, especially as a tried-and-testedcontrol agent is already present in the UK, meaningthe weevil would not have to attempt to breach itsbiocontrol-shy shores.

In South Africa, where classical biological control haslong been a mainstream weed management tool, thefrond-feeding weevil Stenopelmus rufinasus wasintroduced from the USA and released in 1997. Itwas a spectacular success, clearing even large waterbodies within a year.

The same species was recorded in the UK as long agoas 1921, and has probably been inadvertently intro-duced many times since on imported plants. Itsfailure to effect natural control of infestationsthroughout the UK is ascribed to a number of reasons:although cold-tolerant, it does not over-winter well inthe UK, especially in the north; it only begins to buildup damaging populations late in the season; and itmay have limited capacity to reach widely dispersedwater bodies infested with the weed. Nonetheless,these limitations could potentially be overcome by aninundative biological control approach.

Over the last 3 years, scientists at CABI Bioscience’sUK Centre have developed methods to over-winterthe weevils and mass rear them. Releases could thenbe made early in the year so that populations built upin time to curtail Azolla’s growth. Glasshouse studiesindicated that the weevil, when released in largenumbers, could be effective in UK summer condi-tions in as little as 3–4 weeks. The speed of controldepends on the size of the infestation and number ofweevils released. Typically a seed population of sev-eral thousand weevils are released, which rapidlymultiply. Weevil densities of up to 6000 individuals

News 91N

per metre squared have been recorded prior to theweed disappearing. Trials at a number of sites lastyear showed that inundative releases were indeedeffective. This year has seen an expansion of the ini-tiative with the formation of Azolla control(www.Azollacontrol.com). With the permission ofDEFRA (Department of Environment, Food andRural Affairs) it is supplying weevils ‘to order’ from amaintained culture. Customers include EnglishNature, the Environment Agency and British Water-ways, as well as local parish councils and

homeowners. If the releases made so far continue tobe successful, as anticipated, demand is likely togrow.

Contact: Rob Reeder or Richard Shaw, Azolla Control, CABI Bioscience, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey , TW20 9TY, UK.Email: r.reeder@cabi.org / r.shaw@cabi.orgFax: +44 1491 829100Web: www.azollacontrol.com

IPM Systems

This section covers integrated pest management(IPM) including biological control, and techniquesthat are compatible with the use of biological controlor minimize negative impact on natural enemies.

Checkmate for Italy's Fruit Pests

The location for the recent 6th International Confer-ence on Integrated Fruit Production [see: ConferenceReports, this issue] at Trento, part of the northernItalian region of Trentino–South Tyrol focused atten-tion on the successful adoption of mating disruptionby growers in the area to control lepidopteran pestsin apple orchards and vineyards. The key to suc-cessful area-wide pheromone applications in theregion is tight coordination of research, extensionand industry – plus a zest for innovation andprogress.

Vineyards

From a small beginning on the Piana Rotaliana ofthe Val d'Adige, pheromone-mediated mating dis-ruption in vineyards has steadily gained ground. In1990, the technology was trialled for control of grape-vine moth, Lobesia botrana, on 14 ha of theMezzacorona vineyards. By 2004, mating disruptionwas being implemented on 8600 ha, or almost 95% ofthe grape-growing areas of Trento (Trentino) prov-ince. During the early years the target was thegrapevine moth, but since 1999 the European grapeberry moth, Eupoecilia ambiguella, has also beentargetted. Both are controlled with Isonet L+ inareas with extremely low incidence of E. ambiguellawhile Isonet LE is used where the two insects havean historical record of co-existence. Both dispensersare from Shin-Etsu Chemicals.

The Istituto Agrario di San Michele all’Adige(IASMA) (see below) and its extension service havebeen playing a key role, in collaboration with theTrentino Wineries Association, in this successfulventure. By establishing proper scouting timing andthresholds, and organizing group applications, theyhave been able to reduce the insecticide input toTrentino vineyards from the 1980s average of 10–15kg/ha down to zero.

Orchards

Codling moths (Cydia pomonella and Cydia molesta)are aggressive orchard pests, capable of achievinghigh population densities. At the beginning of the1990s, growing resistance to chitin synthesis inhibi-tors such as diflubenzuron began to emerge incodling moths in South Tyrol (Bolzano or Alto Adige)province, where a strong orchard sector includessome 7000 growers. The limited efficacy of the orga-nophosphate alternatives, together with demandsfrom the strong local tourist trade for non-chemicaloptions to be pursued, led to trials of pheromone-based control. Since then, it has become the controloption of choice on some 78% of the apple-growingarea with some 14,000 ha in South Tyrol and 1500 hain Trento (in 2004). This advance has been made pos-sible because data gathered over the last 12 yearshas helped to define the possibilities and limits ofmating disruption. The crucial role of the extensionservice Südtiroler Beratungsring für Obst undWeinbau in fine-tuning treatments for local condi-tions brought new developments in the form ofmultiple species dispensers against, for example,mixed infestations of C. pomonella and C. molesta,and multiple species infestations of C. pomonella, C.molesta, Pandemis heparana and Adoxophyes orana.

In the final analysis, farmers have to make a living sopest control decisions have to make economic sense.What may limit the adoption of mating disruption iswhether it is as cost-effective as several insecticidesprays. For this reason, more effective formulationsand dispensers remain key areas for research,together with strategies to combat multiple speciesinfestations. Another key issue is technology-transfersupport and education to improve orchard scoutingand mating disruption application accuracy.

IASMA and SafeCrop Research

IASMA has been a driving force in the adoption ofpheromone-mediated mating disruption to controlorchard and vineyard pests in Trentino–South Tyrol.The institute has a long history, having started life in1874 as an agrarian school and experiment station.It now promotes and carries out research, educationand training activities as well as providing technicalassistance and services. Its remit is to promote cul-tural and socioeconomic growth in the agriculturalsector and to develop forestry and agro-food systems,while safeguarding the environment and land.

92N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

IASMA also hosts the SafeCrop Centre, a network ofinternational institutes focusing on research anddevelopment of sustainable crop protection with lowenvironmental impact with the aim of reducingchemical inputs in agriculture. One strand of Safe-Crop's innovative application-oriented research isdirected at resolving the constraints to widespreadadoption of these strategies, including lack of relia-bility of impact, high costs of product registration,and the need for measures to be adapted for local andcrop specific characteristics and therefore small mar-ginal markets. As the policy of the centre is todevelop sustainable, low- or zero-impact controlstrategies, a second research strand is orientedtowards questions such as unwanted side effects, andinvestigating possible environmental and food con-tamination by agents employed in its low-impactstrategies.

The SafeCrop Centre houses three research unitscovering insect and microbial biological control andrisk assessment, and their research is focusing ongrapes, apples, strawberries and other small fruitand horticultural crops. Initiatives, some in collabo-ration with IASMA, include:

• Flying doctors: studies on the distribution andcolonization of apple flowers by a bacterial biologicalcontrol agent vectored by bees (collaborators: ETH-Zurich, Switzerland)• Firefight: (a) risk prognosis systems for fire blightof pear and apple (collaborators: FAW, Wädenswil,Switzerland and ARO, Israel) and (b), field testingthe efficacy of biological control agents for fire blight(collaborators: BBA-Darmstadt, Germany)• Cydia molesta: developing biological controlthrough mass-rearing and inundative release of aparasitic insect (collaborators: ETH)• Powdery mildew of strawberry: developingmicrobial biological control agents for integratedcontrol of this significant fungal disease which cur-rently needs a high fungicide input• Biological control agents – cross-effects: investi-gating reduction in codling moth oviposition by bio-logical control agents used against fungal diseases(collaborators: Volcani Centre, Israel and INRA-Ver-saille, France)• Biological control agents – R&D risk: R&D ofmicroorganisms with potential as biological controlagents can carry various risks to both the researcherand the environment. This project analyses theR&D processes with the aim of proposing protocolsto allow risks to be identified and minimized.• Pheromones – hail-nets: protective nets are fre-quently used by apple growers in this region, wherehail damage that slashes the value of the crop occursin many years; this project aims to identify what, ifany, differences the use of hail nets makes to con-centrations of pheromones, and what significancethis has for codling moth control (collaborators:Lund University, Sweden and Shin-Etsu, Japan)

Contacts: Vittorio Veronelli, CBC (Europe) Ltd – Milan, Via E. Majorana 2, 20054 Nova Milanese (MI), Italy.Email: vveronelli@cbc-europe.it

Fax: +39 0362 41273Web: www.cbc-europe.it

Claudio Ioriatti, Cesare Gessler & Ilaria Pertot,IASMA / SafeCrop Centre, Via E. Mach, I-38010 San Michele TN, Italy.Email: claudio.ioriatti@iasma.it,cesare.gessler@ismaa.it or ilaria.pertot@ismaa.itFax: +39 0451 650 872Web: www.ismaa.it

Regulation and Science of Biopesticides

Filling some gaps in understanding biopesticides isthe subject of a new UK research project. The projectdraws on the strengths of the University of War-wick’s biologists and social scientists, and builds onthe new status of Warwick HRI (HorticultureResearch International) as part of the University ofWarwick. A joint team from Warwick HRI and theuniversity’s Department of Politics and Interna-tional Studies is being funded by the ResearchCouncils UK Rural Economy and Land Use pro-gramme to investigate economic and scientific issuesin biopesticide development.

The relative failure of biopesticides to gain a signifi-cant share of the world crop protection market (withthe exception of Bt, or Bacillus thuringiensis) hasbeen at least partly blamed on lengthy and expensiveregulatory processes. In the UK, there has been pooruptake of microbial biopesticides, much of the devel-opment has been initiated in the public sector. It hasthen been taken up by small-and medium-sized com-panies who have been discouraged from taking afinal product to market because of the prohibitivecosts of the registration fee and associated datapackage. Professor Wyn Grant will probe how theUK pesticide regulatory system, built around the useof chemical insecticides, impacts on the developmentand use of biopesticides. The chemical regulatorymodel focuses attention on the short-term economiccosts of pest control measures rather than their long-term impact on the environment and the sustaina-bility of farming systems. Biopesticides havepotential to bring long-term environmental protec-tion and social benefits and any regulatoryinnovation that would take proper account of suchinnovations would be a significant spur to theirfuture development. Professor Grant’s study of UKpesticide regulation will include a comparative studywith the legislation based pesticide regulationframework in Denmark.

A better scientific understanding of the operation ofbiopesticides, and in particular their impact on thesustainability of pest management, is clearly alsoneeded if the regulatory climate is to be altered. DrDave Chandler will look at whether biopesticidespersist in the environment when released on a largescale and how they interact with local microbial pop-ulations. For his study he will use as a model systemthe entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizum flavo-viride as a biopesticide against aphids on lettuce.

Contact: Professor Wyn Grant, University of Warwick, Department of Politics

News 93N

and International Studies.Email: w.p.grant@warwick.ac.uk

Dr Dave Chandler, Warwick HRI,University of Warwick.Email: dave.chandler@warwick.ac.uk

No Match for the Birds

Two wrongs can make a right. At least, that is whatthey are hoping on the UK Channel Island ofGuernsey, where increasing populations of may bugsor cockchafers (Melolontha) have been causingdamage to amenity grass over the last 6 years. Thelarvae feed on the plant roots and in large numbersthey kill areas of grass. This year saw a new twist.

Areas of the grass on a school playing field were com-pletely destroyed by seagulls tearing up the grass toget at the larvae feeding on the roots.

Now amenity managers are hoping to turn the birds’taste for may bug larvae to their advantage. Theywant to remove as many larvae as possible beforethey re-seed the playing field. They have devised aplan to rotivate the field regularly to expose thepests, which they hope the seagulls will gobble up. Ifthis works, they will have a smaller may bug popula-tion in the field next year, so both direct damage andbird damage will be reduced.

Source: Baudains, N. (2004) Gulls could turn intogrub killers. This is Guernsey, 20 September 2004.www.thisisguernsey.com

Training News

In this section we welcome all your experiences inworking directly with the end-users of arthropod andmicrobial biocontrol agents or in educational activi-ties on natural enemies aimed at students, farmers,extension staff or policymakers.

LITE Profits Bangladesh Rice Farmers

Over the last 2 years, the LITE (Livelihood Improve-ment Through Ecology) project, led by IRRI(International Rice Research Institute) in partnershipwith BRRI (Bangladesh Rice Research Institute), hashelped 2000 Bangladeshi rice farmers to increaseyields while reducing pesticide and fertilizer use. Theteam found that highlighting the financial gain hadmore impact than teaching agro ecology. It is nowtraining a further 4000 farmers, and hopes eventuallyto reach all of the country’s 11.8 million rice farmers.

The project, part of the PETRRA (Poverty Elimina-tion through Rice Research Assistance) initiativefunded by DFID (UK Department for InternationalDevelopment), set out to investigate what caused adrop in rice yields when farmers stopped using insec-ticides. The goal was to find effective alternatives tothe chemicals. As part of this, the project looked atways of optimizing fertilizer (especially urea) use.Urea induces the plant to become more succulentand as a result more attractive to foliar pests.Reducing the amount of fertilizer can help reducepest insect populations and thus insecticideapplications.

The simple message of the project was, ‘Do not useinsecticide without need and judgment.’ By followingthis message:

• Rice yields are not reduced• Expenditure (on chemicals) is less• The environment is not pollutedIt came as something of a surprise to the project teamto find that yields actually rose when the farmers didnot apply insecticides. The increase was no flash inthe pan, but was reflected across 600 fields in two

districts and continued over four cropping seasons.The goal of the project became to reach as manyfarmers as possible with the message that they didnot need to use insecticides.

There are a number of reasons why insecticides maybe ineffective or even detrimental. They often killnatural enemies more effectively than the peststhemselves, so may contribute to increased pest pop-ulations. Many supposed insect pests do not have anysignificant impact on the yield, yet farmers, believingany insect is a bad insect, may spray insects simplybecause they see them. Compounding this, manyfarmers use poor equipment to apply out-of-date orinappropriate insecticides at the wrong time.

Helping farmers off the ‘pesticide treadmill’ is not anew idea, but the uptake of this project so far hasbeen exceptional. How was it achieved? The projectidentified ‘lead farmers’ – farmers who were rela-tively successful – and taught them how to conduct asimple experiment by partitioning their field intoquadrants and giving each section a different treat-ment: with and without insecticide, with or withoutusing a leaf colour chart to optimize fertilizer (urea)application dosage. Other farmers simply bisectedtheir fields, and sprayed one half with insecticideand not the other. They also learnt to record data oninsecticide and urea use and expenditure. Severalhundred farmers trained in this way saw for them-selves that the unsprayed crop gave higher yields.

Once the success of the no-spraying strategy becameapparent, the project focused on scaling up fromthese trained farmers to reach thousands through aprocess of success case replication (SCR). Aftertraining, lead farmers train both other farmers intheir own village and successful farmers from sur-rounding villages. The latter group then become leadfarmers in their village, and train more farmers. Inthis way, the message ripples out across the country-side with the number of farmers trained increasingexponentially.

The success of this approach in the LITE project isclear from changes in insecticide use. This has been

94N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

reduced by 99% amongst farmers participating in theproject (farmers who have been trained by leadfarmers and are conducting experiments in their ownfields) and by 90% amongst non-participatingfarmers in the same villages (untrained farmers whohave learnt about the project methods from trainedneighbours and relatives). Even in villages where notraining took place, insecticide use has dropped 55-80%. The changes reflect the degree of casual contactbetween farmers and are a clear indication thatmoney talks.

For farmers, the saving on insecticides has meantgreater profits, which can be turned into more riceproduction, which in turn brings in more income. Forthe funders too, this is proving to be a financially suc-cessful project, with a cost–benefit ratio of 1:4 in itsfirst year. So long as the project impact can be sus-tained, the benefits will continue to accrue; in 5 yearsthe ratio could reach 1:20.

The assumption that trained farmers will train otherfarmers underlies many participatory initiatives, butthis does not always happen and indeed the trainedfarmers themselves do not always continue with

innovations once a project has finished. In this case,the LITE team are optimistic because farmers haveseen the results in their own fields, and the impactcan clearly be seen to advantage them. In addition,not spraying takes less time and money than notspraying. They project team also ascribe the uptakeof the project message and its spread to non-partici-pants to its simplicity: spraying insecticides wastesmoney. They point out that farmers understandmoney more easily than agroecology.

Contact: Dr Gary C. Jahn, PI,LITE Project & Senior Entomologist, Entomology and Plant Pathology Department, IRRI, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines.Email: g.jahn@cgiar.org

Dr Nazira Quraishi Kamal, In-country Coordinator of LITE Project, Chief Scientific Officer & Head,Entomology Division, BRRI, Gazipur 1701, Bangladesh.Email: naziraqk@hotmail.comFax: +880 2 9262734

Announcements

Are you producing a newsletter, holding a meeting,running an organization or rearing a natural enemythat you want other biocontrol workers to knowabout? Send us the details and we will announce it inBNI.

Second-Instar ISBCA

The 2nd International Symposium on BiologicalControl of Arthropods (ISBCA) will be held on 12–16September 2005 in Davos, Switzerland. This confer-ence continues the symposium series establishedwith the 1st ISBCA organized by Roy Van Driescheand colleagues in Hawaii in January 2002. The con-ference themes will be:

• Invasion biology and lessons for biological control• Biological control of arthropods of conservationimportance• Recent successes in classical biological control:an impact analysis• Cultural manipulations to enhance biologicalcontrol• Contribution of biological control to the globaldevelopment agenda• Implementation of biological control throughfarmer participatory training and research• Compatibility of insect-resistant transgenicplants with biological control• The role of food supplements in biological control• Role of generalist predators in biological control• Augmentative biological control in outdoorannual crops

• Augmentative biological control in greenhouses

• Environmental risk assessment of invertebratebiological control agents

• Predicting natural enemy host ranges: strengthsand limitations of lab assays

• Legislation and biological control of arthropods:challenges and opportunities

To foster interchange of information amongattendees, concurrent sessions have been avoided.The conference organizers aim was to stimulateideas by providing a forum for presenting new infor-mation. They have therefore given preference tosubmissions that present original data from specificprojects pertaining to biological programmes withpredators and parasitoids, rather than overviews,summaries or material that is already widely known.

An important goal of this second meeting is to betruly international. Regional coordinators are pro-moting awareness of the meeting in theirgeographic areas, while leaders of the sessions havealso encouraged global participation. See the web-site for further information:

www.cabi-bioscience.ch/ISBCA-DAVOS-2005/

Contacts: Ulli Kuhlmann, CABI Bioscience Switzerland, Chair Local Organizing Committee.Email: u.kuhlmann@cabi.org

Mark Hoddle, University of California at Riverside,Chair Scientific Programme Committee. Email: mark.hoddle@ucr.edu

News 95N

Endophytes and Biocontrol Agents Meeting

The 1st International Conference on Plant–MicrobeInteractions: Endophytes and Biocontrol Agents(EBA) will be held in Saariselkä, in the Laplandregion of Finland, on 18–22 April 2005. See:www.bioweb.fi/

The aim of the Conference is to promote multidisci-plinary information exchange, discussion andcollaboration between scientists working in differentareas of plant/microbe interactions.

Contact: Seppo Sorvari, Conference Convener, EBA Conference Bureau, c/o BioBien Innovations,Toivonlinnantie 517, Fin-21500 Piikkiö, Finland.Email: eba@bioweb.fiFax: +358 2 4772 289

EMAPi in Poland

The 8th International Conference on the Ecology andManagement of Alien Plant Invasions (EMAPi) willbe held on 5–10 September 2005 at the University ofSilesia in Katowice, Poland. It is being co-organizedby the Institute of Botany, Jagiellonian University,Bia owie a and the Geobotanical Station, WarsawUniversity. Themes of the conference will include:

• Invasive alien plants in floras (exotic/alien floras;checklists; black lists and warning lists)

• Ecological impacts of invasive plants (disper-sion, distribution and dynamic tendencies; impacton ecosystems)

• Biology and genetic studies of invasive plants(case studies; taxonomy and microevolution)

• Predicting and detecting invasions with geomatictools

• Human perception and its role in biologicalinvasions

• Legislation, international cooperation and man-agement solutions

• Biological and integrated control (case studies;removal experiences)

Registration and abstract submission should be com-pleted via email by 28 February 2005. See thewebsite for further details.

Email: emapi@us.edu.plWeb: www.emapi.us.edu.pl/

Turning the Tide Online

An alternative (html-based) online ‘gateway’ page isnow available to the contents of Turning the tide: theeradication of invasive species, the Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Eradication of IslandInvasives, held in Auckland, New Zealand in 2001.

The new page, which includes a link to allow down-loading of the entire text of the document as a singlePDF file, is:

www.hear.org/articles/turningthetide/

IPM Reviews Closes with LGB

A special issue of Integrated Pest ManagementReviews (volume 7, number 4), ‘Prostephanus trun-catus Research and Management’, contains thefollowing four papers on larger grain borer (P.truncatus):

• Ecological Studies on the larger grain borer,Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Col.: Bostrichidae)and their implications for integrated pest manage-ment. M. G. Hill, C. Borgemeister & C. Nansen• Detection and monitoring of larger grain borer,Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bos-trichidae). R. J. Hodges• Chemical, physical and cultural control of Pros-tephanus truncatus. P. Golob• Phytosanitary measures against larger grainborer, Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera:Bostrichidae), in international trade. P. S. Tyler &R. J. Hodges.The journal ceases publication with this issue andthe completion of volume seven.

Web: www.kluweronline.com/issn/1353-5226

Conference Reports

Have you held or attended a meeting that you wantother biocontrol workers to know about? Send us areport and we will include it in BNI.

Weed Biocontrol against a Broader Canvas in Durban

Approximately 450 delegates from 50 countriesmoved into Durban, South Africa for the 4th Interna-tional Weed Science Congress, which was hosted bythe Southern African Weed Science Society in associ-ation with the International Weed Science Society,on 20–24 June 2004. The event was preceded by a

variety of tours of general interest and followed bytechnical tours which covered aquatic and environ-mental invasive weeds as well as agricultural weedproblems. Apart from one or two minor glitches (ourhotel bus ran either 55 minutes before or 5 minutesafter the keynote speakers commenced eachmorning!) the event was well run and congratula-tions and thanks are due to the organizingcommittee.

Each day started with a dawn-patrol plenary addressbefore the conference split into six concurrent ses-sions. Biological control took pride of place (alongwith five other topics) by being allocated a slot during

ł ż

96N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

the first session of the first day! In all there wereeight half-hour papers and six 15-minute verbalpresentations interspersed with a poster session con-sisting of 16 posters that dealt with different aspectsof biological control.

There was no specific theme for the session and avariety of topics were addressed. John Hoffmann(South Africa) set the ball rolling by pointing out thatif expectations are moderated, biological controlbecomes much more plausible and an enormousamount can be achieved with even moderately dam-aging agents, including those that reduce only thereproductive capacity of the target weed species.Robinson Pitelli (Brazil) then discussed the futurerole of bioherbicides in biological control, identifyingsituations where bioherbicides would be especiallyuseful and concluding that their future lay in thehands of small companies capable of large-scale pro-duction of a variety of formulations.

Mic Julien (Australia) broadened the scope of the dis-cussion by looking at the opportunities andchallenges for biological control in Australia, NewZealand and the Pacific island states, notably the lowproportion of weeds currently being tackled with bio-logical control, especially grasses, and the difficultyof getting support for projects in remote, sparselypopulated, low-economic lands that characterize theAustralian outback and Pacific islands. JoachimSauerborn (Germany) brought the discussion back tospecifics and addressed the issue of using biologicalcontrol against parasitic weeds in crops, noting thatagents that reduce seeding would be especially bene-ficial because most damage has already occurred bythe time the weeds emerge from their host plantsand are amenable to other types of control.

Cheryl Lennox (South Africa) used the case of thedeliberate introduction of Prosopis into Africa to cas-tigate agencies that continue to promote agroforestrywith exotic species, many of which become substan-tial weeds. She highlighted the difficulties andrestrictions this practice imposes on biological con-trol because of the conflicts that arise between thosepromoting the plants as a useful resource and thosetrying to remove the plants from invaded areas.Mark Wright (Hawaii) concluded the morning ses-sion with a proposal that probabilistic riskassessments should be used during decision-makingstages in biological control. He suggested that aseries of probabilities can be incorporated into ‘preci-sion trees’ (or equivalents) to evaluate overallpotential risk (or not).

The poster session on biological control included 16posters which covered a range of topics including: theuse of pathogens (three) and viruses (one) as classicalbiological control agents; a study showing no non-target effects of ragwort natural enemies on nativeSenecio species in Australia (one); the ecology ofRubus species and their native natural enemies inIran (one); biology and host specificity of potentialagents for specific weeds (two); prospects for biolog-ical control of wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum)in Australia (one); the development and use of bio-herbicides (three); overviews of incomplete

programmes (two); and weeds as alternate hosts forpest and predatory mites in agricultural situations(two). The organizers are to be complimented on allo-cating ample time in the middle of the day for theposter presentations and Raghavan Charudattanadded a sparkle by allowing the presenters a fewminutes on the podium to emphasize the essence oftheir work. Both of these arrangements enhancedexposure to the posters and gave them more coveragethan is normal for a conference such as this.

The day concluded with a series of six 15-minuteverbal presentations on various aspects of biologicalcontrol including: ways of successfully involving com-munities in biological control (Raelene Kwong,Australia); how PCR-denaturing gradient gel elec-trophoresis (DGGE) has been used to determine thediversity and types of soil-borne natural enemies ofweeds (Steven Hallett, USA); the role of defensiveleaf trichomes in determining, and explaining, thehost specificity of a potential biological control agent(Chrysomelidae) of tropical soda apple (Solanumviarum) (Daniel Gandolfo, Argentina); the recentrelease and establishment of Gratiana boliviana ontropical soda apple in USA and progress withscreening two additional agents for this weed (JulioMedal, USA); the potential use of pathogens to con-trol a grass weed (Imperata cylindrica) in WestAfrica (Fen Beed, Benin); and the use of toxic metab-olites of fungal pathogens as natural herbicides forgrass weeds (Mariano Fracchiolla, Italy).

In summary this was an excellent day to be inDurban listening to, and reading about, a fascinatingrange of topics dealing with biological control. Oursincere thanks go to Raghavan Charudattan andHelmuth Zimmerman for organizing a very suc-cessful, informative and enjoyable session.

Having filled the first day with biological control,opportunities arose during the rest of the week tolearn more about aquatic weed management (whichinevitably included a considerable contribution frombiological control), technology transfer, herbicideresistance and degradation, integrated weed man-agement, molecular and biotechnology approaches toweed control, natural products and allelopathy,physical approaches in weed management, andorganic farming, among others.

As always, besides the formal presentations, themeeting provided ample opportunity for colleaguesfrom different backgrounds to meet and interact onan informal level over good food fortified with excel-lent beverages. In contrast to the 4-yearlyInternational Symposia on Biological Control ofWeeds (the last in Canberra during 2003) the Inter-national Weed Science Congresses bring together abroad mix of people from different research back-grounds. Any biocontrollers who want to learn moreabout how ‘the other half’ deal with their weedsshould attempt to get to the next (5th) Weed ScienceCongress in Vancouver, Canada – it should be wellworth the trip.

By: John Hoffmann, University of Cape Town

News 97N

SIP in Finland

The 37th Annual Meeting of the Society for Inverte-brate Pathology (SIP) and the 7th InternationalConference on Bacillus thuringiensis were held atthe University of Helsinki, Finland on 1–6 August2004. The meeting had two plenary sessions (‘SIP thepast, present and future’ and ‘Invertebrate patho-gens as pests’), together with symposia andworkshops on the following topics: Second generationtransgenic crops; Significance of the entomopatho-genic nematode infected-host in the soil ecosystem,and potential impact on microbial control; Virusecology; Honeybee pathology; Nematodes and coldadaptations; Insect–fungal associations; Bringingpathogens from the laboratory to the field; Riskassessment and non-target effects of Cry toxins insprays and transgenic plants; Can microsporidia beseriously considered as biological control agents;Oryctes virus – from discovery to classical microbialagent; Genome analysis methodology; Fungi andnematodes under unfavorable conditions; Genomicsand pathogenesis of invertebrate pathogens; Newadvances in research and development of insecticidalproteins; Risk assessment; Microbial control ingreenhouses and nurseries; Status of microbial con-trol products; Microbial control education. Althoughsessions in other areas would make interestingreporting too, this report focuses on presentationsrelevant to the (particularly fungal) biopesticidesector.

Participants were not universally optimistic aboutthe prospects for biopesticides, especially fungalproducts. At the first Plenary Session Jeff Lord (USDepartment of Agriculture – Agricultural ResearchService) gave a presentation on the commercializa-tion of microbials which drew attention to theimportance of making realistic assessments ofproduct potential, the timeframe for product develop-ment and the degree of market penetration thatmight be achieved. He also cautioned againstallowing biopesticide development to be product-rather than market-led.

There was an excellent workshop on risk assessmentand registration. A paper by Anita Fjelsted (DanishEnvironmental Protection Agency) gave an overviewof registration of microbial plant protection productsand active microorganisms in the European Union(EU). Another by Hermann Strasser (Leopold-Fran-zens University, Innsbruck, Austria), ClaudioAltomare (Institute of Food Production Science, Bari,Italy) & Tariq Butt (University of Wales – Swansea,UK [UWS]) dealt with the EU project RAFBCA (RiskAssessment of Fungal Biological Control Agents).There is great concern about metabolites such asoosperein or destruxins entering the food chain. Thesafety of present products was indicated by the sta-tistic that it would take 338 kg of oosperein to kill50% of Paramecium in 1000 m³ of pondwater – equiv-alent to 2.4 × 106 kg of product per hectare! [Also see:‘European insights on fungal biocontrol agents’, thissection.]

A session on microbial products indicated that thereare relatively few new fungal products coming onto

the market. Apart from Emerald Bio (who acquiredMycotech and still produce Mycotrol) there is verylittle attention to, and commercialization of, mycoin-secticides, although some Trichoderma products areavailable. In contrast, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt),virus and nematode products, where effective pro-duction, formulation and marketing have beenachieved, are still making successful, but small,impacts on the global pesticide market.

In the fungal session, a paper by Ernst-Jan Scholte(Wageningen University, Netherlands) and collabo-rators in Austria, the Netherlands and Tanzaniadescribed how Metarhizium anisopliae might beused to reduce malaria by targeting adult mosqui-toes. In first field trials using black clothimpregnated with conidia, he had achieved 34% con-trol and a very significant decline in daily survivalrates. Otherwise, an increasing emphasis was dis-cernible from other presentations on the ecologicalvalue of conserving entomopathogens and of interac-tions with other beneficials such as parasitoids andpredators. A paper by Zengzhi Li, Meizhen Fan, BinWang & Degui Ding (Anhui Agricultural University,China) on control of masson pine caterpillar (Den-drolimus punctatus) in southeastern Chinasuggested that inoculative application of Beauveriabassiana could result in unstable control, but thatendemic levels of the pathogen were able to maintaincontrol because isolates survive when pine cater-pillar numbers are low by infecting other hosts. Thetopic of formulation, although frequently aired, indi-cated that no significant developments had beenmade.

The conference had a very healthy entomopathe-genic nematode (EPN) content. There is increasinginterest in formulating nematodes and, as reportedlast year, use of cadavers as carriers for EPNs.

The major messages about biopesticides from thisconference were that: (1) registration of biopesti-cides is a stumbling block to their increased use;(2) the science has not progressed significantly inthe last few recent years, and perhaps a majorfunded research campaign or project is needed tochange this; (3) funding is increasingly difficult toobtain; and (4) there is strong interest in conserva-tion of entomopathogens; much of the fungal workreported was related to enhancing the pathogen orexploiting natural levels.

European Insights on Fungal Biocontrol Agents

A workshop held on 30 September 2004 in Brussels,Belgium, ‘New Insights into Risk Assessment andRegistration of Fungal Biocontrol Agents in Europe’,brought together industry, policy makers, regulatorsand scientists to give new insights on the risk assess-ment and registration of fungal biocontrol agents(BCAs), currently covered largely by European Com-mission (EC) Plant Protection Directive 91/414. Theworkshop was organized by the RAFBCA consortium(Risk Assessment of Fungal Biological ControlAgents EC Project coordinated by Tariq Butt in col-laboration with IBMA [International Biocontrol

98N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

Manufacturers Association] and IOBC [Interna-tional Organization for Biological and IntegratedControl of Noxious Animals and Plants]).

Presentations and round table discussions coveredthe following topics: (1) Biocontrol industry IBMAperspective: experiences in registration of microbialBCAs in Europe (Willem Ravensberg, Koppert,Netherlands); (2) Registration consultant perspec-tive: comparison of chemicals vs BCAs: experiences,problems, solutions and suggestions (Wolfgang Oell-rich, GAB Consulting, Germany); (3) EuropeanUnion – United States – Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development perspective on regis-tration (Anita Fjelsted, Danish EnvironmentalProtection Agency); (4) How has RAFBCA contrib-uted to the risk assessment of BCAs? (Tariq Butt,University of Wales – Swansea, UK [UWS]); (5) ECDirective 91/414 : how can the introduction of newBCAs on the European market be facilitated? (6)Case study 1: Fungal BCA for pest control in a fieldcrop: potato (Hermann Strasser, Leopold-FranzensUniversity, Innsbruck, Austria); (7) Case study 2:Fungal BCA for pest control in a glasshouse crop:tomato/cucumber (Anke Skrobek, UWS); (8) Newmethodologies and tools for assessing risks of metab-olites (Milton Typas, University of Athens, Greece);(9) Conclusions and RAFBCA strategy for riskassessment in view of Directive 91/414 (Tariq Butt).There was also a poster session and time for discus-sions with the RAFBCA team and participants.

The presentations pointed to differences between USand European markets for BCAs (the latter is muchsmaller), and that the return of investment inEurope is unacceptable mainly owing to costs for reg-istration and the registration period, which are muchhigher and longer, respectively, than in USA. Thetechnical presentations focused mainly on theRAFBCA contributions to the development of meth-odology for extraction, identification and evaluationof metabolites (e.g. oosporein) from fungal BCAs.RAFBCA research data from case studies showedthat metabolites did not enter the food chain(www.rafbca.com).

Although many of the participants felt that someextensive changes to the current registrationrequirements would help the European Union (EU)regulatory process, the regulators were not in favourof any kind of rewriting of the Directives simplybecause of the length of time it takes to get anythingthrough the EC process. However, they were keen tokeep up a dialogue and use each new microbial regis-tration package to build on their experience with theintention that the process would thus become easierwith time. The EC also plans to conduct a study of thedifferences between US and EU regulations for reg-istration of BCAs. This exercise would promote abetter understanding of the technical requirementsof the US regulations, and allow the evaluation offeatures which could be incorporated into the ECDirective to facilitate the registration of BCAs inEurope.

By: Marilena Aquino de Muro, CABI Bioscience

Environmental Impact of Invertebrates for Biological Control of Arthropods: Methods and Risk Assessment

The biological control community is taking seriouslythe calls for better-structured and more detailedenvironmental risk assessment of invertebrates forarthropod biological control. Recently some 25experts from all over the world gathered for an inten-sive full-week workshop (19–25 June 2004) inEngelberg, Switzerland (funded by the Swiss Agencyfor the Environment, Forests and Landscape andAgroscope FAL Reckenholz, and organized by Agro-scope FAL Reckenholz and CABI BioscienceSwitzerland Centre) to put together a synthesis ofcurrent knowledge, and to provide recommendationsfor further research and regulatory guidance in thisarea. The emphasis was on providing science-basedguidance for those assessing and evaluating environ-mental risks, and on providing up-to-dateinformation on existing methods and their applica-tion for evaluating nontarget effects. The startingpoint was to address all the information require-ments for environmental risk assessment laid out ina recent OECD publication1. A further aim was tocompile all this information for a book, which is to bepublished by CABI Publishing during 2005.

Altogether, 15 specific topics were examined and dis-cussed in detail. Authoritative experts summarizedeach topic (see below) using the following framework:

1. Introduction of the topic and explanation of whyit is important from the point of view of nontargeteffects and environmental risks.

2. Description of methods used (or that can be used)to answer questions that arise:

• Methods described in detail, where possiblehighlighting examples• Methods evaluated, advantages and disadvan-tages summarized, highlighting gaps in knowl-edge where no proper methods are available• Where appropriate, methods used in otherfields of ecology, entomology or biological controlconsidered for application in the assessment ofnontarget effects

3. As a final step, guidance provided on what meth-ods should be used to gather the informationrequested in the OECD guidelines1.

Selection of Nontarget Species for Host Specificity Tests

This topic was summarized by Ulli Kuhlmann, UrsSchaffner and Peter Mason. The overall aim was toprovide guidance on selecting those species for hostspecificity tests which will allow generalization of theresults to describe the host range of the candidateagent without undue expansion of the test list. Keyconcepts had to be defined first, such as host specifi-city, performance, ecological preference, behaviouralpreference, fundamental host range, ecological hostrange, host range expansion and host shift. Themethods for selection of nontarget species can begrouped into four categories:

News 99N

• Phylogenetic: representative species from taxarelated to the target • Ecological: geographical distribution, habitat,feeding niche• Biological: feeding and oviposition behaviour,temporal occurrence • Availability: field-collected material, commercialsources

A flow-chart was produced for selecting appropriatetest species, with three categories (habitat/microhab-itat; phylogeny; safeguard species) leading to aninitial test list. Two filters are then used to narrowthe list down: one considering the relevant ecologicaland biological attributes, and the other accessibilityand availability of the material. This leads to arevised test list and host specificity testing, with anadditional feedback loop considering behaviouralattributes of the organisms.

Relevance of Host Specificity in Biological Control and Methods for Testing

The topic was introduced by Joop van Lenteren, DonSands, Matthew Cock and Thomas Hoffmeister.Host range tests aim to demonstrate whether or nota natural enemy can feed, develop or reproduce on anontarget species. Knowledge of the biology andbehaviour of the natural enemy is essential whendesigning such tests. To design powerful laboratorytests is a challenge, as it is difficult to include factorssuch as multitrophic chemical communication,learning, and wide host ranges involving many hostplant species. Points to take into account whendesigning host specificity tests include:

• Knowledge of natural enemy foraging behaviour• Quality and rearing conditions of the host plant,host and natural enemy• Genetic changes• Unnatural hosts, artificial diets• Host or natural enemy infection with pathogens• Behavioural variation in natural enemies: knowits origin!• Importance of relevant multitrophic conditions(all relevant stimuli should be present, host shouldhave been on the host plant long enough to produceherbivore-induced synomones)

Difficulties in interpretation of data obtained withhost-range testing include confusing effects of testdesign, leading possibly to false positives (non-hostattacked in absence of natural host or non-hostattacked in close proximity to natural host) and falsenegatives (valid but less preferred host neglected inpresence of preferred host).

The conclusions from this session include recommen-dations to express the degree of polyphagy by thenumber of species, genera, tribes, subfamilies, fami-lies, etc. attacked, rather than simply designating anatural enemy as monophagous or polyphagous. Thedetermination of host specificity of non-specialistnatural enemies will always be a complicated andtime-consuming affair, while it will be relatively

simple for monophagous and oligophagous naturalenemies. However, there is as yet little quantitativedata, making it difficult to generalize. Currentlymost host-range testing data arise from relativelysimple experiments, and many of the issues raisedhere have not been taken into account. Based on dis-cussions a revised guideline has been suggested for asequential test to determine the host range of inver-tebrates used in classical and inundative biologicalcontrol of arthropods. In particular, host specificitychoice tests using a small-scale arena are not consid-ered appropriate in the revised guideline whereaschoice tests using a large-scale arena are consideredto provide reliable results.

Effects of Competition, Displacement and Intraguild Predation in Biological Control and Evaluation Methods

This topic was summarized by Russell Messing, Ber-nard Roitberg and Jacques Brodeur. They startedwith a clear question: “Can we measure and predictindirect impacts of biological control using competi-tion, displacement, and secondary interactions?”,and provided a simple answer: “no”. These indirecteffects may involve killing (one kills another), inter-ference competition (one excludes another),exploitation competition (one uses up the resources),apparent competition (one raises biotic mortality)and circuitous competition (enrichment; subtle andconvoluted). Some rules of thumb can be presented,however, to aid in selecting natural enemies. Theseinclude:

• r-selected species should be imported first; K-selected species withheld (counter-balanced compe-tition)

• Moderately effective agents pose greatest risks

• Lack of density dependence on the targetincreases the risk to nontargets

• In weed biological control: avoid introducing her-bivores that are especially vulnerable to acquiringpredators and parasites

• In tephritid biological control: avoid pupal para-sitoids

The Risks of Interbreeding and Methods for Determination

A synthesis of this topic was provided by KeithHopper and Eric Wajnberg. Different levels of inter-breeding were delineated: (1) Court: recognize aspotential mates, but may not copulate; (2) Mate:copulate, but may not produce progeny; (3)Hybridize: produce F1 hybrids, which may be invi-able or sterile; (4) Introgress: transfer DNAsequences between species, which may spread andaffect fitness, behaviour, or ecology.

The consequences of interbreeding may includechanges in fitness (without introgression), evolution(from changed fitness or introgression), and changesin abundance (from changed fitness or evolution). Inbiological control it will be difficult and expensive topredict and detect interbreeding. If necessary, onemight consider introducing only agents, which (1)have no close, native relatives, (2) do not mate in thelaboratory with close, native relatives, and (3) have

100N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

little or no likelihood of introgression with nativespecies.

Factors that Determine Establishment of Natural Enemies and their Evaluation Methods

Guy Boivin, Ursula Kölliger and Franz Bigler sum-marized this topic. Clearly, establishment is notdetrimental but rather a pre-requisite of successfulclassical biological control while it is generally con-sidered detrimental in inundative biological controlif exotic agents are being used. Establishment isaffected by abiotic factors such as temperature andhumidity, and many biotic factors including theavailability of host/prey, competition, the presence ofother natural enemies, and the availability of otherfood sources. For establishment studies the prioritiesappear to involve first the temperature responsesand the availability of host/prey, and secondly factorssuch as humidity, competition and other natural ene-mies and food sources.

Significance of Dispersal and Assessment in Environmental Risk Evaluations

A synthesis was provided by Nick Mills, Dirk Baben-dreier and Antoon Loomans. Again, dispersal inrelation to nontarget effects is relevant for inunda-tively released biological control agents only.Dispersal is defined as the exploratory undirectedmovement of individuals away from the habitat oforigin. Dispersal distance of biological control agentsdefines the radius of potential nontarget impacts;this in turn depends on the application strategy andspecies specific traits. The density of dispersersdefines the potential population-level impacts onnontarget hosts. Modifiers that influence the densityinclude agent longevity, biotic resources availableand abiotic factors. Existing study methods includevarious mark–release–recapture (MRR) techniquesproducing density–distance curves; following ofmovement paths of individuals to produce spatio-temporal coordinates, and boundary flux recaptures.

Risks Posed by Contaminants and Methods for Determination

This topic was introduced by Mark Goettel and DougInglis. ‘Contaminants’ include all unwanted sub-stances that may be associated with biologicalcontrol agents, such as human pathogens, insectpathogens, all microorganisms, pesticide residues,radioisotopes, frass, hyperparasites and all otherinvertebrates. They may constitute a risk to the bio-logical control agent itself, to the user (human healthissues) or to the environment (biodiversity issues).The occurrence of contaminants is typically a qualitycontrol issue for biological control agent producers.There are, however, no government standards for it,and typically no in-house standardization, poortraining of production personnel in microbiologicalmethods, very limited support from public institu-tions and limited formal training opportunities inthis area. The conclusion was that enormous effort isnecessary to screen for all potential contaminantsand that instead one may test only for those organ-isms that are known to be harmful and to occurtogether with the biological control agent. The extentto which measures for prevention of transfer of con-

taminants are implemented must be weighed inrelation to the present transfer of unknown orunwanted substances by other means. For example,presently there are no regulations for the importa-tion of many invertebrates. Consequently one mustconsider the possibility of introduction of contami-nants via biological control agents in the context ofother methods of inadvertent introduction. (i.e.movement of people, forestry and agricultural prod-ucts, etc).

Evaluation of Post-Release Nontarget Effects

Barbara Barratt, Heikki Hokkanen and BerndBlossey provided the background for this discussion.Monitoring nontarget impacts of biological controlagents is likely to be the most effective means bywhich real progress can be made in improving thepre-release decision-making process. Only by vali-dating the predictions of pre-release studies made inthe artificial environment of quarantine facilities canthe level of scientific uncertainty be reduced, and theconfidence of biological control practitioners and reg-ulators improve in the future. Given that we willnever, in the foreseeable future, achieve completecertainty of knowledge of the extremely complexramifications of releasing a new species into any newenvironment, there is potential for a progressiveimprovement that can be attained by feeding backinformation from field releases into each new biolog-ical control proposal. The significance of thisimprovement will depend upon the quality, scale andtime-scale of post-release information that can beobtained. At a higher level, the ideal would be fornationally or internationally based environmentalmonitoring programmes to provide sufficient detailto detect environmental changes precipitated by bio-logical control. This situation seems to be a long wayoff, and so our recommendations for post-releasemonitoring are by default second best. However,given appropriate multidisciplinary collaboration,one might be able move the goal posts slightlynearer.

Environmental Risk Assessment of Invertebrate Natural Enemies and the Use of a ‘Quick Scan’ Method

Antoon Loomans and Joop van Lenteren presentedthe results of a ‘quick scan’ exercise involving some150 currently used biological control agents. Theseagents are well known and applied in various partsof the world. The rationale of the exercise was toreduce effort involved in conducting a risk assess-ment for these agents by making a quick scan ofavailable information. The quick scan method isbuilt on the methodology outlined in a paper by VanLenteren et al.2. There is a basic difference inapproach between the advanced evaluation and thequick scan methods. In the advanced evaluation thelead question is, “Do we have sufficient and reliableinformation to issue a permit for import andrelease?” and it is based on a quantitative evaluation.On the other hand, when using the quick scanmethod the question is, “Do we have good reasons(e.g. are there any nontarget effects and environ-mental risks known elsewhere and/or expected in thearea of release) to stop continuation of release?”, andis thus based on a qualitative evaluation. The results

News 101N

of a quick scan could help to establish lists of speciesthat can be used in certain, specified areas or (partsof) ecoregions of the world. This would result ingreatly reduced costs for regulation of the majority ofbiological control agents currently used.

The quick scan method was applied to the some 150species of natural enemy currently commerciallyavailable in northwestern Europe. Based on a thor-ough review of available information, application ofthe quick scan method to these natural enemiesresults in the conclusion that 5% of the species aretoo risky for release, that for 15% of the species moreinformation is needed before being able to concludethat they may continue to be released, and that forthe remaining 80% of the species releases can becontinued.

The Usefulness of Ecoregions for Safer Import and Release of Exotic Species

Matthew Cock, Dirk Babendreier, Franz Bigler, UlliKuhlmann and Urs Schaffner provided the basis forthis discussion. An ecoregion is an area of similar cli-mate, landform, soil, potential natural vegetation,hydrology, or other ecologically relevant variables.The concept could be useful for predicting spread ofalien pests, for predicting spread of alien biologicalcontrol agents, for decision making for introductions,and for quarantine decisions for study purposes. Itwas concluded that ecoregions are more useful thanartificial delineations, e.g. political boundaries, inbiological control, but that they cannot be used formaking predictions in specific cases.

The workshop also discussed in some detail a fewother issues, about which there will be more in theforthcoming book. Richard Stouthamer explainedthe potential of ‘Species and strain identification andthe use of molecular methods’, and Thomas Hoff-meister, Dirk Babendreier and Eric Wajnbergdiscussed ‘Statistical tools to improve the quality ofexperiments for assessing nontarget effects’. A fur-ther contribution by Ralf-Udo Ehlers (‘Risks andreasons’) emphasized the socioeconomic impacts ofregulations and, in particular, the dangers of over-regulation to the future of biological control.

By: Ingeborg Menzler-Hokkanen, Dirk Babendreier,Franz Bigler, Heikki Hokkanen and UlrichKuhlmann

Further Information1OECD (2003) Guidance for information require-ments for regulation of invertebrates as biologicalcontrol agents (IBCAs). OECD, Paris, 19 pp.

2Van Lenteren, J.C.; Babendreier, D.; Bigler, F.;Burgio, G.; Hokkanen, H.M.T.; Kuske, S.; Loomans,A.J.M.; Menzler-Hokkanen, I.; Van Rijn, P.C.J.;Thomas, M.B.; Tommasini, M.G. and Zeng, Q.Q.(2003) Environmental risk assessment of exotic nat-ural enemies used in inundative biological control.BioControl 48, 3–38.

Contact: Franz Bigler and Dirk Babendreier, Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, Reckenholzstrasse 191,CH – 8046 Zürich, Switzerland.

Email: franz.bigler@fal.admin.chor dirk.babendreier@fal.admin.ch

Ulrich Kuhlmann, CABI Bioscience SwitzerlandCentre, Rue des Grillons 1, CH – 2800 Delémont, Switzerland.Email: u.kuhlmann@cabi.org

Sunn Pest Meeting

The 2nd International Sunn Pest Conference, held inAleppo, Syria on 19–22 July 2004, attracted nearly150 participants from 23 countries, which reflectsthe status of this important pest. The conferenceallowed participants to reflect on the progress madeduring a DFID (UK Department for InternationalDevelopment) funded project, which came to an endin September, and to discuss issues.

Sunn pest (a complex of pentatomid bugs) is a majorpest of wheat and barley, injecting salivary toxinswhich reduce yield and seed germination and destroythe baking qualities of the flour. It occurs in a broadsweep across North Africa, the Middle East and Cen-tral Asia. Fifteen million hectares may be sprayedwith chemicals each year, yet there is lack of agree-ment on fundamentals such as injury levels, wherethe pest over-winters and what its basic behaviour is.The DFID-funded project aimed to fill some of theseinformation holes, and to begin the search for sus-tainable control options. These include policychanges, monitoring, the development of resistantcultivars, the use of pheromones, and biological con-trol including egg parasitoids and the development ofmycoinsecticides.

There were over 60 oral presentations and two postersessions together with some excellent, stimulatingand fresh keynote talks in this exceptionally well-organized conference. Papers covered policy matters,moving from aerial to ground spraying (which isequivalent to moving from government to farmerresponsibility – and cost), economics and practicalcontrol. Sessions on sunn pest biology and ecology ledon to those concerning control, with a number ofpapers on the use of Beauveria bassiana to controlboth over-wintering and summer populations.

Keynote speakers covered IPM in the CGIAR (Con-sultative Group on International Research) (KhaledMakkouk); lessons from IPM programmes (PeterKenmore); the development of Green Muscle, thelocust mycoinsecticide (Christiaan Kooyman);rational biopesticide use (Charles Vincent); eco-nomics of IPM research (Doug Gollin); andfurthering the cause of IPM through public and pri-vate enterprises (Lukas Brader).

It would be impossible to describe the full range ofcountry reports and other presentations made by themany participants. Further information can beobtained via ICARDA (International Center for Agri-cultural Research in the Dry Areas;www.icarda.cgiar.org). However, policy and eco-nomic issues were covered by Aden Aw-Hassan(ICARDA, Syria), Aykut Gul (University of Cuku-

102N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

rova, Turkey) and Hossein Noori (QazvinAgricultural and Natural Research Centre, Iran).

Amongst the scientific presentations, a paper bySteve Edgington (CABI Bioscience, UK) reportedthat a B. bassiana formulation had given 86% mor-tality in field trials at ICARDA in 2004. It wassuggested that an effective mycoinsecticidal productcould be achieved in 3–4 years. Stress was laid on thelikelihood that a successful mycopesticide wouldgreatly reduce the land areas requiring treatment,perhaps to 10% of that sprayed now, as naturalenemy complexes were restored. Bill Reid (Univer-sity of Vermont, USA) described significant effectsfrom using granular formulations of B. bassianaapplied around the edges of a field to control themigrating insects as they invaded the crop.

Egg parasitoids were covered by MohammedAbdulhai (General Commission for Scientific Agri-cultural Research, Syria) amongst others; plantbreeding by Mustapha El-Bouhssini (ICARDA,Syria); and David Hall (Natural Resources Institute,UK) outlined latest developments on pheromone use.

Clearly, the science has gone well in the first phaseof this project, and new funding for a second phase isbeing sought so that the results achieved can betranslated into solutions to this key pest for cerealfarmers in the immediate and wider region.

Further information: www.uvm.edu/~entlab/sunnpest/

Fruitful IOBC Meeting

The 6th International Conference on IntegratedFruit Production, held on 26–30 September 2004 inTrento, northern Italy, was organized by the IOBC(International Organization for Biological and Inte-grated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants) WestPalaearctic Regional Section (WPRS) WorkingGroups (WGs) on Integrated Protection of FruitCrops and on Pheromones1 and Other Semiochemi-cals in Integrated Production2, together with IASMA(Istituto Agrario di San Michele all'Adige) and itsassociated SafeCrop Centre (Centre for Researchand Development of Crop Protection with Low Envi-ronment and Consumer-Health Impact)3.

The meeting was divided into two parts: the OrchardGroup (WG Integrated Protection of Fruit Crops) andthe Pheromone Group (WG Pheromones and OtherSemiochemicals in Integrated Production) had 2days each.

The Orchard Group part of the meeting was organ-ized around the themes: (1) Integrated fruitproduction: state of the art; (2) The use of biologicalcontrol agents and semiochemicals in integratedfruit protection; (3) Side effects of pesticides on bene-ficial organisms; (4) Pesticide resistance and itsintegrated management and control (5) Organic fruitproduction; and (6) Pesticides shortages, especiallyfor soft fruits.

The Pheromones Group part of the meeting, which iscovered in the remainder of this report, saw presen-tations on the increased use of pheromones in Italy,Germany and Switzerland. Its theme, ‘As matingdisruption gains ground’, underlined that insect con-trol by pheromones has become a reality. Matingdisruption, by aerial dissemination of synthetic sexpheromone, is used on approximately 100,000 ha ofEuropean orchards and vineyards. The area treatedmay grow further in view of increasing problemsassociated with the use of conventional insecticides.More widespread use of pheromones, however,demands more reliable and economic applicationtechniques. Four decades of pheromone researchhave laid the groundwork for practical applications,but tools and knowledge could still be improved. Inthe face of increasingly limited resources, this meet-ings series aims to stimulate further development byenhancing communication and collaborationbetween the academic world, extension services andthe plant protection industry.

The over-riding impression gained at the PheromoneGroup meeting was that mating disruption hasmoved from being an ‘alternative’ technology to beingmainstream. Various participants, including repre-sentatives of agrochemical companies andresearchers working on insecticide resistance,acknowledged the role of mating disruption in resist-ance management. They agreed that the expectedreduction in compounds registered for use inorchards (with many compounds on their way out)plus the European Union drinking water protectionthreshold of 0.1 µg/litre4 will increase resistanceproblems – and that mating disruption is the solu-tion to the problem. It was also clear thatpheromone-mediated mating disruption is expectedto become the most widely used method for insectcontrol in orchards by the end of this decade.

A young scientist (<30 years old) poster competitionwas well supported. Young scientists and studentssubmitted posters on the use of semiochemicals and/or biological control agents in integrated fruit(included grape) protection. The first prize of €2000,donated by CBC Europe, was won by Asya Ter-Hov-hannesyan (Institute of Zoology of National Academyof Sciences of RA, 7 Sevak Str, Yerevan 375014,Armenia) with a poster entitled ‘Development of theIPM programs in apple orchards by autosterilizationwild populations of codling moth’. The second prize of€1000, given by Andermat Biocontrol, was awardedto the Algerian Nadia Lombarkia, for a poster abouther research carried out at IASMA, ‘The relation-ships between granulovirus Madex® efficacy onCydia pomonella fruit damage and apple tree surfacemetabolites’.

1IOBC/WPRS WG on Integrated Protection of FruitCrops:www.iobc-wprs.org/wg_sg/index.html

2IOBC/WPRS WG on Pheromones and Other Semio-chemicals in Integrated Production:www.iobc-wprs.org/wg_sg/index.html and http://phero.net/iobc/

News 103N

3IASMA and SafeCrop Centre:www.ismaa.it

4Proposal for a directive of the European Parliamentand of the Council on the protection of groundwateragainst pollution. COM (2003) 550 final, 2003/0210(COD):http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/groundwater.html

Aquatic Invasives Conference in Ireland

The 13th International Conference on Aquatic Inva-sive Species was held on 20–24 September 2004 inEnnis, County Clare (Ireland), hosted by the Insti-tute of Technology, Sligo. This conference seriesbegan life as the Zebra Mussel Conference but hasexpanded in size and scope to become the biggest con-ference of its type in the world. This year’s conferencebrought together over 300 participants from 36 coun-tries who presented 210 papers. Sessions includedinternational cooperation, shipping, invasive crusta-ceans, fishes, plants and bivalves, impacts on marineand freshwater systems, industrial biofouling, policyand prevention, vectors and corridors, and controlmethods including biocontrol.

Invasive species are relatively new to the Europeanagenda. A team from Queen's University, Belfast(Northern Ireland) have just completed a cross-border initiative, the Invasive Species in Irelandstudy and their guidelines look likely to be imple-mented. As more and more European countries arewaking up to invasive species, a number of ‘famous’invasives are emerging as problems in Europeanwaters, including Azolla in Spain and water hya-cinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in Portugal. There is ahuge body of knowledge on the biology and control ofweeds such as these from programmes around theworld, which Europe could draw from. However, theneed for management of information on aquatic inva-sive species and international cooperation wereoverarching themes, revisited repeatedly byspeakers during the conference. Another issue thatwas often commented on was that many species werebeing presented as problematic invasive species inone ecosystem whilst being endangered or protected/valued species in their areas of origin.

Web: www.aquatic-invasive-species-conference.org/

British Ecologists Recognize Aliens

The British Ecological Society (BES) AnnualMeeting was held at Lancaster University on 6–9September 2004. One of its thematic topics, ‘Non-native and invasive species: defining the problem,identifying research needs and applying practicalsolution’, was addressed over four sessions com-prising 24 papers. The event also provided theopportunity for a joint meeting, hosted by the BESInvasive Species Specialist Group, of the UK Biodi-

versity Research Group and the Biological ControlWorking Group of the European Weed ResearchSociety (EWRS).

It was clear not only from the invasives sessions, butalso from more general ecology sessions (especiallyon biodiversity) that invasive alien species (IAS) nowoccupy an increasing high profile within the BES andthe chairman of the opening session described it asan historic coming together of specialist groupsworking on all aspects of IAS. It became obvious,however, that many ecologists remain wary of biolog-ical control and still need convincing as to its safetyand benefits.

It is not possible to summarize the plethora of paperspresented within the different sessions but it isworthwhile flagging several which provided unpub-lished data on some key invasive weeds. Forexample, within the thematic topic ‘Intractableclonal weeds’ (two sessions comprising 13 papers allon bracken), papers from Denmark, India, Venezuelaand the UK dealt specifically with human and healthproblems posed by carcinogenic substances releasedby bracken into the environment. This strengthensthe case for management of bracken, not just in theUK but worldwide, and specifically the use of clas-sical biological control tactics. In a session on‘Invasive species ecology’, results were presentedwhich showed how Rhododendron ponticum impairsecosystem function in Irish streams due to the highdensity of poor quality leaf litter which has severeimpacts on algal and invertebrate populations, withsubsequent knock-on effects on game fisheries,tourism and local economies: yet further evidence ofthe multifarious, cryptically-sinister activities of thisplant in the British Isles.

The Presidential Address by Alastair Fitter (Univer-sity of York) entitled ‘Darkness visible: reflections onunderground ecology’ highlighted the pivotal role ofsoil fungi, and in particular vesicular-arbuscularmycorrhizae, in ecosystem stability. Moreover, Prof.Fitter succeeded against all odds in inspiring theaudience in what is, as he admitted, an alien andpotentially uninspiring subject to the great majorityof ecologists. Indeed a fervent mycologist could nothave sold the idea better that fungi underpin all ter-restrial life systems. The biodiverse nature of soilwas emphasized by an on-going study of “a small andinsignificant patch of Scottish hillside – the moststudied soil system in the world”. Astonishingly highnumbers of ‘species’ of all life forms were recorded,based mainly on molecular characterization ratherthan classical taxonomy since systematic expertisewas often not accessible, especially in mycology andnematology.

This meeting flagged that IAS are now firmly on theagenda of the BES and, importantly, more pragmaticbiocontrol-related, rather than theoretical, solutionsto their long-term management are now being con-sidered in the UK.

104N Biocontrol News and Information 25(4)

Proceedings

Mimosa pigra Symposium

The proceedings of the 3rd International Symposiumon the Management of Mimosa pigra, held inDarwin, Australia on 23–25 September 2002, havebeen published*.

In the 10 years since the last meeting in this sympo-sium series there has been marked progress in themanagement of M. pigra, particularly in the areas ofbiological and integrated control. Also, indigenousmanagement issues have assumed much greaterimportance in mimosa management in a number ofcountries.

More than 70 participants from Australia, Cam-bodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnamattended the 3-day workshop that formed the 3rdInternational Symposium. The meeting included adaylong field visit to inspect integrated managementtrials near Darwin, and two days during which par-ticipants heard 26 presentations. The papers, whichrepresent the most up-to-date source of informationon research and management of M. pigra, are incor-porated into these proceedings, together with asummary of recommendations on key issues, whichemerged from discussion sessions held during theworkshop.

Topics covered included taxonomy (one paper), riskassessment (one), status, threat and impact (four),mapping (two), modelling (one), use (two), publicawareness and education (one) and prevention andearly intervention (one). However, the importantadvances made in management and control arereflected in the other 13 papers on these topics.

Except in Australia, control initiatives for M. pigraare relatively recent. A paper from Sri Lankadescribes community-based activities, and evaluateschemical and mechanical measures; it also notes thatPanicum maximum was observed to prevent M.pigra germination. Two papers from Vietnam alsoassess chemical and mechanical measures, anddescribe the threat the weed poses to sites of conser-vation importance. A paper from Thailand evaluatesintroduced bruchid biological control agents and con-cludes that limited seed damage means furthermeasures are needed.

The remainder of the control and managementpapers are from Australia, reflecting its 40 years’experience with the weed (including 23 years withbiological control). One paper discusses choice ofchemicals and application methods, another the inte-gration of mechanical and biological methods. Otherpapers deal with biological control per se, coveringprospects for fungal agents through inundativemethods, and methods for assessing agent impact;tantalizingly, as the results of the evaluations are tobe published in peer-reviewed journals, readers willhave to wait for those, but the methods described canbe adopted elsewhere. A paper on the impact of con-trol on the seed bank in Australia indicates thatfurther measures are still needed. Nonetheless,there is encouraging news in two papers describinghow the weed is being successfully contained bymechanical means at a small, recently invaded site,and through community-based action on another,much larger, established area of infestation. A usefulreview of the assessments made on 45 prospectiveagents by the Australian programme (13 of whichhave been released there) and seven more currentlybeing studied is one of several papers in these pro-ceedings that provide information for countriesembarking on M. pigra counter-initiatives. Anotherof these, the final paper, looks to the future; it identi-fies agents currently having an impact in Australia(the beetles Acanthoscelides puniceus and Coelo-cephalapion pigrae and the moths Neurostrotagunniella and Carmenta mimosa) together withinsect and fungal species considered to have poten-tial, and provides an overview of the prospects formimosa control in Australia and other affected coun-tries the 21st century.

*Julien, M., Flanagan, G., Heard, T., Hennecke, B.,Paynter, Q. & Wilson, C. (eds) (2004) Research andmanagement of Mimosa pigra. Papers presented atthe 3rd Symposium on the Management of Mimosapigra, 23–25 September 2002, Darwin, Australia.CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, 173 pp.

Contact and copies: Mic Julien and Tim Heard,CSIRO Entomology, 120 Meiers Rd, Indooroopilly4068, Brisbane, Australia.Email: mic.julien@csiro.au / tim.heard@csiro.au