Biocontrol News and Information 30(2), 17N–48Npestscience.com

General News

Better-matched Cochineal Biotype Nails Killer Cactus

Eight years ago, Helmuth Zimmermann promisedhis wife that he would find a way to curb the inva-siveness of the cactus weed, Cylindropuntia fulgidavar. fulgida (Cff). The occasion was a visit to the townof Douglas, in the Northern Cape Province of SouthAfrica, where they found dead rabbits and smallantelopes impaled on the terrible spines of the inva-sive cactus, and livestock that had become covered inthe spines to the point where they were unable towalk. It was not easy to fulfill the promise, but at lastthe long-desired moment seems to have arrived.

Cff is a branched, jointed cactus with long, dense,whitish spines. It belongs to the subfamily Opuntioi-deae, generally known as ‘chollas’, and occursnaturally in the Sonora desert of Mexico and thesouthern USA, where it is commonly known as thechain-fruit cholla or the jumping cholla – the latter inreference to the ease with which its cladodes attachthemselves to animals or humans brushing past theplant. It was probably imported into South Africa asan ornamental, at least as early as the 1940s, but isnow encroaching upon natural pastoral land andconservation areas in the warm, arid parts of thecountry. The worst infestations occur near Douglasand Kimberley (Northern Cape Province), and onboth sides of the Zimbabwean border at Beit Bridgenear Musina (Limpopo Province). Herbicidal controlof the problem cactus, using first picloram and laterMSMA, has been in practice in South Africa since thelate 1970s, but without much success. The costsinvolved in this control method were prohibitive, par-ticularly for the low-value land on which many of theinfestations occurred. Biological control wasregarded as the best alternative, based on the largenumber of cactus weeds in various countries that areunder effective biological control. Cochineal insects(Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae), which have been used invarious biocontrol projects in South Africa, wereknown to be highly restricted in their host range andpotentially very damaging, which made these sap-sucking insects the first choice for introductionagainst chain-fruit cholla.

The first hurdle in the way of effective control of Cffwas its initial misidentification in South Africa asrosea cactus, Cylindropuntia rosea. It was knownfrom the literature that the cochineal insect, Dactylo-pius tomentosus, was a damaging natural enemy of C.rosea in its native home, Mexico. This insect specieswas already present in South Africa, having beenintroduced during the 1970s via Australia as an effec-tive biocontrol agent of a closely related cactus weed,Cylindropuntia imbricata. Consequently, the weedy‘C. rosea’ in the Northern Cape was inoculated withcochineal insects collected from the nearest C. imbri-cata plants. The insects persisted on the inoculatedplants, but were unable to damage them sufficiently.

An attempt was then made to find a better-matchedcochineal population by introducing a culture of D.tomentosus from C. rosea growing in its natural hab-itat in central Mexico, but again the insects and thetarget weed seemed to be incompatible.

This raised the suspicion that a cholla species otherthan C. rosea might be involved. During a visit toMexico, Helmuth Zimmermann became convincedthat the species in question was the chain-fruitcholla (Cff), although no records existed in SouthAfrica of cactus plants bearing chain-fruits, whichare one of the characteristics of Cff. A PhD student,Catherine Mathenge (then still known under hermaiden name Githure), became involved at thisstage, and compared the performance and specificityof the cochineal insects, confirming their incompati-bility (see article by Catherine Mathenge and PaulHolford, this issue, below). During a visit to an infes-tation of the problem cactus on the Zimbabwean sideof the Limpopo River, where the cactus is not subjectto the chemical control regime that was mandatoryin South Africa, Helmuth Zimmermann, CatherineMathenge and John Hoffmann indeed found someman-sized specimens of the cactus to have chain-fruits. This confirmed the identity of the problemcactus in both South Africa and Zimbabwe as Cff.

Now it was clear that the Sonora desert of Mexicoand Arizona, the natural home of Cff, would have tobe surveyed for effective biocontrol agents. A cultureof the cochineal, D. tomentosus, was collected fromthe target cactus in Arizona, but Helmuth Zimmer-mann then stumbled upon a cochineal on a cactusspecies, Cylindropuntia cholla, in Baja CaliforniaSur, Mexico, which is very similar to C. fulgida var.mamillata. He brought both cochineal cultures toSouth Africa for comparison. Catherine Mathengeconducted research on the biology, performance andhost specificity of these and other cultures of thecochineal, D. tomentosus, on the South African weedyC. fulgida as well as a selection of closely relatedcactus species (see article by Mathenge and Holford,below). Surprisingly, the cochineal from Baja Cali-fornia Sur turned out to be the most damaging tochain-fruit cholla. Meanwhile Catherine Mathengerelocated to Australia.

It was only during 2007, when the Working for Water(WfW) Programme of the Department of WaterAffairs and Forestry agreed to fund the revival of thebiocontrol project against Cff, that a fresh culture ofD. tomentosus could be collected from C. cholla inBaja California Sur. Helmuth Zimmermann hadsince retired, but remained involved in the project,which was now managed by Hildegard Klein. Theintroduced cochineal culture was cleared of preda-tors and contaminants under quarantine conditionsat Rietondale, Pretoria, and mass reared to obtainsufficient numbers for release.

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.

18N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

The first release of the new cochineal biotype inSouth Africa was made during October 2008, nearDouglas in the Northern Cape by Debbie Sharp fromWfW. A month later, on 18 November 2008, cochi-neal-infested cactus cladodes were attached to anumber of large chain-fruit cholla plants growing inthe dry bed of the Limpopo River near the borderpost at Beit Bridge, again with the assistance ofWfW. A clearing team of WfW has been active in thisarea for several years, combating the cactus chemi-cally as part of a public works programme.

On 18 March 2009 (exactly four months after release,during which the insects might have completed twogenerations), Hildegard Klein and Helmuth Zimmer-mann, together with five employees of the WfWProgramme, visited the release site again, hoping tofind some early signs of insect establishment. Totheir utter amazement the cochineal had not onlybecome established on each of the inoculated plants,but the inoculated plants were virtually covered fromtop to bottom with clusters of D. tomentosus females.The branches were hanging, and many of the lowercladodes on these plants were dead and had droppedoff the plants. What is more, the insects had alreadystarted dispersing, with most of the Cff plants withina radius of 3 m or more from the inoculated plantsinfested, which is a relatively large distance for thecrawlers (first instar nymphs) of the sedentary,flightless insects to cover. Many small plants con-sisting of only a few cladodes had already died andyoung plants less than 1 m tall were collapsing.

It is already evident that the WfW clearing team willhave to make some serious adjustments to theirchemical control programme to take full advantageof this new cochineal. The team members will prob-ably in future be harvesting cochineal-infestedcactus cladodes and redistributing them, instead ofapplying herbicides.

The rate of population build-up and dispersal of thecochineal biotype, as well as its damage to the cactus,have exceeded all expectations. In the four monthssince its release in Musina it has achieved a level ofsuccess that is normally expected only after a year ormore. It is expected to become one of South Africa’smost spectacularly effective biocontrol projects. Thisexceptional performance by the cochineal should,however, not have come as a surprise, since it hadbeen predicted by Catherine Mathenge. The popula-tion growth rate of the insects and their severedamage to the cactus might be ascribed to the factthat this is a ‘new association’ between an insect anda plant population that have not co-evolved or thathave been separated for an extensive period of time.Had it not been for Catherine Mathenge’s research,the particular cochineal biotype would probably nothave been imported, and biocontrol of the cactusweed in South Africa might have remained mediocre.

As a result of the unexpectedly rapid development ofthe cochineal colony in Musina, we have missed theopportunity to witness the earliest stages in theestablishment, population growth and dispersal ofthe insect, and to measure the early effect to thetarget weed. The immediate intention is therefore to

select an area with a more evenly distributed infesta-tion of Cff in the Northern Cape, where the cochinealis not yet present, and to make new releases that willbe monitored earlier. There is also a need to establishofficial relations with the phytosanitary authoritiesin Zimbabwe, to ensure that this successful biocon-trol agent reaches the large infestations of Cff on theZimbabwean side of the border at Beit Bridge, whichhave already reached crisis levels, and where thelocal community is desperate for a solution to thiscactus problem that is causing stock losses and dev-astating their pastures.

On a cautionary note: the devastation that Cff cancause to biodiversity was brought home once more bythe pitiful sight of three dead Woodlands Kingfishersthat had become impaled on the spines of cactusspecimens a small distance from the cochinealrelease site. Zimbabweans living near Beit Bridgereport that the cactus is a huge threat to livestockgrazing as well as game in the area, and that noteven rats can pass through some of the cactusthickets. Cactus collectors are urged to keep theinvasive potential of cacti in mind in countries wherethey have no natural enemies, and to resist the temp-tation to plant introduced cacti on their property but,above all, not to discard them in such a way that theymight escape into the wild.

By: Hildegard Kleina & Helmuth G. Zimmermannb

aAgricultural Research Council: Plant ProtectionResearch Institute, South Africa. Email: KleinH@arc.agric.za

bHelmuth Zimmermann and Associates (HZ & A),formerly Agricultural Research Council: Plant Protection Research Institute, South Africa. Email: Helmuth@axxess.co.za

Host-specific Cochineal Biotypes in the Fight against Invasive Cactus Weeds in South Africa

The article by Hildegard Klein and Helmuth G. Zim-mermann (this issue, above) describes theremarkable damage caused to the highly invasivecactus, chain-fruit cholla (Cylindropuntia fulgidavar. fulgida; Cff), following a recent release of a bio-type of the cochineal insect, Dactylopius tomentosus,in South Africa. The research work behind this suc-cess is the subject of this article.

Dactylopius tomentosus is known to be restricted toCylindropuntia species. However, it was unexpectedthat it could thrive on C. imbricata in Australia andSouth Africa, and C. rosea in Mexico but failed toestablish on Cff (at the time known as C. rosea) inSouth Africa (see article by Klein and Zimmermann,above). This raised questions regarding the identityof the weed species and the host specificity of D.tomentosus, and led to the initiation of the researchproject described in this article. Populations of D.tomentosus from different hosts and localities arehereafter referred to as provenances and namedaccording to the host species from which they werecollected.

News 19N

Host-specificity tests were conducted involving twoprovenances of D. tomentosus: one collected from C.imbricata in South Africa (henceforth called theimbricata provenance) and one collected from C.rosea in Mexico (henceforth called the rosea prove-nance). These provenances were reared on both C.imbricata and the target weed, Cff. On the targetweed, the imbricata provenance survived poorly andinsects of the rosea provenance did not completetheir life cycle. However, both populations thrived onC. imbricata. This remarkable finding led to a reas-sessment of the target weed which was subsequentlyidentified as Cylindropuntia fulgida var. fulgida,whose native range is the Sonoran desert of Arizonaand Mexico.

With the correct identification of the weed, theproject undertook the first study of the biology of D.tomentosus revealing that this species exhibitedsome biological and morphological aspects that dif-fered from those of its congeners1. The next task wasto search for a D. tomentosus provenance with thepotential to cause severe damage to, and successfullycontrol Cff. Further exploration by Helmuth Zim-mermann led to the collection and importation of D.tomentosus provenances from a number of Cylindro-puntia taxa in the New World: Cff and C. f. var.mamillata in the Sonoran desert, C. rosea and C.tunicata from different localities in Mexico, and C.cholla from different localities in Baja California.Experiments were conducted in South Africa, at thePlant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, toassess survival and performance of the provenanceson Cff. These studies revealed significant differencesbetween provenances in their performance on anddamage to Cff 2. A provenance (collected from C.cholla, the cholla provenance) with great potential tocontrol Cff was identified and is the insect used forbiocontrol as described in the article above by Kleinand Zimmermann. The most surprising aspect of thisprovenance was that it came from C. cholla fromBaja California, Mexico whereas provenances fromthe weed’s native range performed poorly. This maybe explained in terms of the ‘new association’ phe-nomenon in which insect populations that have notco-evolved with a target weed perform better thanold associations.

Based on the observed subspecific differentiation inhost specificity among D. tomentosus provenancestowards Cff and C. imbricata, the research furtherexplored the hypothesis of the occurrence of biotypesof this insect in relation to host plant species. Theresults of these studies showed that the provenancesfell into three categories on any host: some thrived ona particular host, others survived poorly, whereasothers died before completing their life cycles. Theseobservations demonstrated the occurrence of host-affiliated biotypes.

Although the occurrence of biotypes had now beendetermined, the extent of their differentiation wasstill an outstanding issue. This warranted someattention: as C. imbricata and Cff occur in sympatryin some areas in South Africa, it is likely that theranges of the two insect biotypes may overlap. There-fore, cross-breeding studies were conducted betweenthe cholla and imbricata biotypes to assess their

reproductive compatibility and the impact of hybrid-ization on host specificity. The two biotypes cross-bred freely in the laboratory producing viable off-spring that had similar or greater potential to causedamage to Cff and C. imbricata than their parents.The hybrid offspring were less host specific thantheir parents, implying that hybridization would nothave a negative impact on biological control of eitherweed.

During this part of the study, a bias in hybrid per-formance towards their maternal parent host wasobserved indicating that host specificity may begenetically based. Genetic diversity among the bio-types was assessed by sequencing part of themitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 gene.Sequences within a biotype were identical and bio-types from the same host species clustered togetherirrespective of place of origin. This provides furtherevidence for the existence of host-adapted biotypes inD. tomentosus.

These studies on D. tomentosus highlight the impor-tance of considering the existence of biotypes whenselecting insects for biological control, as the selec-tion of an inappropriate biotype may lead to itsfailure in the field.

1Mathenge, C.W., Holford, P., Hoffmann, J.,Spooner-Hart, R., Beattie, G.A.C. & Zimmermann,H.G. (2009) The biology of Dactylopius tomentosus(Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae). Bulletin of Entomolog-ical Research (online 10 February 2009; doi: 10.1017/S0007485308006597).

2Mathenge, C.W., Holford, P., Hoffmann, J., Zim-mermann, H.G., Spooner-Hart, R. & Beattie, G.A.C.(2009) Distinguishing suitable biotypes of Dactylo-pius tomentosus (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) forbiological control of Cylindropuntia fulgida var.fulgida (Caryophyllales: Cactaceae) in South Africa.Bulletin of Entomological Research (online 23 March2009; doi: 10.1017/S0007485309006671).

By: Catherine Mathenge & Paul Holford, Centre for Plant and Food Science, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797,Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia.Email: c.mathenge@uws.edu.aup.holford@uws.edu.au

Can Manipulations of Amphibians’ Mutualistic Skin Bacteria Control a Lethal Skin Disease?

The current extinction crisis is not sparing amphib-ians. While habitat loss and destruction are themajor causes of amphibian extinction, disease is alsocausing population declines. Chytridiomycosis is askin disease of amphibians caused by the fungusBatrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), and is thecausal agent of population declines and extinctionsin relatively pristine areas, such as national parks.This species was only described in 1999, yet we havelearned quite a bit about its biology and ecology. Bdseems to have originated in South Africa and spreadto other parts of the world on Xenopus laevis, theAfrican clawed frog, which was exported for use in

20N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

pregnancy tests1. Despite the pathogen’s role inmany amphibian species’ decline and extinction, rel-atively little research has focused on how to controlthe disease in nature. Our research has focused onthe ecology of amphibian skin in an attempt to limitthe disease.

When Bd colonizes amphibian skin, it encounterstransient and resident skin microbiota. We havefound that many of the resident bacterial speciesinhibit Bd in laboratory challenge assays. Three ofthe inhibitory metabolites, 2,4-diacetylphloroglu-cinol from Lysobacter gummosus and violacein andindole-3-carboxaldehyde from Janthinobacteriumlividum, have been identified from pure bacterialcultures2. In addition, these metabolites are found onsome amphibians in nature in concentrations highenough to inhibit Bd. To our knowledge, amphibiansdo not produce these metabolites themselves, so itappears that their symbiotic skin bacteria areresponsible.

We have shown through a ‘bacterial removal’ experi-ment that the resident microbes on the skins ofPlethodon cinerus, red-backed salamanders, amelio-rate the symptoms of chytridiomycosis. Individualswith their skin bacteria reduced by exposure to anti-biotics had greater morbidity than thosesalamanders left with their skin bacteria unmanipu-lated. Bioaugmentation is a strategy whereby weincrease the proportion of individuals with a speciesof anti-Bd bacteria already found on other membersof the population. In a laboratory experiment, weadded J. lividum to skins of the mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa, before exposure to Bd3.Those treated with J. lividum suffered no mortalityor morbidity, whereas frogs exposed to Bd alone lostweight and died. Frogs that had J. lividum added totheir skins had much higher concentrations of viola-cein on their skins, suggesting that this bacterial-produced metabolite inhibited Bd. Another excitingresult from this experiment was that we were able totake J. lividum collected from a salamander speciesand successfully place it on a frog species, suggestingthat some bacterial species can target the largeramphibian assemblage.

In nature, populations of R. muscosa that co-existwith Bd have a higher proportion of individuals withat least one culturable anti-Bd bacterial species. Thisresult suggests a threshold effect analogous to herdimmunity, whereby only a fraction of the populationneeds to be immunized in order for the disease to dieout. A bioaugmentation strategy that can increasethe proportion of amphibians with anti-Bd bacteriamay prevent epidemic outbreaks of chytridiomycosis.There are a number of remaining challenges, such ashow to implement a bioaugmentation strategy innature. Currently, we are investigating transmissionof bacteria from soil and water to amphibians. Wealready know that in the laboratory, we can intro-duce skin bacteria to amphibians from bacteria inartificial pond water. Of course, tests to make surenon-target species are not affected will be of criticalimportance. Recent work in agricultural contextssuggests that the introduction of beneficial bacteriadoes not affect the resident soil microbiota, which isencouraging.

An important component of amphibian conservationefforts is the creation of survival-assurance colonies.Many species are being kept from going extinct inthese breeding colonies, but they cannot be releasedinto nature because Bd is endemic and persisting onresistant amphibian species. Treating susceptiblespecies with anti-Bd bacteria before introductioninto the field may allow successful re-introductions.One important open question asks how long bacteriastay on amphibians. Our research with J. lividumsuggests that it stays on frogs at least 20 weeks3. Inthe future, we may be able to facilitate the re-intro-duction of amphibians from survival-assurancecolonies. Population declines and extinctions due toBd are ongoing and more research is urgently neededinto the efficacy of a bioaugmentation strategy foramphibians.

1Weldon, C., du Preez, L.H., Hyatt, A.D., et al. (2004)Origin of the amphibian chytrid fungus. EmergingInfectious Diseases 10, 2100–2105.

2Brucker, R.M., Harris, R.N., Schwantes, C.R., et al.(2008) Amphibian chemical defense: antifungalmetabolites of the microsymbiont Janthinobacte-rium lividum on the salamander Plethodon cinereus.Journal of Chemical Ecology 34, 1422–1429.

3Harris, R. N., Brucker, R.M., Walke, J.B., et al.(2009 in press) Skin microbes on frogs prevent mor-bidity and mortality caused by a lethal skin fungus.ISME Journal, doi:10.1038/ismej.2009.27.

By: Reid N. Harris & Kevin P. C. Minbiole, Department of Biology (RNH) & Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (KPCM), JamesMadison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA.Email: harrisRN@jmu.edu / minbiokp@jmu.edu

Trying to Taming Wild Gingers

Hedychium (heh-DIK-ee-um) or wild ginger species,as they are generally known, were extensively culti-vated throughout England and Europe in thenineteenth century where their exotic forms and theheady perfumes of their magnificent blooms madethem prized ornamentals in tropical ‘hot-houses’.Following the paths of empire builders, a number ofspecies were transported to warmer climates aroundthe world and subsequently three species, H. gardne-rianum (Kahili ginger), H. flavescens (yellow ginger)and H. coronarium (white ginger), have escaped cul-tivation and become naturalized. These now causesignificant environmental and economic impact glo-bally, especially in New Zealand and Hawaii (USA)in the Pacific, La Réunion (France) in the IndianOcean, the Azores (Portugal) in the Atlantic, andBrazil. Hedychium gardnerianum has been nomi-nated as among the ‘World’s 100 Worst Invaders’ bythe Invasive Species Specialist Group of the WorldConservation Union.

Native to the eastern Himalayan range, these coarseperennial herbs are aggressive colonizers of indige-nous forest habitats in their introduced range, butdisplay ecological and altitudinal adaptability, per-sisting under closed rainforest canopies (both littoral

News 21N

and inland) and along forest edges and stream banksas well as in drier sclerophyll and grassland vegeta-tion. Capable of invading pristine and undisturbedforests, their dense growth, tall leafy shoots andextensive rhizomes serve to smother and displacenative and sometimes rare and specialized fauna andflora. By preventing recruitment and establishmentof native seedlings, they can have a dramatic impacton habitats and ecosystems, degrading native forestcommunities, compromising regeneration andthreatening whole forest viability.

Conventional control methods tend to be labourintensive, effective only in the short term and areoften difficult to implement given the inaccessibilityof affected sites. Research in La Réunion also showedthat comprehensive mechanical control of H. gardne-rianum could have serious negative knock-onimpacts on native biodiversity compared to non-intervention and/or minor disturbance. In Hawaii,monotypic stands are considered lost causes andmanagement programmes are becoming morefocused on outlier populations, with efforts shiftingtowards preservation of pristine and high-value nat-ural areas. Ingress of wild gingers into naturereserves and conservation areas also has implica-tions for the management options available to halttheir spread.

Surveys for natural enemies associated with the gin-gers in parts of their introduced range (Brazil andNew Zealand) have failed to identify any suitablyspecific or damaging candidates. A bioherbicideproject based on a wilt-causing bacterium was initi-ated in Hawaii in the 1990s but has since beenabandoned. Classical biological control has long beenrecommended as the only practical approach for thelong-term management of wild gingers in their inva-sive range.

To this end, the first phase (scoping study) of a bio-logical control programme was initiated by CABI in2008, funded by a consortium of sponsors from NewZealand and Hawaii (Landcare Research, New Zea-land, The Nature Conservancy, Hawaii and theUnited States Geological Survey – Pacific Island Eco-systems Research Center). As with every newbiocontrol initiative, a thorough review of the scien-tific and botanical literature, as well as records of thetarget species from UK and subsequently Indian her-baria, gave the expedition geographical focus. A largenumber of natural enemies is known from economiccrops such as edible ginger, turmeric and cardamom,in the same family as wild gingers (Zingiberaceae)and from the literature, and in particular the myco-biota associated with Hedychium species suggestedpotential; no thorough survey had ever been carriedout in the native range, however. The wild gingercomplex should lend itself well to a biological controlprogramme; there are no other native, representa-tive Zingiberaceae present in Hawaii or NewZealand, it has a narrow habitat preference, a rela-tively narrow geographical range and the family isvulnerable to pest attack.

A short exploratory survey of Assam, Meghalaya andSikkim states in the eastern Indian Himalayas wascarried by CABI scientists, in collaboration with the

Kerala Forest Research Institute, India (KFRI). Awide variety of Hedychium species was encountered,including the target species, and all were subject tosignificant natural enemy pressure. Extensive insectdamage to seeds, flower heads, leaves and stems andsymptoms of pathogenic infection were observed.Natural populations of the target plants were oftenfound growing in high humidity environments, atforest margins and on steep banks, as inconspicuousmembers of the native flora and without evidence ofinvasive behaviour.

As a consequence of the strict implementation of theGovernment of India’s Biological Diversity Act(2002) and the associated Biological Diversity Rules(2004), the export and exchange of biological speci-mens for taxonomic research from and with Indiahave been restricted. As a result, evaluation of thepotential of specimens collected, as well as anydetailed identifications have been limited. Given theencouraging variety and impact of insects and path-ogens on the target plants, however, further surveyshave been recommended to consolidate the catalogueof natural enemies across the seasonal growth cycleand to better assess and prioritize agents for furtherstudy. It is hoped that sponsors from New Zealand,Hawaii and other affected counties such as Brazil,the Azores and La Réunion can be solicited to forman international consortium to build on this studyand support more comprehensive research.

On a cautionary note, the economic and ornamentalappeal of Hedychium species in their introducedrange cannot be overlooked and opposition from thehorticultural industry should be anticipated if a bio-control agent is ever considered for eventual release.This is particular pertinent for Hawaii, where con-troversy currently reigns over proposals to introducea scale to control strawberry guava (Psidium cat-tleianum), despite comprehensive safety testingattesting to its suitability for release. Hedychiumspecies are regarded as a cultural resource (e.g. forgarlands/lei making) in Hawaii but conflict may bemitigated by prioritizing seed or fruit feeders. Whilstseeds hold no commercial value, they are importantvectors in the establishment and spread of H.gardnerianum.

This project is still very much in its infancy, but earlyplanning of educational and outreach programmes toaddress concerns and potential challenges in theHawaiian community can only be of benefit if biolog-ical control is to be accepted as an essential part ofthe wild ginger management strategy for biodiver-sity conservation.

By D. Djeddour, CABI Europe – UK, Bakeham Lane,Egham, Surrey, TW20 9TY, UK.Email: d.djeddour@cabi.org

South Africa Resumes Biocontrol Battle against Crofton Weed

Crofton weed, Ageratina adenophora (Asteraceae), ofMexican origin, is widely naturalized in many trop-ical and subtropical areas of the world, invasive inHawaii, Australia, New Zealand, India and South

22N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

Africa, and considered one of the worst weeds inChina. Closely related to some of the major weeds inSouth Africa, Chromolaena odorata and Campulo-clinium macrocephalum, this multi-stemmed,perennial, semi-woody shrub likewise produces hun-dreds of thousands of wind-dispersed seeds and maybecome a more important invasive plant. The weedflourishes in wetlands, along stream banks, in forestmargins and on cliff faces where it causes loss ofwater and outcompetes the indigenous vegetation.Members of the Mountain Club of South Africa havebeen clearing a few valleys in the Magaliesbergrange in the Gauteng and North West provinces ofSouth Africa on a regular basis over the last sevenyears to reduce populations and spread of the weed,but it still remains one of the major weeds in manycatchments in that region. The rapid growth andspread of crofton weed, coupled with the ecologicallysensitive nature and inaccessibility of many of itshabitats, make biocontrol one of the most desirablecontrol options.

In the 1980s, the Plant Protection Research Institute(PPRI) introduced two biocontrol agents, a stem gallfly, Procecidochares utilis, and a leaf spot fungus,Phaeoramularia sp., into South Africa via Australiaand Hawaii. In Australia, they are considered suc-cessful in keeping A. adenophora under control, butwere shown during a recent PhD study by Lisa Buc-cellato, at the University of the Witwatersrand(WITS), to have a very limited impact in SouthAfrica. Funding from the Department of WaterAffairs and Forestry’s Working for Water Programmeand the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) hasenabled biocontrol research on this weed to beresumed.

Exploratory surveys were conducted with the assist-ance of Dr Stefan Neser, ex ARC-PPRI, andcolleagues from Universidad Nacional Autónoma deMéxico (UNAM), searching for promising-lookingnew pathogen and insect natural enemies. The firstsurvey was in August and September 2007. Culturesof a gregarious, leaf-feeding noctuid, Lophoceramicasp., and a leaf-mining hispine beetle, probably Cha-lepus sp., were successfully established inquarantine in Pretoria for research into specificityand impact. Other promising insect and pathogencandidates were observed, but collected in too smalla number to culture successfully.

Further collection surveys were therefore conductedin October 2008 for pathogens and in February andMarch 2009 for insects, the last coinciding with flow-ering of the plants in Mexico to aid in locating them.In total, the surveys yielded many fungal isolates,about 17 Lepidoptera, including stem borers, 14Coleoptera, including a stem-boring curculionid anda cerambycid, three Diptera, including the previ-ously released stem-galling tephritid and a leafminer, and about nine Hemiptera. Some are stillbeing reared out to be submitted for identification.

Fungal isolates of various species are being tested forpathogenicity on South African A. adenophoraplants. The first pustules of the crofton weed rust,Baeodromus eupatorii, were developing successfullyon plants in quarantine in Stellenbosch in April

2009. Promising insect candidates currently under-going quarantine evaluation in Pretoria, include theleaf-mining hispine, Chalepus sp., a highly destruc-tive, tip- and stem-boring tortricid, and newlycollected stem-boring curculionid species. The pros-pects for the voracious and prolific leaf-feedinglepidopteran, Lophoceramica sp., earlier thought tohold a lot of potential, are slightly dampened by itssporadic development on indigenous, related, non-target species. The search is ongoing through sur-veys in the native home and host-specificity andimpact studies in quarantine, to find the most effec-tive and safe candidates to control A. adenophora.

By: Fritz Heystek, ARC-PPRI.

Contacts: Fritz Heystek or Yogie Kistensamy [for insects], ARC-PPRI, Private Bag X134, Queenswood 0121, South Africa.Email: HeystekF@arc.agric.za KistensamyY@arc.agric.za

Dr Alan Wood [for pathogens], ARC-PPRI, Private Bag X5017, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa.Email: WoodA@arc.agric.za

Mist Flower Biocontrol Celebrates Ten Years in New Zealand

An article in the Landcare weeds newsletter1 high-lights the sustained success in New Zealand ofbiocontrol of a close relative of crofton weed, mistflower (Ageratina riparia) ten years after the firstagent, the white smut fungus Entyloma ageratinae,was introduced. The programme has been exception-ally well monitored and the decline of the weedcarefully documented2,3,4.

As a tenth anniversary ‘treat’, in November 2008Jane Barton, who led the project, visited 50 of their110 sampling plots in the Waitakere Ranges in NorthIsland, west of Auckland. Neither the smut nor thesecond agent (a gall fly, Procecidochares alani) werereleased in these plots, but they had arrived unas-sisted. Barton found they are still there inabundance. Mist flower remains under excellent con-trol with ground cover under 0.5% in even the mostinfested plot (down from a maximum of 36% in 1998).The fungus is maintaining an infection rate ofaround 55% of plants. Insect galling rates are alsobeing maintained and parasites do not seem to haveimpacted on the gall fly.

When the programme began in the late 1990s, it wasfeared that mist flower would spread rapidly intosuitable habitats in northern North Island. There issome evidence that spread is still occurring, butslowly, and the weed has vanished from some plotswhere it was once present. The agents are appar-ently having no trouble finding the weed when itdoes turn up in new sites, so while it may remainwidespread, it has been rendered impotent and isnow just a minor component of the New Zealandflora.

1Barton, J, (2009) Still working after all these years.What’s New in Biological Control of Weeds? No. 47(February 2009), p. 15.

News 23N

2Barton, J. (2003) When the mist clears, what will wesee? Biocontrol News and Information 24, 29N–30N.

3Barton, J., Fowler, S.V., Gianotti, A.F., et al. (2007)Successful biological control of mist flower(Ageratina riparia) in New Zealand: agent establish-ment, impact and benefits to the native flora.Biological Control 40, 370–385.

4Barton, J. (2007) Native flora emerges a winner asmist flower clears. Biocontrol News and Information28, 29N–30N.

Hopes Brighten for Biocontrol of Weedy Sunflowers in South Africa

South African research on insect natural enemiescollected from sunflowers (Tithonia spp.) in Mexicoindicates potential for biocontrol of weedy species ofthis genus in South Africa.

The red sunflower, T. rotundifolia, and Mexican sun-flower, T. diversifolia, are native to Mexico, and arecurrently naturalized throughout the humid andsub-humid tropics in Central and South America,Southeast Asia and tropical and subtropical Africa,including South Africa. Both species are declaredweeds (Category 1) in South Africa, with T. rotundi-folia being particularly invasive in the inlandprovinces, including Gauteng and the North WestProvince, while T. diversifolia is invasive in thelowveld of Mpumalanga, Limpopo and along thecoastal regions of KwaZulu-Natal. They are aggres-sive colonizers, particularly on disturbed sun-exposed ecosystems with a high water table,including plantations, abandoned sites, and alongrailways and roads. They are very capable of dis-placing native vegetation in areas where they occur.

In 2007, the Department of Water Affairs and For-estry’s Working for Water (WfW) programmeprovided funding for three years to enable PPRI (theAgricultural Research Council’s Plant ProtectionResearch Institute) to conduct research aimed atreleasing suitable biological control agents (insectsand pathogens) against these invasive sunflowerspecies in South Africa. Nine potential insect biocon-trol agents were found on both species of Tithoniaduring field surveys in Mexico in 2007–08, and thesewere subsequently introduced into South Africa.Five of the nine candidate agents were successfullyreared in PPRI quarantine at Rietondale ResearchCentre.

Most promising so far against red sunflower are twospecies of leaf feeding chrysomelid beetles, Zygo-gramma signatipennis and Z. piceicollis. The twospecies have very similar life histories and feedinghabits. Zygogramma signatipennis, initiallyimported in 2007 by Dr Stefan Neser, is the larger ofthe two, and is shiny black in colour with silver greenmarkings on the wings. In 2008, Z. piceicollis wasimported by Dr David Simelane. This has a dark redhead and thorax with light grey markings on thewings. Females mostly deposit their eggs singly onthe lower leaf surface, but occasionally on flowerheads and stem surfaces. Both adults and larvae of

the two beetle species feed on the leaves, often skele-tonizing them completely, leaving only the leaf veins.Fully grown larvae drop down and burrow into theground to pupate. Development from egg to adulttakes about 5–6 weeks. Although tests are still inprogress, preliminary investigations indicate thatboth species of Zygogramma strongly prefer T. rotun-difolia for feeding and oviposition to other closely-related plant species.

In addition, an as yet unidentified stem-boringweevil was collected from red sunflower in Mexicoand introduced into quarantine in South Africa inOctober 2008. The adults, which are dark grey toblack in colour, nibble along the margin of the leafand lay their eggs in the stems, approximately 4 cmabove the ground. The larvae tunnel along the stem,causing a hollow space that is likely to increase thevulnerability of plants to wind damage. Larvae oftenpupate towards the shoot tip of the plant, from wherethe adults emerge through an exit hole. A reliablerearing technique is being developed, in preparationfor future host-specificity studies on this weevil.

Other species found on Mexican sunflower T. diversi-folia are also being investigated. An unidentifiedshoot tip-feeding moth was found on the Mexicansunflower and introduced into quarantine in SouthAfrica in October 2008. Adults, provided with ahoney solution as a substitute for nectar, were foundto lay their eggs on shoot tips and at the base of thepetioles of young leaves. Larvae burrow into the stemtissue and feed internally, gradually causing perma-nent wilting of the entire branch. Larvae producedby over three pairs of adults can kill an entire plantunder laboratory conditions. After preparing exitholes for adult emergence, larvae pupate in the stem.Preliminary investigation, however, has indicatedthat at least one of the twelve cultivated varieties ofsunflower, Helianthus annuus, is also attacked bythe moth, although the target weed, T. diversifolia,remains the preferred host. Intensive host-specificitytests on this moth are still in progress in quarantine.

A defoliating butterfly, tentatively identified asChlosyne hippodrome, was also collected from theMexican sunflower and introduced into South Africain October 2007. The adults deposit their eggs inbatches under the leaf surface, and these hatch inabout five days. The larvae feed on leaves and spin awhitish pupa on any plant surface. A few tests con-ducted previously indicated that the larvae of thebutterfly were able to develop successfully on thetarget weed only. However, host-specificity tests arestill in progress.

Based on the quantity and quality of potential bio-control agents found on the two invasive sunflowersin their native range, prospects of selecting andreleasing suitable biocontrol agents against thesealien invaders in South Africa are good.

Source: Mawela, K. & Simelane, D.O. (2008) Opti-mism prevails in South Africa for biological control oftwo emerging weeds, red and Mexican sunflowers.PPRI News No. 78 (Oct–Dec 2008), pp. 13–15. News-letter of the Plant Protection Research Institute(PPRI), an institute in the Natural Resources and

24N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

Engineering Division of the Agricultural ResearchCouncil (ARC) of South Africa.

Contact: Khethani Mawela (MawelaK@arc.agric.za)and Dr David Simelane (SimelaneD@arc.agric.za).

Update on Biocontrol of Himalayan Balsam in the UK

Impatiens glandulifera, commonly known as Hima-layan balsam, is a highly invasive weed which hasspread rapidly throughout the UK since its introduc-tion from its native range, the western Himalayas, in1839. Originally introduced as an attractive additionto large estate gardens, Himalayan balsam has quiteliterally exploded out of the confines of the ‘gardenwalls’ to colonize wasteland, river banks and dampwoodland. When Himalayan balsam grows it has thetendency to form dense monocultures which can out-compete native plant species for space, nutrients andlight – thereby decreasing the local biodiversity ofthe area. As an annual species, Himalayan balsamdies down in the winter leaving the ground bare ofsupporting vegetation. On river banks this increasesthe potential for bank and soil erosion. Dead mate-rial can also become incorporated into the waterbody, blocking drainage and thereby increasing therisk of flooding.

Currently, the only options available to controlHimalayan balsam are traditional methods such asmechanical and chemical control. In the UK, suchcontrol measures are often unsuitable for this speciesdue to the inaccessible habitats in which the plantgrows, the need to control the plant on a catchmentscale, and the banning of many chemicals for use inand around water under new European Union legis-lation. Costs are also a concern; current estimatesplace the eradication of Himalayan balsam from theUK at UK£150–300 million.

Since 2006, funded by the UK Environment Agency,Defra (Department of Environment, Food and RuralAffairs) and the Scottish Government, CABI scien-tists have been researching the potential to controlHimalayan balsam using biological control. To date,four surveys have been conducted throughout theplant’s native range (Pakistan and India) at varioustimes throughout the growing season. As a resultnumerous potential agents having been identified,including both plant pathogens and invertebrates,which now require further testing to determine theirhost ranges. Observations, coupled with data col-lected on the size of the plants, show that in thenative range Himalayan balsam is a lot smaller thanin the introduced range. Herbivory levels are alsomuch higher in the native range, though this is notsurprising as few insect species feed on Himalayanbalsam in the invasive range, and of those that do,none are consider specialists on Himalayan balsamalone.

Of the agents collected, three stem-boring Coleop-tera, namely Metialma suturella, Alcidodes fasciatusand Languriophasma cyanea, show promise aspotential biological control agents due to the damagethey inflict on the plant in the native range and from

field observations of their absence from other Impa-tiens species growing in close proximately to I.glandulifera. Adults of all the coleopteran speciesfeed on the leaves of the plants while the larvaedevelop inside the stem. Plant pathogens also showconsiderable promise with a Septoria leaf spot and aPuccinia rust pathogen, which infects the stem andleaves of the plant population, prioritized for host-range testing during 2009.

One of the main components of the research in 2008was to compile a full test plant list to be used in thisand future phases of the project. Second to the iden-tification of potential agents, the compilation of thetest plant list is the most important component of abiological control programme and the species on thelist need to be carefully chosen in order to scientifi-cally evaluate the host range of the agents beingtested. Following the centrifugal phylogeneticmethod devised by Tony Wapshere in the mid 1970s,and including recent modification suggested byDavid Briese, a test plant list was compiled con-taining 68 plant species from 16 families. Whenchoosing which plant species to include in the testplant list, the highest priority species were the mostclosely related species, in particular native closelyrelated species. In the UK there is only one nativeImpatiens species, Impatiens noli-tangere. This is arather rare species with a scattered occurrence cen-tred around the Lake District area of England andNorth Wales. In addition there are a further twoalien species of Impatiens (I. parviflora and I. cap-ensis) present in the UK and both these have beenincluded in the test plant list.

As the genus Impatiens includes rather elegant spe-cies with brightly coloured, complex flowers, thegenus contains a large number of ornamental specieswhich are grown throughout the UK, in particular I.walleriana and I. hawkeri, both of which include anumber of ornamental varieties and consequentlycan be found in window boxes and planted on round-abouts throughout the UK. In the test plant list thesespecies are represented by more than one variety toreflect the sheer number of varieties available viagarden centres and online seed suppliers. In additionto testing the closely related species, a selection ofspecies has been chosen from the order Ericales, towhich Impatiens belongs, to widen the spectrum ofrelated plant species tested. Finally, a number of spe-cies have been selected as safeguard species and inparticular these include species that grow nearHimalayan balsam populations in the invasiverange.

Since a number of very promising potential agentshave been identified the research is now entering themain host-range testing phase. Due to current com-plications with importing live material from Indiainto quarantine in the UK, much of the research willbe conducted in-country in collaboration with theNational Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources(NBPGR) in Delhi. Further surveys are plannedthroughout the growing season of the plant to collectnatural enemies, which will then be cultured in Delhiand undergo screening on a selection of test plantsfrom the proposed test plant list.

News 25N

We would like to express our thanks to our collabora-tors and colleagues in Pakistan and India for all oftheir support during this research project, includingDr Ashraf Powell (CABI), Lalit Saini (CABI), Dr K.V. Sankaran (Kerala Forest Research Institute,India) and Dr Y. P. Singh (Forest Research Institute,Dehra Dun, India).

By: Rob Tannera & Rajesh Kumarb

aCABI, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9TY,UK. Email: r.tanner@cabi.org bAgharkar Research Institute, Pune, Maharashtra,India.

BLUP Goes the Host Range Estimate

USDA-ARS (US Department of Agriculture – Agri-cultural Research Service) scientists participating ina biological control programme against Russianthistle or tumbleweed (Salsola tragus) have devel-oped an improved method for predicting whetherplants related to the target weed could be attackedby a potential fungal biocontrol agent. The method,which they describe in a paper in Biological Control1,has potential for wider use. Undertaking host-rangetesting of plant pathogens can be labour-intensive,too reliant on narrow datasets, or impractical whennumerous or hard-to-grow plant species areinvolved. The approach developed in this programmealso diminishes uncertainty as to whether the reac-tions of greenhouse-grown plants will reflect those ofthe species under field conditions.

Russian thistle, an annual plant native to Eurasia,was first introduced into the USA in 1873 by Russianimmigrants as a contaminant in flax seed in SouthDakota. It was spread further in contaminated seedby threshing crews, in railway (especially livestock)carriages, and by its windblown seed. Today it iscommon throughout the western USA where it is aproblematic invasive weed and a target of biologicalcontrol efforts.

In late autumn and early winter, Russian thistlebecomes conspicuous as it breaks from the soil and isblown across highways and fields – which made itfamiliar to generations of ‘Wild West’ film fans. It isa weed of disturbed sites, including roadsides, fence-lines, wasteland, poorly tended landscapes, and fieldand vegetable crops. It reduces yield and quality ofmany crops, particularly alfalfa and small grains,depletes soil moisture, interferes with tillage opera-tions, and serves as a shelter or food source to manyinsect and vertebrate pests and crop diseases. It alsothreatens native plant ecosystems. Plants can accu-mulate along tree rows and fence lines, posing a firehazard that requires hours of manual labour toremove, and prairie wildfires are reported to bespread rapidly by ignited balls of burning Russianthistle blowing through grasslands. Water coursesare also affected, for example the California aque-duct. It can be a road hazard that obstructs drivers’vision or causes them to swerve to avoid windblownplants. People may also be sensitive to the Russianthistle plant or its pollen.

Many insect biocontrol agents have been imported totry and control Russian thistle over the years, butalthough insects have become established they havenot so far brought about a significant reduction in theweed problem. There are a number of new agents inthe pipeline, including an obligate biotrophic rustfungus Uromyces salsolae, which was collected fromSalsola sp. in southwestern Russia.

Initial host-specificity tests with the rust found lim-ited non-target effects on test plants, but the testswere conducted under optimum conditions for dis-ease and it was suspected that they might bereflecting only the response of the germplasm tested.The ARS team developed a new approach thatinvolved integrating plant-disease reaction scoresand other data with a matrix made up of DNAsequence information showing the genetic related-ness of the plant species to each other and to thetarget weed. Analysis using a quantitative genetics(mixed model equation; MME) approach producedbest linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs), or the prob-able susceptibilities, of the different test plants to theweed pathogen. The results indicated that MMEanalysis was more useful than least squares methodsin delimiting the host range of U. salsolae. Of the 64species analysed using MME, only seven non-nativeSalsola spp. showed susceptibility to the fungus,indicating its high specificity and that it shouldtherefore be safe to release for the control of Russianthistle in North America.

The authors say the approach may narrow the list ofplants necessary for planning quarantine studies;MMEs were used effectively in this study to generateBLUPs for rare or difficult to grow species that werenot actually inoculated and to generate and validatelogical lists of non-target plants for host-rangetesting.

1Berner, D.K., Bruckart, W.L., Cavin, C.A. &Michael, J.L. (2009) Mixed model analysis combiningdisease ratings and DNA sequences to determinehost range of Uromyces salsolae for biological controlof Russian thistle. Biological Control 49(1), 68–76.

Further information/sources: Suszkiw, J. (2009) Newapproach could improve safety assessments of bio-control pathogens. ARS News Service.Web: www.ars.usda.gov/news/

Orloff, S.B., Cudney, D.W., Elmore, C.L. & DiTomaso, J.M. (updated 2008) Pest notes: Russianthistle. UC ANR Publication 7486. UC StatewideIPM Program, University of California, USA.Web:www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7486.html

Contact: Dana Berner, ARS Foreign Disease-WeedScience Research Unit, Room 219, 1301 DittoAvenue, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5023, USA. Email: dana.berner@ars.usda.gov

Optimizing Flower Species for Biological Control

Scientists from CSIRO Entomology, Australia, andthe Lancaster Environment Centre, UK, have

26N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

investigated how traits of flowers in field marginscan enhance biological control in adjacent crops.Many parasitoids and predators that have thepotential to regulate pest populations requirenectar or other sugar sources to cover their ener-getic needs. Studies have shown that sugar feedingcan increase the lifespan of parasitoids (up to 20-fold), and increase fecundity and their overallactivity. These factors have a cumulative impact onparasitism efficacy, underscoring the vital role offood availability in biological pest control.

Non-crop plants are increasingly being used as a toolto sustain biological control. However, the use of non-crop vegetation for the enhancement of naturalenemy impact requires a careful selection of non-cropplants. It is increasingly recognized that not allflowers are suited as a parasitoid food source andthat flowers may be unattractive or even repellent tothe foraging parasitoid. Flower attractiveness isespecially relevant for larger parasitoid specieswhose size enables them to actively locate odoursources or visual targets in flight. Even when thechemistry between flowers and parasitoids is right,this does not warrant a perfect match, as floral archi-tecture or the presence of competitors may preventparasitoids from physically accessing the nectar.

Using a spatially explicit simulation model FelixBianchi and Felix Wäckers explored how the attractive-ness and accessibility of nectar producing flowersimpacts biological control in crops adjacent to flowerstrips. The model describes the movement, life his-tory and parasitism of a parasitoid in a 40 × 40 m2

computer landscape and was parameterized forCotesia glomerata. Simulations showed that flowerstrips with attractive flowers and accessible nectarresulted in the highest longevity, nectar feeding andparasitism levels. Flower strips that were attractivebut only had limited nectar accessibility gave rise tohigher parasitoid longevity, nectar feeding and para-sitism levels than flower strips that were notattractive, but had a high nectar accessibility. Thisfinding suggests that flower attractiveness for nat-ural enemies should be an important criterion for theselection of plant species for flower strips. Attractiveflower species should preferably offer accessiblenectar, but even if they don’t, they can still play animportant role in mixed flower margins by attractingpredators and parasitoids that may subsequentlyexploit nectar from less attractive plant species.

The model was also used to investigate whetherattraction of parasitoids from the crop to flowerstrips may result in local natural enemy depletion inthe field interior, which may release insect herbiv-ores from control. Although parasitoid migrationfrom the field towards the flower strip occurred insimulations, no local depletion of parasitoids wasobserved. This finding suggests that enhanced para-sitoid longevity by provision of floral nectar sourcesat the field margin may compensate for the migra-tion of parasitoids to these sites.

The general outcome of this study is that flowerstrips tailored to the requirements of parasitoidsmay enhance biological control through the provisionof floral food sources. Ground elder (Aegopodium

podagraria) and oregano (Origanum vulgare) arepromising candidates to enhance the biological con-trol potential of C. glomerata as these plants combineolfactory attractiveness with accessible nectar.Future work will focus on the effect of the spatialarrangement of flowers in and around crops on thebiological control potential of parasitoids. In addi-tion, effects of alternative sugar sources in the field,such as honeydew, on the foraging behaviour ofcereal aphid parasitoids will be addressed.

Source: Bianchi, F.J.J.A. & Wäckers, F.L. (2008)Effects of flower attractiveness and nectar availa-bility in field margins on biological control byparasitoids. Biological Control 46, 400–408.

By: Felix Bianchi, CSIRO Entomology, Meiers Road 120, Indooroopilly, Qld 4068, Australia.Email: felix.bianchi@csiro.auFax: + 61 7 3214 2881

Exotic Ornamental Escapees and Relative Matters

Recent issues of the weed biocontrol newsletter fromNew Zealand’s Landcare Research1 include articleswith a common link. Two garden escapees have beenthe subject of recent surveys for natural enemies intheir home ranges by Landcare Research scientistsand overseas collaborators. Both have turned uppromising natural enemies and these are currentlybeing prioritized before requests to import them intoquarantine are made. A key issue for both projects isnot so much non-target effects on native flora,because the targets have no native close relatives inNew Zealand, but the potential effects on relatedintroduced, but (at least currently) non-invasive,ornamental species.

Scenting Success

An article in the November 2008 issue (‘Adventuresin Japan’, No. 46, pp.1–2) deals with Japanese hon-eysuckle (Lonicera japonica), a rapacious, rampantclimber in New Zealand, but a “well-behaved” plantin its native range in eastern Asia. Three surveyswere undertaken to Japan, in collaboration with theNational Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences,Tsukuba, at different times of the year and coveringvarious environmental conditions, from waste habi-tats to forest and from the coast to subalpine areas.From the natural enemies found, prospects forassembling an array of damaging biocontrol agentslook good.

These include a number of lepidopteran natural ene-mies of this handsome plant, including two equallyattractive white admiral butterflies (Limentis spp.),one of which (L. glorifica) is reported to attack onlyJapanese honeysuckle. Three moths were also con-sidered particularly promising: Bhadorocosmalonicerae has been recorded only from Lonicera spe-cies on which it destroys stem tips in early spring;stem tips are also the target of a so-far unidentifiedleaf-tying moth later in the season, while the larvaeof the third moth, Apha aequalis, consume largeamounts of vegetation, which for the investigating

News 27N

scientists added to the appeal of these large, fluffy,“cute” (and non-toxic) caterpillars.

Amongst the many other insect natural enemiesfound were a longhorn beetle, whose larvae bore thewoody stems, and the sawfly Zaraea lewisii, whosedefoliating larvae specialize on Japanese honey-suckle. Pathogens causing stem or leaf lesions fromseveral well-known genera (Colletotrichum,Fusarium, Pestiloti, Phomopsis, Phoma) were col-lected, as well as plants exhibiting viral symptoms.Attempts to monitor how damaging these were in thefield were often thwarted, however, with plantsbeing removed – possibly because they looked untidy– between surveys. Most promising so far is a Phomaspecies associated with herbicide-like dieback at onesite.

Permits to import the most promising candidateinsect agents into New Zealand have been obtained,with the first shipments due to be made in July thisyear.

Hedging Thorny Issues

An article in the February 2009 issue (‘Can we takethe barb out of barberry?’, No. 47, p. 3.) tackles aninvasive Berberis. The thorny but attractive shoots ofBerberis species make them popular hedging plants,but one species, Darwin’s barberry (B. darwinii) hasescaped and invaded many habitats in New Zealand,from grazed pasture to intact forest, tolerating var-ious soil types as well as frost and drought.

Surveys were conducted in its home range in Chile,in collaboration with scientists from the ServicionAgrícola y Ganadero and the University of Con-cepcíon. Pathogen surveys produced some 30 fungaltaxa. Literature reports of a damaging rust funguson Berberis proved well founded; of some 30 fungi col-lected on Darwin’s barberry, three species includingtwo rusts (Puccinia berberidis-darwinii and P.meyeri-alberti) appear to merit further study;although the impact of the latter rust is as-yetunknown, the former causes premature defoliationand leaf death. The third fungus, yet to be identifiedappears the most damaging of the three, causingshoot dieback, premature defoliation, death ofbraches and potentially whole plants. Insect surveysrevealed fewer candidates, but two weevils lookworthy of further study: Berberidicola exaratuslarvae feed on fruit and seeds, and Anthonomusornatus larvae on flower buds – feeding habits of par-ticular interest as the invasiveness of Darwin’sbarberry is thought to be due, at least partly, to itslarge reproductive capacity. Host testing is begin-ning in Chile at the Instituto de InvestigacionesAgropecuarias.

Everything (Else) in the Garden

Although there are no close native relatives of eitherweed to be considered, as Quentin Paynter, contrib-utor to the Japanese honeysuckle article, says, “a keyissue remaining to be resolved is what level of attackto other ornamental Lonicera species might beacceptable and whether this might compromise orboost the success of the programme.” Although someLonicera species are sold as ornamentals in New Zea-

land, agents that are able to target a range ofLonicera species are potentially beneficial because,as well as L. japonica, L. × americana , L. pericly-menum and L. nitida are all naturalized andapparently in the early stages of invasion in NewZealand. Similarly, although some Berberis speciesare grown and valued as ornamental species, some ofthem are potentially invasive (based on experience inother countries). That article says that it is possiblethat biocontrol agents with a wider host range thanDarwin’s barberry might be preferable – but notesthat this is a bridge to be crossed once the hostranges of candidate agents are known.

Sleeping Thistles

Another article in the February 2009 issue (‘A shiftin thinking’, No. 47, pp. 4–5.) tackles the topic of thedesirability or otherwise of strict host-specificity cri-teria for biocontrol agents of alien weeds in acountry, such as New Zealand, where some intro-duced species may have no close relatives among thenative flora. The motivation for a study on thistles byRonny Groenteman (as part of her PhD) was thespeed with which exotic species are entering NewZealand (some 25,000 exotic species have been intro-duced there2) and naturalizing (around 2100 speciesso far3). Although relatively few have become inva-sive to date (about 500 are classified as weeds) andlegislation now limits the introduction of new spe-cies, the long time lag before invasiveness becomesapparent means there may be many times thatnumber of ‘sleeping’ weeds already in New Zealand.Should the traditional focus on seeking host-specificbiocontrol agents be turned on its head and a multi-targeting strategy be developed in order to preparefor the emergence of these sleepers?

There are over a hundred species of introduced this-tles in New Zealand. Only nine are consideredeconomic weeds, although another 38 are known tobe weedy in other countries; Groenteman concludedthat around two dozen thistles could be invasive‘sleepers’. The system illustrates the conflicts ofinterest that may be encountered in relaxing rules onhost specificity: although there are no native thistles(Cardueae), two crops (globe artichoke and safflower)are related species and another thistle is a potentialcrop; and there are ornamental thistles to beconsidered.

A multi-targeting strategy brings its own problems.Non-specific agents tend to have preferred and sec-ondary hosts. It is important to understand how theagents interact, as the ideal suite would control theentire array of target weeds, rather than removingsome and leaving gaps for the others to move into. Ithas been suggested that multi-targeting might workbest where there is an overlap between primary (pre-ferred) and secondary host plants, which would allowthe agents to build up on the preferred host and spillover onto the less-preferred hosts.

Field experiments and surveys using the weevil Rhi-nocyllus conicus showed that presence of itspreferred host, nodding thistle (Carduus nutans),was indeed associated with heavier attack on threeless-preferred invasive thistle hosts than occurred in

28N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

its absence. But the heavier level of attack was stillinsufficient to bring about population declines in thesecondary hosts, indicating that a multi-strategyapproach might work better for sleeper weeds thanfor well-established invasives such as the threethistles.

Groenteman concluded that a multi-targetingapproach could be exploited but analysis is needed toidentify which groups of introduced plants are suit-able. A broad analysis of the potential risks ofreleasing agents with wider host ranges is alsoneeded. The extra effort all this involves might onlybe justified where a large number of potential sleeperweeds in one group is identified.

1What’s New in Biological Control of Weeds? Landcare Research – Manaaki Whenua.Web: www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications /newsletters/weeds/index.asp

2Duncan R.P. & Williams P.A. (2002) Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis challenged. Nature 417,608–609.

3Wilton, A.D. & Breitwieser, I. (2000) Composition ofthe New Zealand seed plant flora. New ZealandJournal of Botany 38(4), 537–549.

Contact: Quentin Paynter, Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.Email: PaynterQ@landcareresearch.co.nzFax: +64 9 574 4101

Ronny Groenteman, Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand.Email: GroentemanR@landcareresearch.co.nzFax: +64 3 3219998

Postharvest Biocontrol: Introspection and Paradigm Shifts

Using microbial antagonists to manage postharvestdiseases of fruits and vegetables was an idea thatwas formulated in the mid 1980s by Wilson andPusey1. Prior to that publication there had been onlyone report in the literature – of using Trichoderma tocontrol Botrytis rot of strawberries2. Since that timea wealth of research has been conducted and publica-tions have grown from 1–2 per year to over 100 peryear and a few commercial products have beenreleased. A recent report by Droby et al.3 has pro-vided an introspective analysis of the past 20 years ofpostharvest biocontrol research and described futurechallenges. Early on, these authors establishedmany of the principles that provided the frameworkfor the establishment of numerous research pro-grammes worldwide and in this review they againseek to enumerate the principles and questions thatmay serve as a guide for the next 20 years.

The original justification for postharvest biocontrolwas to reduce or replace the use of synthetic chemi-cals because of their potential impact on humanhealth, especially children’s health, and the environ-ment. The development of resistant strains ofpostharvest pathogens and the potential loss of reg-

istration of some major postharvest fungicidesprovided additional urgency for the development ofalternative strategies. It was reasoned that posthar-vest biological control had a high probability ofsuccess because, unlike field applications, environ-mental conditions (temperature, humidity, etc.)could be optimized and regulated, and the biocontrolagent could be directly targeted to the desired loca-tion of activity. Despite these advantages, theperformance of postharvest biocontrol productsremains variable and their use remains limited. Theuse of chemical agents remains the major method ofchoice for managing postharvest rots. Droby and col-leagues voice concern that over the past severalyears postharvest biocontrol research has seen toomuch of ‘reinventing the wheel’ and as a result toolittle progress has been made towards wider com-mercial implementation of effective andeconomically viable biocontrol products. In theirreview, they outline the basic principles of posthar-vest biocontrol research, describe the obstacles thathave limited its commercial application, and identifyareas of research that need to be addressed in orderfor this approach to reach its full potential.

In terms of the basic principles of postharvest biocon-trol, the need for a more complete understanding ofthe mechanism of action of biocontrol agents is noted.Two critical areas for which rudimentary knowledgeexists have to do with the ability of microbial antag-onists to adhere to specific surfaces (pathogens, hosttissues, and each other) and the ability to undergofundamental changes in gene expression when cellpopulations reach a specific level of density (quorumsensing) and/or begin to form biofilms. The literatureis rich with the identification of specific genes thatregulate attachment, as well as molecules and genesresponsible for quorum sensing and biofilm forma-tion. The important role of reactive oxygen species intriggering developmental and environmentalresponses in yeast has also been reported. However,little of this information has been applied to or inves-tigated in relation to postharvest microbialantagonists. The postharvest biocontrol environ-ment represents a tritrophic interaction between thebiocontrol agent, the host, and the pathogen. Under-standing these interactions is critical to thedevelopment of an effective and reliable postharvestbiocontrol product.

An important premise of this review3 is the need todevelop an expanded view of biological control thatincludes not only the classical view of using oneorganism to control another but also the use of a bio-logical process, or the product of a biological process.Approaches such the inclusion of chitosan and lys-ozyme with the biocontrol agent in the formulatedproduct, or the heat pretreatment of a commodity toinduce host resistance prior to the application of themicrobial antagonists are two examples of thisexpanded view of biological control. While perhapsrather obvious in its application, it is important torecognize that this expanded definition represents aparadigm shift in the concept of biological controland that this recognition may allow for a funda-mental change in the way we think about biologicalcontrol and the development of biocontrol productsand strategies. It is a basic premise that paradigms

News 29N

drive scientific research and have a major impact onhow we explore and interpret systems.

Commercial development of postharvest biocontrolproducts has been rather limited and some productshave had very short life spans because of their ina-bility to capture a large enough market, or because ofbeing developed and sold by small companieswithout a large market presence. However, thelargest obstacle to their widespread use has beenproviding a product that performs effectively andreliably under a wide array of conditions, and alsoadapts easily to a range of commercial processingsystems. The reasons for the variability in perform-ance are not clearly understood and may be due tothe presence of pre-established infections, high levelsof inoculum, poor storage of the biocontrol productprior to application, or improper application. Theimpact of mass fermentation and formulation, how-ever, are also factors that may critically impactperformance and yet remain largely unexplored inrelation to biocontrol products.

Over the past 20 years, biological control of posthar-vest diseases has grown into a mature field of scienceand in a relatively short period of time seen successesin commercial application. While such products asAspire (Ecogen, Inc.) and YieldPlus (Anchor Yeast,Inc.) were short-lived due to inadequate marketingstrategies, products like BioSave (Jet Industries,Inc.) and Shemer (AgroGreen, Inc.) are commerciallyavailable and new yeast-based products are in devel-opment. Considerable effort has been made tointegrate the use of postharvest biocontrol productsinto a production systems approach. The use of pre-harvest applications as well as postharvestapplications, and the incorporation of various addi-tives are two methods that have been used toincrease the applicability, effectiveness, and relia-bility of postharvest biocontrol agents. Interest in theuse of microbial antagonists for managing posthar-vest diseases has greatly increased in developingcountries, especially for exotic, tropical fruits grownmainly for local consumption, because of the abilityto easily identify local strains of microbial antago-nists. As discussed in the review by Droby et al.3, theuse of biocontrol agents as an alternative to the syn-thetic, chemical fungicides has many constraints andobstacles. The advances made and commercial prod-ucts thus far developed, although limited, representpromising possibilities. A probable scenario is thatthe use of postharvest biocontrol as a managementapproach will continue to grow at a slow rate, espe-cially when used in combination with otheralternative approaches. The original premise madeback in the 1980s that the potential success of post-harvest biocontrol is great because of being able tocontrol the environment, and target the biocontrolagent still holds. As critical questions regarding themechanism of action and the science of fermentationare answered over the next 10–20 years, it isexpected that the use of postharvest biocontrol prod-ucts will increase and become more commonplace.

1Wilson, C.L. & Pusey, P.L. (1985) Potential for bio-logical control of postharvest plant diseases. PlantDisease 69, 375–378.

2Tronsmo, A. & Dennis, C. (1977) The use of Tri-choderma species to control strawberry fruit rots.Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 83, 449–455.

3Droby, S., Wisniewski, M., Macarisin, D. & Wilson,C.L. (2009) Twenty years of postharvest biocontrolresearch: Is it time for a new paradigm? PostharvestBiology and Technology 52, 137–145.

By: Michael Wisniewskia & Samir Drobyb

aUSDA-ARS, Appalachian Fruit Research Station,Kearneysville, WV 25430, USA. Email: michael.wisniewski@ars.usda.gov Fax: +1 304 728 2340

bDepartment of Postharvest Science, ARO, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, 50250, Israel. Email: samird@volcani.agri.gov.il Fax: +972 3 9683856

Fish in Waiting for Malarial Mosquitoes in Tanzania

Scientists at the Tropical Pesticide Research Insti-tute (TPRI) of Tanzania’s Ministry of Agricultureand Food Security and the US-based Poseidon Sci-ence Foundation are collaborating to develop amethod for using larvae-eating fish to controlmalarial mosquitoes in seasonal water bodies.

The concept of using larvivorous fish as biologicalcontrol agents is an old one, with some past suc-cesses. However, the introduction of themosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, in new habitats hasbeen known to devastate indigenous freshwaterorganisms. Although local species of fish have beenstudied extensively as a means of larval control withnotable success in India and parts of Africa, theireffectiveness has been limited to permanent bodies offreshwater.

Malarial mosquitoes are generally found in higherelevations in temporary pools that dry up seasonally,thus preventing long-term control by larvivorousfishes or even chemical control agents. When thewater dries up, the fish die while the mosquitoesenter a dormant state until the next rains, when thepools fill again. Moreover, these malarial areas aregenerally inaccessible making vector control expen-sive and sporadic at best.

The chances of finding a fish that could work as amosquito biocontrol agent in these circumstancesmight seem remote: it would need to be able to main-tain permanent populations in temporary habitats;the population must be present when the seasonalrains start and capable of preying on mosquito larvaeas the hibernating eggs begin to hatch. Yet such fishdo exist, and a candidate species from Tanzania, theannual fish Nothobranchius guentheri, is the subjectof the new initiative.

Annual fish, which are endemic to Africa and SouthAmerica, are a unique class of fishes that survive inalternating dry and wet seasonal pools by entering astate of diapause (like the mosquitoes). The adults

30N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

are decimated when the water dries up, but theembryos, buried in the substrate during the previousbreeding season, go through various phases of sus-pended animation to survive drought. With the onsetof the next rainy season, these embryos hatch to feedon mosquito larvae that hatch around the same time.The fish can survive in pools as small as depressionsmade by elephants' feet.

The most extensively studied annual fish are in thegenus Nothobranchius which occupy a wide range ofhabitats in Africa. Nothobranchius guentheri is con-sidered ideal for a malaria vector control programmebecause, as well as surviving in temporary pools offreshwater, its small size allows it to seek prey inbetween leaves and grass in shallow areas, and alsomakes it less suitable to be harvested as a food sourceby the local human population. Also, the species doesnot survive in permanent bodies of freshwater andthus poses no threat to other indigenous fishes thatinhabit them.

Scientists from the Poseidon Science Foundationhave been working on developing mass production/long-term storage of the embryos in suspended ani-mation and convenient methods of disseminating theembryos for eventual use in vector control. Moreover,three decades of research at Poseidon and by otherbiologists working in this field have providedincreased understanding of the life cycle of annualfishes.

Poseidon’s collaboration with TPRI represents themost recent attempt to use these fishes for biologicalcontrol. The project involves studies on methods offield introduction and monitoring of larvivorousactivity in controlled test ponds. Field introductionswill follow once the ecological, conservation and effi-cacy studies have been successfully undertaken.Eventually, it is hoped this effort will expand intomass production of the fishes locally and their dis-semination to areas of Tanzania where malaria isendemic.

If successful the method is expected to complementother anti-malaria approaches such as pesticide useincluding insecticide-treated mosquito nets, andartemisinin drugs.

Sources: Mkoka, C. (2009) Larvae-eating fishemployed in malaria fight. SciDev.Net 16 Apr 2009.Web: www.scidev.net

Poseidon Science Foundation.Web: www.poseidonsciences.com

Recent Developments in Agricultural Entomology Research at Rhodes University

South Africa’s Eastern Cape has a number of dif-ferent floristic biomes that ensures a wide diversityof agricultural ecosystems. The Department ofZoology and Entomology at Rhodes University is ide-ally placed to research pest control problems

experienced in this area. Indeed entomology almosthas an obligation to address these problems. Thedepartment has been involved in agriculturalprojects since its inception in 1905 when the firsthead of department, Professor Duerden, worked inwool and ostrich feather quality. In the 1970s consid-erable work was undertaken in the control of citruspests.

In the last seven or eight years there has been a reju-venation of agricultural entomological research inthe department and projects have been undertakenon the control of pests in cabbages, chicory, peppers,olives, macadamias, litchis, potatoes and citrus.More recently the main focus has been the control ofcitrus pests using microbes such as fungi andviruses. These projects have focussed not only oncommercial farming systems, but also on sustainablerural livelihoods. The philosophy of this work is:

• To research problems driven by industry• Commitment to undertaking fundamental sci-ence on applied systems• Commitment to IPMIt is widely accepted that pests should be controlledusing less insecticides and more through naturalenemies such as spiders and wasp parasitoids.

It is hoped that this research focus will attract morestudents to Rhodes University as they can see theapplied significance of undertaking a degree inentomology.

Waainek Research Laboratory

Space is limited on the Rhodes University campusand space had to be sought to house students andresearchers involved in undertaking projects on thecontrol of agricultural pests. The laboratory that wasopened on 12 March 2009 used to house the TickResearch Unit at Rhodes. The unit closed down in1993 and the buildings have been largely unusedsince that time. In late 2008 Rhodes University madesome funds available to the Discipline of Entomologyto renovate the Waainek Research Laboratory. Withvery little funding this laboratory is now fully func-tional and houses a research officer, a PhD student,two masters students and an honours students, withmore students to follow. The opening was attendedby several people from the agricultural industry, aca-demics and students.

Funding

To date this research group has received fundingfrom: Chicory SA Ltd, Citrus Research Interna-tional, Citrus Academy, River Bioscience, InsectScience (Pty) Ltd, Litchi Growers Association,Southern Africa Macadamia Growers Association,Carara Agro Processing Services, Rhodes UniversityJoint Research Council and Rhodes University.

By: Martin Hill, Department of Zoology and Entomology, Rhodes University, South Africa.

News 31N

IPM Systems

This section covers integrated pest management(IPM) including biological control and biopesticides,and techniques that are compatible with the use ofbiological control or minimize negative impact onnatural enemies.

Armyworm NPV for Africa: Illustrating Problems of Promoting Biopesticides in Africa

The recent outbreak of ‘armyworms’ in the WestAfrican state of Liberia highlights the difficulty ofcontrolling crop pests in sub-Saharan Africa, partic-ularly the major irruptive and migratory insectpests. It also begs the question of why biological con-trol agents (BCAs) have not been developed andadopted for the management of these pests in Africa.Previous reports have identified some issues thathave impeded BCA development in the continent1.Here, we review the progress with developing one ofthe more promising BCAs, the Spodoptera exemptanucleopolyhedrovirus (SpexNPV), with a view toillustrating some of these issues and perhapsthrowing new light onto the ways in which BCAadoption might be promoted in Africa.

A major issue is the availability of suitable BCAs.Many pests in Africa, particularly endemics like theLiberian ‘armyworm’, Achaea catocaloides, are solittle studied that, for many, we have not yet identi-fied any potential BCA that could be developed as aneffective control agent. In the case of the much morewidespread and devastating African armyworm,Spodoptera exempta, research has already identifiedSpexNPV as an effective BCA2. It has several advan-tages over other potential BCAs, including the factthat it is a member of a well-understood group ofpathogens (the baculoviruses), that are of assuredsafety, and are already widely used for pest control inEurope, North America and Asia.

The limited host range of many BCAs limits theiruse. This is seen as a particular constraint in Africanfarming because multiple pest threats are common,and the use of a single broad-spectrum control for dif-ferent classes of pests is the norm. In the case ofAfrican armyworm, the outbreaks comprise a singlepest species and SpexNPV is the main endemic path-ogen. There are many different strains of SpexNPV,and the strategic use of these strains in the biologicalcontrol of armyworms is currently under activeinvestigation.

The slower speed of kill of most BCAs remains anissue. Often BCA action is too slow for responsivespraying to be effective. For example, trials haveshown that when sprayed on young caterpillars,SpexNPV kills within 3–4 days, compared with justa few minutes for conventional chemical insecticides.This means that application needs to be timed earlyin the pest outbreak if it is to be effective, and thisrequires a good early-warning system. Unusually, aneffective forecasting network does exist for Africanarmyworm in Tanzania, comprising a national net-

work of pheromone traps to warn of migratingarmyworm moths, as well as scouting teams and agrowing network of community-based forecasters.Unfortunately, there are no comparable systems inplace in most countries neighbouring Tanzania.

BCAs also have low persistence relative to most syn-thetic insecticides. This is important when sprayingcannot be easily synchronized with pest arrival onthe crop, and prophylactic action is required. This isnot such an issue with armyworms, as outbreaks arecontrolled by spraying larvae whilst they feed on thecrop, and NPV is very quickly ingested by feedinglarvae (probably within an hour). Of course, if infec-tion by BCAs can be established early in the pestcycle, then ‘secondary cycling’ by such self-repli-cating BCAs as fungi, nematodes and viruses canmean that BCA persistence is much better than thatof chemical insecticides, which can only degrade overtime. If IPM and scouting were practised more inAfrica, the issues of host range, speed of kill and per-sistence would be less of a constraint. However,despite IPM being national policy in many Africancountries, a lack of resources and skills prevents anywidespread use of IPM in practice outside the high-value commercial sector.

Storage of BCAs can be a problem as most BCAshave a limited shelf-life at ambient temperaturescompared to that of chemicals, which typically last inexcess of two years. These BCAs need cool-chain con-ditions for long-term storage and this is certainly notavailable in rural Africa, and is often a problem evenin the cities. To surmount this obstacle, SpexNPV isadapting a powder formulation system developed inBrazil by EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira dePesquisa Agropecuária – Brazilian AgriculturalResearch Corporation) as a low-cost formulationwith good shelf-life.

Supply is a real issue for BCAs in Africa. This isbecause African markets for BCAs are small outsidehorticultural hotspots such as South Africa andKenya, discouraging local production of BCAs bycommercial industry. There is now a nascent BCAindustry starting up in Kenya, and a well-estab-lished one in South Africa producing biopesticides(including Green Muscle®, see below) and baculo-virus insecticides. However, elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa there is no commercial production ofBCAs. Importation by these countries would be anoption if registration processes for BCAs were moretransparent, suitably costed and reliable. However,despite some harmonization of BCA registration reg-ulations, it still remains relatively uncertain andexpensive to register BCAs in many parts of Africa.This will probably be an issue for SpexNPV in Tan-zania, but efforts are in hand to reform theregistration process and align it with Kenya, where aworking system is well established.

The cost of BCAs produced outside Africa is generallyhigh in comparison to the chemical insecticidesAfrican farmers are familiar with. This should

32N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

favour the kind of local low-tech production of BCAsthat has flourished in Brazil, India, China and Thai-land. For SpexNPV the plans is to mass produce itthrough field-based production in Tanzania3 whichwould mean a cost (of around US$ 3/ha) that is lowerthan the price of chemical pesticides (around US$ 10/ha)3.

Institutional models to promote BCA adoption inAfrica are a problem. There has been little progressin getting BCAs to generate impact, other than withthe classical introductions to control exotic pests,such as the cassava mealybug (Phenacoccus mani-hoti) control programme. The simple commercialroute is relatively expensive. For example, the use ofBt (Bacillus thuringiensis-based) insecticides ismainly restricted to commercial horticulture, whereresistance has made the use of cheaper chemicalalternatives untenable. The development of endemicBCAs, through a commercial R&D route, such as thebaculovirus product Cryptogran™ for false codlingmoth (Cryptophlebia leucotreta) control in SouthAfrica, shows that commercial R&D can work, butprobably only for high-value horticulture in placessuch as South Africa and Kenya.

Public–private partnerships (PPPs) may provide asustainable mechanism for local production. The useof such PPPs for the development of BCAs seemsmuch more appropriate for Africa than the tradi-tional commercial routes. A prime example of thiswas the LUBILOSA project, which developed theGreen Muscle® fungal insecticide for locust andgrasshopper control using public sector aid fundingand public sector technology development, but even-tually transferred production to the private sector.This sort of approach is especially appropriate formigratory and trans-boundary pests, like locusts andarmyworms, where many countries are potential tar-gets and hence beneficiaries.

BCAs offer novel ways to manage pests. They exploitthe interaction between pests and their natural ene-mies. These interactions are infinitely more subtleand complex than those between insects and chemi-cals. This is part of the reason why resistance tochemical insecticides is such a problem in the man-agement of crop pests. BCAs offer novelopportunities for exploiting these interactions. Forexample, ‘secondary cycling’ of entomopathogenicfungi has proved to be an effective medium-termstrategy for the control of grasshoppers. Many micro-bial BCAs cause sub-lethal effects in their survivinghosts, which may reduce the impact of pest specieseven when applied at low dosages. Many also aretransmitted between generations via vertical trans-mission, offering potential routes for the widespreaddissemination of BCAs. All of these mechanisms arecurrently being explored in the armyworm–SpexNPV system, with a view to long-term strategiccontrol of armyworm in eastern Africa.

SpexNPV is a very promising candidate to be thenext BCA for development. This is because it hasproven to be highly effective in field trials2 and has areal product niche. However, progress is constrainedby the absence of funding to bridge the gap betweenbasic research and its applied use. The research

councils will generally not fund this sort of appliedresearch. Although development agencies do fundsome research, they are often hesitant to support theapplied R&D needed to turn research into practice,which can be a long process. This is especially true inAfrica, where logistics can be more demanding andprogress slower, and also for migratory pests, forwhich it can be difficult to locate pest outbreaks earlyenough to be able to conduct properly controlled andresourced trials. SpexNPV development has con-tinued for more than a decade, despite intermittentgaps in funding. However, it has proved difficult tosecure the funding required to mass produceSpexNPV, and it seems likely that it will take out-breaks on the scale of those seen in Liberia to triggerpotential donors into action.

In conclusion, there are still many factors con-straining the use of BCAs in Africa. Some of these areissues that can be easily addressed via good scientificresearch, but others relate to the whole context ofAfrican agriculture and may not be resolvable in theshort term. However, with appropriate technologies,political goodwill and sufficient funding, there aresome BCAs that could play a significant role inmeeting the pest threats to African food productionand poverty.

For further information about the African army-worm and its biological control, visit:www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/wilsonk4/ARMYWEB/ARMYWEB.html 1Cherry, A.J. & Gwynn, R.L., (2007). Perspective onthe development of biocontrol in Africa. BiocontrolScience and Technology 17, 665–666.2Grzywacz, D., Mushobozi, W.L., Parnell, M., et al.(2008) Evaluation of Spodoptera exempta nucleopol-yhedrovirus (SpexNPV) for the field control ofAfrican armyworm (Spodoptera exempta) in Tan-zania. Crop Protection 27, 17–24. 3Mushobozi, W.L., Grzywacz, D., Musebe, R., et al.(2005) New approaches to improve the livelihoods ofpoor farmers and pastoralists in Tanzania throughmonitoring and control of African armyworm, Spo-doptera exempta. Aspects of Applied Biology 75, 37–45.

By: David Grzywacza, Wilfred Mushobozib & Ken-neth Wilsonc

aNatural Resources Institute, University of Green-wich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, KentME4 4TB, UK.bEco Agri Consultancy Services Ltd, Nairobi Road,Kwa Idd, P.O. Box 15040, Arusha, Tanzania. cLancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster Univer-sity, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.

IPM for Flies in Feedlots

A report from Australia by Queensland Departmentof Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F) scien-tists describes the development of an integrated

News 33N

management strategy that reduces nuisance fly pop-ulations (principally house flies, Musca domestica,and stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans) in cattle feed-lots (confined animal rearing areas) in southeastQueensland1. Components of the strategy includeaugmentative releases of parasitoids and fungalbiopesticide applications. The three-year project wasconducted in collaboration with a scientist fromUSDA-ARS (US Department of Agriculture – Agri-cultural Research Service) and funded by Meat &Livestock Australia (MLA) and the QueenslandGovernment.

Despite efforts by the feedlot industry to improvemanure management in recent years, the flies thatbreed in it remain a problem in cattle rearing facili-ties. The project included research and developmentof existing and new tools:

• Removing manure from the entire pen provedunnecessary but the frequency with which it wascleared from where uncompacted manure tends toaccumulate, along fence lines, was. Removing itmonthly, fortnightly and weekly decreased numbersof fly pupae 55%, 67% and 84% compared with athree-monthly cleaning interval. • Insecticides were effective in only some situa-tions. The larvicide cyromazine applied under fencelines reduced immature and mature flies but onlywhen applied after the fence lines had been recentlycleared of manure; importantly it did not reduce flyparasitism rates. Adulticides had less effect: spray-ing cyfluthrin on feedlot structures gave a small,transient reduction in stable fly populations but hadno apparent effect on house flies.• Augmentative releases of mass-reared parasi-toids, Spalangia endius, contributed to fly control.Spalangia endius is common in Australian feedlotsand is also one of several species used againstmanure-breeding flies in the USA. Results from var-ious field and feedlot trials in southeast Queenslandindicated that fewer flies emerged where parasitoidshad been released, a trend of increasing S. endiuspopulations and a greater percentage of this speciesin the parasitoid community. • Fungal biopesticides were shown to have poten-tial, with Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveriabassiana shown to selectively infect and kill theflies. Isolates chosen for efficacy and high spore pro-duction in culture were bioassayed against houseflies for a range of properties: spore uptake fromsprayed surfaces and food, efficacy of spray and baitformulations, lethal spore levels, and the effect ofcombining fungal species. Feedlot trials using for-mulated Metarhizium spores gave promising resultsin terms of much higher fly mortality than inuntreated areas and the fungus was re-isolated fromflies netted after spraying. Moreover, mortalityremained higher than pre-spray levels andMetarhizium could still be isolated from flies netteda week after spraying (although at lower levels).A significant feature of this project was the collabo-ration between researchers and the commercialsector in carrying out the above research and devel-oping the practical integrated management strategy.

Bugs for Bugs, a company producing a wide range ofbiological control agents based in Mundubbera,Queensland, characterized the wasps and developedmass-rearing techniques and a quality control assur-ance programme. Spalangia endius is now availablefrom the company as a biocontrol tool. To be suc-cessful, releases should begin before fly populationsincrease and continue throughout the expected flyseason at the recommended rates.

Becker Underwood Australia, the sole commercialproducer of fungal biopesticides in Australia atpresent, produced M. anisopliae spores for the trials.The report recommends further development of theM. anisopliae based biopesticides to a commercial flycontrol product. It notes that this will need to be reg-istered with the Australian Pesticides andVeterinary Medicines Authority, for which addi-tional efficacy data will be needed, and recommendsthat commercialization should be pursued byDPI&F, MLA and Becker Underwood.

In 2007/2008, trials in two locations, in the BrisbaneValley and Warwick Shire, allowed conventionalpractices to be compared with the new IPM strategy,which comprised frequent fence line clearing, aug-mentative parasitoid releases, spraying fungalbiopesticides, and focused use of insecticidal fly baits.Adult house fly and stable fly populations werereduced 36% and 40%, respectively, by the IPMstrategy, and increases in fly parasitism rates,fungal infections and mortality were recorded.

An integrated fly management package for nuisanceflies in cattle feedlots is now being produced, incorpo-rating ecological knowledge about the major fly pestsand their natural enemies and the effects of flies onfeedlot operations into the results of this project. Thereport’s authors also recommend the expansion ofthe use of parasitoids and fungal biopesticides toother industries in Australia with similar flyproblems.

1Urech, R., Leemon, D., Green, P., et al. (2008) Inte-grated management of nuisance fly populations oncattle feedlots. Final Report, Project B.FLT.0326.Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd.

Contact: Rudolf Urech and Diana Leemon, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 665 Fairfield Rd, Yeerongpilly, Qld 4105, Australia.Email: rudolf.urech@dpi.qld.gov.audiana.leemon@dpi.qld.gov.au

Killing Old Mosquitoes for Sustainable Malaria Control

Although malaria is the world’s greatest killeramongst vector-borne human diseases, most malariaparasites (Plasmodium spp.) do not survive in a mos-quito long enough to infect anyone. The apparentparadox arises because adult malarial mosquitoessuffer such high mortality that most mosquitoes donot live long enough for any Plasmodium parasitesthey acquire in their first blood meals to develop theinfectious stages passed back to humans. Accordingto a recent paper in PLoS Biology1, this provides a

34N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

window of opportunity for a novel approach thatwould be almost immune to the development ofinsecticide resistance – and one that biopesticidesare pre-adapted for. The authors argue that tar-geting older mosquitoes is essential if we are toachieve a sustained reduction in malaria worldwide.

Although some control initiatives target larvae inbreeding sites (e.g. using Bti: Bacillus thuringiensisvar. israelensis), controlling adult mosquitoes is themost effective way of reducing vector populations,and thus incidence of malaria. Such strategies targetfemale mosquitoes where they rest or feed. Indoorresidual spraying is the basis of control, but in recentyears campaigns to make bed nets, particularly long-lasting insecticide impregnated nets, widely avail-able have been credited with massive reductions inmalaria in some countries according to the latestWHO (World Health Organization) report2. Thesestrategies rely on synthetic insecticides like DDT andpyrethroids, and history shows that they carry a highrisk of becoming ineffective because the high insecti-cide coverage and rapid insecticide-inducedmortality they require drive the evolution of insecti-cide resistance in mosquito populations. Resistancemanagement (e.g. alternating insecticides) can delaybut not prevent this happening. Moreover, currentrestrictions on insecticide use leave almost nooptions for resistance management of insecticidesused in impregnated bed nets.

In their PLoS Biology paper, Read et al. describe howthey investigated whether differences in the lengthsof the reproductive cycles of the mosquito host andthe malarial parasite provide opportunities for dis-ease control.

• A blood meal is necessary for female mosquitoesto reproduce, because blood proteins are needed forthe eggs to mature; once mature, the eggs are laidbefore the mosquito seeks another blood meal, whichstarts another egg maturation and laying (gonado-trophic) cycle. A single cycle takes 2–4 days. • Malarial parasites taken in with a blood mealundergo a complex reproduction and developmentprocess, which ends with mature offspring migrat-ing to the salivary glands from where they areinjected into a new host when the mosquito takes itsnext blood meal. The time from a mosquito ingestinga Plasmodium-infected blood meal to becominginfective is about 10–14 days, or 2–6 gonadotrophiccycles. A high natural adult mortality rate means that mostfemale mosquitoes go through only a few cyclesbefore dying, and the long development time of thePlasmodium pathogen means that most of the eggs amosquito lays during its lifetime will be laid before itbecomes infective – and the majority do not live thatlong.

Read et al. report how they used data on mosquitolifespan and malaria development from four foci ofintense malaria transmission (two in Nigeria; oneeach in Tanzania and Papua New Guinea) in afeeding cycle model. They found that an insecticide-based strategy targeting mosquitoes after they hadgone through four gonadotrophic cycles but before

they became infective was able to reduce infectiousbites by 95%. Then, using fecundity data generatedin the above model in a population genetics model,they were able to predict that resistance to late-acting insecticides would spread slowly, if at all,because there was less selection pressure from insec-ticide-induced mortality after peak reproduction waspassed. While current insecticide programmes showa 99.8% reduction in the number of infectious bites,there is enormous selection for resistance preciselybecause of this high and indiscriminate mortality,which includes reproducing females. In Read et al’smodel, conventional insecticide use reduced a mos-quito’s lifetime reproductive success by 85%, whilelate-acting insecticides reduced it by only 22%.

Resistance to conventional insecticides used inmalaria control has been reported to carry substan-tial costs (and these can be exploited in resistancemanagement based on alternating insecticides) butthey are easily outweighed by the enormous benefitsof resistance. This would not necessarily be the casefor late-acting insecticides, however. Read et al. dis-cuss what properties would make them least prone tothe development of resistance in target populations.They argue that, as well as being effective againstolder mosquitoes, a late-acting insecticide would ide-ally be more effective against malaria-infectedmosquitoes, and resistance to it would carry lifetimefitness costs.

The authors say they “are unaware of any attemptsto evaluate potential insecticides for these proper-ties.” They discuss how targeting older mosquitoesmight be achieved in practice through adaptingapplication practices for existing insecticides (forexample, exposing mosquitoes to cumulative sub-lethal doses, developing microencapsulated formula-tions) or by developing novel chemicals that targetolder or infected mosquitoes. However, as older mos-quitoes are known to be more susceptible to someinsecticides, and malaria parasites impose consider-able metabolic costs on their host, they underline theimportance of investigating whether lower insecti-cide doses than those currently applied couldspecifically target older and infected mosquitoes.Read et al. say “the aim here is disease control, notnecessarily insect control”. In fact, they add, killingmosquitoes may not be necessary if they can be pre-vented from transmitting malaria by another means.They suggest host-location, host-feeding and flightbehaviour could be useful areas for research.

Although the paper initially discusses the prospectsfor adapting the use of synthetic products to kill oldermosquitoes or prevent them from transmittingmalaria, Read et al. go on to argue that bioinsecti-cides already do this. They point out that their slowmode of action, which traditionally puts them at adisadvantage to synthetic insecticides in spray pro-grammes that aim for fast knock-down, becomes anadvantage in this situation. Other research on twoentomopathogenic fungi (Beauveria bassiana andMetarhizium anisopliae) that infect mosquitoesshowed that they cause death 7–14 days post-treat-ment and have a disproportionate impact onmalaria-infected mosquitoes. Field trials showedhow entomopathogens could be sprayed onto walls or

News 35N

bed nets to infect mosquitoes that come into contact(see BNI 26(3), 79N–81N (September 2005), ‘Malariabiocontrol grows up’ and refs therein). Read et al. saythat other prospective biocontrol agents, such asWolbachia and densoviruses, also kill mosquitoeslate in life.

In more general terms, what is now needed,according to the authors, is a re-assessment of thecriteria for evaluating insecticides for malaria con-trol – not least because current the WHO PestEvaluation Scheme (lab test) criteria for insecticidesfor both indoor spraying and impregnating bed netsrequires 80% mortality up to 24 hours post-treat-ment in young adult females; just the populationsubset that, according to Read et al., should not betargeted and whose elimination imposes greatestselection for resistance. Ironically, the success of theGlobal Malaria Action Plan in promoting sprayingand bed net dissemination will impose unprece-dented selection for resistance. While this may bringabout an urgently needed fall in malaria cases world-wide, a move to late-acting insecticides could providea means for sustaining this when, as is inevitable,mosquitoes develop resistance to the insecticides cur-rently being used.

1Read, A.F., Lynch, P.A. & Thomas, M.B. (2009) How to make evolution-proof insecticides for malariacontrol. PLoS Biology 7(3), e1000058.

2WHO (2008) WHO malaria report 2008 Web: www.who.int/malaria/wmr2008

Larvicides Could Stage Comeback for Malaria Control in Africa

Two studies in East Africa, one in urban Dar esSalaam in Tanzania1 and the other in the rural high-lands of western Kenya2, may revive interest in thepotential for larvicides to contribute to control ofmalarial mosquitoes and disease transmission inAfrica. The authors of the Tanzanian study say thatthe approach, which was favoured in the first half ofthe twentieth century, may be able to complementcurrent approaches that use indoor residualspraying and insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) totarget adult mosquitoes, although they expect theseto remain the mainstay of anti-malaria initiatives.

Larvicides’ fall from favour came with the advent ofDDT, which controlled adult mosquitoes and wasthought a more effective way of reducing popula-tions, but was also related to growing health andenvironmental concerns about spraying syntheticinsecticides on water bodies where mosquito imma-ture stages live. The safety aspect was overcome withthe development of the bacterial biopesticideBacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti) which isactive against the larvae of the Anopheles malariavectors. This has been widely deployed across thenorthern hemisphere, but its introduction to Africahas been hampered by concerns about cost andsustainability.

Geissbühler et al.1 undertook the study in Dar esSalaam to investigate what impact larvicides could

have in an urban environment, acknowledging thatmalaria in rural areas is considered to be the mainproblem (and where most research has been con-ducted), but with the knowledge that the Africanurban population is growing and expected to be morethan 50% of the total population by 2030. They con-ducted the pilot study under the auspices of the Dares Salaam City Council Urban Malaria Control Pro-gramme (UMCP) in three wards of the city, a totalarea of 17 km2 with 128,000 inhabitants. UMCO wasestablished in 2003 and had spent three years devel-oping new, sustainable and affordable systems forapplying microbial larvicides by mobilizing a com-munity-based team of operators.

Tanzania has emphasized the widespread use ofITNs as its highest priority for controlling malariabut, although the World Health Organization hasreported some outstanding successes where a combi-nation indoor residual spraying and ITN use hasdramatically reduced the incidence of malaria3,malarial mosquitoes have recently been observed tofeed outdoors in urban areas more than they do inrural areas and, especially in the case of the primaryvector An. gambiae, to feed early in the eveningbefore people retreat indoors. Indoor residualspraying and ITNs, in particular, rely for efficacy onnight-feeding behaviour in malaria mosquitoes.

In Dar es Salaam, the 300-strong community-basedteam applied Bti weekly for a year to open habitatswhere Anopheles malarial vectors were likely tobreed. A comprehensive survey of every potentialbreeding site was also conducted weekly, and theimpact of treatment on mosquito populations andmalaria transmission was recorded. Despite whatthey describe as sub-optimal application of Bti,researchers recorded a reduction in malaria trans-mission in treated areas, with a 72% reduction in theprevalence of malaria infection among young chil-dren. They found that Bti treatment providedprotection at least equal to that provided by an insec-ticide-treated net, and at a similar cost (US$1/person/year compared with an average of $2/year fora net, which is often used by more than one person).

On the face of it this might be puzzling as, althoughBti suppressed Anopheles populations by 32% onaverage over the year, it suppressed the secondaryvectors An. funestus and An. coustani substantiallyand had no overall significant effect on the primarymalaria vector An. gambiae. However, An. gambiaewas most effectively reduced during drier periodswhile control during the annual rains was poor(owing to cash flow restrictions at the outset and thedifficulty of treating many transient and inaccessiblehabitats). Moreover, although An. gambiae popula-tions peaked during the rainy season, the mostsporozoite-containing (malaria-infected) An. gam-biae were caught during the drier months thatfollowed when warmer conditions favoured parasitedevelopment and mosquito survival – and this wasalso when most malaria transmission was recorded.The authors point out that the study was uncon-trolled, and other factors may be involved in the fallin disease transmission – for example, people mayhave modified the measures taken against malariaduring the study period – but they argue that there

36N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

is a case for re-assessing larvicides, particularlygiven the limitations to ITN efficacy found in thisurban situation.

Geissbühler et al. draw parallels between their find-ings and those in the as-yet unpublished study in thedensely populated rural highlands of westernKenya2, which has also shown the effectiveness ofusing larvicide application in combination with ITNsas a malaria prevention strategy, but say that whilethe two studies indicate a useful role for Bti in anti-malaria strategies, many questions need to beanswered first and further research and trials areneeded. Above all, they stress that they see larvicidaland adulticidal approaches as complementary intackling malaria in Africa.

The programme in Dar es Salaam has already beenextended to protect over 600,000 people, with lessonslearned during this pilot study being translated intomajor improvements in the delivery system to reducecosts and improve performance. Furthermore,expansion to cover the entire city was considered atthe stakeholders’ meeting of the US President’sMalaria Initiative held in Tanzania in April 2008

and the National Malaria Control Programme hasset itself the target of setting up such programmes infive cities by 2013.

The study was supported by the Bill & MelindaGates Foundation, Valent Biosciences Corporation,Research Triangle International, the US President’sMalaria Initiative and the Wellcome Trust.

1Geissbühler, Y., Kannady, K., Chaki, P.P., et al.(2009) Microbial larvicide application by a large-scale, community-based program reduces malariainfection prevalence in urban Dar es Salaam, Tan-zania. PLoS ONE 4(3): e5107. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005107.

2Fillinger, U., Ndegwa, B., Githeko, A. & Lindsay,S.W. (in press) Integrated malaria vector controlwith microbial larvicides and insecticide treated netsin the western Kenyan highlands: a controlled trial.Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

3World malaria report, 2008. WHO. Web: www.who.int/malaria/

Training News

In this section we welcome all your experiences eitherfrom working directly with the end-users of arthropodand microbial biocontrol agents, or from other rele-vant educational activities on natural enemies andIPM aimed at students, farmers, extension staff orpolicymakers.

How to Collaborate with Farmers on IPM Research*

In recent years, IPM extension came to mean FFS(farmer field school). Field schools meet weekly toobserve and discuss pests in the field, over a wholegrowing cycle.

There has now been time for detailed evaluations ofFFS. The results consistently show that farmerslike FFS and change their attitudes as a result of it.FFS graduates learn about pest ecology, and tend todecrease their insecticide use. Some studies showthat FFS graduates save on production costs or har-vest more, although all of the studies do notreplicate these results. Some quantitative studiesof FFS suggest that there is actually little overallimpact of FFS programmes.

FFS graduates do not teach what they have learnedto their neighbours, which limits the cost-effective-ness of FFS. Field school experts are now arguingthat field schools “are not meant for technologytransfer” and there is a need to experiment withhow to combine FFS with mass media, extension,etc.

FFS may be better suited to stimulating collabora-tive research with farmers than for extension itself.FFS gives scientists a chance to see how farmers

react to scientific ideas and, because the FFS per-mits farmers to understand the reasons behind anew technology, to suggest improvements.

For example, farmers in Central America improvedtraps to catch slugs (molluscs) during FFS. Farmersin Indonesia created ploughing practices to killstem borers, and there are many other examples.CIP (International Potato Centre) researchers inPeru have adapted FFS for research. In one experi-ence researchers organized FFS graduates intoCIALs (local agricultural research committees) todo formal, on-farm trials of rotation crops todecrease soil-borne bacteria, besides inventing sev-eral ways of controlling bacterial wilt in potato.

There are many extension methods available,although their impact needs further study.

Promoters are a kind of farmer extension agent,which are popular in Central America, thanks tothe development organization World Neighboursand other institutions. They are a low cost, personalway of reaching many people, which allows thetechnology to be adapted by the people who will useit.

In Bangladesh, one innovative NGO, Shushilan,used ‘picture songs’ (about 20 minutes of songs anda very large painting on a scroll) as a kind of movingpicture, to teach appropriate rice technology tothousands of people, especially about natural ene-mies and using organic fertilizer. As a performersings out the message (and dances), the rest of thetroupe accompanies her with music, and rolls outthe illustrations on the scroll. Hundreds of peoplecan see each memorable performance at one sitting.

News 37N

Videos have been used in Bangladesh, combinedwith farmer participatory research, and communitymeetings. Researchers at RDA (Rural DevelopmentAcademy) developed appropriate rice seed tech-nology with farmers (e.g. drying rice seed on abamboo table, keeping seed dry in a painted pot).Then they made videos where farmers spoke oncamera. Their honest words were convincing toother farmers, who could identify with them1,2.

Plant health clinics are a new extension methodbeing implemented in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Uganda,Bangladesh and elsewhere, pioneered by the GlobalPlant Clinic. The plant clinics provide a place forpersonalized consultations between farmers andagronomists. The plant clinics can be easily com-bined with other methods like FFS, fact sheets,radio, short courses, etc.3.

‘Going Public’ is another face to face method for amass audience. An extensionist goes to a market oranother crowded place, and delivers a short mes-sage, and then repeats it. It is especially well suitedto rather simple messages that must show some-thing (e.g. a disease symptom, a new tool)4.

Written material, including fact sheets, journalsand newspapers are also useful, especially whenwritten for farmers and validated by farmers beforedistribution.

Radio is a promising method, and has been usedrecently in Vietnam to teach people to avoid insecti-cide abuse in rice. A project using radio, leaflets andother media led to a 53% reduction in insecticideuse and no loss in production in project sites, andthe change eventually spread to more than a millionrice farmers three years later5.

The challenge is to fine-tune technologies withfarmers (e.g. using FFS), and then extend the tech-niques with a mix of mass media and othermethods. An example from two Colombian biocon-trol experiences suggests why this is important

When the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemushampei) entered Colombia in the early 1990s,researchers were keen to find an alternative tochemicals. They tried the entomopathogenic fungusBeauveria bassiana (Bb), which failed. The Colom-bian coffee sector has excellent extensionists, whoduly taught farmers how to make Bb, but it was toodifficult for them to make enough of it in theirkitchens, and after trying it, they abandoned it.Researchers also brought parasitic wasps fromAfrica, which did become established, but whichparasitized only 5% of the berry borer population6,7.

Through rigorous studies, entomologists knew thatthe borer only lived in coffee berries. So by gath-ering up all berries from the ground and by gleaningover-ripe fruit from the trees, the growers couldeliminate the pest’s habitat. Researchers called thegleaning-plus-clean harvest ‘Re-Re’. Extensionagents taught Re-Re, but farmers would not pickfallen fruit from the ground. The hillsides were usu-ally so steep that bending over was uncomfortableand could lead a person to slip or fall; the fallen fruit

was often hidden by leaves. The berries on theground were often rotten and could not be sold. Butfarmers did begin to make more of an effort to har-vest all the coffee berries from the trees (cleanharvest), because the good berries could be sold,which usually paid for the labour to pick them. Atfirst researchers and extensionists were displeasedthat farmers were modifying Re-Re, but they even-tually realized that the farmer modifications madethe technology more acceptable, that clean harvestwas being adopted, and it was controlling the pest8.

Clean harvest is also being used by farmers to con-trol the coffee berry borer in other parts of LatinAmerica and in India. Even though Re-Re is a low,unglamorous technology, farmer modificationsmade it simple and functional enough so that otherswould use it. But of course farmers made theseimprovements after researchers gave them somebasic ecological background information (e.g. coffeeberry borers only live in coffee fruit) as well as a pro-totype technology. FFS is eminently suited toconveying biocontrol messages and collaboratingwith farmers to hone the technology, which canthen be communicated to the farming publicthrough mass media and extension.

1Van Mele, P., Zakaria, A.K.M. & Bentley, J.W.(2005) Watch and learn: video education for appro-priate technology. In: Van Mele, P., Salahuddin, A.& Magor, N.P. (eds) Innovations in rural extension:case studies from Bangladesh. CABI and IRRI,Wallingford, UK, pp. 77–88.

2Van Mele, P. (2006) Zooming-in, zooming-out: anovel method to scale up local innovations and sus-tainable technologies. International Journal ofAgricultural Sustainability 4(2), 131–142.

3Danielsen, S., Boa, E. & Bentley, J.W. (2006)Puesto para plantas: a clinic where you can bringyour sick plants. Funica, Managua, Nicaragua.Web: www.funica.org.ni/docs/Book-PPP-Eng.pdf(accessed 6 February 2008)

4Bentley, J.W., Boa, E., Van Mele, P., et al. (2003)Going public: a new extension method. Interna-tional Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 1(2),108–123.

5Escalada, M.M. & Heong, K.L. (2004) The case ofusing mass media: communication and behaviorchange in resource management. In: New directionsfor a diverse planet. Proceedings of the Fourth Inter-national Crop Science Congress. Brisbane,Australia.

6Baker, P.S. (1999) The coffee berry borer inColombia. CABI Bioscience, Ascot, UK. 144 pp.

7Bentley, J.W. & Baker, P.S. (2002) Manual for col-laborative research with smallholder coffee farmers.CABI Commodities, Egham, UK. 130 pp.

8Aristizábal A., L.F., Salazar E., H.M. & Mejía M,C.G. (2002) Cambios en la adopción de los compo-nentes del manejo integrado de la broca del café,Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), a

38N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

través de metodologías participativas con agricul-tores. Revista Colombiana de Entomología(Colombia) 28(2), 153–160.

*This article is a summary of: Bentley, J.W. (2009)Impact of IPM extension for smallholder farmers inthe tropics. In: Peshin, R. & Dhawan, A.K. (eds)Integrated pest management. Vol. 2. Disseminationand impact. Springer, New York, pp. 333–346. SeeNew Books section, this issue.

By: Jeffrey W. Bentley, Agricultural Anthropolo-gist,International Consultant, Casilla 2695,Cochabamba, Bolivia.Email: jefferywbentley@hotmail.com

Mass Media Participatory Extension in Vietnam

The value of the participatory process in honingmass media extension campaigns was illustrated bya paper published in late 20081, which analysedactivities undertaken in Vietnam’s Mekong Deltaaimed at persuading rice farmers to reduce inputsand consequently realize increased profits.

Mass media extension in this region began duringthe 1990s when a radio drama was used to spreadthe message that early insecticide spraying againstleaf-feeding insects in rice crops was a waste ofmoney, a message devised by national researchersand extensionists. Farmers erroneously believedthat leaf feeders were economically damaging, butspraying them actually disrupted the naturalenemy complex that helped regulate later and moresignificant pests, such as brown planthopper (Nila-parvata lugens). The radio drama was followed upby village-based meetings and crop trials. The mes-sage reached some two million farmers andpersuaded them to change their spraying practices;insecticide use was more than halved while riceyields remained unchanged [see BNI 23(3), 74N–75N (September 2002), ‘Radio’s dramatic impact’,and article above, this issue]. Other provincial gov-ernments subsequently adopted the approach.

The new initiative has built on that success and per-suaded farmers to cut seed rates and fertilizerapplications as well as insecticide applications. Ricefarmers in the Mekong Delta have high seedingrates and fertilizer use, perhaps believing theyincrease yields, but these levels are above optimumlevels indicated by research for crop growth and areinstead associated with increased vulnerability topests and diseases. The project team reasoned thatif they could persuade farmers to reduce theamounts of these inputs, they would need less pes-ticide (which would also benefit natural enemies)and profits would be higher because the cost of cropinputs would be lower. Pilot trials with volunteerfarmers showed that yields were maintaineddespite reducing seed, nitrogen and insecticide

rates, while profits were increased in both wet anddry seasons.

The team used a participatory planning process todevelop and refine a mass media campaignintended to modify crop management practices. Theteam came up with a name for the campaign, ‘BaGiam – Ba Tang’ or ‘Three Reductions – ThreeGains’, which was launched in Can Tho and TienGiang provinces. Pre- and post-campaign surveyswere conducted with farmers from both provinces,who were far from being novices: they had anaverage of 22 years experience of rice farming.

Most farmers heard about the campaign (86% and56% in Can Tho and Tien Giang, respectively) andfrom several sources. The most commonly encoun-tered way of receiving the message, in terms ofpercentage farmers reached, was a TV drama (60%and 28%), with a leaflet, a poster, and neighbours/friends also playing a significant role in spreadingthe message. In both provinces farmers correctlyperceived the campaign’s main themes.

The campaign message was translated into prac-tice, with farmers’ use of all three inputs fallingbetween pre- and post-campaign surveys in bothprovinces (although for fertilizers this was mostlyfor nitrogen; and while insecticide use fell, resultsfor fungicides and herbicides were mixed). Percep-tions of yield losses were altered, with farmers inboth provinces estimating their losses as lower afterthe campaign had led them to reduce inputs. More-over, the pre-survey common belief that high inputswere ‘modern’ and equated to high yields was mod-ified by the campaign and indicated that themessages had been accepted.

The main motivational message in the campaignwas that reduced inputs would mean higher profitsbecause rice production would be maintained orincreased, and this assertion was fulfilled: averagenet profits increased by US$58/ha/season. Morethan 70% of net profits came from savings in pesti-cide costs, which motivated farmers to reduce seedand fertilizer rates. Nonetheless, rates of these twoinputs are still higher than recommended so moresavings could be made.

Since this work was done, several provincial gov-ernments and the Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment have provided resources for furtherdissemination of the campaign message.

1Huan, N.H., Chien, H.V., Quynh, P.V., Tan, P.S.,Du, P.V., Escalada, M.M. & Heong, K.L. (2008)Motivating rice farmers in the Mekong Delta tomodify pest management and related practicesthrough mass media. International Journal of PestManagement 54(4), 339–346.

Contact: K.L. Heong, International Rice ResearchInstitute, Los Banos, Metro Manila, Philippines.Email: kheong@cgiar.org

News 39N

Announcements

Are you producing a newsletter or website, holding ameeting, running an organization or rearing a nat-ural enemy that you want biocontrol workers to knowabout? Send us the details and we will announce ithere.

SIP in Utah

The 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Inverte-brate Pathology (SIP) will be held in Park City, Utah,USA on 16–20 August 2009. The plenary sympo-sium, ‘The host-pathogen dance: interactionsbetween insect hosts and their pathogens’, willinclude presentations by Bruce Tabashnik, MichaelBidochka and Michael Strand. Divisional symposiawill cover Bacteria (including ‘Bacillus thuringiensisresistance in the real world’; ‘Bacillus thuringiensis,the bacterium, ecology and infection’); Beneficialinvertebrates; Fungi (‘Fungi in soil habitats’; ‘Insectdefense responses to fungal pathogens’); Nematodes(‘Ecological interactions in entomopathogenic nema-todes’); Microbial control (‘Biopesticides instrawberries and vegetables: available and potentialtechnologies’); Microsporidia (‘Microsporidia of bene-ficial arthropods’); and Viruses (‘Insect RNA viruses:advances and applications’; ‘Invertebrate anti-virusresponse’; ‘The viral face of PDVs: origin and struc-ture of the chromosomally integrated PDVgenomes’).

Cross-divisional symposia will include: ‘Multitrophicinteractions: implications for invertebrate patho-gens’; and ‘Epizootiology and its impact on microbialcontrol: honoring the work of Jim Fuxa’.

There are also planned workshops for students (apraised inclusion last time, this time covering how toget a postdoc position and get into the scientific net-work); and on bacteria (‘Bt resistance mechanismsother than loss of toxin binding’); microsporidia(‘Staining techniques used for microsporidiainfecting invertebrates’); and viruses (‘Advances ininvertebrate cell culture’).

Although abstract submission is now closed, you canget early registration until early July, and late regis-tration is available until just before the meeting.

Contact: Conference Co-chairs, Donald W. Roberts(Department of Biology) & Rosalind James (USDA-ARS Pollinating Insect Res. Unit, Dept. Biology),Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA.Email: dwroberts@biology.usu.edu rosalind.james@ars.usda.govWeb: http://utahsip.org

Island Invasives Meeting Reprised in New Zealand

An international conference, ‘Island invasives: erad-ication and management’ is to be held at TamakiCampus, University of Auckland, New Zealand, on

8–12 February 2010, organized by the Centre for Bio-diversity and Biosecurity (University of Auckland &Landcare Research), in collaboration with the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. The confer-ence will continue, and expand on, the theme of thevery successful one held in 2001: ‘Eradication of islandinvasives’.

The intention is to bring together people from aroundthe world working on all aspects of the topic, toenable them to share knowledge and experiences;future work will be encouraged. Satellite meetingsbefore and after the conference are also encouraged.

The conference will have ‘islands’ and ‘eradication ofinvasive species’ as the focus, with emphasis on thework done and results or learning achieved; it willaim to cover the full breadth of the subject: gainingpolitical, community, financial and physical support;eradication techniques tested and used; immediateresults of eradication operations; longer-term out-comes (as seen in biota of the island and amongcommunities involved); and biosecurity measures forislands from planning to implementation.

It is proposed to organize the conference into generalsessions presenting eradication actions and fivethemes: ‘Ecological outcomes of eradications’; ‘Socialand economic dimensions of eradications’; ‘Managingreinvasion risks’; ‘Eradicating multiple pest species’;and ‘New techniques and approaches’.

The organizers are calling for abstracts for oral andposter presentations (deadline 31 August 2009). Reg-istration for attendance opens in June 2009.

Information: Dick Veitch.Email: dveitch@kiwilink.co.nzWeb: www.cbb.org.nz/conferences.asp

International Conference on Biopesticides in India

Following the success of the first conference in 2007,the Second Biopesticide International Conference(BIOCICON-2009) will be held on 26–28 November2009, once again in Palayamkottai in the Indianstate of Tamil Nadu. It is being organized and heldby the Crop Protection Research Centre, Departmentof Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology of St Xavier’sCollege, and promoted by the Department of Scienceand Technology (DST), New Delhi; Council for Scien-tific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi andTamil Nadu State Council for Science and Tech-nology (TNSCST), Chennai.

BIOCICON-2009 aims to promote basic and appliedresearch and development for ecofriendly pest anddisease management in agriculture, horticulture andforestry, with the mantra of organic crop productionand protection for sustained and safe food supply. Itwill include sessions covering the following topics:‘Pests: Microbes and animals – diversity, bionomics,

40N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

impacts on crops’; ‘Microbes: bacteria, fungi, virus,nematodes – formulations and applications’; ‘Nat-ural enemies: predators, parasitoids – biology, bio-efficacy, augmentation’; ‘Evaluations and biosafetyon non-target organisms’; ‘Botanicals: isolation, for-mulation, evaluation and integration’; and‘Biotechnology – product developments: biotech-nology, nanotechnology, semio-chemicals, GM crops,eco-friendly agrochemical based industries and IPM’.

Organizers are calling for abstracts (deadline 28 July2009) and registration (15 August). Papers presentedin the conference will be reviewed and published inthe Journal of Biopesticides as a special issue

Web: www.idosi.org/conferences/BIOCICON%20circular-one.pdf

Contact: Dr K. Sahayaraj, Organizing Secretary‘BIOCICON-2009’, Crop Protection Research Centre,Department of Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology,St Xavier’s College (Autonomous), Palayamkottai –627 002, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: biocicon2009@gmail.comFax: + 91 462 2561765 Web: www.stxavierstn.edu.in

Arid and Semi-arid Environments Weeds Tackled in Greece

The Second International Conference on Novel andSustainable Weed Management in Arid and Semi-Arid Agro-Ecosystems will take place in Santorini,Greece on 7–10 September 2009, under the auspicesof the European Weed Research Society. Among awide variety of topics, those relevant to BNI readersinclude: ‘Weed biology, ecology and modeling’; ‘Inva-sive weeds: biology, control and quarantineregulations’; ‘Integrated weed management in aridand semi arid farming systems: dry-land crops andirrigated crops’; ‘Cultural, physical and biologicalweed practices’; and ‘Parasitic weeds’. In additionthere will be a special topic: ‘Direct and indirecteffects of climatic changes on weed occurrence’.

Information: Organizing Committee.Email: economou@aua.gr or htravlos@yahoo.gr

EWRS Symposium in Hungary

The 15th EWRS (European Weed Research Society)Symposium will take place in Kaposvár, Hungary on12–15 July 2010, and the organizers welcomeabstract submissions (deadline 15 September 2009)and suggestions for workshop topics. Contributionswill be refereed and published in the conferenceproceedings.

Information: Symposium Secretariat, ASSZISZTENCIA Congress Bureau, Hegedus Gy. u. 20., H-1136 Budapest, Hungary.Email: ewrs@asszisztencia.hu Fax: +36 1 350 0929Web: www.asszisztencia.hu/ewrs

Gabriella Kazinczi, EWRS national representative,Kaposvár University, Faculty of Animal Science.Email: kazinczi.gabriella@ke.hu

Australian E-Bulletin on Invasives and Climate Change

Readers around the world might take a look atDouble Trouble, a new online publication from theAustralian Invasive Species Council as part of itsPests and Climate Change Project. The aim of the e-bulletin is to convince decision and policy makers ofthe urgent need to prepare for the combined dangersof climate change and invasive weeds and pest ani-mals, many of which are expected to thrive in theextreme weather events predicted under climatechange. As such it could well spawn similar publica-tions elsewhere.

The range of topics in the first (February 2009) issueincludes bushfires, Phytophthora root disease andbiodiversity hotspots, commercial lawn species, bio-fuels, and antarctic microbes; specific threats such ashawkweeds, bitou and cane toad are covered, and anumber of articles deal with Australian and interna-tional policy and research.

Web: http://doubletroublebulletin.wordpress.com

Contact: Tim Low, Invasive Species Council Project Officer.Email: isc@invasives.org.au

Predatory Mite Family Revision

The newsletter from ARC-PPRI (AgriculturalResearch Council – Plant Protection Research Insti-tute), South Africa, has highlighted how phytoseiidmite taxonomists around the world have, since 2001,revised members of this group from sub-SaharanAfrica. These include predators that have beenextensively used for biological control of mite andinsect pests on a number of crops globally – includingthe classical biological control of cassava green mite(Mononycellus tanajoa) in Africa, during which pro-gramme phytoseiid identification was a majorproblem1.

The revision of the family resulted in nine taxonomicpapers, reporting on 27 genera and 277 species ofwhich 68 were described for the first time and 170were re-described. The first paper was published in2001 and the ninth and last paper was published atthe end of 2008.

1Anon. (2008) Revision of important predatory mitefamily from Africa completed. PPRI News No. 78(Oct–Dec 2008), p. 4. Newsletter of the Plant Protec-tion Research Institute (PPRI), an institute in theNatural Resources and Engineering Division of theAgricultural Research Council (ARC) of SouthAfrica.Web: www.arc.agric.za/home.asp?pid=376&toolid=2&sec=774

News 41N

Predicting Plant Invasions across Europe

A recent paper in the journal Diversity andDistribution1 presents the first map for predictingthe level of invasion by alien plants across Europe,which could help policy makers design conservationpolicies suited to different habitats and landscapes.Areas dominated by farming and urban land areamong those identified as particularly at risk. Interms of climate, areas most under threat from inva-sion are moderately dry and warm lowland areas ofwestern Europe as well agricultural regions in cen-tral and eastern Europe.

This was an output of the ALARM project (AssessingLArge scale Risks for biodiversity with testedMethods), funded by the European CommissionSixth Framework Programme.(www.alarmproject.net). 1Chytry, M., Pysek, P., Wild, J., et al. (2009) Euro-pean map of alien plant invasions based on thequantitative assessment across habitats. Diversityand Distribution 15, 98–107.

Source: EC Directorate-General for EnvironmentNews Alert Service. SCU, The University of the Westof England.

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 here.

ISBCA III in New Zealand

The Third International Symposium on the Biolog-ical Control of Arthropods (ISBCA) was held inChristchurch, New Zealand over 8–13 February2009. Local organizers for the conference includedSteve Wratten, Mattias Jonsson, Marco Jacometti,Sara Russell, Tereska Kozera, and Anna-MarieBarnes. Financial support for ISBCA III was pro-vided, in part, by BioProtection Research Center,Plant and Food Research New Zealand, VsNi Aus-tralia, Bayer CropScience, New Zealand, WestpacNew Zealand, Brill The Netherlands, and the USDA(US Department of Agriculture) Forest Servicethrough Dick Reardon who sponsored the mass pro-duction of the ISBCA III conference proceedings.

The meeting was opened in spectacular fashion witha powhiri, a traditional Maori welcome to visitors.The traditions and protocol of the powhiri providedvisitors to ISBCA III a unique insight into the spir-itual world of the Maori, the indigenous people ofNew Zealand. The meeting was attended by 168people from 28 different countries (New Zealandwith 43 representatives; USA 37; Australia 15;Canada 10; Spain 9; Switzerland 7; Japan 5; UK,Sweden and the Netherlands four each; CzechRepublic, Taiwan, China, and Chile three each;Israel, Austria, Belgium, South Africa, two each;Mexico, South Korea, India, Egypt, French Poly-nesia, Oman, Philippines, Nigeria, Germany, andDenmark were each represented by one attendee.)

Selection of session topics for ISBCA III was guidedby input from a seven member Scientific Committee,with representation from New Zealand, Switzerland,UK, Benin, India, and the USA. ISBCA III consistedof 15 sessions that covered:

• New and emerging successes in classical biologi-cal control: has theory improved practice?• Biological control and climate change

• Exploring biological control to manage new orpotential invasive pests• Molecular tools in biological control• GMOs and biological control• Impact of landscape composition and structureon natural enemies• Recent advances in conservation biological con-trol• Omnivory in biological control• The role of theory in greenhouse biological con-trol• Biological control of phytophagous mites: theoryand practice• Attributes of exotic biological control agents: thegood and the bad• Inducible plant responses and impact on biologi-cal control of plant pests• Food web interactions and impact on biologicalcontrol• Progress and prospects to assess predation• Capacity building through action learning inregion wide biological controlIn addition to the talks presented in each session,123 posters relating to the sessions were also pre-sented. The ISBCA III conference proceedings,edited by Peter Mason, David Gillespie and CharlesVincent with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,and published with support from USDA ForestService Forest Health Technology and EnterpriseTeam have excellent detailed synopses of presentedtalks and abstracts from posters. The published Con-ference Proceedings are 636 pages in length, and 100hardcopies are available from Annie Barnes (anna-marie.barnes@lincoln.ac.nz) or downloadable fromthe web (www.biocontrol.ucr.edu/ISBCA/3). Down-loadable copies of proceedings for ISBCA I held inHawaii, 14–18 January 2002 (www.biocon-trol.ucr.edu/ISBCA/1) and ISBCA II held in Davos,Switzerland, 12–16 September 2005 (www.biocon-trol.ucr.edu/ISBCA/2) are also available free ofcharge.

Two simultaneous field trips were held on the after-noon of the third day of the meeting. One involved a

42N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

bird watching expedition to Lake Ellesmere, and thesecond to the organic trial farms at Lincoln Univer-sity. After the field trips a cricket match and dinnerwith entertainment from local jazz musicianswrapped up the evening. ISBCA III had threenotable additions to the meeting format that added alot of additional entertainment to the symposium.First, students were encouraged to participate ingiving talks in the sessions or to present their workas a poster. A panel of three judges, Mark Hoddle,Roy Van Driesche and Ulli Kuhlmann, assessed stu-dent talks and posters over the course of the meeting.Cash prizes and text books on biological control wereawarded to the first and second placed. Students rep-resenting Nigeria, Germany, Australia, NewZealand, and the USA collected prizes. Second, alively and passionate debate between Tony Sheltonand Miguel Altieri on the role of genetic engineeringand genetically modified organisms (GMOs) wasmoderated by Steve Wratten. The subject of thedebate was ‘GMOs should have no place in biologicalcontrol!’ Third, the official ISBCA III banquet dinnerwas made very memorable by a ‘Trivial Pursuits’tournament between tables where the objective wasto answer correctly as many obscure questions aspossible pertaining to entomology, b-grade horrormovies, famous people, and geography. A cash prizewas awarded to the winning table!

Presentations for the ISBCA IV venue were made onthe last day of the meeting with delegates reviewingpresentations from ICIPE in Kenya, and cooperatingresearch institutes in Chile. The majority ruled infavour of having ISBCA IV in Chile in 2013. ¡Les veoen Chile mis amigos!

By: Mark Hoddle, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.Email: mark.hoddle@ucr.edu

International IPM Symposium in Oregon

The Sixth International IPM Symposium ‘Tran-scending boundaries’ was held in Portland, Oregonon 24–26 March 2009. This outstanding conferenceprovided an opportunity to share the world’s latestadvances in managing pests in ways that are costeffective and protect human health and the environ-ment. There were more than 700 participants from29 countries, confirming its designation as the first‘International’ IPM Symposium. A historical over-view of the National and International IPMSymposia from 1989 to 2009 is given in the nextsection.

The Sixth Symposium began with a plenary sessionin which Dan Gerling, Department of Zoology, TelAviv University, Israel, spoke on ‘Fostering IPM andinternational understanding in the Middle East’. Hewas followed by Janjo de Haan, WageningenResearch Center, The Netherlands, who delivered apresentation on ‘Integrated crop protection as a partof farming system design’. Next, Pierce Jones, Pro-gram for Resource Efficient Communities,University of Florida, described ‘Master plannedcommunity developments and IPM’ and finally SaraJ. Scherr, Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington,

D.C., concluded with ‘IPM strategies in ecoagricul-ture landscapes: the challenge and opportunities ofcoordinated pest management for products and eco-system services’.

The Symposium programme was carefully crafted toincorporate the best available IPM information.There were 67 regular sessions, 194 posters, 28exhibitors and a considerable number of both sched-uled and unscheduled side meetings in the morningsand evenings. The regular sessions, posters and sidemeetings addressed the following subjects, somemore than once and from different perspectives:

• Challenges: global food shortages, deliveringIPM, international cooperation, IPM road map,municipal pesticide laws, IPM education, economics,invasive alien species• Strategies: green revolution, eXtension, inte-grated crop management, regional food systems,pesticides in surface waters, landscape level IPM,area-wide IPM• Applications: insect-transmitted plant viruses,best management practices, invasive species, envi-ronmental stewardship, vegetation management,water and soil quality, plant nutrition and diseases• Pests: termites, bed bugs, thrips, bark beetles,ants, migratory insects• Crops: corn, soybeans, genetically modified,organic, biofuels• Communities: schools, child care facilities, greenbuildings• Pesticides: biorationals, risks, resistance, biopes-ticides, evaluation, biofumigation• Marketing: IPM in retail stores, eco-labelling,food industry, branding IPM, pest managementindustry• Technologies: geographic information systems,IPM impactsA new, creative activity was to conduct brain-storming sessions on selected topics with the goal ofgenerating actions to be accomplished before thenext Symposium. The four topics selected for thisconference were ‘Integrating IPM with the design ofcropping systems: a multifunctional approach’,‘Branding IPM’, ‘Education and training in IPM’, and‘IPM adoption: keys to implementing IPM andgaining its full benefits’.

At the special awards ceremony, International IPMExcellence Awards were presented to the USAID(US Agency for International Development) IPMCollaborative Research Support Program (CRSP),SYSCO Corporation, and Green Shield CertificationProgram, plus Dr Zeyaur R. Khan, ICIPE, Nairobi,Kenya, and the Salt Lake City School District, Utah.The Lifetime International IPM Achievement Awardwas received by the Bio-Integral Resource Center ofCalifornia. The International IPM Awards of Recog-nition were awarded to the Santa Clara County,California, Grower Incentives for IPM Team Projectand the International Team for Sustainable Adop-tion of Eggplant IPM in South Asia.

News 43N

Biological control was emphasized more than in thepast before, during and after this Symposium. A dayand a half joint meeting of the southern (S-1034) andwestern (W-2185) US regional biological controlprojects preceded the Symposium (reported in thelast section of this article, below). Also included wereseparate business meetings with the usual statereports on biological control projects. Another pre-Symposium meeting was an update on the USDA-ARS (US Department of Agriculture – AgriculturalResearch Service) Overseas Biological Control Labo-ratories. Additionally, there was a USAID-IPM-CRSP Technical Committee Meeting. The openingreception and dinner at the World Forestry CenterMuseum featured Dan Gerling’s IPM programme onred palm weevil and natural enemies of the olivefruit fly. During the Symposium, the Association ofNatural Bio-control Producers conducted a brain-storming session, ‘IPM implementation: forgingstronger partnerships between biocontrol producers,researchers and agricultural clientele’. Another ses-sion was ‘Creating temporal and spatial refugia forbiological control in tree fruits’. Regional and multi-region IPM coordinator meetings were held bothbefore and after the Symposium, primarily to discussthe new USDA-CSREES (Cooperative StateResearch Education, and Extension Service) Exten-sion IPM Coordination and Support Program thatfunded state IPM programmes in the past. Also afterthe Symposium, and with limited relevance to biolog-ical control, was a USDA-CSREES Regional ProjectMeeting (WERA060) on ‘Management of pesticideresistance’.

The Sixth International IPM Symposium websitecontains the programme, abstracts and other perti-nent information, and will have reports as they areprovided (www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposium09/).The website acknowledges the many contributions ofsponsors, participants and volunteers who supportedthis superb conference. The IPM community appreci-ates all that these contributors have provided andseeks volunteers to assist with the next Symposium.

By: Dr Norman C. Leppla, Professor & ProgramDirector, IPM Florida, University of Florida Insti-tute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Departmentof Entomology and Nematology, Natural Area Drive,Bldg. 970, Room 3005, P.O. Box 110620 Gainesville,Florida 32611-0620, USA. Email: ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu

Historical Overview of the International IPM Symposium*

The integrated pest management (IPM) conceptgrew out of concerns about reliance on pesticides thatbegan in the 1950s. Pests were becoming resistant topesticides and alarming side effects began to appear.Rachael Carson and other writers and journalistsalerted the public about the consequences of pesti-cide misuse and over-use. The federal governmentresponded by revising pesticide laws, creating theEPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to admin-ister associated pesticide regulations, and fundingnational IPM initiatives. The International IPMSymposium evolved from one of those initiatives.

1989 – 1st National IPM Symposium, Las Vegas,Nevada: ‘Targeting research for IPM implementa-tion’ and increasing awareness and support for IPM.Pesticide use had increased dramatically.

1992 – National IPM Forum, Arlington, Virginia: ‘Anational commitment to IPM’ and establishment of aformal inter-agency IPM task force. It provided aforum for scientists engaged in IPM to interact withadministrators and policy makers, and bridged thegap between IPM Symposia. This led the ClintonAdministration, as part of its comprehensive pesti-cides policy, to call for implementation of IPM on 75%of America’s cropland by the year 2000.

1994 – 2nd National IPM Symposium, Las Vegas,Nevada: ‘IPM programs for the 21st century: foodsafety and environmental stewardship’. It addressedreducing environmental problems, ensuring a safe,healthy, and plentiful food supply, and assisting withsustainable agriculture.

1996 – 3rd National IPM Symposium, Washington,D.C: ‘Putting customers first and assessing IPM pro-gram impacts’. Adoption of IPM practices requiresincreased leadership, coordination, funding,delivery, and evaluation. Use of high risk pesticidesremained prevalent. The Government AccountingOffice issued a report, ‘Management improvementsneeded to further promote IPM’.

2003 –- 4th National IPM Symposium, Indianapolis,Indiana: ‘Building alliances for the future of IPM’.The ‘National Roadmap for IPM’ was produced toincrease nationwide communication and efficiencythrough information exchange among federal andnon-federal IPM practitioners and service providers,including land managers, growers, structural pestmanagers, and public and wildlife health officials.

2006 – 5th National IPM Symposium, St. Louis, Mis-souri: ‘Delivering on a promise’. Developments weremade in improving the economic benefits of adoptingIPM practices and reducing potential risks to humanhealth and the environment caused by the pests orpest management practices. Leadership wasexpanded to include the private sector, internationalmembers, numerous federal agencies, anduniversities.

2009 – 6th International IPM Symposium, Portland,Oregon: ‘Transcending boundaries’. This global Sym-posium had more than 700 participants from 29countries who presented sessions on IPM challenges,strategies, and applications; applying IPM for pests,crops, and communities; and the latest informationon pesticides, marketing and new technologies foruse in IPM. It is the first International IPM Sympo-sium that especially recognized the importance ofglobal cooperation and impact of alien invasivespecies.

*Adapted by Norman C. Leppla (University ofFlorida) from talks presented by Michael E. Gray,University of Illinois, and Frank G. Zalom, Univer-sity of California, in 2006 at the Fifth National IPMSymposium in St Louis, Missouri (www.ipm-centers.org/ipmsymposiumv/)

44N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

Southern and Western Region Multi-State Biological Control Projects Joint Meeting

US multi-state projects bring together scientistsworking on common problems within four regionalblocks: western, southern, north-central and north-east regions (http://nimss.umd.edu/). Participants inmulti-state projects meet annually, and for the firsttime, the southern and western regional biologicalcontrol projects held a joint meeting just ahead of theInternational IPM Meeting in Portland, Oregon. Thesouthern region project (S1034), ‘Biological Controlof Arthropods and Weeds’ encompasses the followingstates: New Jersey, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Virginiaand Texas (http://nimss.umd.edu/homepages/home.cfm?trackID=7456). The western regionproject (W2185) ‘Biological Control in IPM Systemsfor Plants’ covers the following participating or col-laborating states: Kansas, Delaware, New Jersey,New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington(state), Wyoming and Utah (http://nimss.umd.edu/homepages/home.cfm?trackID=9596). Given thehuge number of invasive alien species entering theUSA through the southern and western regions, alarge number of biological control activities are foundin these states. This year’s meeting was attended by78 participants and had 25 presentations distributedamong six topics: ‘Agency updates’, ‘The new regula-tory environment for biocontrol’, ‘Implementingbiological control’, ‘Role of predators in biological con-trol’, ‘Ecology and evolution of arthropod biologicalcontrol by parasitoids’, and ‘Weed control by arthro-pods: challenges for ecology and conservation’. Thefull agenda and presentations from the meeting canbe viewed on the following webpage: http://nature.berkeley.edu/biocon/W1185%20Officers.htm

By: Dr Moses T.K. Kairo (Chair S1034)a & Dr. PeterB. McEvoy (Chair 2185)b

aDirector, Center for Biological Control, College ofEngineering Sciences, Technology and Agriculture,Florida A&M University, 1740 Martin Luther KingBlvd., 310 Perry Paige Building (South), Talla-hassee, FL 32307, USA. Email: Moses.Kairo@FAMU.EDU

bProfessor of Ecology and Biological Control, OregonState University, Dept Botany and Plant Pathology,4058 Cordley Hall, Mail: 2082 Cordley Hall, Cor-vallis, OR 97331-2902, USA.Email: mcevoyp@science.oregonstate.edu

Second IOBC Meeting for the Integrated Control of Plant Feeding Mites

The IOBC (International Organization for BiologicalControl) has various working groups which meet reg-ularly to present new findings and discuss futureareas of research. Working group meetings aim toencourage collaboration of scientists working oncommon problems, share experiences and increasethe general knowledge of its members in the area ofinterest. The plant feeding mites working group wasformed in 2007 and the second meeting of the newly

formed group was held in Florence, Italy, on 9–12March 2008 at CRA (Consiglio per la Ricerca e laSperimentazione in Algricoltura). The meeting wassplit into several sessions, which were moderated byvarious experts in their fields; the sessions were‘Phytoseiid types in biological control’, ‘Chemical con-trol’, ‘Exotic and non-tetranychid pests’, ‘Behaviouraleffects in biological control’, ‘Pest management invineyards’ and ‘Plant pest interactions’.

Session 1 on phytoseiid types in biological controlwas moderated by Jim McMurtry, who also gave thekeynote lecture on phytoseiid use in biological con-trol, taxonomic classification and lifestylecategorization. Prof McMurtry has spent over 50years studying mites and presented a paper classi-fying predatory mites into different lifestyle niches.Predatory mites can be split into at least four dif-ferent life style categories ranging from specialists(Types I and II) to generalists (Types III and IV).‘Body plan’ may have an influence on the specializa-tion of the mites. For example he raised the questionas to whether the length of certain setae were relatedto an association with spider mite webbing in special-ists and also whether, for generalists, body plansexerted such an influence that predators were moreadapted to host plant characters than prey.

The next few talks focused on enhancing the effec-tiveness of predators by using conservationtechniques and the use of novel pollen application.Conservation techniques focused on increasing theamount of available pollen in the surrounding areas,for example intercropping in orchards with highpollen producing plants. Other methods of increasingavailable pollen included electrostatic spraying ofpollen onto crops. By increasing the available pollento optimal amounts, it has been shown to be benefi-cial to the predatory mite fauna as generalist mitepredators use pollen as an alternative food source. Itwas also shown that pollen could be used to establishhigher numbers of predators in the field meaning thepredators are well established before the pestarrives.

The session on chemical control highlighted thatmethyl bromide fumigation treatments were failingto completely kill mites in grape samples sent fromChile to Mexico. A talk by Gabriel Otero-Colina(Instituto de Fitosanidad, Mexico) showed that quar-antine mite pests on grapes were able to survivefumigation with methyl bromide (sent from Chile),therefore highlighting the need for further researchinto alternative methods of pest control or improvingthe efficacy of current techniques for foodstuffspassing between borders in South America.

Session 3 focused on exotic and non tetranychid mitepests. The keynote speaker was Jorge Peña whoworks for the University of Florida . Dr Peña gave atalk on the results of his research on the invasivemite pest Raoiella indica (red palm mite, RPM) andthe response of native natural enemies to its intro-duction into the Caribbean and Florida. Being basedin Florida, surveys were carried out prior to and postthe introduction of R. indica. Their surveys were ableto gauge the response of indigenous natural enemiesto the arrival of the new prey species. Predator den-

News 45N

sity did not increase until six months after thearrival of RPM in Florida, and in Trinidad, Ambly-seius largoensis (a predatory mite) increased innumbers alongside RPM numbers. Dr Peña gave acomprehensive list of predators found in associationwith RPM and details are available in the conferencebulletin. This work complemented the following talkgiven by Bryony Taylor (CABI), which focused on thesurveys carried out in India since November lastyear for RPM and natural enemies as part of prelim-inary studies for a classical biological controlprogramme.

Aceria carvi was also talked about in this session asa potential threat to caraway in Europe. Dr R. Zemekof the Institute of Entomology (Czech Republic) gavea talk highlighting the substantial increase in car-away crops grown in Europe over the past few yearsand underlined the importance of carrying out moreresearch on this pest, as there is no effective way ofcontrolling it currently.

Session 4, moderated by Maurice Sabelis, encom-passed many talks on the behavioural effects ofbiological control. Prof. Sabelis gave a very inter-esting talk on multiple predators and intraguildcompetition in relation to the control of spider mites.This session bought up interesting subjects such ashow habitat structure can have an effect on pestmanagement systems. Different species of predatorymites may be found in different niches in plants; forexample, in cassava the predators differ between theapex and lower leaves. The apex inhabiting predatorwas also found to be more active nocturnally addinganother dimension to improvements for sampling.Peter Schausberger of the University of NaturalResources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna (Aus-tria), stated that the ability of prey to use spatialrefugia is a key issue for the currently insufficientnatural and biological control of Tetranychus evansiand Aceria guerreronis. Refugia may be sought byprey; for example, the coconut mite (A. guerreronis)finds refuge between the perianth and the coconutsurface. Aceria guerreronis has a competitive advan-tage against predators, as these refugia are too smallfor predators to access until pest populations are wellestablished and the perianth separates slightly fromthe coconut. Tetranychus evansi, a pest of tomatoes,has a competitive advantage by specializing on toma-toes, as this host plant exerts direct and indirect preymediated negative effects on the mite’s predators.

Session 5 focused on pest management in vineyardsand was moderated by Carlo Duso, of the Universityof Padua, Italy. Professor Duso gave an overview ofthe relationships between plant pathogenic fungiand mites in vineyards for his keynote lecture,relating it to the implications for IPM. Interestinglythe talk linked the disease Plasmopara viticola(grapevine downy mildew) to an increase in phyto-seiid and tydeid mites in European vineyards, withAmblyseius andersoni populations showing a clearresponse to the spread of the disease. The effects ofpowdery mildew (Uncinula necator) were less pro-nounced. It was shown that pollen was important forearly season establishment of predatory mites; how-ever, mildews increase in importance in late summerand he went on to suggest that downy mildew may

enhance the recovery of predatory mite populationsfollowing pesticide applications. Other talks coveredbiological control and the use of acaricides in vine-yard systems.

The final session covered plant–pest interactions andwas moderated by Gerben Messelink from Wage-ningen UR Greenhouse Horticulture, in theNetherlands. His talk focused on indirect host-medi-ated defences on spider mite populations(Tetranychus urticae) induced by the presence ofwhitefly populations (Trialeurodes vaporarium) onthe host plant. This work showed a 30% reduction inmite population growth when they were present onwhitefly infested cucumbers compared to a control. Itwas also found that the release of predators was sub-sequently more effective in curbing mite populationson whitefly infested plants. Possible hypotheses forthese responses include the production of pathogen-esis related proteins by the cucumber plant. Othertalks in this session looked at the homogeneity ofpest populations in orchards and host plant effects onpredators in relation to their prey.

The conference was an invaluable experience forpeople working in this area of research to discussideas and learn more about cutting edge research onthe periphery of their own. Special thanks are to beextended to the conference organizers at CRA led bySauro Simoni, in cooperation with Marialivia Lig-uori, Marisa Castagnoli and Roberto Nannelli, andthe working group convener Eric Palevsky.

By: Bryony Taylor, CABI.

ESA 2008

The annual meeting of the Entomological Society ofAmerica (ESA) was held on 16–19 November 2008 inReno, Nevada. The meeting was well attended, with2446 people registered for the meeting, including 678students who presented 422 student competitiontalks and posters. The Founders’ Memorial Lecturewas delivered by Dr Allan Felsot of WashingtonState University, to honour the multidisciplinaryaccomplishments of Robert L. Metcalf. PresidentMike Gray reported in his plenary speech that 48member Networks have been created over the pastyear. He also elaborated on potential collaborationsbetween ESA and other related scientific societies aswell as international entomological societies. Thetheme of the meeting, ‘Metamorphosis – a new begin-ning’, expressed the overall organizational changesthe Society has implemented recently, includingreorganization and renaming of the Sections.

The meeting had seven Program symposia, 22 Sec-tion symposia, 39 Member symposia, and twointernational WebEx symposia for a total of 70 in all.No fewer than 27 symposia directly related to biolog-ical control and pest management included:

• The changing nature of insect management ingreenhouses: staying one step ahead of arthropodpests• The changing nature of pest management forornamentals and turfgrass

46N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

• The evolution of military entomology• Global impact of biological invasions: transfor-mation in pest management approaches• Pollen and nectar-providing plants enhance bio-logical control with parasitoids and predators• Legal and collaborative challenges betweenindustry, universities, and IR-4 that impact productdevelopment successes• Current research and developments of new insectrepellents• Forest entomology: changes impacting our disci-pline• Light brown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana) –a new quarantine problem• Organics strategum efficacy: so many choices, solittle time• The impacts of genetically modified organisms inentomology (student debate)• Entomology without borders – the next stage inresistance management• Metamorphosis of vineyard pest management• Tick genomics and beyond – new advances intick-borne disease systems• Environmental fate of transgenic insecticidalproteins from genetically-modified crops: the meta-morphosis of ecotoxicology• Phlebotomine sand flies in public health: meta-morphosis of research from basic biology towardsnovel disease control strategies• Overlooked areas of concern for pest solutions• Stalk boring lepidopteran pests in multi-crop eco-systems of the United States: current status, chal-lenges, and prospects• The global threat of red palm weevil (RPW),Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier), to major palmspecies• An entomological perspective addressing chal-lenges in the developing world: new frontiers in foodand bio-security• Advances in weed biological control: the on-goingmetamorphosis• From North American pest to European threat:21st century western corn rootworm management athome and abroad• Challenges in managing western flower thrips• New perspectives on stink bug biology, ecology,behavior, and management• School integrated pest management• Managing soil arthropod pests in vegetables:high stakes and long odds• Stored product insect pest management: decadesof change, recent advances, and challenges for thefutureAlso, a great number of ten-minute papers andposters presented a wide diversity of currentresearch from the entomological and acarologicalcommunity. All presentations were recorded and arenow freely accessible on the ESA website(www.entsoc.org) to those who registered for the

meeting and soon to be freely available to all ESAmembers.

The Linnaean Games drew media attention for thefirst time, with an article entitled ‘Bugs, brains andtrivia’ that was featured on the home page of Smith-sonian Magazine’s website. Ten teams participated,but it was the team from the University of California,Riverside that prevailed to become this year’schampion.

The 2009 meeting will be held in Indianapolis,Indiana, on 13–16 December. The theme, ‘Celebrateentomology: colleagues, science, and ideas’ will aimto “disseminate original research and perspectivesleading to a continuous stream of discoveries andapplications relevant to the science, and create pro-ductive opportunities to stimulate new ideas andcapitalize on the diversity and varied perspectives ofthe membership”.

By: Ronald D. Cave, University of Florida.

Workshop Gives Green Muscle the Green Light

Two years ago, in February 2007, a workshop washeld in Saly, Senegal to discuss how the biopesticideGreen Muscle®, based on spores of the fungusMetarhizium anisopliae var. acridum, could bedeveloped to control desert locusts (Schistocerca gre-garia) at an operational level. That meetingrecommended further research to fill in knowledgegaps, action to ensure availability and quality of thebiopesticide, and other, information-based, activi-ties. The overall objective was to promote rapidintegration of Green Muscle® into operational desertlocust management, especially in the area of preven-tive control.

Two years later, the Second International Workshopon the Future of Biopesticides for Desert LocustManagement was held at FAO (Food and AgricultureOrganization of the UN) in Rome, on 10–12 February2009, to summarize activities undertaken since thefirst workshop and to produce new recommendationsregarding the future use of Green Muscle®.

The five presentations on the first day of the Romeworkshop provided an update on progress since thelast meeting. The first, ‘Review of results from thelatest research’ (James Everts, FAO) indicated thatGreen Muscle® is working well in trials. Locusts,although not killed immediately, appeared to stopfeeding after 24 hours; an accurate record of numberof locusts killed by the biopesticide could not beobtained owing to a high level of predation (mainlyby birds) on the infected locusts.

The second presentation highlighted how GreenGuard® (the Australian product based on anotherisolate of the same fungus) was used to control thetropical migratory locust (Locusta migratoria) inTimor Leste in a 2007 outbreak. As the only way tospray the infected area was by aerial application,what proved to be a highly successful and organized‘PR’ exercise was the first step. This informed localresidents about what was going to happen and

News 47N

explained why they should not to be worried by thehelicopter that would fly overhead, and also how theeffects of Green Guard® would differ from those ofchemical pesticides. Not only did Green Guard®work well against locust hoppers on the ground butflying adult swarms were also sprayed and effectivecontrolled was gained.

The third presentation looked at the external costs ofchemical pesticides using a framework to identifyand apportion these. It also demonstrated the effectsof some chemical pesticides on human health (e.g. 29people died owing to effects of chemical pesticidesfrom 2003–2005 in Senegal). Estimates indicated theexternal costs of chemical pesticides in 2003–2005 inSenegal to be over €8 million at 2007 prices. Thisfigure was broken down to produce an impact cost forcertain pesticides used in locust control. Forexample, malathion 960 UL, the most commonlyapplied pesticide in the campaign, had an estimatedexternal cost of €25.76/ha whereas Green Muscle®’sexternal cost was only €0.12/ha.

The fourth presentation (Ken Neethling, BCP, SouthAfrica on behalf of Green Muscle® producers) out-lined work that had been done by BCP to improveformulation, and described how the decision toreturn to a powder formulation (TC – technical con-centrate) had been made. His talk emphasized howmore sales of Green Muscle® would result in a fall inprice through economies of scale. He also suggestedthat the recommended dose of 50 g/ha could bereduced to 25 g/ha or in some case even 12.5 g/ha,which would drastically reduce the cost of biopesti-cide treatments.

The final presentation, ‘Green Muscle: workingtowards a new practical licensing agreement for 2009and beyond’ (Joan Kelley, CABI) described progress

in changing the LUBILOSA Trust Agreementbetween the producers of Green Muscle® and thedonors, work being carried out with ISIS Enterprisewho are acting as intermediaries.

On the second day, participants split into threeworking groups. Group 1 discussed ‘The potential forthe present biocontrol products to be used in desertlocust control’; Group 2 discussed ‘Expanding thedemand and production for Green Muscle® in thelocust affected countries (and other regions)’; andGroup 3 discussed ‘Current status of biopesticides –where are we now?’ The groups were tasked withcoming up with recommendations, which were pre-sented on the final morning of the workshop, andwere then discussed and rationalized (as some rec-ommendations emerged from all three groups); afinal set of recommendations from the meeting wereagreed in the afternoon.

The ten recommendations from the meeting weredivided into three categories: using Green Muscle®operationally; promotion; and resources. In sum-mary, it was recommended that:

• Green Muscle® should now be used operationallyand there is no further need for trials to be carriedout. • Promotion of Green Muscle® is required at alllevels, from government down to the farmer level;the framework on external cost of chemical pesti-cides, presented in this meeting, can be used toargue the case. • Some further resources are needed to facilitategood operational use of Green Muscle® and, there-fore, successful control campaigns.By: Belinda Luke, CABI.

New Books

Two New IPM Volumes

Two volumes on integrated pest management editedby Rajinder Peshin and Ashok K. Dhawan were pub-lished by Springer in March 2009, with print andonline versions available. The first focuses on the‘Innovation–development process’ while the seconddeals with ‘Dissemination and impact’. A summaryof the contents, given below, indicates where readerswith interests in the areas covered will want to takea closer look. (For a flavour of one chapter of Volume2, see: ’How to collaborate with farmers on IPMresearch’ in the Training News section, this issue.)

Volume 1 contents1: 1. Integrated pest management:a global overview of history, programs and adoption(Rajinder Peshin, Rakesh S. Bandral, WenJunZhang, Lewis Wilson & Ashok K. Dhawan); 2. Inte-grated pest management: concept, opportunities andchallenges (Ashok K. Dhawan & Rajinder Peshin); 3.Pesticides and pest control (David Pimentel); 4. Envi-ronmental and economic costs of the application ofpesticides primarily in the United States (DavidPimentel); 5. Economic and ecological externalities of

pesticide use in India (P.K. Shetty & MariumSabitha); 6. Advances in crop protection practices forthe environmental sustainability of cropping sys-tems (W.G. Dilantha Fernando, RajeshRamarathnam & S. Nakkeeran); 7. Keys to theincreased use of host plant resistance in integratedpest management (Michael Stout & Jeffrey Davis); 8.Biotechnological interventions in host plant resist-ance (Aditya Pratap & S.K. Gupta); 9. Biologicalcontrol and integrated pest management (DavidOrr); 10. Conventional and new biological and hab-itat interventions for integrated pest managementsystems: review and case studies using Eldana sac-charina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) (D.E.Conlong & R.S. Rutherford); 11. Behavior-modifyingstrategies in IPM: theory and practice (Cesar R. Rod-riguez-Saona & Lukasz L. Stelinski); 12. Botanicalsin pest management: current status and future per-spectives (Sanjay Guleria & A.K. Tiku); 13. Insectoutbreaks and their management (T.V.K. Singh & J.Satyanarayana); 14. Plant disease epidemiology anddisease management – has science had an impact onpractice? (Gregory A. Forbes, Eduardo S.G. Mizubuti& Dani Shtienberg); 15. Integrated disease manage-

48N Biocontrol News and Information 30(2)

ment: concepts and practices (V.K. Razdan & SachinGupta); 16. When is a rice insect a pest: yield loss andthe green revolution (James A. Litsinger); 17.Changing trends in cotton pest management (K.R.Kranthi & D.A. Russell); 18. Non pesticidal manage-ment: learning from experiences (G.V.Ramanjaneyulu, M.S. Chari, T.A.V.S. Raghunath,Zakir Hussain & Kavitha Kuruganti); 19. IPM pro-grams in vegetable crops in Australia and USA:current status and emerging trends (Nancy A.Schellhorn, Teresia W. Nyoike & Oscar E. Liburd);20. Integrated pest management in fruits – theoryand practice (Donn T. Johnson); 21. Bio-intensiveintegrated pest management in fruit crop ecosystem(Virender Kaul, Uma Shankar & M.K. Khushu).

Volume 2 contents2: 1. Diffusion of innovation theoryand integrated pest management (Rajinder Peshin,J. Vasanthakumar & Rajinder Kalra); 2. Evaluationresearch: methodologies for evaluation of IPM pro-grams (Rajinder Peshin, K.S.U. Jayaratne &Gurdeep Singh); 3. Protocol for economic impactevaluation of IPM programs (George W. Norton &Scott M. Swinton); 4. Economic evaluation of inte-grated pest management programs (Kamal Vatta,A.K. Dhawan & Rajinder Peshin); 5. Eliciting farmerknowledge, attitudes, and practices in the develop-ment of integrated pest management programs forrice in Asia (James A. Litsinger, Edgar M. Libetario& Bernard L. Canapi); 6. Implementing integratedpest management in developing and developed coun-tries (B.M. Shepard, M.D. Hammig, G.R. Carner,P.A.C. Ooi, J.P. Smith, R. Dilts & A. Rauf); 7. Movingon: farmer education in integrated insect pest anddisease management (Janice Jiggins & FrancescaMancini); 8. Impact of IPM extension for smallholderfarmers in the tropics (Jeffery W. Bentley); 9. Impactof IPM programs in Asian agriculture (Kevin D. Gal-lagher, Peter A.C. Ooi & Peter E. Kenmore); 10.Evolutionary revolution: implementing and dissemi-nating IPM in Indonesia (Edhi Martono); 11.

Principles and methods of rice lepidopteroid pest andits enemy management (PEM) program in NorthVietnam (Eugeny S. Sugonyaev); 12. Challenges ofintegrated pest management in sub-Saharan Africa(Arnold van Huis); 13. Evaluating dissemination andimpact of IPM: lessons from case studies of potatoand sweetpotato IPM in Peru and other Latin Amer-ican countries (Oscar Ortiz, Jürgen Kroschel, JesúsAlcázar, Ricardo Orrego & Willy Pradel; 14. Inte-grated pest management in Europe – history, policy,achievements and implementation (Bernd Freier &Ernst F. Boller); 15. IPM programs in Common-wealth of Independent States and Russia (Eugeny S.Sugonyaev); 16. Dissemination and impact of IPMprograms in US agriculture (Kristopher L. Giles &Nathan R. Walker); 17. Advances with integratedpest management as a component of sustainableagriculture: the case of the Australian cottonindustry (Gary Fitt, Lewis Wilson, David Kelly &Robert Mensah); 18. Impact of IPM and transgenicsin the Chinese agriculture (WenJun Zhang and YiPang); 19. Can transgenic crops and IPM be compat-ible? (George B. Frisvold); 20. Integrated pestmanagement, biofuels, and a new green revolution: acase study of the American Midwest (John H.Perkins).

1Peshin, R. & Dhawan, A.K. (eds.) (2009) Integratedpest management. Volume 1: Innovation-develop-ment process. Springer, 690 pp. Hbk ISBN: 978 14020 8991 6; Price US$259. Online ISBN: 978 1 40208992 3; Price US$25 per chapter.

2Peshin, R. & Dhawan, A.K. (eds.) (2009) Integratedpest management. Volume 2: Dissemination andimpact. Springer, 634 pp. Hbk ISBN: 978 1 40208989 3; Price: US$259. Online ISBN: 978 1 40208990 9; Price US$25 per chapter.

Web: www.springer.com