Produced by the International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS). To join IAPPS and receive the Crop Protection journal online go to: www.plantprotection.org
James Hill oversees the breeding of billions of Phytoseiulus persimilis bugs.(Supplied: Bugs for Bugs)
abc.net.au/news/integrated-pest-management-beneficial-insects-horticulture/103763226Copy link
Link copied Share article
As concern over chemical use in food production grows and insect species become more resistant to poisons, farmers are turning to nature for solutions to pests that can cripple crop production.
Billions of tiny, blind, predatory mites are being bred, harvested, packed on ice, and posted to strawberry farms in the battle against destructive sap-sucking insects.
James Hill with a cup of persimilis, from the arachnid family.(ABC Rural: Jennifer Nichols)
“We’re producing beneficial insects for farmers to use instead of insecticides,” Bugs for Bugs Donnybrook insectarium manager James Hill said.
“Ninety per cent of farmers in the strawberry industry are using our product.”
Strawberries can now be grown with considerably fewer chemicals.(ABC Rural: Jennifer Nichols)
The battle
Australians love strawberries — 72 per cent of households bought them last financial year and on average we each ate around 2.27 kilograms of the fruit.
One of the main insect enemies that farmers battle to produce tasty red strawberries is two-spotted mites, a sap-sucking species related to ticks, too tiny to spot with the naked eye.
The two-spotted mite is bred to feed the Phytoseiulus persimilis bugs.(ABC Rural: Jennifer Nichols)
Left unchecked, you can see the damage two-spotted mites can do, sucking the life out of bean leaves in the polytunnels where they are raised as food for the predator mites that are sold to growers.
“If left unchecked the two-spotted mite would just devastate your crop, it would wipe you out,” Queensland Strawberry Growers president Adrian Schultz said.
A line of tiny insects hangs from a sick bean leaf.(ABC Rural: Jennifer Nichols)
The tiny warrior
An eight-legged member of the arachnid family, Phytoseiulus persimilis, is blind.
It hunts down two-spotted mites by touch and scent and can be dropped by drone to decimate populations of two-spotted mites and spider mites.
Phytoseiulus persimilis thrives in humid conditions.(Supplied: Bugs for Bugs)
Just 0.5mm long, persimilis are voracious, specialised predators that breed twice as fast as their prey, can be carried on the wind, and are deployed to protect crops, greenhouses and commercial installations of indoor plants.
Once they have exterminated the pests they turn on their own eggs and larvae, posing no threat to other insects.
Mr Shultz said the insects have become real cost savers for big farms.
“In years gone by, we had to rotate different insecticides to control the two-spotted mite and you’d get a higher percentage of pests that were resistant,” he said.
“The advent of the predator mites enabled industry to use considerably less chemicals in controlling pests, now we also have the option of introducing lady beetles into our crops to control aphids.”
Queensland Strawberry Growers Association president Adrian Schultz says the industry has embraced beneficial insects.(ABC Rural: Melanie Groves)
Integrated pest management
Integrated pest management (IPM) is increasingly popular with farmers and uses a range of preventive measures to control pests, including natural predators, parasites, nematodes, and pheromone traps.
“It’s not set and forget, you need to monitor the situation and you’ve got to be aware of the impacts of environmental conditions,” Mr Schultz said.
Paul Jones helped pioneer beneficial insect breeding for horticulture in Australia.(Supplied: Bugs for Bugs)
Changing attitudes
The job satisfaction of helping farmers produce higher quality products with fewer chemicals is why Bugs for Bugs director Paul Jones has been working in integrated pest management for 30 years.
“When we first went out to farmers there was a lot of fear and scepticism about reducing the use of sprays and using beneficial insects to control pests,” the agricultural scientist said.
“The change has been quite radical, what was once considered a cottage industry for small organic and family farms has now become the backbone for pest management in conventional agriculture.”
Bugs for Bugs is one of only a handful of commercial suppliers of beneficial insects in Australia.
From insectaries at Donnybrook, Toowoomba and Mundubbera, it sells 12 different species including predatory mites, ladybirds, lacewings, and parasitic wasps.
Home gardeners can also order the insects online.
Bugs for Bugs has expanded its insectaries.(ABC Rural: Jennifer Nichols)
Worldwide, predatory bioagents are being used to target gnats, thrips, caterpillars, scale, mealybugs, aphids, heliothis larvae, loopers, whitefly, and mites in crops including strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, cotton, macadamias, almonds, avocados, citrus, maize, cut flowers and hops.
Parasitic wasps kill fly maggots for the poultry, pig, dairy and feedlot industries, and black soldier fly larvae transform organic waste into compost.
Bugs for Bugs Phytoseiulus persimilis ready to be posted.(ABC Rural: Jennifer Nichols)
At the Donnybrook insectary, billions of persimilis are being harvested from polytunnels for the start of the Queensland winter strawberry season.
Each insect order is weighed and packed on ice to keep the persimilis mites in hibernation during transport.
Deb Hill packs predatory insects on ice and posts them to farmers.(ABC Rural: Jennifer Nichols)
A vermiculite mineral is included to make it easier for farmers to evenly spread the tiny predators on their fields.
“It’s evolved, refining the craft, we’ve got better and better,” Mr Jones said.
“Mainstream chemical companies now collaborate with us to ensure products are less harmful to beneficial insects.”
The fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) has wreaked havoc on Zambia’s agriculture, devastating smallholder farmers with staggering losses. But amidst the struggle, a promising solution emerges.
Metarhizium rileyi, a highly specific fungus that kills fall armyworm, stands out among these. What’s even more remarkable? Scientists from Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), University of Zambia (UNZA), and CABI in Zambia have identified the presence of this fungus naturally occurring in certain areas when fall armyworm started devasting maize, offering a beacon of hope in the fight against this invasive pest. In 2023, the CABI-led project, funded by ACIAR, embarked on a journey alongside key partners ZARI and UNZA. Their mission? To tackle the fall armyworm crisis head-on through village-based biocontrol initiatives. The project’s official launch marked the beginning of comprehensive field trials across various sites in Zambia.
How effective is Metarhizium rileyi?
The heart of these trials lies in the application of M. rileyi. The process involves using a mixture of a calculated amount of M. rileyi spores and local sand treatment and applying it in four maize sites infested with fall armyworm. Scientists applied the mixture every two weeks. To compare the efficacy of the fungus, the team also used other treatments: sand only, chemical, and no application. This innovative approach, coupled with meticulous monitoring, aimed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of M.rileyi as a biological control agent.
Showing farmers the efficacy of M. rileyi in the field
Despite facing challenges like drought in some trial sites, the results have been promising. Visual assessments revealed stark differences between treated and untreated plots, showcasing the efficacy of M. rileyi.
Notably, the fungal and chemical-treated plots exhibited substantial control over fall armyworm populations, with numerous dead specimens discovered in the fungal treatments. In the fungal-treated plots, there were also thriving populations of beneficial insects, which contributed to further pest suppression over time.
A sustainable approach
A dead fall armyworm showing the green fungus Metarhizium rileyi
As we reflect on these encouraging findings, it’s evident that nature holds powerful solutions to our agricultural challenges. The local presence of naturally occurring M.rileyi offers a sustainable and environmentally friendly approach to combatting fall armyworms in Zambia and beyond. Looking ahead, continued research and collaboration are paramount. By amplifying our efforts and leveraging the potential of biocontrol, we can mitigate the impact of invasive pests, safeguarding livelihoods and fostering resilience in agricultural communities.
Archives Select Month April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010
FP Next – Deep Dive: The coordinator of Nebraska’s On-Farm Research Network shares insights into studies on crop biologicals and their impact on your bottom line.
CHECK IT OUT: One of the best ways to decide which crop biologicals or nontraditional crop products work in your geographic area and cropping management system is to test them out in your own fields. CURT ARENS
At a Glance
There are hundreds of biologicals, biostimulants and other nontraditional crop products on the market.
A starting point in testing these products might be planting simple “with” and “without” test strips across a field.
Planting test strips across a range of nitrogen rates, along with check strips, offer the most useful results.
It’s like the Wild West out there in the world of crop biologicals. There are hundreds of products, but many farmers don’t know where to start to decide which ones, if any, will boost their bottom line, improve crop health or reduce nutrient inputs.
There are many questions. How do I decide which biologicals will work on my farm? How do I know if they are worth the money? Where do I start to test in the field what works on our own farm?
The new Farm Progress podcast — FP Next — powered by John Deere, sets out to answer those questions by visiting with Laura Thompson, Nebraska’s On-Farm Research Network coordinator, in a Deep Dive episode (listen below). Listen to all episodes of FP Next.
Burning questions
Gleaned from the podcast, here are some of the questions Thompson answered, shedding light not only on biologicals and other nontraditional crop products, but also talking about how farmers can test the effectiveness of these products on their own farms.
What exactly are crop biologicals and biostimulants and why are they important? There are a lot of different products that we categorize as biologicals or biostimulants. In our on-farm research, a lot of times we look at these products as what we call more nontraditional products. These could be things like biologicals, biostimulants, as well as other things. But we’re looking at products here that have been derived from natural materials. These include beneficial microorganisms. These could be things like bacteria or fungi, but also products like seaweed extracts, amino acids, humic acids and organic compounds.
Regardless, the idea is to try to stimulate or interact with the plant and the soil to help promote growth, or it could be increasing nutrient uptake. There are a variety of reasons producers might be interested in utilizing these products. They have gained a lot of attention recently, and the reasons for that are there is interest in reducing chemical inputs, and an emphasis on soil health and how we can promote more sustainable farming practices.
These products are available for a wide variety of crops like corn, soybeans and dry edible beans, but also high-value crops and horticultural crops.
Tell us about some of your most recent studies relating to biologicals in the field. We’ve had product testing dating back many years. One of the benefits of doing that research through the On-Farm Research Network is that we have a nice repository of those studies available now. We have what is called our results finder database, where you can search and filter by different products and product names in different categories and look at how those products are performing for different people in different parts of the state, and in different production systems.
Studies that people are looking at include some commercial products like Pivot Bio and other products. A large variety of products have been tested over the years. And then some producers look at their own products as well, like homemade compost tea extracts, for instance.
Something that’s fun about our On-Farm Research Network is that it is really farmer-driven. We have such a huge variety of studies in our network because we have all the innovative and curious farmers across the area coming up with the different topics they are interested in, and we’re working with them on those studies.
These producers testing some of their own extract products are really interested in seeing how these impact (their operations) over the long term. That’s beneficial because we think about these products as being biologicals. We know that it takes time in a system to make a difference, for the system to adapt and change and to start to measure what the change might be in terms of synthetic fertilizer applications, herbicide applications and soil health.
Where do you start and how do you decide whether these products are paying off in the long run? Knowing we have such different conditions, soils, landscapes and management practices is why on-farm research is most beneficial for producers. It doesn’t have to be that complicated to test a product. But as you’re thinking about adopting a new product into your operation, it’s important that producers are getting data on how that product is performing. We all come with our bias.
If we purchased that product, we want to see how it works. If we’re just anecdotally looking to apply to the whole field and kind of going with a gut feeling, it’s natural to have a bias since we paid for a product. We want to see something, whether it is there or not.
Maybe do a test on a couple of fields first. Maybe this is the year you put in some check strips and collect the data for yourself. Maybe you will see that your gut feeling is correct, or maybe it is not what you thought.
How can producers evaluate these products on nutrient uptake for instance in their own fields? A lot of these products are looking at things like providing nitrogen for the crop. Producers often set up trials that do some simple “with” and “without” product tests. That’s a great starting point.
With precision ag technology, we’re seeing producers looking at these products at a variable nitrogen rate, maybe applying a range of nitrogen rates, maybe ranging from 75 pounds to 200 pounds of N. Applying biological products across those rates and leaving a check across those rates as well helps us look at the impact.
One of the challenges producers faced in the first couple of years of testing these products was that they would do a test over a reduced nitrogen rate and maybe see no impact for that product. This can be discouraging. But we don’t know if that N rate they were testing was already in excess of the optimal rate. That’s why we’re trying to work with producers to test across a wider range of N rates to see what product impacts might be at the optimal N rate with and without the product. This gives us a chance to see where that product might fit.
Another benefit of doing this kind of variable-rate approach and putting it into a prescription like this is that we can test it with different geographies within the field. Maybe we have some silty clay loam, and maybe we have a sandy pocket in the field. We can see if we have any difference.
In some cases, we’re not seeing an impact with these products. But that’s the depth of the testing we need to do to verify if that is the case for each producer in each region of the field. If we are not seeing a positive response, then it is still important information to have going forward in making management decisions.
Curt Arens began writing about Nebraska’s farm families when he was in high school. Before joining Farm Progress as a field editor in April 2010, he had worked as a freelance farm writer for 27 years, first for newspapers and then for farm magazines, including Nebraska Farmer.
His real full-time career, however, during that same period was farming his family’s fourth generation land in northeast Nebraska. He also operated his Christmas tree farm and grew black oil sunflowers for wild birdseed. Curt continues to raise corn, soybeans and alfalfa and runs a cow-calf herd.
Curt and his wife Donna have four children, Lauren, Taylor, Zachary and Benjamin. They are active in their church and St. Rose School in Crofton, where Donna teaches and their children attend classes.
Previously, the 1986 University of Nebraska animal science graduate wrote a weekly rural life column, developed a farm radio program and wrote books about farm direct marketing and farmers markets. He received media honors from the Nebraska Forest Service, Center for Rural Affairs and Northeast Nebraska Experimental Farm Association.
He wrote about the spiritual side of farming in his 2008 book, “Down to Earth: Celebrating a Blessed Life on the Land,” garnering a Catholic Press Association award.
Sarah McNaughton of Bismarck, N.D., has been editor of Dakota Farmer since 2021. Before working at Farm Progress, she was an NDSU 4-H Extension agent in Cass County, N.D. Prior to that, she was a farm and ranch reporter at KFGO Radio in Fargo.
McNaughton is a graduate of North Dakota State University, with a bachelor’s degree in ag communications and a master’s in Extension education and youth development.
She is involved in agriculture in both her professional and personal life, as a member of North Dakota Agri-Women, Agriculture Communicators Network Sigma Alpha Professional Agriculture Sorority Alumni and Professional Women in Agri-business. As a life-long 4-H’er, she is a regular volunteer for North Dakota 4-H programs and events.
In her free time, she is an avid backpacker and hiker, and can be found most summer weekends at rodeos around the Midwest.
Subscribe to receive top agriculture news
Be informed daily with these free e-newslettersSIGN ME UP
Brazil’s agriculture is witnessing a quiet revolution with the rise of biopesticides. Farmers like Adriano Cruvinel have increased soybean yields by 13% and reduced chemical pesticide use by 76%. As Brazil faces challenges in balancing agricultural advancement and environmental stewardship, the adoption of biopesticides offers a promising path towards sustainable farming.
Brazil’s Quiet Revolution: The Rise of Biopesticides in Agriculture
In the verdant expanses of Brazil, a quiet revolution brews amidst the rows of soy, corn, and cotton that stretch as far as the eye can see. Here, in the world’s largest exporter of these crops, a significant shift toward sustainability is underway. Leading the charge is Adriano Cruvinel, a farmer whose soybean yields have surged by 13% thanks to a bold decision: slashing chemical pesticide use by an astonishing 76% in favor of biopesticides. This move toward natural pest management solutions is not just a personal win for Cruvinel but signals a potential turning point for Brazilian – and possibly global – agriculture. As of February 2024, the adoption of biopesticides is gaining momentum, promising a future where farming works in harmony with nature rather than against it.
The Rise of Biologicals in Brazil’s Agri-Frontiers
The transformation witnessed on Cruvinel’s farm is part of a broader trend sweeping across Brazil. Farmers across the nation are increasingly turning to biopesticides – natural alternatives to chemical pesticides – to bolster crop health and yields. This pivot is driven by the unveiling of innovative biopesticide products, such as FMC’s Onsuva, a fungicide designed to combat major soybean and cotton diseases, and Premio Star, an insecticide effective against a wide array of pests. The introduction of these products, showcased at the Show Rural 2024, marks a significant milestone in Brazil’s journey towards sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, the release of Presence Full, a biological nematocide, and Provilar, a biocide harboring bacillus endospores, underscores the agricultural sector’s commitment to reducing chemical use and enhancing crop safety.
Challenges and Opportunities Ahead
Despite the promising strides made by pioneers like Cruvinel, biopesticides remain in their infancy in Brazil, accounting for just 9% of total pesticide sales. This nascent stage is partly due to the country’s heavy reliance on chemical pesticides, fueled by its status as the world’s top consumer. The recent softening of regulations on agricultural chemicals by Brazilian legislation, met with criticism from environmentalists, further complicates the landscape. Additionally, the controversy surrounding Brazil’s pesticide use has international ramifications, with opponents of the EU-Mercosur trade deal citing concerns over the nation’s pesticide consumption. These challenges highlight the delicate balance Brazil must navigate between agricultural advancement and environmental stewardship.
Experts Weigh In: The Path to Global Adoption
The journey of biopesticides from niche to mainstream is fraught with hurdles, yet experts remain optimistic about their global potential. AgriBusiness Global’s recent interviews with industry players shed light on the critical factors for widespread adoption. Key among these is the demonstration of biopesticides’ efficacy in boosting yields and reducing reliance on chemical alternatives, as evidenced by Cruvinel’s success. Furthermore, the development and marketing of innovative products like Onsuva and Premio Star play a pivotal role in persuading farmers to make the switch. For biopesticides to take root globally, the agricultural sector must embrace these natural solutions, proving that sustainability and productivity can coexist.
The narrative unfolding in Brazil’s vast fields is more than a tale of agricultural innovation; it is a testament to the power of sustainable practices in shaping the future of farming. As biopesticides begin to find their footing, bolstered by the success stories of farmers like Cruvinel and the pioneering spirit of companies like FMC, the vision of a greener, more productive agriculture becomes increasingly tangible. Yet, the path forward is not without its obstacles, requiring a concerted effort from all stakeholders to overcome regulatory, environmental, and market challenges. Brazil’s journey with biopesticides not only illuminates the potential for a seismic shift in global agriculture but also serves as a call to action for nations worldwide to consider the legacy they wish to leave on the planet’s agricultural landscape.
“We have a problem with the attack of mealybugs, which are becoming a menace to the production of papayas. I fight them, but they are also fighting back.” Ben is a farmer in Machakos County, Kenya, east of the nation’s capital, Nairobi.
Ben Mulinge discovering papaya mealybug on his papaya farm in Machakos County, Kenya.
Like many other smallholder farmers in Kenya, he faces a constant battle with papaya mealybugs. The invasive pest is spreading across the country, wreaking havoc on key horticultural crops. The papaya mealybug spread to Africa in the 2000s from Central America and was first reported in Kenya in 2016. It can destroy a whole crop if left unmanaged.
To try and control the pest, farmers are turning to hazardous pesticides. However, they are often ineffective. They also damage local biodiversity and pose human health risks.
However, a tiny parasitic wasp is providing a safe and natural solution.
CABI PlantwisePlus and partners* are intensifying efforts to combat the destructive papaya mealybug (Paracoccus marginatus).
This new PlantwisePlus video shows how classical biological control is helping farmers in Kenya overcome the papaya mealybug on their farms.
For some farmers, like Omar Mwandaro, a famer in Kwale County, the papaya mealybug damage almost led him to give up cultivating all together.
“A few years ago, I was a very unhappy farmer. I found 30 papaya trees completely destroyed,” Omar comments.
He goes onto say, “To try and control the mealybugs, we were using pesticide, but they didn’t work,”. Omar isn’t the only one.
Omar pictured on his farm in Kwale County with an agricultural extension officer.
An agricultural extension officer advised Melissa Awino, a smallholder farmer in Kilifi Country, to cease spraying pesticides on her farm. “The chemicals are also harmful to us,” she said.
Overuse and overreliance of hazardous chemicals has led to detrimental effects on biodiversity. And the elimination of native pollinators and natural predators of pests.
Chemical pesticides can also be expensive and pose a threat to human health. Farmers bear additional expenses acquiring chemical pesticides in a bid to salvage their crops. These pesticides are sometimes non-registered products. What’s more, the substances are often mishandled and improperly disposed of.
Parasitoids: The solution to protect papaya farms?
Damage caused by papaya mealybug
Kenyan farmers are fighting back through the release of a natural enemy, a form of classical biological control (CBC). The tiny parasitoids, known as Acerophagus papayae, is being used to manage the papaya mealybug through an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach.
“Classical biological control is very safe. It is very cost-effective because once it is established in the system, it is self-replicating,” notes Johnson Nyasani, Chief Research Scientist at KALRO.
A. papayae is a tiny parasitic wasp that attacks the papaya mealybug by laying eggs on the pest. Rearing is an essential step in biological control to guarantee its safe usage. This takes place under laboratory conditions.
After releasing the parasitoids, agricultural experts recommend that farmers construct a Natural Enemy Field Reservoir (NEFR).Top of Form A NEFR is a simple, economical way for farmers to breed high quantities of natural enemies on their farms to help control specific pests.
An example of a NEFR. This device has been fundamental in putting biological control in the hands of farmers.
Rama Hamisi is an Agricultural Extension Officer based in Kwale County. With the introduction of parasitoids, he has witnessed crops thriving. “Pawpaws** are shining and green in colour,” he says.
Farmers having access to a NEFR means they have the pest control on-site. This means, CABI doesn’t need to continue coming back to farms to release more; the solution is already in the area. Therefore, we recommend farmers to grow more papaya.
Safeguarding smallholder livelihoods
With the increased spread and proven efficacy of the classical biological control agent in coastal counties in Kenya, farmers see the fruits of their labour. They’re saving both money and time with this new method of control. This further spurs them to grow more papayas in the future.
“I want to fill this place with papayas,” affirms Melissa, now with the parasitoids at her farm.
Similar experiences have been felt by Omar. “I believe that my children’s education will be guaranteed, and also my life will be transformed compared to how I previously lived.”
PlantwisePlus aims to support small-scale farms by enabling them to decrease reliance on high-risk agricultural outputs. Empowering farmers means they can generate a sustainable income.
“We need farmers who can produce to meet the growing population’s demand,” observes Ben. In the future, Machakos County will implement biological control measures.
“If I get control, I will be able to feed more people and get more profits on my side,” Ben continues to say.
PlantwisePlus and its partners will broaden the implementation of biological control throughout Kenya. This means farmers like Ben, Melissa, and Omar will be able to reduce harmful pesticide use. And improve yields and their incomes.
This is the first step in a long journey. The invasive papaya mealybug continues to be an issue for farming communities in neighbouring countries. PlantwisePlus is actively exploring the adoption of biological control in these countries.
Learn more about CABI’s work around the papaya mealybug
* To implement the biological control of papaya mealybug in Kenya, PlantwisePlus has partnered with the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS), and the National Museums of Kenya.
Soil organisms are affected by the presence of predatory protists. However, it remains poorly understood how predatory protists can affect plant disease incidence and how fertilization regimes can affect these interactions. Here, we characterise the rhizosphere bacteria, fungi and protists over eleven growing seasons of tomato planting under three fertilization regimes, i.e conventional, organic and bioorganic, and with different bacterial wilt disease incidence levels. We find that predatory protists are negatively associated with disease incidence, especially two ciliophoran Colpoda OTUs, and that bioorganic fertilization enhances the abundance of predatory protists. In glasshouse experiments we find that the predatory protist Colpoda influences disease incidence by directly consuming pathogens and indirectly increasing the presence of pathogen-suppressive microorganisms in the soil. Together, we demonstrate that predatory protists reduce bacterial wilt disease incidence in tomato plants via direct and indirect reductions of pathogens. Our study provides insights on the role that predatory protists play in plant disease, which could be used to design more sustainable agricultural practices.
‘Dinosaur’ pesticide law clings to life as SA dithers on poisons reform
Some critics suggest that South Africa remains locked in a chemical culture time warp, where pesticides continue to be cast in a ‘heroic’ role, discouraging less toxic products and non- chemical weed and insect control alternatives. (Photo: schmidtlaw.com / Wikipedia)
There are more than 3,000 registered pesticides sprayed across South Africa, several of which are banned or severely restricted in Europe and other countries because of human and environmental safety risks. Despite the government’s promises to reform outdated pesticide policies, public health experts say there has been little movement.
It has been 77 years since the first law to regulate chemical pesticide safety was passed in this country. This was back in the days of King George VI, Jan Smuts and the Union of South Africa.
Since then, South Africa has become the largest consumer of pesticides in Africa, accounting for roughly a third of all farm chemicals used on the continent.
The primary law regulating pesticides dates back to 1947, but there are more than a dozen other laws, with overall administration fragmented between seven different government departments. (Government Gazette and Wikimedia Commons / Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)
Here is one example: The current Act still specifies a fine of “£500” for government officials who unlawfully disclose any confidential business affairs of the agricultural industry.
Juxtaposed against this £500 fine (roughly R12,000 at today’s exchange rate), the current version of the Act only permits a maximum penalty of R1,000 for violations of the country’s main pesticide control law.
The Adjustment of Fines Act of 1991 does provide for a retrospective stiffening of fines using a ratio determined by periodic government notices, so the R1,000 fine may now be closer to R80,000.
Nevertheless, the £500 fine crafted to protect industry secrecy and the derisory scale of maximum fines for pesticide law violations, remain on South Africa’s statute book – stark evidence of an outdated legal legacy and powerful influence of vested industry interests in an era where modern agricultural systems seemingly remain addicted to chemical poisons to sustain the growth of food or cash crops.
As evidence continues to pile up about the serious harm to humanity and the environment from the increasing volumes of pesticides sprayed across the world, the government has failed to implement a series of reforms recommended by its own policy document – the “new” Pesticide Management Policy published 14 years ago.
Several pesticides have been shown to increase the risk of cancer and obesity, along with neurological damage to children, kidney and lung disease and other serious health impacts. (Image: Brewer International / Wikipedia)
There has also been a two-decade delay in passing domestic laws to enforce the Rotterdam Convention, an international treaty ratified by South Africa in 2002 to limit the global movement of banned or severely restricted pesticides.
It was only in May 2021 that Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Barbara Creecy gazetted new Rotterdam domestic regulations, which introduced new penalties of up to R5-million for pesticide manufacturers and distributors who either import or export hazardous chemical and pesticide formulations in contravention of the international treaty obligations.
But in November 2021, Creecy changed her mind and suspended the implementation of the new regulations for 12 months. Following a further series of delays, she has since repealed the original regulations and published a new version that is only due to take effect in mid-June 2024 (barring further delays).
Creecy’s department has rejected claims of any improper influence from the agrochemicals industry in delaying the new Rotterdam domestic regulations and attributed some of the delays to “substantive” objections that included the apparent omission of CAS chemical registry numbers from the published regulations.
Croplife SA, an industry body whose members include agrochemical companies such as BASF, Bayer, Corteva, UPL and Syngenta, says it is also “not of the opinion that Minister Creecy is intentionally delaying the implementation, but rather ensuring that the regulations are free of errors, which is of paramount importance”.
Nevertheless, documents on its website suggest that it is pushing back against international pressure to phase out at least 29 chemical substances linked to greater risks of cancer, genetic damage and other harms to people, animals and the environment.
Members of the Women on Farms Project marched in Worcester on 5 May 2022 demanding an urgent ban on 67 pesticides. (Photo: Ashraf Hendricks)
At a series of workshops last May for farmers, government officials and journalists, senior Croplife leaders said there was a need to “bring the African narrative more firmly into relevant policy discussions” around the European Green Deal – a recent initiative to protect human health and restore damaged ecosystems. This includes plans to reduce use of the most hazardous pesticide types by 50% by 2030.
According to European Health and Food Safety commissioner Stella Kyriakides: “It is time to change course on how we use pesticides in the EU … We need to reduce the use of chemical pesticides to protect our soil, air and food, and ultimately the health of our citizens. For the first time, we will ban the use of pesticides in public gardens and playgrounds, ensuring that we are all far less exposed in our daily lives.”
According to a European Commission “Farm to Fork” policy document, EU scientific advisers have concluded that the current food system in Europe is no longer sustainable.
“This does not mean that pesticides are not needed. There are cases where satisfactory pest control can only be achieved in commercial food production through the use of chemical pesticides. However, chemical pesticides should be used only as a last resort.”
Rather than intensive pesticide use, the European Union promotes pest management systems where toxic chemicals are used only as a last resort. (Image: European Commission 2022)
The commission also cites a World Health Organisation report which estimates that there are about 1 million cases of unintentional pesticide poisonings every year, leading to approximately 20,000 deaths. A more recent review estimated about 385 million cases of unintentional acute pesticide poisonings occur annually worldwide, including around 11,000 fatalities.
Chemically active pesticides were found in up to 30% of European rivers and lakes, and regulators are worried about the increasing impact on the pollination of food crops at a time when up to 10% of bee and butterfly species in Europe are on the verge of extinction, and 33% are in decline.
Croplife SA has made it clear that it will push back against so-called EU “mirror clauses” that would prohibit South African farmers from using certain pesticides if they export products to Europe – even if these pesticides are legally registered in South Africa.
Global pesticide distributors have frequently been accused of double standards, by peddling in African and other developing countries agrochemical products that have been either banned or severely restricted in Europe because of human safety and environmental concerns.
Croplife SA, however, responds that enforcing European policies on local farmers is a “threat to the government’s right to make decisions for its people based on the local conditions and requirements”.
“Products cannot just be ‘dumped’ in South Africa as some activists claim; they must go through a rigorous registration process that considers the local production conditions and environmental impact.”
Croplife insists that the current regulatory framework in South Africa remains “robust” and “very strong” even though the original Act dates back to 1947.
But that is not how several other interest groups view the 1947 pesticides control law.
Precision farming techniques using drones or modifying the flow rate from spray nozzles can significantly reduce pesticide volumes compared to more conventional manual methods. (Photo: iStock)
Prof Leslie London, a senior University of Cape Town (UCT) public health research expert on pesticide hazards, chemical neurotoxicity and farm worker safety, says: “I think what Croplife really mean is that South Africa has a regulatory environment very favourable to industry. It would be laughable to consider it ‘strong’ unless you mean strongly biased to industry.”
He argues that at a time when many developed countries are adopting policies that promote pesticide reduction, South African policy remains largely out of step with international concerns
The primary 1947 law to control pesticides is regulated by the national Agriculture department, via the Registrar for Pesticides. But because this department is also mandated to promote agricultural expansion, Prof London believes this creates a clear conflict of interest concerning independent pesticide regulation.
He also suggests that the national department has done little to promote the Integrated Pest Management philosophy, which encourages farmers to reduce their reliance on chemical pesticides.
These are some of the alternatives proposed to reduce chemically-intensive farming. (Image: European Commission 2022)
In a journal critique published in 2000, Prof London and fellow UCT public health researcher Prof Hanna-Andrea Rother argued that pesticide regulation fines were “grossly inconsistent with the gravity of offences” while inspectorates were hugely understaffed.
Nearly a quarter of a century later, those derisory fines remain unchanged, and Prof London says that though there has been some “tinkering”, the current pesticide regulation model remains more or less unchanged.
He suggests that South Africa is still locked in a “pesticide culture” that sees intensive chemical control of farm pests as the norm, rather than as a last resort.
“This consent is manufactured by many forces, economic and ideological, and can be seen in the nature of pesticide advertising, and discourses surrounding the heroic role pesticides can play in economic development in the new South Africa,” according to the two researchers..
They noted that 100 to 200 cases of pesticide poisoning were reported every year to the Department of Health (mostly farmworkers or rural residents), while other surveys suggested that the true rates were anything between five and 20 times higher.
Several farm workers live in close proximity to crop fields sprayed from the air, potentially exposing them to toxic spray drift via contaminated air and water. (Photo: Professor Leslie London)
To resolve conflicts of interest and the fragmentation of regulation, the two researchers call for a new independent regulatory body to act as guardian of the public interest, separated from the economic motive to promote agricultural production.
Similar proposals for reform have also been made by Advocate Susannah Cowen SC on behalf of the Real Thing natural health products company.
In a legal opinion submitted to the SA Law Reform Commission in 2021, Cowen draws attention to the apparent double standards of South Africa importing hazardous chemicals from countries where these same chemicals are banned.
Cowen (now a judge of the labour court) said: “No amount of tinkering or amendment can render the 1947 Act fit for purpose in a democratic South Africa. It is wholly outdated.”
At the time of the submission, she said there was also no requirement for periodic safety reviews of currently registered pesticides or re-evaluations of old chemicals.
“The State made important reform commitments in the Pesticide Management Policy for South Africa in 2010. However, these commitments have not been realised and very little has been done since 2010 when these commitments were made.” DM
The Department of Agriculture Land Reform and Rural Development responds:
“The (1947) Act may only be amended once its relevance, applicability, suitability and responsiveness is under question, and so far the Act is still potently applicable
“Over the years, the department has phased out or banned many pesticides of concern under the same Act. We will continue to review the pesticides on concern, and where applicable we will phase out or ban them.
“There have been several regulations under the Act which the Minister has made in order to respond to some substantive recommendations which were part of the 2010 Pesticide Management Policy. The regulations relating to agricultural remedy, as published in Government Notice No. R. 3812 of August 2023, are aimed at addressing the recommendations of the 2010 Pesticide Management Policy.
“The latest regulations were published on 25 August 2023, which, among others, are aimed as phasing active ingredients and their pesticides formulations that potentially may cause cancer, genetic mutation and damages to fertility of a human being (including negatively affecting the unborn child); implementation of the Globally Harmonised System of classification and labelling of chemicals; restrictions of sale and use of certain hazardous pesticides, disclosure by agrochemical companies of amounts the of pesticides sold and other measures.
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE)responds:
A spokesperson said the department “categorically rejects [suggestions] that it has taken 20 years to implement the Rotterdam Convention. DFFE has been facilitating the exchange of information for more than 17 years (as far back as 2006).”
Commenting on the reasons for a recent series of notices to suspend, repeal or amend the convention’s domestic regulations, the department said it was compelled by law to undertake public participation when developing regulations.
“There were submissions on substantive matters that were submitted after the finalisation of the (Rotterdam) PIC Regulations that influenced the department to reconsider and opt for the suspension of the PIC Regulations. The department rejects claims or any perceptions of improper influence and maintains that the Batho Pele principles of consultation, courtesy and responsiveness remained at the centre of the department’s decision to suspend the regulations while the specific amendments were being attended to.”
Croplife South Africa responds:
Croplife confirmed that it made submissions to Creecy’s department to correct certain errors in the registration status of chemicals listed in the Rotterdam regulations.
Responding to criticism about the “double standards” of selling pesticides in Africa when they were banned in Europe or other developed nations, Croplife said: “It is quite normal for some countries to have plant protection solutions authorised for local use when they are not registered in other countries. Local climatic conditions, pest occurrence, crops and regulatory procedures differ from country to country. Therefore, products can be registered in one country and not in another.”
The industry group acknowledged that current laws only provide for a R1,000 fine for contraventions of the 1947 Act, but noted the government could impose much more severe sanctions – such as a banning or cancelling sales of certain chemical products.
There had also been “several” amendments since 1947, while specific product registrations were reviewed every three years.
New regulations published in August 2023 also contained a clause that a pesticide registration holder was obliged to inform the registrar of any new data pertaining to environmental or human toxicology
“Act No 36 and its supporting regulations provide a robust regulatory framework for plant protection solutions in South Africa. As with any government department, the Act No 36 of 1947 regulatory team could be more efficient if central Treasury provided greater funding. In this way, the approval and registration process could bring newer technologies to South African farmers more quickly.
“Government still has the overall right to approve or not approve a product. But our opinion remains that the system for product registrations can be more efficient, bringing newer technologies to farmers quicker, by better utilising the fees already paid to government for product registrations”.
I am pleased to announce that with the assistance of Dr. Nacro Souleymane of Burkina Faso and Matt Taylor of the IDENTIC group in Brisbane, Australia the French version of ”An illustrated key to the identification of selected West African rice insects and spiders” has been updated and is available online at the url below:
JPT: JJurnal Proteksi Tanaman ( Journal of Plant Protection) p-ISSN : 25802580-0600604, e-ISSN: 2621-3141 Accredited: Sinta Publisher: Universitas Andalas, Website: http ;// jpt.faperta.un and. ac .id/index.p hp/jpt Vol. 7 No. 2 (2 023): 103 – 114
New Record of the Egg-larval Parasitoid, Chelonus formosanus Sonan of Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) in the Philippines
Orlando Adona Calcetas Calcetas1) , Ravindra Chandra Joshi 2)*2)*, Ankita Gupta Gupta3) , Avinjikkattu Parambil RanjithRanjith4) , Mary Ann Madrid Madrid5) , Joash Fameronag Fameronag5)
Department of Agriculture, Regional Field Office-IVA-CALABARZON, Regional Crop Protection Center, Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas, Philippines.2)Philippine Rice Research Institute, Maligaya, Science City Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines3)ICAR-National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, P.B. No. 2491, H.A. Farm Post, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 4)Insect Biosystematics and Conservation Laboratory, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.5)Batangas State University University- The National Engineering University, Pablo Borbon Campus, 12 RizalAvenue, Poblacion, Batangas City, Batangas, Philippines.*E-mail: rcjoshi4@gmail.com
Abstract
The egg-larval parasitoid on fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) have not reported in the Philippines. This paper summarizes the global biological information on two species of Chelonus and their role in the regulation of FAW. The FAW egg masses and larvae were collected in the corn plantations inside the Lipa Agricultural Research Station, Marawoy, Lipa City, Batangas. The collected egg masses and larvae were reared at the Entomology Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture-Regional Crop Protection Center IVA. The larvae of FAW were observed for the emergence of parasitoids. Two cocoons of the parasitoid from the rearing cages were obtained for species determination. Three adults from the emerged parasitoids, each male and female, were initially preserved and labeled. Color images of habitus and other morphological characters of the parasitoid were taken using a DSLR camera attached to an Olympus SZ61-60 microscope. This research found two species that emerged from FAW: Chelonus formosanus and the new record of C. semihyalinus. We also highlight the need for more research in the Philippines on exploring the diversity of indigenous natural enemies, the development of mass-rearing techniques, and their utilization to manage fall armyworms.
A funnel-weaving spider, Agelenopsis pennsylvanica, rests on its web while waiting out the rain.
Welcome to Pocket Science: a glimpse at recent research from Husker scientists and engineers. For those who want to quickly learn the “What,” “So what” and “Now what” of Husker research.
What?
The concept of urbanization rests on the population distribution of human beings, more than 50% of whom now live near large, often densely packed groups of other people. But the consequences of that urbanization — shifts in vegetation, localized fluctuations in temperature and wind, light and sound — can alter the distribution of other animals, too.
Given their limited lifespans, spiders and other arthropods must adapt more quickly than most, making them a valuable proxy for the ecological effects of urbanization. While hard data is hard to come by, arachnologists suspect that the global population of spiders — which eat up to 800 million metric tons of pests in a year — is now falling. Whether urbanization is contributing, and to what extent, remains a subject of some debate.
So what?
In search of factors that might sway the distribution and abundance of city-dwelling spiders, Nebraska’s Brandi Pessman and her colleagues turned to the wide-ranging species Agelenopsis pennsylvanica. The team sought out A. pennsylvanica in two areas of Lincoln: Nebraska U’s City Campus, considered an urban center, and Wilderness Park, an urban forest. As expected, the team found that those habitats differed in ways potentially relevant to the spiders. City Campus featured more artificial light, traffic and engineered surfaces — the latter contributing to higher temperatures — whereas Wilderness Park included more tree cover and plant diversity.
Pessman
A sampling expedition identified 131 funnel webs constructed by A. pennsylvanica, 64 of which brought forth spiders when the team stimulated the webs with a toothpick affixed to an electric toothbrush. City Campus boasted substantially more of those webs, and more spiders, than did Wilderness Park. Less distance separated the webs of the urban center than in the urban forest. And webs built on campus generally resided closer to the ground. Those findings suggest that differences between the urban environments could be motivating the real estate chosen by A. pennsylvanica, whose varied diet may help it adapt to human-disturbed areas that are less hospitable to pickier predators.
Yet the team also found that, even within City Campus, A. pennsylvanica webs were fewer and farther apart in spaces adjacent to roads or highways. The vibrations that propagate when rubber meets road might be to blame: Like many spider species, A. pennsylvanica relies on vibratory signals both to hunt and woo mates.
Now what?
Pessman is already conducting follow-up research on A. pennsylvanica in rural versus urban areas, hoping to determine whether environmental vibrations in the latter can limit the spider’s ability to detect prey. She’s also looking into whether the spider could be using webs to dampen disruptive frequencies.
(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2023) Scientists at Minami Kyushu University in Japan have made a groundbreaking discovery of a new biological control for a target insect. They have identified a virus in tobacco cutworms that kills males, creating all-female generations. The discovery was described in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences and The New York Times as evidence that multiple viruses have evolved to kill male insects.
This “male-killing” virus could be added to the growing attempts to control unwanted insects with biological, as distinguished from genetically engineered (GE) solutions. Efforts range from the introduction of natural predators, to radiation-based sterilization of insects, CRISPR-based genetic mutations, and other techniques. While the GE approach has run into controversy because of unanswered questions associated with their release into natural ecosystems, some approaches have also run into resistance problems. Nearly a decade ago, researchers found armyworm resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-incorporated genetically engineered (GE) maize in the southeastern region of the U.S., calling this evolution of insect resistance to a naturally occurring soil bacterium engineered into crops “a serious threat to the sustainability of this technology.”
The general population knows to avoid eating raw eggs because the bacteria salmonella, can live inside chicken eggs. Similarly, scientists have long known that microbes can live in insects’ eggs. One of the scientists, Daisuke Kageyama, PhD, explained that the Wolbachia bacteria, another male-killer, is propagated through females. Dr. Kageyama told the The New York Times, “Males are useless” because they cannot help propagate the microbe, so the bacteria prevents male eggs from hatching.
The scientists in Japan discovered the new male-killing virus in tobacco cutworms and called it SIMKV. The New York Times described the discovery of the virus as being very lucky that research technician Misato Terao stumbled upon the caterpillars while cleaning the greenhouse and placed them in Yoshinori Shintani’s lab. Even luckier was the temperature zone that enabled the virus to impact the resulting all-female generation of moths.
Anne Duplouy, PhD, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Helsinki specializing in the study of microbial symbionts in insects, suggests that there is a diminishing window of opportunity for humanity to glean insights from these microbes sensitive to temperature changes. Due to climate change, she said, “we are likely to be losing many of these interactions” before they can be documented.
The authors of the study believe the identification of this male-killing virus in insects has the potential to revolutionize methods for managing agricultural pests and disease-carrying insects. Conventional pest control approaches rely on the use of toxic pesticides, which can adversely affect the environment and human health.
Many scientists believe a “female-killer” virus could be a more ecologically friendly approach to pest control. However, these biological controls do not always consider the entirety of a systems-based organic approach that focuses on the root causes of pest problems. To see a more systematic approach to mosquito control, see the city of Boulder, Colorado’s mosquito management plan, which includes Living with Mosquitoes and Ecological Mosquito Management.
As scientists delve deeper into the study of the relationships between mosquitos and the interactions of species in an ecosystem, there is the prospect of uncovering novel strategies for pest and disease control that are both more efficacious and less environmentally harmful.
The revelation of the male-killing virus in insects serves as a poignant reminder of the extraordinary biodiversity of life on Earth. As scientists persist in their exploration of biological control, they are bound to reveal many more captivating discoveries that will contribute to a better understanding of the natural world.
As The New York Times wrote in November 2018, “The Insect Apocalypse is Here.” Karen Lipps, PhD, and other scientists and researchers observed the consequences for ecosystems that experience the loss of one species and its cascading impact on other species. Dr. Lipps writes about the massive loss of frogs and other amphibians due to a fungus and its resulting increase in insect populations. This, in turn, decreased snake populations (which would have preyed on the frogs).
In industrial agriculture, the typical approach to addressing pest issues often involves prioritizing the destruction of a single “pest” using a pesticide as the primary solution. This practice results in a cascade of harmful effects throughout the food chain, impacting both prey and predator as they fall victim to the broad-spectrum pesticides. While it intuitively makes sense that pesticides can affect more than just their intended insect targets, the extent of this issue came to light through a study conducted by German researchers and published in PLOS One. Their findings, based on 27 years of trapping flying insects, reveals a staggering 75% decline in overall biomass during the study period.
/bnn/media/member_avatars/RbQbLuh8VN6MSlZqEfTK.png)
/bnn/media/media_files/9f22aefee23ea0ec4f3687d7b67445d3625b5fd0ca0d5a6db0841912db373926.jpg)
Global Plant Protection News 