Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 34, pp 33895–33900 | Cite as

Biocontrol, new questions for Ecotoxicology?

  • Marcel AmichotEmail author
  • Pierre Joly
  • Fabrice Martin-Laurent
  • David Siaussat
  • Anne-Violette LavoirEmail author
ECOTOX, new questions for terrestrial and aquatic ecotoxicology

Introduction

Biocontrol is viewed as an environment friendly alternative to the use of conventional (synthetic) pesticides to control pests or weeds in agrosystems. It relies on the use of biopesticides (Table 1) gathering either macro/micro-organisms (also called biocontrol agents), natural substances purified from living organisms (biopesticides sensus stricto) or mineral preparations as defined in the Article L253-6 from the “Code rural et de la pêche maritime” (Code rural et de la pêche maritime 2014). The organisms can be insects, nematodes, bacteria, fungi, or viruses which could act as predators, parasitoids or pathogens of the pests or weeds (Flint and Dreistadt 1998). The natural substances can be plant extracts at various purification degrees or toxins from animals, plants, or bacteria. Depending on their nature and composition, they can induce toxic effects or manipulate the behavior of targeted organisms due to an attractive (as lures in traps) or repulsive effects. As for...

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to warmly thank the 50 participants (44 academics (including one Canadian), 2 from the industry, 2 from the stakeholder, and 2 from a scientific foundation) to ECOTOX conference who took part to this roundtable. Please note that this text is the transcription of our discussions held during the roundtable and should not be considered as an exhaustive picture of ecotoxicology in biocontrol.

Funding information

A.-V.L. was supported by ERA-NET ARIMNet2, project STomP, IDEX BOOST Projet structurant Université Côte d’Azur. A.M. was supported by IDEX BOOST Projet structurant Université Côte d’Azur.

References

  1. Amichot M, Curty C, Benguettat-Magliano O, Gallet A, Wajnberg E (2016) Side effects of bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki on the hymenopterous parasitic wasp Trichogramma chilonis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23:3097–3103.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5830-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biondi A, Desneux N, Siscaro G, Zappalà L (2012a) Using organic-certified rather than synthetic pesticides may not be safer for biological control agents: selectivity and side effects of 14 pesticides on the predator Orius laevigatus. Chemosphere 87:803–812.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.12.082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biondi A, Mommaerts V, Smagghe G, Viñuela E, Zappalà L, Desneux N (2012b) The non-target impact of spinosyns on beneficial arthropods. Pest Manag Sci 68:1523–1536.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chelinho S, Maleita CMN, Francisco R, Braga MEM, da Cunha MJM, Abrantes I, de Sousa HC, Morais PV, Sousa JP (2017) Toxicity of the bionematicide 1,4-naphthoquinone on non-target soil organisms. Chemosphere 181:579–588.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.04.092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomienne, J.-P., Dutartre, S., Larguier, M., Pinçonnet, D. and Tessier, R. Les produits de biocontrôle pour la protection des cultures 1–87 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. de Castro VLSS, Jonsson CM, Silva CMM, de Holanda Nunes Maia A (2010) Assessing the safety of Pseudomonas putida introduction in the environment: an overview of ecotoxicological tests. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 56:300–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DGAL (2018) https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/instruction-2018-528 in French. Note that this list is edited bimonthly
  8. Duchet C, Coutellec M-A, Franquet E, Lagneau C, Lagadic L (2010) Population-level effects of spinosad and bacillus thuringiensis israelensis in Daphnia pulex and Daphnia magna: comparison of laboratory and field microcosm exposure conditions. Ecotoxicology 19:1224–1237.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-010-0507-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ecophyto II (2015): agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/151022_ecophyto.pdf in French
  10. Flint ML, Dreistadt SH (1998) Natural enemies handbook. Univ of California PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Ipsilantis I, Samourelis C, Karpouzas DG (2012) The impact of biological pesticides on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol Biochem 45:147–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manachini B, Arizza V, Rinaldi A, Montalto V, Sarà G (2013) Eco-physiological response of two marine bivalves to acute exposition to commercial Bt-based pesticide. Mar Environ Res 83:29–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2012.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nakasu EYT, Williamson SM, Edwards MG et al (2014) Novel biopesticide based on a spider venom peptide shows no adverse effects on honeybees. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20140619–20140116.  https://doi.org/10.4161/chan.2.2.6022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pavela R, Benelli G (2016) Essential oils as ecofriendly biopesticides? Challenges and constraints. Trends Plant Sci 21:1000–1007.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rahioui I, Eyraud V, Karaki L, Sasse F, Carre-Pierrat M, Qin A, Zheng MH, Toepfer S, Sivignon C, Royer C, da Silva P, Gressent F (2014) Host range of the potential biopesticide pea albumin 1b (PA1b) is limited to insects. Toxicon 89:67–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2014.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Renzi MT, Amichot M, Pauron D, Tchamitchian S, Brunet JL, Kretzschmar A, Maini S, Belzunces LP (2016) Chronic toxicity and physiological changes induced in the honey bee by the exposure to fipronil and bacillus thuringiensis spores alone or combined. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 127:205–213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.01.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Romdhane S, Devers-Lamrani M, Barthelmebs L, Calvayrac C, Bertrand C, Cooper JF, Dayan FE, Martin-Laurent F (2016) Ecotoxicological impact of the bioherbicide Leptospermone on the microbial community of two arable soils. Front Microbiol 7:2762–2712.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sundh I, Goettel MS (2012) Regulating biocontrol agents: a historical perspective and a critical examination comparing microbial and macrobial agents. BioControl 58:575–593.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-012-9498-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRA, CNRS, Université Côte d’Azur, ISASophia-AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.BiovitisSaint Étienne de ChomeilFrance
  3. 3.Agroécologie, AgroSup Dijon, INRAUniv. Bourgogne Franche-ComtéDijonFrance
  4. 4.INRA, CNRS, IRD, Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Université- Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris- UMRParis-Est Créteil- Campus Pierre et Marie Curie-ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations