Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

“Yes, but does it work in the field?” The challenge of technology transfer in biological control

« Bon, mais comment ça marche dans la pratique ? » : les enjeux des transferts de technologie en lutte biologique

  • Published:
Entomophaga Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thanks to the efforts and enthusiasm of research scientists, biological control today enjoys considerable popularity. An increasing number of decision makers have high expectations of biological control as the foundation of IPM, as a viable commercial alternative to chemical pesticides, as the self-perpetuating solution to exotic pest problems and as the restorer of parks and endangered habitats threatened by alien invasive species. All of these expectations require that biological control scientists engage a broader community, including farmers, extensionists, environmentalists, regulators, and the public at large, and that they succeed with them to transfer, scale up and implement biological control at a level far beyond its present use.

Increased movement of alien pests due to changing patterns of trade, as well as their emerging importance as threats to biodiversity has increased demand for classical biological control. Meeting this demand effectively will require improved understanding of the risks posed by alien pests and introduced agents, as well as better mechanisms to inform and involve governments and scientists in selfregulation and sharing of benefits. A growing portfolio of commercial biological control agents indicates the potential for inundative methods, but the continued emphasis on developing mass-marketed, pesticide-like agents, increasingly with the help of biotechnology, will eventually limit their application in IPM systems unless a broader approach in taken. Finally, opportunities exist for the transfer of methods for natural enemy conservation on a scale far greater than that of the classical or inundative interventions mentioned above, but realizing these opportunities requires a new approach to research and extension, wherein farmers become active research partners and farmers and scientists explore together the complex and very local dynamics of natural enemy complexes. Thus, for all of these areas of biological control, “making it work in the field” will require new directions in scientific research and establishing new partnerships in the transfer and implementation of its results

Résumé

Grâce aux efforts et à l’enthousiasme des chercheurs, la lutte biologique connaît de nos jours un regain considérable de popularité. Un nombre croissant de décideurs attend de la lutte biologique, base de la protection intégrée (IPM), qu’elle se développe comme une alternative commerciale fiable aux pesticides chimiques, comme un remède durable aux problèmes de nuisibles exotiques et comme une protection des parcs et autres espaces menacés par les invasions d’espèces étrangères. Toutes ces attentes requièrent l’engagement, aux côtés des chercheurs en lutte biologique, d’une large communauté comprenant agriculteurs, vulgarisateurs, spécialistes de l’environnement, juristes et consommateurs afin que le transfert, le développement et la mise en æuvre de la lutte biologique puissent s’effectuer à beaucoup plus grande échelle que jusqu’ici.

La multiplication des mouvements d’espèces exotiques provoqués par le commerce international et l’importance croissante des menaces qu’ils font peser sur la biodiversité ont augmenté la demande en termes de lutte biologique classique. Pour répondre à cette demande, il s’agit de mieux comprendre les risques réels de l’introduction d’organismes étrangers et d’agents de lutte biologique et d’améliorer les mécanismes visant à informer et à impliquer gouvernements et chercheurs dans l’autorégulation et le partage des bénéfices. L’augmentation du nombre d’agents de lutte biologique commercialisés montre tout le potentiel des méthodes inondatives, mais la préférence accordée aux agents naturels produits en masse grâce aux biotechnologies et commercialisés à la façon de pesticides tend à en limiter l’emploi dans la cadre des systèmes de protection intégrée, sauf à imaginer une approche différente. Les diverses méthodes de conservation d’ennemis naturels recèlent en outre des opportunités beaucoup plus vastes que les interventions classiques ou inondatives mentionnées ci-dessus ; leur mise en æuvre est cependant tributaire d’une nouvelle attitude en matière de recherche et de vulgarisation qui permettrait aux agriculteurs de devenir des partenaires privilégiés des chercheurs avec lesquels il conviendra d’explorer les relations et la dynamique complexes des guildes d’ennemis naturels. Ainsi, afin que « ça marche dans la pratique » pour la lutte biologique sous ses différents aspects, il est impératif que la recherche scientifique s’oriente selon de nouvelles priorités et que de nouveaux partenariats s’établissent en vue de transférer et développer les résultats ainsi obtenus

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baerselman, F. - 1995. The Dutch attempt to sustainable plant protection practice. In:Maan, G. C. & Zadoks, J. C. (eds). Policy Making, A Must for the Benefit of All, Policy Forum on Crop Protection Policy. -13th International Plant Protection Congress, The Hague, Netherlands, 2–7 July, 1995, 31–34.

  • Charudattan, R. - 1988. Inundative control of weeds with indigenous fungal pathogens. In:Bürge, M.N. (ed). Fungi in Biological Control Systems. -Biddies Ltd., Guildford, UK, 86–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R. J. - 1990. Twenty-five years of progress towards biological control. In:Hornby, D., (ed). Biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens. -CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bach, P. - 1974. Biological control by natural enemies. -Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO —1996. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. Code of Conduct for the import and release of exotic biological control agents.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 21 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greathead, D. J. - 1995. Benefits and risks of classical biological control. In:Hokkanen, H. T. M. &Lynch, J. M. (eds). Biological control: benefits and risks. -Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herren, H. R. &Neuenschwander, P. - 1991. Biological control of cassava pests in Africa. -Annual Review of Entomology, 36, 257–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokkanen, H. M. T. &Lynch, J. M. (eds). - 1995. Biological control - benefits and risks.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 304 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, K. R. (in press). - Making biological control introductions more effective. In:Waage, J. K. (ed). Biological control introductions - opportunities for improved crop production. -Brighton Conference on Pests & Diseases, Brighton, UK, 18–21 November, 1996.

  • Hopper, K. R., Coutinot, D., Chen, K., Halbert, S. E, Kazmer, D. J, Mercadier, G. Miller, R. H., Pike, K. S. & Tanigoshi, L. K. - (in press) Exploration for natural enemies to controlDiuraphis noxia in the United States. -Thomas Say Foundation, Entomological Society of America.

  • Huffaker, C.B. - 1979. New technologies of pest control. -Wiley, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • IIBC - 1994. Using biodiversity to protect biodiversity. Biological control, conservation and the biodiversity convention. -CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 14 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • HBC - 1995. Integrated pest management for highland vegetables. Mid-term project report. -ADB Technical Assistance Grant.

  • Kirk, A. A. &Lacey, L. A. - 1995. A systematic approach to foreign exploration for natural enemies ofBemisia and some current results. In:Gerling, D. &Mayer, R. T. (eds). Taxonomy, biology, damage, control and management ofBemisia. -Intercept Ltd, Andover, Hants, UK, 531–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. - 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. -University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Moraes, G. J. & De Nardo, E. B. (in press) - Issues of safety and ownership in biological control introductions: the Brazilian case. In:Waage, J. K. (ed). Biological control introductions - opportunities for improved crop production.Brighton Conference on Pests & Diseases, 1996,Brighton, UK, 18–21 November, 1996.

  • Moscardi, F. - 1989. Use of viruses for pest control in Brazil: the case of the nuclear polyhedrosis virus of the soybean caterpiller,Anticarsia gemmatalis. -Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 84: 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P. J., Neale, M. C, Arslan-Bir, M., Brandi, M., Fidgett, M. J., & Greatrex, R. M. (in press) - Full-range pest management with IPM systems - an industry view of the options for non-indigenous biopesticides. In:Waage, J. K. (ed). Biological control introductions - opportuni-ties for improved crop production. -Brighton Conference on Pests & Diseases. Brighton, UK, 18–21 November, 1996.

  • Ooi, P. A. C., Lim, G. S., Ho, T. H., Manalo, P. L., &Waage, J. K. (eds). - 1992. Integrated pest management in the Asia-Pacific Region. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Integrated Pest Management in the Asia-Pacific Region, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 23–27 September, 1991. -CAB International/Asian Development Bank.

  • Pollard, G. V. & Cross, T. - 1996 Hibiscus mealybug,Maconellicoccus hirsutus, in the Caribbean sub-region: FAO’s Technical Assistance to the Solution of the Problem. In: First Symposium on the Hibiscus Mealybug in the Caribbean. -St. George’s, Grenada, 24–27 June, 1996.

  • Schei, P. J. - 1996. Chairman’s Report. Norway /UN Conference on Alien Species. - 1–5 July, 1996,Trondheim, Norway.

  • Stock, T. - 1994. The impact of integrated pest management farmer field schools in the Cordillera Region of the Philippines. Dissertation prepared in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc course in Agricultural Extension. -University of Reading.

  • Thomas, M. B. (in press). - Use of fungal pathogens for control of grasshoppers and locusts: recent advances in the LUBILOSA programme. In:Poprawski, T. J. & Puterka, G. J. (eds). Advances in applied microbiai control of insects.Thomas Say Foundation, Entomological Society of America.

  • Thomas, M. B., Wood, S. N., &Lomer, C. J. - 1995. Biological control of locusts and grasshop- pers using a fungal pathogen: the importance of secondary cycling. -Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 259, 265–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. - 1995. Biologically based technologies for pest control, OTA-ENV-636. -U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waage, J. - 1996. Integrated pest management and biotechnology: an analysis of their potential for integration. In:Persley, G.J. (ed). Biotechnology and integrated pest management. -CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 36–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Waage.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waage, J. “Yes, but does it work in the field?” The challenge of technology transfer in biological control. Entomophaga 41, 315–332 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765787

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765787

Key-words

Navigation