Approaches to conserving natural enemy populations in greenhouse crops: current methods and future prospects

Abstract

Biological pest control in greenhouse crops is usually based on periodical releases of mass-produced natural enemies, and this method has been successfully applied for decades. However, in some cases there are shortcomings in pest control efficacy, which often can be attributed to the poor establishment of natural enemies. Their establishment and population numbers can be enhanced by providing additional resources, such as alternative food, prey, hosts, oviposition sites or shelters. Furthermore, natural enemy efficacy can be enhanced by using volatiles, adapting the greenhouse climate, avoiding pesticide side-effects and minimizing disrupting food web complexities. The special case of high value crops in a protected greenhouse environment offers tremendous opportunities to design and manage the system in ways that increase crop resilience to pest infestations. While we have outlined opportunities and tools to develop such systems, this review also identifies knowledge gaps, where additional research is needed to optimize these tools.

Introduction

Biological control of arthropod pests has a long tradition in greenhouse crops. Both the area on which it is used and the number of available biological control agents are still expanding (Pilkington et al. 2010; van Lenteren 2012). Biological control programmes in greenhouses are often based on periodical releases of natural enemies, also referred to as augmentative biological control (van Lenteren 2012). Although biological control has proven to be successful in many greenhouse crops, efficacy can be insufficient in other crops such as ornamentals plants (Heinz et al. 2004). Poor establishment and persistence of natural enemies in certain crops can be one of the main problems in biological pest control, which is partly due to the types of natural enemies used. The selection of natural enemies for augmentative biological control was traditionally focused on specialist natural enemies that were released to obtain rapid control of the pests (van Lenteren and Woets 1988). Well-known examples are the spider mite predator Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot, the whitefly parasitoid Encarsia formosa Gahan and the aphid parasitoids Aphidius spp., which are still successfully used in many crops and countries (van Lenteren 2012). Although, these specialists are well adapted to their host and can be very effective, they often disappear when prey densities have been reduced. As they are used mainly to obtain rapid control of specific pests, their efficacy requires high quantity and quality of released natural enemies and intensive monitoring to assure accurate timing of the intervention. To overcome the problem of establishment and monitoring, some specialist natural enemies (e.g. aphid and whitefly parasitoids) are released routinely (e.g. weekly) as an “insurance policy”. However, this method is not always economically viable.

Methods that will increase the persistence of natural enemies in crops could greatly enhance the efficacy, robustness and cost-effectiveness of biological pest control. The establishment and persistence of generalist predators compared to specialist natural enemies may provide more sustainable biological control, as their broader diet range enables them to persist or even reproduce on alternative prey or plant-provided food sources in the absence of pest organisms (Symondson et al. 2002). This offers the opportunity to inoculate crops that provide such food sources with generalist predators before pest invasions (preventive biological control). However, many crops do not provide the additional resources required by natural enemies. Impediments to successful establishment include: insufficient plant-provided food, or plant-provided food of insufficient quality; lack of suitable oviposition sites; lack of shelter and absence of prey. Biological control might be enhanced in such crops by supplementing the missing resources and thus providing conditions that facilitate more successful establishment of natural enemies.

Conservation of naturally occurring natural enemies (conservation biological control) is well developed in outdoor crops where various techniques of habitat modifications are used such as flowering strips, cover crops that provide windborne pollen or mulching (Landis et al. 2000; Maoz et al. 2011; Wäckers and van Rijn 2012). Biological control in greenhouse crops might be enhanced by using similar methods, but the cost-intensive production of many greenhouse crops means that conservation methods that compromise valuable cropping areas are usually not feasible. Preventive biological control through conservation techniques may help overcome many problems of greenhouse biological control, like the issues of adequate timing, pest detection, the high quantity of natural enemies required, and the labour and knowledge requirements. In this review, we summarize the current methods that are being used or studied to enhance the establishment and persistence of natural enemies in greenhouse crops and present recommendations for future research.

Methods

The methods reviewed here can be subdivided into providing alternative food, prey or hosts; providing oviposition sites or shelters; using volatiles; avoiding pesticide side-effects; adapting the greenhouse climate and avoiding disrupting food web complexities. The currently applied methods for providing alternative food, prey or hosts and oviposition sites or shelters are summarized in Table 1. It was not our aim to analyse trends in research, but rather to present an overview of tools that have been developed for enhancing biological control in greenhouse crops.

Table 1 Conservation techniques commonly used for natural enemies in greenhouse crops

Plant-provided foods

Plants can provide nectar, pollen and plant sap as food sources for natural enemies, but the contribution of these food sources to their performance depends on the type of predator/parasitoid. Specialist natural enemies only reproduce in the presence of their (specific) prey/host species. However, most other natural enemies are omnivores feeding on both plant and prey (Coll and Guershon 2002). Temporal omnivores supplement their carnivorous diet with plant food during a part of their life cycle only (Wäckers et al. 2005), or they shift completely to non-prey food during part of their life cycle, often the adult stage, which has been referred to as “life history omnivores” (Polis and Strong 1996). For example, adults of parasitoids, syrphids and gall midges can increase their longevity, flight activity and oviposition by feeding on nectar (Wäckers et al. 2005) and adults of many lacewings are herbivorous and feed on pollen and nectar (Bozsik 1992). Generalist predators consume multiple prey and may supplement their diet with plant-provided food sources (Symondson et al. 2002). True omnivores are generalist predators that feed on both prey and plants (Coll and Guershon 2002). Some of them can successfully complete their development on plant sap, such as the mirid predatory bug Macrolophus pygmaeus (Rambur) (Perdikis and Lykouressis 2000). Nectar feeding can further improve this vegetarian diet (Portillo et al. 2012). Generalist phytoseiid mites and anthocorid bugs reproduce very well on pollen (Lundgren 2009). Other predatory mites, such as Euseius scutalis Athias-Henriot, will feed on plant sap even when pollen grains are abundant, by puncturing and feeding on the epidermal cells suggesting a close association between these predators and its plant host (Adar et al. 2012).

In those greenhouse crops where plant-provided food resources are lacking or are of insufficient quality, nutritional resources can be supplemented by planting insectary plants that provide these food sources for natural enemies. A study in greenhouses showed that adding selected flowering plants (sweet allysum and coriander) to a sweet pepper crop results in higher densities of hoverflies, even though this crop already provides pollen and nectar itself (Pineda and Marcos-García 2008). Plants that produce a lot of pollen, like Ricinus communis L., can be used in greenhouses to provide fresh pollen to generalist predatory mites (Ramakers and Voet 1995). Flowering alyssum does provide resource subsidies for the maintenance of the predatory bugs Orius laevigatus (Fieber) and Orius majusculus (Reuter) during times of prey scarcity (Bennison et al. 2011; Pumariño and Alomar 2012). However, this plant is also a suitable host plant for the pest thrips itself, thus some caution is always needed. Flowering ornamental pepper plants can support and increase populations of Orius insidiosus (Say) in ornamental crops in commercial greenhouses (Waite et al. 2014).

Another approach can be to select crop varieties with increased levels of plant-provide food resources. A large number of plants produce so-called extrafloral nectaries and selecting varieties that produce higher nectar levels, or extrafloral nectar of a particular composition may better sustain the establishment of some species of natural enemies (Koptur 2005). For example, in greenhouse roses it has been shown that the predatory gall midge Feltiella acarisuga (Vallot) controlled spider mites better in rose varieties that produced higher levels of nectar in the extrafloral nectaries located on the leaf rim and stipules (Wäckers unpublished results), confirming earlier observations that availability of sugars enhances egg production of this species (Gillespie et al. 2000). Thus, the availability of plant-provided food can be a driving force in the success or failure of biological control programmes.

Food sprays

Artificial or natural food supplements can be sprayed or dusted onto the crop to support natural enemies in crops where nectar and pollen are absent or only present at low densities (Wade et al. 2008). For example, pollen sprays can serve as food for generalist predatory mites and enhance the biological control of thrips and whiteflies on cucumber (van Rijn et al. 2002; Nomikou et al. 2010). So far, pollen has not been commonly applied in greenhouses, mainly because suitable pollen was not commercially available and hand collecting pollen is labour-intensive and thus expensive. Recently, Typha angustifolia L. pollen has been made available commercially (sold as Nutrimite® by Biobest NV) and growers have started to use this to promote population increases of pollen feeding predatory mites. Corn pollen is also suitable for enhancing populations of A. swirskii and E. scutalis and can be mechanically harvested in large quantities, which makes it a feasible option from the economic perspective (Adar et al. 2014). Some other types of pollen are commercially available for pollination, such as apple pollen. Application of this pollen on vegetative chrysanthemum plants was found to increase the establishment of A. swirskii (Delisle 2013). An alternative for expensive pollen could be to use bee-collected pollen, which is available at low prices (Ramakers 1995). A disadvantage of bee-collected pollen is the fact that bees mix the pollen with enzymes and sugars to form larger clumps. This makes the pollen less accessible and nutritionally less suited for the predatory mites. Due to the added sugar, it can also be a substrate for growth of unwanted fungi in humid greenhouses (Ramakers 1995).

A potential risk of applying pollen to crops is that it could increase densities of pollen feeding thrips species such as the omnivorous western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), which is a major pest in greenhouse crops (Hulshof et al. 2003). However, a study with predatory mites showed that adding Typha latifolia L. pollen to a crop clearly enhances the biological control of thrips, even though the pollen is edible for thrips itself (van Rijn et al. 2002). This may not be the case for other pollen types, which are more suitable for thrips (Hulshof et al. 2003). In order to minimize the potential risk of promoting thrips with pollen, it might be useful to select food sources that are more suitable for predators than for thrips.

Many artificial food sources other than pollen seem to have potential for enhancing establishment of natural enemies (Lundgren 2009). Sterilized eggs of the flour moth Ephestia kuehniella Zeller and decapsulated cysts of the brine shrimp Artemia franciscana Kellogg are two very suitable food sources for both generalist predatory bugs (Castañé et al. 2006; Bonte and de Clercq 2008) and predatory mites (Vangansbeke et al. 2014). These two food sources are now increasingly being used to boost densities of the predatory bug M. pygmaeus in tomato and sweet pepper crops (Calvo et al. 2012; van Holstein-Saj and Messelink 2014). Sterilized eggs of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) are currently being explored for supporting anthocorid predatory bugs in ornamentals (Anonymous 2013; Steinberg, Biobee, personal communication).

The development of inexpensive alternative food sources is one of the major opportunities and challenges for enhancing biological control in greenhouse crops in the near future. Many artificial diets have been tested with the aim of developing less expensive mass rearing techniques (e.g. Castañé and Zapata 2005; Bonte and de Clercq 2008; Nguyen et al. 2013), but these diets are currently not applied to support predator populations in commercial crops. Applying inexpensive artificial diets on crops to support predator populations have been explored only on a limited scale, but initial results seem promising (Messelink et al. 2009; Igarashi et al. 2013). Simple mixtures of yeast, sugars and proteins increased population densities of the predatory mite A. swirskii on chrysanthemum plants (Messelink et al. 2009). A powdered diet, based on proteins, sugars and vitamins, promoted the development of the predatory bug Geocoris varius (Uhler) on strawberry plants in greenhouses (Igarashi et al. 2013).

Alternative prey/hosts

The use of alternative prey/host species for the conservation of released natural enemies in greenhouse crops has been of long-standing interest for biological control of greenhouse pests (Huang et al. 2011). The method by which these alternative prey/host species are made available is based on the introduction of a non-crop plant harbouring the alternative prey species, often referred to as the “banker plant method”. A widely applied system in greenhouse crops has been the use of monocotyledonous plants with cereal aphids that serve as alternative hosts for parasitoids of aphids that attack the crop (Huang et al. 2011). The advantage of this system is that the grain aphids are specific to monocotyledons and pose no threat to crops that are dicotyledon. Banker plants can also be established in the edges of the greenhouse to bridge crop-free periods and contribute to the conservation of predators (Arnó et al. 2000). The types and use of different banker plant systems have been evaluated in two recent review papers: Frank (2010) and Huang et al. (2011). These papers show that many banker plant systems have been developed, but only a limited number are currently applied due to a range of practical problems such as the risk of hyperparasitism of the parasitized aphids (Nagasaka et al. 2010; Jacobson 2011). However, banker plant systems show enormous potential for conservation of released natural enemies, if the practical problems can be overcome. For example, banker plants could be developed that specifically support aphid predatory midges by selecting aphids which are not suitable hosts for parasitoids. The negative effects of increased hyperparasitism through banker plants could then be prevented (Nagasaka et al. 2010).

Some alternative prey species are not harmful to the crop and establishment of these prey species in the crop may support their natural enemies. In chrysanthemum, the application of yeast and sugars has been shown to maintain populations of astigmatic mites that are suitable prey for phytoseiid predatory mites (Messelink et al. 2009). Another method for providing alternative prey species can be based on mulch layers. Recent developments in chrysanthemum show that such layers support the establishment of astigmatic mites and, as a result, increase densities of soil-dwelling predatory mites (Grosman et al. 2011). Similar methods have been tested to support the generalist hunter fly Coenosia attenuata Stein (Kühne 1998). Hence, developing mulch layers for supporting predators in greenhouse crops seems to be a promising method.

Artificial open rearing systems

The idea of rearing natural enemies in greenhouse crops on banker plants has for some natural enemies been further developed into artificial rearing units. The best known and most widely applied system is based on a rearing sachet containing a small breeding ecosystem of bran with saprophytic fungi, fungal-feeding astigmatic mites (prey) and predatory mites (Sampson 1998). Several modifications with different types of astigmatic mites, predatory mites, food sources for astigmatic mites such as sugars, starch, yeast and types of sachets have been developed and patented by the biological control industry (Wright 2006; Baxter et al. 2011; Bolckmans et al. 2013). Such units, in general, produce predatory mites for 3–6 weeks (Baxter et al. 2011). This can be optimized by balancing the initial rate of predator, prey and food in the rearing unit. The production period can now be prolonged (7–12 weeks) by combining astigmatic mites with low and high intrinsic growth rates, for example a combination of Lepidoglyphus destructor (Schrank) and Carpoglyphus lactis (L.) (Bolckmans et al. 2013). Application of rearing sachets are particularly useful in non-flowering crops, or in crops with flowers that do not produce pollen (e.g. cucumber), or in crops such as strawberry before the first flush of open flowers.

Another type of open rearing system that has been developed for the generalist rove beetle Atheta coriaria (Kraatz) is based on boxes containing a poultry-feed diet (Bennison et al. 2008). The reason for using such a system is not only to support A. coriaria establishment, but also to provide growers with an inexpensive method for releasing high numbers of the predators when needed. This system is currently used by UK ornamental growers, usually in propagation houses for control of sciarid and shore flies. Artificial rearing units may be a useful tool to support natural enemies in greenhouse crops. However, they need to be assessed critically, as eventually it is not the production, but the establishment and survival of predators in the crop which is important for pest control.

Pest-in-first techniques

A more risky method to support natural enemies is the deliberate release of pest species into crops. This approach has been developed for spider mites as a food source for the specialist predatory mite P. persimilis. Normally, this predator is applied after the detection of hotspots of spider mites in the crop, but this requires intensive crop monitoring and the release needs to be in time and at sufficient densities to prevent crop damage. Instead of applying predatory mites as “living pesticides” after the development of a natural infestation of spider mites, it is also possible to inoculate plants with a low level of spider mites early in the growing season and release predators shortly afterwards or a few days later. This “pest-in-first” technique (Markkula and Tiittanen 1976) allows the predator P. persimilis to establish in the crop and give protection against subsequent spider mite invasions. Currently, this method is mainly used in sweet pepper crops. The method was not adopted immediately, but it promoted another way of thinking about pest control, based on living with the pest rather than trying to eliminate it. For generalist predatory mites, it has clearly been shown that pest diversity increases the population densities of generalist predatory mites (Messelink et al. 2010). Thus, allowing low levels of several species of pests, in numbers insufficient to risk crop damage, might be considered for the conservation of generalist predators.

Mixed diet effects

In addition, the reproduction of generalist predators in crops can be increased by providing mixed diets of prey, or mixes of prey and non-prey food sources. Survival and reproduction of the predator O. insidiosus were enhanced when diets of aphids were supplemented with thrips as a prey source (Butler and O’Neil 2007). Generalist predatory mites also benefit from mixed prey diets: juvenile development of the predatory mite A. swirskii was significantly improved on a mixed diet of thrips and whiteflies compared to a single pest diet (Messelink et al. 2008). Similar results were found for a red velvet mite predator, Balaustium sp.: this predator developed much better on a mixed diet of whitefly eggs and spider mites than on a diet of each prey alone (Muñoz-Cárdenas et al. 2014). Mixing diets of generalist predators may not only affect reproduction and survival, but also their behaviour. For example, supplementing a diet of thrips with pollen did not increase egg production by the predator O. laevigatus, but surprisingly increased predation rates of thrips larvae (Hulshof and Linnamäki 2002). Thus, supplementing diets of single pest species for generalist predators with alternative prey or food may be a useful method to increase predator densities and enhance pest control.

Oviposition sites and shelters

The establishment and reproduction of released natural enemies in greenhouse crops strongly depends on the plant characteristics of that specific crop. Suitable oviposition sites are crucial for reproduction of many predators. Important generalist predatory bugs such as Orius spp. and M. pygmaeus lay their eggs into soft plant parts and ovipositional acceptance of the host plant depends on the morphological characteristics such as epidermal thickness or trichome density (Lundgren et al. 2008). The woody plant parts of some crops, such as roses, are not very suitable for this specific oviposition behaviour of predators and may explain the poor establishment in roses (Chow et al. 2008). Another problem in many ornamental crops is that suitable oviposition sites (softer stems of flowers) are harvested, which removes a potential new generation of natural enemies from the greenhouse. The same problem can also occur on tomato with the de-leafing practice (a common horticultural practice consisting of removing lower leaf strata), that has a strong negative influence on the development of mirid populations (Bonato and Ridray 2007) and E. formosa (by removing parasitized whitefly scales, van Lenteren et al. 1996). These problems may be solved by adapting the de-leafing strategy. It may be possible to simply delay the de-leafing time, to spare parts of the plants from de-leafing or just to retain the de-leafed material in the greenhouse for a specific time period to allow for the natural enemies to emerge or move. Another option for mirid predatory bugs is to offer special non-crop plants that provide suitable oviposition sites for the mirid predators (Sanchez et al. 2003), which can be combined with plants that also provide alternative food sources (see the sections on insectary plant and alternative prey/hosts).

Predatory mites prefer plants with trichomes to attach their eggs (Loughner et al. 2010; Schmidt 2014). However, not all trichomes are favourable for natural enemies: tomato plants produce glandular trichomes which strongly hamper the movement of predatory mites (Simmons and Gurr 2005; Koller et al. 2007), as well as Orius spp. (Coll and Ridgway 1995). Trichomes can be completely absent in some ornamental crops. This lack of non-glandular leaf trichomes may be compensated by applying fibres to a crop that mimic the function of trichomes. The abundance of the predatory mite A. swirskii increased when cotton fibre patches were added to leaves with no trichomes (Loughner et al. 2011). Adar et al. (2014) enhanced predator populations of E. scutalis by adding pollen and rings of horticultural twine (80 % rayon and 20 % jute) for providing oviposition sites to young pepper plants before flowering. In sweet pepper, jute fibres are preferred over plant leaves as oviposition sites by the lacewing M. variegatus, and also provided refuges for emerging larvae to protect them from cannibalism (Messelink, personal observations).

A number of plants have independently evolved refuges for natural enemies, the so-called domatia (Walter 1996). For example, sweet pepper plants have tuft domatia in the vein axils that are used by predatory mites for oviposition. These domatia may reduce cannibalism or predation by other predators and increase survival by providing a suitable micro-climate (Walter 1996). Such specific domatia are absent in most other greenhouse crops. It might be possible to provide these refuge sites to predatory mites with banker plants. A study in roses showed enhanced spider mite control by predatory mites when plants containing numerous domatia (Viburnum tinus L. and Vitis riparia Michx) were added to the rose plants (Parolin et al. 2013). Shelters for natural enemies can also be facilitated by mulch layers that increase pore size in the substrate. This is not only useful for ground-dwelling predators that use such small spaces for shelter and feeding on mycophageous mites (Vreeken-Buijs et al. 1998), but also for natural enemies that migrate between the substrate layer and the plant, such as some generalist phytoseiid predatory mites and chrysopid larvae (Szentkirályi 2001; Messelink and van Holstein-Saj 2006). This flexible migration behaviour is so far underestimated and hardly exploited, yet it may be used when applying mulch layers to enhance predator survival.

Vegetation diversity

Natural enemies may benefit from increasing vegetation diversity through the plant-provided resources such as pollen, nectar, a favourable microclimate and alternative prey species (Landis et al. 2000). However, it is important to realize that not all plant species are suited to support predators, and that it is critical to select the right plant species rather than increasing diversity per se (Wäckers and van Rijn 2012). This principle has become popular in outdoor crops where several levels of vegetation diversity are applied with flowering strips, pollen-producing plants, beetle banks or crop mixtures (Maoz et al. 2011; Gurr et al. 2012). Increasing plant diversity allows predators to optimize their fitness by exploiting various plant-based resources such as nutrition and oviposition sites (Lundgren et al. 2008). However, such practices are probably difficult to apply in greenhouse crops when the maximum cultivation area needs to be used for crop production in order to make the production units economically viable. It might be useful to investigate whether the benefits of plant diversity for pest control can be achieved by mixing economically important crops. However, modern greenhouse crops are often monocultures in highly specialised production units where not only crop cultivation, but also harvest and packaging techniques are specialised. Greenhouse crops are not mixed specifically with the aim to enhance pest control, but plant diversity can be applied on a smaller scale with banker plants, trap plants or companion plants (Huang et al. 2011; Parolin et al. 2012; Xu et al. 2012). Even the application of such plants remains limited, because they require separate care. More experimental data that show the potential benefits of using crop diversity in greenhouse crops may promote this idea to growers and biological control advisors.

Conservation of naturally-occurring natural enemies in greenhouse surroundings

Conservation biological control can also be useful in greenhouse areas where naturally occurring natural enemies are able to migrate into greenhouses from non-crop plants outside. In fact, such background biocontrol can help make augmentative releases economical (Gerling et al. 2001). In the Mediterranean region, generalist mirid predators often migrate from outdoor non-crop plants into tomato greenhouses, where they contribute to the control of important pests such as whiteflies, leaf miners and Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Castañé et al. 2004; Perdikis et al. 2011; Ingegno et al. 2013). The natural presence of predatory bugs in tomato greenhouses seems to be strongly related to the surrounding landscape. For example, mirid predators are found mainly in agroecosystems characterized by a high environmental complexity, i.e. a patchy landscape where greenhouses are surrounded by natural vegetation corridors, wasteland and woodland (Ingegno et al. 2009), or close to weedy field margins (Gabarra et al. 2004). Similarly, greenhouses with sweet pepper can be colonized by Orius spp. from neighbouring wild flora, and these spontaneously occurring predators can even out compete populations of released O. laevigatus (Bosco et al. 2008). In many studies, it has been suggested that conservation biological control with generalist predators can be enhanced by planting suitable non-crop plants near greenhouses either to support migration into the crop or to provide a refuge when greenhouse crops are harvested and plants removed (Perdikis et al. 2011). As with predators, greenhouse surroundings may also contribute to the migration of parasitoids into greenhouses (Gerling et al. 2001). A potential risk of using alternative plants in greenhouses or greenhouse surroundings is their ability to host pathogens or viruses that also infect the crop. This susceptibility to pathogens and viruses should be one of the criteria in the selection of alternative plants (Cano et al. 2009). Another method to promote natural enemies near greenhouses is by providing overwintering shelters. This has been explored for lacewings by providing diapausing adults with artificial overwintering chambers near greenhouses (Thierry et al. 2002). Such methods may promote early establishment of natural enemies in spring.

Induced plant responses

Induced plant resistance against insects consists of direct traits, such as the production of toxins and feeding deterrents that reduce survival, host plant preference, fecundity or developmental rate of pests, and indirect traits, that attract and/or retain carnivorous enemies of the herbivores (Paré and Tumlinson 1999; Turlings and Wäckers 2004). The latter category includes traits such as the production of plant volatiles and extrafloral nectar. Both types of resistance mechanisms can affect the conservation of natural enemies in greenhouse crops. For example, secondary plant metabolites induced by pests can also reduce the reproduction rate of the natural enemies of that prey (Koller et al. 2007). These effects will negatively affect the establishment of natural enemies into crops. Pests might even adapt to these plant responses, whereas the natural enemies still encounter negative effects (Ode 2006). Herbivore induced plant volatiles (HIVs) help natural enemies to detect their prey/hosts in a crop (Paré and Tumlinson 1999), whereas extrafloral nectar production is increased locally in response to herbivory, guiding natural enemies to the feeding herbivore (Wäckers and Bonifay 2004). Conservation of natural enemies might be enhanced in greenhouse crops by breeding cultivars that give increased HIV or extrafloral nectar production (Turlings and Wäckers 2004; Kappers et al. 2005), but such techniques are, so far, not included in commercial breeding programmes.

Induced plant responses can also affect other plant traits, such as trichomes. On tomato, it has been observed that the tomato russet mite Aculops lycopersici (Massee) induces a plant response which locally causes the collapse of glandular trichomes (van Houten et al. 2013). In future work, it will be interesting to determine whether these plant responses can be triggered and used to promote the establishment of predators on tomato plants.

Semiochemicals

Behaviour of natural enemies is largely guided by semiochemicals, and these volatile signals can be applied to manipulate their behaviour. Attraction of natural enemies with synthetic compounds, similar to HIVs, is increasingly being tested in outdoor crops (Kaplan 2012). Natural enemies may also respond to odours that are produced by their prey/host species, such as sex pheromones or alarm pheromones. Sex pheromone lures are commonly used to monitor for certain pest species in greenhouse crops and in some cases to contribute to control when used with trapping systems. However, volatiles for enhancing natural enemy establishment are so far not applied in greenhouse crops. Such techniques seem at first not to be relevant for greenhouse crops, because most natural enemies are released and retained by the closed system, so there is limited need to lure them into crops. However, some released natural enemies tend to fly out of the greenhouse and retaining them in the crop may increase their efficacy. For example, aphid parasitoids can be triggered to search more actively for aphids when the aphid sex pheromone is present (Powell and Pickett 2003). Main chemical components of this pheromone could possibly be used to treat clusters of aphid infested plants in greenhouses, which might increase efficacy of released parasitoids (Glinwood et al. 1998). Lures may also be used to attract released natural enemies to alternative food sources in order to help them establish (attract & reward, Simpson et al. 2011). In fact, parasitoids and predators may very quickly learn to associate certain odours with a reward (Turlings et al. 1992). Finally, lures may be a useful tool to stimulate oviposition of released natural enemies. For example, releases of adult chrysopids in greenhouse crops often fail, probably because of an obligatory migration flight before oviposition (Duelli 1980). The use of attractants in combination with food sprays may stimulate oviposition of released chrysopid females into the target crop (Kunkel and Cottrell 2007).

Pesticide side-effects

Conservation of natural enemies should ideally not be combined with the use of pesticides, as most pesticides have lethal effects on natural enemies (summarized in Table 2). However, the use of pesticides is often inevitable for pests and diseases that lack effective non-chemical control measures. Mitigation of undesired side-effects on conservation of natural enemies can be achieved by selecting pesticides that are compatible or as close to compatible as possible with natural enemies. However, most insecticides have a broad spectrum of action affecting both pest and beneficial arthropods, and very few are completely selective (an overview of side-effects on main natural enemy families with simplified toxicity classes of principal pesticides is presented in Table 2). Moreover, pesticides can have underestimated sub-lethal effects affecting the physiology and behaviour of natural enemies and reducing their viability (Stark et al. 2004; Desneux et al. 2007). A careful assessment of overall side-effects (including sub-lethal effects) of pesticides, both synthetic and natural, is essential to develop truly selective pesticides for the conservation of natural enemies by using active ingredients with the least non-target activity. Undesired side-effects of pesticides on natural enemies could be further reduced by adapting the timing, place and mode of application (Croft 1990). However, caution is needed especially for pesticides with a high level of persistence as these could disrupt natural enemy establishment over long periods.

Table 2 Side-effects (0 = harmless; 1 = variable harmfulness (effects depend on the species, stage and product, or results are contrasting); 2 = harmful) of pesticide classes in laboratory (L), semi-field (SF) and field (F) conditions on predators and parasitoids used in greenhouse crops (OP organophosphorus pesticides, SFB selective feeding blockers, SP synthetic pyrethroids)

Climate and light adaptations

Natural enemies, just like plants, can be impacted directly by greenhouse climate parameters, such as temperature, vapour pressure deficit (VPD), light intensity and quality, and day length. As ectotherms, natural enemies are directly affected by temperature, i.e., the higher the temperature the shorter the development period up to the upper developmental threshold for the arthropod. It is well-known that P. persimilis provides effective control of two spotted spider mite up to 30 °C, but above 30 °C the development time for spider mites becomes shorter than P. persimilis (Lindquist and Short 2004). With the concern for energy conservation, growers are moving to daily temperature integration regimes for crop production. For example, temperature integration means that higher temperatures during the day are tolerated and compensated by lower temperatures during the night. This may be detrimental for night-active natural enemies like Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rondani), that may need certain temperatures to be flight-active (Markkula et al. 1979). In addition, the impact on development time for natural enemies under fluctuating temperature regimes seems to vary according to the species (Gillespie et al. 2012). With the move to year round production and to increase yield/production per unit area, growers are increasingly using supplementary lighting in vegetable production and are extending the period of artificial lighting in ornamentals to continuous lighting in the case of rose production. By extending the photoperiod using supplemental lighting, diapause induction will be prevented in biological control agents that enter reproductive diapauses under short daylengths. However, not all natural enemies respond in the same way to supplementary lighting. Very little is known on this subject, and this is an area which needs further investigation (Johansen et al. 2011).

Optical manipulation of natural lighting can also impact the behaviour of pests and their natural enemies. Studies have shown that the use of photoselective nets can reduce the invasion of whiteflies, aphids or thrips into a tomato or pepper crop and the subsequent viral diseases that they vector (i.e., Tomato yellow leaf curl virus) (Ben-Yakir et al. 2012). This material should contain selective additives that allow photosynthetically active radiation to pass, but inhibit or reflect wavelengths that the pests perceive, such as UV (330–350 nm) and green–yellow (520–550 nm). However, their influence on natural enemies is not known and needs to be investigated. Thus, the covering may need to be adjusted according to the crop, pests and natural enemies involved. Conservation of natural enemies may also be improved by selecting natural enemies that are better adapted to the greenhouse climate, for example strains of predatory mites that are better adapted to low humidity levels and higher temperatures (Walzer et al. 2007) or are non-diapausing (van Houten et al. 1995).

Food web complexities

Methods that support the establishment of natural enemies are often associated with increased complexity within food webs of natural enemies, prey and food sources which could include potential risks for pest control (Messelink et al. 2012). For example, the provision of alternative prey or food can have negative effects on biological control should predators switch to more abundant or more preferred alternative prey or food sources, or through predator satiation (van Maanen et al. 2012). However, such effects mainly occur on the short-term and often turn soon into positive effects through a strong numerical response of the predator population (van Rijn et al. 2002; Messelink et al. 2008). Complexity increases even more when the alternative food source is also edible for the pest species. It is well-known that many herbivores also benefit from alternative food sources such as pollen and nectar (Wäckers et al. 2007). Also, the selection of nectar resources to support parasitoids needs careful consideration, as some flowering plants can be more beneficial for the targeted pest than for its natural enemies (Balzan and Wäckers 2013). As discussed before, these problems can be avoided by selecting food sources that are more suitable for predators than for the herbivore.

Providing food and shelter for natural enemies may also benefit the fourth trophic level, e.g. secondary parasitoids or so-called hyperparasitoids. Aphid parasitoids, particularly in greenhouse crops, are commonly attacked by several species of hyperparasitoids that can strongly disrupt aphid biological control (Jacobson 2011). The longevity of these hyperparasitoids is enhanced in the presence of nectar sources, thus potentially increasing the chance of disruption of aphid control (Araj et al. 2009). The benefits of conservation methods obviously must benefit the third trophic level (the natural enemies) more than it does the second (pests) or fourth (hyperparasitoids).

Finally, increased numbers of natural enemy species may also result in more interactions among natural enemies, such as intraguild predation, which could disrupt biological control in some cases (Rosenheim et al. 1995; Symondson et al. 2002; Messelink et al. 2012). However, effects of intraguild predation should not be overestimated, because most studies do not show any negative effect on biological control (Janssen et al. 2006). For example, mirid predatory bugs also feed on parasitized whiteflies, but the combination of predators and parasitoids can still be better for biological control (Castañé et al. 2004; Gabarra et al. 2006). Hyperpredation occurs when one predators feeds on another predator without sharing a prey. This can be very disruptive for biological control, as was shown for predatory mites consuming eggs of the aphid predatory midge A. aphidimyza (Messelink et al. 2011). Biological control of honeydew-producing pests, such as aphids and mealybugs, can be disrupted by ants defending their sugar source. Similarly, ants may prevent biological control agents from utilizing sugar rich food supplements when used in the crop. Methods that exclude or distract ants from crops may enhance the conservation of natural enemies (Vanek and Potter 2010).

These food web complexities emphasize that a thorough understanding is needed of the direct and indirect effects of conservation methods on the total ecosystem in greenhouses in order to avoid potential negative effects on pest control. Interactions that are potentially negative for biological pest control could be avoided by selecting and releasing natural enemy communities that maximise sustainable pest control. Hence, the development of tools that support the establishment of natural enemies should go hand in hand with extending our understanding of species interactions in biological control communities.

Conclusions

Biological control in greenhouse crops has proven to be very successful (Heinz et al. 2004; Pilkington et al. 2010), but a huge challenge still exists to combat pest species that currently cannot be controlled with natural enemies or to control pest species in crops where natural enemies do not establish well. One of the underlying problems may be that natural enemies are often still applied as “biopesticides” rather than seeing them as living organisms that require appropriate resources and conditions to survive and reproduce. This review has presented several methods that can be used to support establishment of natural enemies by combining the fundamentals of conservation biological control with releases of commercially produced natural enemies. For many growers, this approach may be a paradigm shift, as it is a true evolution from simply releasing natural enemies to the active management of an ecosystem. The special case of high value crops in a protected environment of greenhouses offers tremendous opportunities to design and manage the system in such a way that increases crop resilience to pest infestations. While we have outlined opportunities and tools to develop such systems, additional research is needed to optimize these tools. We recommend further research for (1) development of alternative food sources that more specifically support natural enemies and not the pest species or hyperparasitoids, (2) identifying food sources for natural enemies that specifically supplement the nutritional value of certain pest species, (3) utilization of volatiles that retain natural enemies in greenhouses and (4) selecting natural enemies with traits that are well-adapted to specific crops or greenhouse climates.

The conservation methods described in this review are not only important for controlling pests that currently occur in greenhouses, but also for new invasive pest species which may appear in the future. We expect that this field of research will be especially important in order to further develop biological control strategies in ornamentals, where the low tolerance for pests is currently a stumbling block for natural enemy establishment and in organic cropping systems, where pest control is mainly dependent on biological control with natural enemies.

References

  1. Adar E, Inbar M, Gal S, Doron N, Zhang ZQ, Palevsky E (2012) Plant-feeding and non-plant feeding phytoseiids: differences in behavior and cheliceral morphology. Exp Appl Acarol 58:341–357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Adar E, Inbar M, Gal S, Gan-Mor S, Palevsky E (2014) Pollen on-Twine for food provisioning and oviposition of predatory mites in protected crops. BioControl. doi:10.1007/s10526-014-9563-1

    Google Scholar 

  3. Angeli G, Baldessari M, Maines R, Duso C (2005) Side-effects of pesticides on the predatory bug Orius laevigatus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) in the laboratory. Biocontrol Sci Technol 15:745–754

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anonymous (2013) Medfly eggs as food for mass production of the minute pirate bug Orius laevigatus. Biobee Biological Systems. http://bio-fly.com/medfly-eggs-as-food-for-mass-production-of-the-minute-pirate-bug-orius-laevigatus/

  5. Araj SE, Wratten S, Lister A, Buckley H (2009) Adding floral nectar resources to improve biological control: Potential pitfalls of the fourth trophic level. Basic Appl Ecol 10:554–562

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arnó J, Gabarra R (2011) Side effects of selected insecticides on the Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) predators Macrolophus pygmaeus and Nesidiocoris tenuis (Hemiptera: Miridae). J Pest Sci 84:513–520

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arnó J, Arino J, Espanol R, Marti M, Alomar O (2000) Conservation of Macrolophus caliginosus Wagner (Het. Miridae) in commercial greenhouses during tomato crop-free periods. IOBC/WPRS Bull 23:241–246

    Google Scholar 

  8. Balzan MV, Wäckers FL (2013) Flowers to selectively enhance the fitness of a host-feeding parasitoid: adult feeding by Tuta absoluta and its parasitoid Necremnus artynes. Biol Control 67:21–31

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baxter I, Midthassel A, Stepman W, Fryer R, Garcia FP, Lewis J, Walker P, Hulshof J (2011) Field results of a sachet release system using the predator Amblyseius swirskii (Athias-Henriot) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and the factitious prey, Suidasia medanensis Oudemans (Acari: Astigmata). IOBC/WPRS Bull 68:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bennison J, Maulden K, Maher H, Tomiczek M (2008) Development of a grower rearing-release system for Atheta coriaria, for low cost biological control of ground-dwelling pest life stages. IOBC/WPRS Bull 32:21–24

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bennison J, Pope T, Maulden K (2011) The potential use of flowering alyssum as a ‘banker’ plant to support the establishment of Orius laevigatus in everbearer strawberry for improved biological control of western flower thrips. IOBC/WPRS Bull 68:15–18

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ben-Yakir D, Antignus Y, Offir Y, Shahak Y (2012) Optical manipulations: an advance approach for reducing sucking insect pests. In: Ishaaya I, Palli SR, Horowitz AR (eds) Advanced technologies for managing insect pests. Springer Publisher, New York, USA, pp 249–267

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bolckmans KJF, van Houten YM, van Baal AE, Stam AT (2013) Phytoseiid predatory mite releasing system and method for production. World Patent WO/2013/043050. Koppert B.V.

  14. Bonato O, Ridray G (2007) Effect of tomato deleafing on mirids, the natural predators of whiteflies. Agron Sustain Dev 27:167–170

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bonte M, De Clercq P (2008) Developmental and reproductive fitness of Orius laevigatus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) reared on factitious and artificial diets. J Econ Entomol 101:1127–1133

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bosco L, Giacometto E, Tavella L (2008) Colonization and predation of thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) by Orius spp. (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) in sweet pepper greenhouses in Northwest Italy. Biol Control 44:331–340

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bosco L, Bodino N, Baudino M, Tavella L (2012) Insecticides and beneficial predators: side effects on Orius spp. on IPM pepper and strawberries. IOBC/WPRS Bull 80:187–192

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bozsik A (1992) Natural adult food of some important Chrysopa species (Planipennia, Chrysopidae). Phytopath Entomol Hung 27:141–146

    Google Scholar 

  19. Butler CD, O’Neil RJ (2007) Life history characteristics of Orius insidiosus (Say) fed diets of soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura and soybean thrips, Neohydatothrips variabilis (Beach). Biol Control 40:339–346

    Google Scholar 

  20. Calvo FJ, Lorente MJ, Stansly PA, Belda JE (2012) Preplant release of Nesidiocoris tenuis and supplementary tactics for control of Tuta absoluta and Bemisa tabaci in greenhouse tomato. Entomol Exp Appl 143:111–119

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cano M, Vila E, Janssen D, Bretones D, Salvador E, Lara L, Tellez MM (2009) Selection of refuges for Nesidiocoris tenuis (Het.:Miridae) and Orius laevigatus (Het.:Anthocoridae): Virus reservoir risk assessment. IOBC/WPRS Bull 49:281–286

    Google Scholar 

  22. Castañé C, Zapata R (2005) Rearing the predatory bug Macrolophus caliginosus on a meat-based diet. Biol Control 34:66–72

    Google Scholar 

  23. Castañé C, Alomar O, Goula M, Gabarra R (2004) Colonization of tomato greenhouses by the predatory mirid bugs Macrolophus caliginosus and Dicyphus tamaninii. Biol Control 30:591–597

    Google Scholar 

  24. Castañé C, Quero R, Riudavets J (2006) The brine shrimp Artemia sp as alternative prey for rearing the predatory bug Macrolophus caliginosus. Biol Control 38:405–412

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chow A, Chau A, Heinz KM (2008) Compatibility of Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) with Amblyseius (Iphiseius) degenerans (Acari: Phytoseiidae) for control of Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on greenhouse roses. Biol Control 44:259–270

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cloyd RA (2012) Indirect effects of pesticides on natural enemies. In: Soundararajan RP (ed) Pesticides—advances in chemical and botanical pesticides. Intech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp 127–150

  27. Coll M, Guershon M (2002) Omnivory in terrestrial arthropods: mixing plant and prey diets. Annu Rev Entomol 47:267–297

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Coll M, Ridgway RL (1995) Functional and numerical responses of Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera, Anthocoridae) to its prey in different vegetable crops. Ann Entomol Soc Am 88:732–738

    Google Scholar 

  29. Croft BA (1990) Arthropod biological control agents and pesticides. Wiley, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  30. Delisle JF (2013) Évaluation de divers types de suppléments alimentaires pour deux espèces d’acariens prédateurs, Amblyseius swirskii et Neoseiulus cucumeris (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Mémoire de Maîtrise. Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  31. Desneux N, Decourtye A, Delpuech JM (2007) The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 52:81–106

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Duelli P (1980) Preovipository migration flights in the green lacewing, Chrysopa carnea (Planipennia, Chrysopidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:239–246

    Google Scholar 

  33. El-Wakeil N, Gaafar N, Sallam A, Volkmar C (2013) Side effects of insecticides on natural enemies and possibility of their integration in plant protection strategies. In Trdan S (ed) Agricultural and biological sciences “insecticides—development of safer and more effective technologies”. Intech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp 1–54

  34. Figuls M, Castañé C, Gabarra R (1999) Residual toxicity of some insecticides on the predatory bugs Dicyphus tamaninii and Macrolophus caliginosus. BioControl 44:89–98

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Frank SD (2010) Biological control of arthropod pests using banker plant systems: past progress and future directions. Biol Control 52:8–16

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gabarra R, Alomar O, Castañé C, Goula M, Albajes R (2004) Movement of greenhouse whitefly and its predators between in- and outside of Mediterranean greenhouses. Agric Ecosyst Environ 102:341–348

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gabarra R, Zapata R, Castañé C, Riudavets J, Arnó J (2006) Releases of Eretmocerus mundus and Macrolophus caliginosus for controlling Bemisia tabaci on spring and autumn greenhouse tomato crops. IOBC/WPRS Bull 29:71–76

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gerling D, Alomar O, Arnó J (2001) Biological control of Bemisia tabaci using predators and parasitoids. Crop Prot 20:779–799

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gillespie DR, Opit G, Roitberg B (2000) Effects of temperature and relative humidity on development, reproduction, and predation in Feltiella acarisuga (Vallot) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Biol Control 17:132–138

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gillespie DR, Nasreen A, Moffat CE, Clarke P, Roitberg BD (2012) Effects of simulated heat waves on an experimental community of pepper plants, green peach aphids and two parasitoid species. Oikos 121:149–159

    Google Scholar 

  41. Glinwood RT, Powell W, Tripathi CPM (1998) Increased parasitization of aphids on trap plants alongside vials releasing synthetic aphid sex pheromone and effective range of the pheromone. Biocontrol Sci Technol 8:607–614

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gradish AE, Scott-Dupree CD, Shipp L, Harris CR, Ferguson G (2011) Effect of reduced risk pesticides on greenhouse vegetable arthropod biological control agents. Pest Manag Sci 67:82–86

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Grosman A, Messelink G, Groot ED (2011) Combined use of a mulch layer and the soil-dwelling predatory mite Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese) enhance the biological control of sciarids in potted plants. IOBC/WPRS Bull 68:51–54

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Snyder WE, Read DMY (2012) Biodiversity and insect pests. Key issues for sustainable management. Wiley, West Sussex, UK

    Google Scholar 

  45. Heinz KM, van Driesche RG, Parella MP (2004) Biocontrol in protected culture. Ball Publishing, Batavia, Illinois, USA

    Google Scholar 

  46. Huang NX, Enkegaard A, Osborne LS, Ramakers PMJ, Messelink GJ, Pijnakker J, Murphy G (2011) The banker plant method in biological control. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30:259–278

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hulshof J, Linnamäki M (2002) Predation and oviposition rate of the predatory bug Orius laevigatus in the presence of alternative food. IOBC/WPRS Bull 25:107–110

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hulshof J, Ketoja E, Vänninen I (2003) Life history characteristics of Frankliniella occidentalis on cucumber leaves with and without supplemental food. Entomol Exp Appl 108:19–32

    Google Scholar 

  49. Igarashi K, Nomura M, Narita S (2013) Application of a powdered artificial diet to promote the establishment of the predatory bug Geocoris varius (Hemiptera: Geocoridae) on strawberry plants. Appl Entomol Zool 48:165–169

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Ingegno BL, Goula M, Navone P, Tavella L (2008) Distribution and host plants of the genus Dicyphus in the Alpine valleys of NW Italy. Bull Insectology 61:139–140

  51. Ingegno BL, Pansa MG, Tavella L (2009) Tomato colonization by predatory bugs (Heteroptera: Miridae) in agroecosystems of NW Italy. IOBC/WPRS Bull 49:287–291

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ingegno BL, Ferracini C, Gallinotti D, Tavella L, Alma A (2013) Evaluation of the effectiveness of Dicyphus errans (Wolff) as predator of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick). Biol Control 67:246–252

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jacobson R (2011) Hyperparasitoids: a threat to IPM of aphids on sweet pepper? IOBC/WPRS Bull 68:75–78

    Google Scholar 

  54. Janssen A, Montserrat M, HilleRisLambers R, de Roos AM, Pallini A, Sabelis MW (2006) Intraguild predation usually does not disrupt biological control. In: Brodeur J, Boivin G (eds) Trophic and guild interactions in biological control. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 21–44

    Google Scholar 

  55. Johansen NS, Vänninen I, Pinto DM, Nissinen AI, Shipp L (2011) In the light of new greenhouse technologies: 2. Direct effects of artificial lighting on arthropods and integrated pest management in greenhouse crops. Ann Appl Biol 159:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kaplan I (2012) Attracting carnivorous arthropods with plant volatiles: the future of biocontrol or playing with fire? Biol Control 60:77–89

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kappers IF, Aharoni A, van Herpen T, Luckerhoff LLP, Dicke M, Bouwmeester HJ (2005) Genetic engineering of terpenoid metabolism attracts bodyguards to Arabidopsis. Science 309:2070–2072

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Koller M, Knapp M, Schausberger P (2007) Direct and indirect adverse effects of tomato on the predatory mite Neoseiulus californicus feeding on the spider mite Tetranychus evansi. Entomol Exp Appl 125:297–305

    Google Scholar 

  59. Koptur S (2005) Nectar as fuel for plant protectors. In: Wäckers FL, van Rijn PCJ, Bruin J (eds) Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a protective mutualism and its applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 75–108

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kühne S (1998) Open rearing of generalist predators: a strategy for improvement of biological pest control in greenhouses. Phytoparasitica 26:277–281

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kunkel BA, Cottrell TE (2007) Oviposition response of green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) to aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and potential attractants on pecan. Environ Entomol 36:577–583

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Landis DA, Wratten SD, Gurr GM (2000) Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu Rev Entomol 45:175–201

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lindquist RK, Short TL (2004) Effects of greenhouse structure and function on biological control. In: Heinz KM, van Driesche RG, Parrella MP (eds) Biocontrol in protected culture. Ball Publishing, Batavia, Illinois, USA, pp 37–53

    Google Scholar 

  64. Loughner R, Wentworth K, Loeb G, Nyrop J (2010) Influence of leaf trichomes on predatory mite density and distribution in plant assemblages and implications for biological control. Biol Control 54:255–262

    Google Scholar 

  65. Loughner R, Nyrop J, Wentworth K, Sanderson J (2011) Effects of supplemental pollen and fibers on canopy abundance of Amblyseius swirskii. IOBC/WPRS Bull 68:105–109

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lundgren JG (2009) Relationships of natural enemies and non-prey foods. Progress in biological control 7. Springer, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lundgren JG, Fergen JK, Riedell WE (2008) The influence of plant anatomy on oviposition and reproductive success of the omnivorous bug Orius insidiosus. Anim Behav 75:1495–1502

    Google Scholar 

  68. Maoz Y, Gal S, Argov Y, Coll M, Palevsky E (2011) Biocontrol of persea mite, Oligonychus perseae, with an exotic spider mite predator and an indigenous pollen feeder. Biol Control 59:147–157

    Google Scholar 

  69. Markkula M, Tiittanen K (1976) “Pest-in-First” and “natural infestation” methods in the control of Tetranychus urticae Koch with Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot on glasshouse cucumbers. Ann Entomol Fenn 15:81–85

    Google Scholar 

  70. Markkula M, Tiittanen K, Hamalainen M, Forsberg A (1979) The aphid midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae) and its use in biological control of aphids. Ann Entomol Fenn 45:89–98

    Google Scholar 

  71. Messelink GJ, van Holstein-Saj R (2006) Potential for biological control of the bulb scale mite (Acari: Tarsonemidae) by predatory mites in amaryllis. Proc Neth Entomol Soc Meet 17:113–118

    Google Scholar 

  72. Messelink GJ, van Maanen R, van Steenpaal SEF, Janssen A (2008) Biological control of thrips and whiteflies by a shared predator: two pests are better than one. Biol Control 44:372–379

    Google Scholar 

  73. Messelink GJ, van Maanen R, van Holstein-Saj R, Sabelis MW, Janssen A (2010) Pest species diversity enhances control of spider mites and whiteflies by a generalist phytoseiid predator. BioControl 55:387–398

    Google Scholar 

  74. Messelink GJ, Bloemhard CMJ, Cortes JA, Sabelis MW, Janssen A (2011) Hyperpredation by generalist predatory mites disrupts biological control of aphids by the aphidophagous gall midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza. Biol Control 57:246–252

    Google Scholar 

  75. Messelink GJ, Sabelis MW, Janssen A (2012) Generalist predators, food web complexities and biological pest control in greenhouse crops. In: Larramendy ML, Soloneski S (eds) Integrated pest management and pest control—current and future tactics. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp 191–214

    Google Scholar 

  76. Muñoz-Cárdenas K, Fuentes LS, Cantor RF, Rodríguez CD, Janssen A, Sabelis MW (2014) Generalist red velvet mite predator (Balaustium sp.) performs better on a mixed diet. Exp Appl Acarol 62:19–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Nagasaka K, Takahasi N, Okabayashi T (2010) Impact of secondary parasitism on Aphidius colemani in the banker plant system on aphid control in commercial greenhouses in Kochi. Jpn J Appl Entomol Zool 45:541–550

    Google Scholar 

  78. Nguyen DT, Vangansbeke D, Lu X, De Clercq P (2013) Development and reproduction of the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii on artificial diets. BioControl 58:369–377

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Nomikou M, Sabelis MW, Janssen A (2010) Pollen subsidies promote whitefly control through the numerical response of predatory mites. BioControl 55:253–260

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ode PJ (2006) Plant chemistry and natural enemy fitness: effects on herbivore and natural enemy interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 51:163–185

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Paré PW, Tumlinson JH (1999) Plant volatiles as a defense against insect herbivores. Plant Physiol 121:325–331

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Parolin P, Bresch C, Desneux N, Brun R, Bout A, Boll R, Poncet C (2012) Secondary plants used in biological control: a review. Int J Pest Manag 58:91–100

    Google Scholar 

  83. Parolin P, Bresch C, Ruiz G, Desneux N, Poncet C (2013) Testing banker plants for biological control of mites on roses. Phytoparasitica 41:249–262

    Google Scholar 

  84. Perdikis D, Lykouressis D (2000) Effects of various items, host plants, and temperatures on the development and survival of Macrolophus pygmaeus Rambur (Hemiptera: Miridae). Biol Control 17:55–60

    Google Scholar 

  85. Perdikis D, Fantinou A, Lykouressis D (2011) Enhancing pest control in annual crops by conservation of predatory Heteroptera. Biol Control 59:13–21

    Google Scholar 

  86. Pilkington LJ, Messelink G, van Lenteren JC, Le Mottee K (2010) “Protected biological control”—biological pest management in the greenhouse industry. Biol Control 52:216–220

    Google Scholar 

  87. Pineda A, Marcos-García MA (2008) Use of selected flowering plants in greenhouses to enhance aphidophagous hoverfly populations (Diptera: Syrphidae). Ann Soc Entomol Fr 44:487–492

    Google Scholar 

  88. Polis GA, Strong DR (1996) Food web complexity and community dynamics. Am Nat 147:813–846

    Google Scholar 

  89. Portillo N, Alomar O, Wäckers F (2012) Nectarivory by the plant-tissue feeding predator Macrolophus pygmaeus Rambur (Heteroptera: Miridae): nutritional redundancy or nutritional benefit? J Insect Phys 58:397–401

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Powell W, Pickett JA (2003) Manipulation of parasitoids for aphid pest management: progress and prospects. Pest Manag Sci 59:149–155

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Pumariño L, Alomar O (2012) The role of omnivory in the conservation of predators: Orius majusculus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) on sweet alyssum. Biol Control 62:24–28

    Google Scholar 

  92. Ramakers PMJ (1995) Biological control using oligophagous predators. In: Parker BL, Skinner M, Lewis T (eds) Thrips biology and management: proceedings of the 1993 international conference on Thysanoptera. Plenum Press, New York, USA, pp 225–229

    Google Scholar 

  93. Messelink GJ, Ramakers, PMJ, Cortez JA, Janssen A (2009) How to enhance pest control by generalist predatory mites in greenhouse crops. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ISBCA, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp 309–318

  94. Ramakers PMJ, Voet SJP (1995) Use of castor bean, Ricinus communis, for the introduction of the thrips predator Amblyseius degenerans on glasshouse-grown sweet peppers. Med Fac Landbouww Rijksuniv Gent 60:885–891

    Google Scholar 

  95. Rosenheim JA, Kaya HK, Ehler LE, Marois JJ, Jaffee BA (1995) Intraguild predation among biological control agents: theory and evidence. Biol Control 5:303–335

    Google Scholar 

  96. Sampson C (1998) The commercial development of an Amblyseius cucumeris controlled release method for the control of Frankliniella occidentalis in protected crops. In: The 1998 Brighton conference—pests & diseases, Brighton, UK, pp 409–416

  97. Sanchez JA, Gillespie DR, McGregor RR (2003) The effects of mullein plants (Verbascum thapsus) on the population dynamics of Dicyphus hesperus (Heteroptera: Miridae) in tomato greenhouses. Biol Control 28:313–319

    Google Scholar 

  98. Schmidt RA (2014) Leaf structures affect predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and biological control: a review. Exp Appl Acarol 62:1–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Simmons AT, Gurr GM (2005) Trichomes of Lycopersicon species and their hybrids: effects on pests and natural enemies. Agric For Entomol 7:265–276

    Google Scholar 

  100. Simpson M, Gurr GM, Simmons AT, Wratten SD, James DG, Leeson G, Nicol HI, Orre-Gordon GUS (2011) Attract and reward: combining chemical ecology and habitat manipulation to enhance biological control in field crops. J Appl Ecol 48:580–590

    Google Scholar 

  101. Stark JD, Banks JE, Acheampong S (2004) Estimating susceptibility of biological control agents to pesticides: influence of life history strategies and population structure. Biol Control 29:392–398

    Google Scholar 

  102. Symondson WOC, Sunderland KD, Greenstone MH (2002) Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Annu Rev Entomol 47:561–594

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Szentkirályi F (2001) Ecology and habitat relationships. In: McEwen P, New RR, Whittington AE (eds) Lacewings in the crop environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 82–115

    Google Scholar 

  104. Thierry D, Rat-Morris E, Caldumbide C (2002) Selective attractivity of artificial overwintering chambers for the common green lacewing species of the Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) complex in Western Europe (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 48:351–357

    Google Scholar 

  105. Turlings TCJ, Wäckers F (2004) Recruitment of predators and parasitoids by herbivore injured-plants. In: Cardé RT, Millar JG (eds) Advances in insect chemical ecology. Cambridge University Press, London, UK, pp 21–74

    Google Scholar 

  106. Turlings TCJ, Wäckers FL, Vet LEM, Lewis WJ, Tumlinson JH (1992) Learning of host location cues by insect parasitoids. In: Lewis AC, Papaj DR (eds) Insect learning: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA, pp 51–78

    Google Scholar 

  107. van Holstein-Saj R, Messelink GJ (2014). Verbetering inzet Macrolophus pygmaeus in tomaat. Wageningen UR Greenhouse Horticulture, Report 1293, The Netherlands

  108. van Houten YM, van Stratum P, Bruin J, Veerman A (1995) Selection for non-diapause in Amblyseius cucumeris and Amblyseius barkeri and exploration of the effectiveness of selected strains for thrips control. Entomol Exp Appl 77:289–295

    Google Scholar 

  109. van Houten YM, Glas JJ, Hoogerbrugge H, Rothe J, Bolckmans KJF, Simoni S, Arkel J, Alba JM, Kant MR, Sabelis MW (2013) Herbivory-associated degradation of tomato trichomes and its impact on biological control of Aculops lycopersici. Exp Appl Acarol 60:127–138

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. van Lenteren JC (2012) The state of commercial augmentative biological control: plenty of natural enemies, but a frustrating lack of uptake. BioControl 57:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  111. van Lenteren JC, Woets J (1988) Biological and integrated pest control in greenhouses. Annu Rev Entomol 33:239–269

    Google Scholar 

  112. van Lenteren JC, van Roermund HJW, Sütterlin S (1996) Biological control of greenhouse whitefly (Trialeurodes vaporariorum) with the parasitoid Encarsia formosa: how does it work? Biol Control 6:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  113. van Maanen R, Messelink GJ, Van Holstein-Saj R, Sabelis MW, Janssen A (2012) Prey temporarily escape from predation in the presence of a second prey species. Ecol Entomol 37:529–535

    Google Scholar 

  114. van Rijn PCJ, van Houten YM, Sabelis MW (2002) How plants benefit from providing food to predators even when it is also edible to herbivores. Ecology 83:2664–2679

    Google Scholar 

  115. Vanek SJ, Potter DA (2010) Ant-exclusion to promote biological control of soft scales (Hemiptera: Coccidae) on woody landscape plants. Environ Entomol 39:1829–1837

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Vangansbeke D, Nguyen DT, Audenaert J, Verhoeven R, Gobin B, Tirry L, De Clercq P (2014) Performance of the predatory mite Amblydromalus limonicus on factitious foods. BioControl 59:67–77

    Google Scholar 

  117. Vreeken-Buijs MJ, Hassink J, Brussaard L (1998) Relationships of soil microarthropod biomass with organic matter and pore size distribution in soils under different land use. Soil Biol Biochem 30:97–106

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Wäckers FL, Bonifay C (2004) How to be sweet? Extrafloral nectar allocation by Gossypium hirsutum fits optimal defense theory predictions. Ecology 85:1512–1518

    Google Scholar 

  119. Wäckers FL, van Rijn PCJ (2012) Pick and Mix: selecting flowering plants to meet the requirements of target biological control insects. In: Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Snyder WE, Read DMY (eds) Biodiversity and insect pests: key issues for sustainable management. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 139–165

    Google Scholar 

  120. Wäckers FL, van Rijn PCJ, Bruin J (eds) (2005) Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a protective mutualism and its applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  121. Wäckers FL, Romeis J, van Rijn P (2007) Nectar and pollen feeding by insect herbivores and implications for multitrophic interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 52:301–323

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Wade MR, Zalucki MP, Wratten SD, Robinson KA (2008) Conservation biological control of arthropods using artificial food sprays: current status and future challenges. Biol Control 45:185–199

    Google Scholar 

  123. Waite MO, Scott-Dupree CD, Brownbridge M, Buitenhuis R, Murphy G (2014) Evaluation of seven plant species/cultivars for their suitability as banker plants for Orius insidiosus (Say). BioControl 59:79–87

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Walter DE (1996) Living on leaves: mites, tomenta, and leaf domatia. Annu Rev Entomol 41:101–114

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Walzer A, Castagnoli M, Simoni S, Liguori M, Palevsky E, Schausberger P (2007) Intraspecific variation in humidity susceptibility of the predatory mite Neoseiulus californicus: survival, development and reproduction. Biol Control 41:42–52

    Google Scholar 

  126. Wright IW (2006) System for providing beneficial insects or mites. Patent US20050178337. Syngenta Participations AG

  127. Xu QC, Fujiyama S, Xu HL (2012) Pest control by enriching natural enemies under artificial habitat management along sidewalls of greenhouse in organic farming systems. J Food Agric Environ 10:449–458

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all members of the IOBC/WPRS Working Groups Integrated Control in Protected Crops (temperate and Mediterranean climate) for the stimulating discussions about conservation of natural enemies in greenhouse crops. Part of this work was supported by COST Action FA1105 “Towards a sustainable and productive EU organic greenhouse horticulture”. Comments by two anonymous reviewers substantially improved the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerben J. Messelink.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Dirk Babendreier.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Messelink, G.J., Bennison, J., Alomar, O. et al. Approaches to conserving natural enemy populations in greenhouse crops: current methods and future prospects. BioControl 59, 377–393 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-014-9579-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biological control
  • Functional biodiversity
  • Open rearing systems
  • Food sprays
  • Mulch layers
  • Mixed diets
  • Pest-in-first techniques
  • Greenhouse climate
  • Pesticide side-effects