Skip to main content
Log in

Natural products for biocontrol: review of their fate in the environment and impacts on biodiversity

  • Key Learnings from A Collective Scientific Assessment on the Effects of Plant Protection Products on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Along the Land to Sea Continuum
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biocontrol solutions (macroorganisms, microorganisms, natural substances, semiochemicals) are presented as potential alternatives to conventional plant protection products (PPPs) because they are supposed to have lower impacts on ecosystems and human health. However, to ensure the sustainability of biocontrol solutions, it is necessary to document the unintended effects of their use. Thus, the objectives of this work were to review (1) the available biocontrol solutions and their regulation, (2) the contamination of the environment (soil, water, air) by biocontrol solutions, (3) the fate of biocontrol solutions in the environment, (4) their ecotoxicological impacts on biodiversity, and (5) the impacts of biocontrol solutions compared to those of conventional PPPs. Very few studies concern the presence of biocontrol solutions in the environment, their fate, and their impacts on biodiversity. The most important number of results were found for the organisms that have been used the longest, and most often from the angle of their interactions with other biocontrol agents. However, the use of living organisms (microorganisms and macroorganisms) in biocontrol brings a specific dimension compared to conventional PPPs because they can survive, multiply, move, and colonize other environments. The questioning of regulation stems from this specific dimension of the use of living organisms. Concerning natural substances, the few existing results indicate that while most of them have low ecotoxicity, others have a toxicity equivalent to or greater than that of the conventional PPPs. There are almost no result regarding semiochemicals. Knowledge of the unintended effects of biocontrol solutions has proved to be very incomplete. Research remains necessary to ensure their sustainability.

Graphical abstract

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This review was done under the framework of the French collective scientific assessment (CSA) about the “Impacts of plant protection products on biodiversity and ecosystem services” coordinated by INRAE and Ifremer for the French Ministries of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, of Higher Education and Research, and of Agriculture and Food Sovereignty. This action was also led by the Ministries for Agriculture and Food Sovereignty, for an Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, for Health and Prevention, and of Higher Education and Research, with the financial support of the French Office for Biodiversity, as part of “the national call for projects on the Ecophyto II+ plan, part 1, years 2020–2021,” with the fees for diffuse pollution coming from the Ecophyto II+ plan. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Thierry Caquet, the INRAE scientific Director of Environment, and the general directorate of the Ifremer, and Dr. Guy Richard, head of the INRAE Directorate for Collective Scientific Assessment, Foresight and Advanced Studies (DEPE). They also would like to thank Dr. Nicolas Ris (INRAE) for his expertise on macroorganisms; Sophie Leenhardt (INRAE), project manager of the CSA; Dr. Stéphane Pesce (INRAE) and Dr. Wilfried Sanchez (Ifremer), scientific leaders of the CSA together with Dr. Laure Mamy (INRAE); and Lucile Wargniez for the illustrations.

Funding

This work was funded by the French Office for Biodiversity (OFB) through the national Ecophyto plan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Marcel Amichot, Cédric Bertrand, Bruno Chauvel, Marie-France Corio-Costet, Fabrice Martin-Laurent, and Laure Mamy contributed equally to the study conception and design, to the data collection, and to the writing of the first draft of the manuscript and of the subsequent revisions. Sophie Le Perchec helped to produce and to mobilize the bibliographic corpus. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laure Mamy.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 89 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amichot, M., Bertrand, C., Chauvel, B. et al. Natural products for biocontrol: review of their fate in the environment and impacts on biodiversity. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33256-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33256-3

Keywords

Navigation