BIOLOGICAL CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR INTEGRATED PEST OR PARASITES MANAGEMENT (IPM) PROGRAMS IN LIVESTOCK
The control of parasites, both ecto and endo, is one of the biggest challenges faced by livestock farmers in today’s world. Parasite resistance to chemical treatments is increasing and consequently, the availability of effective chemical treatments is declining. Control of these parasites is now becoming a serious concern in industries, due to the widespread and rapid development of resistance to chemotherapy.
The broad-spectrum drugs (anthelmintic) used in the control of parasites fall into just three classes viz., the benzimidazoles, imidothia-zoles and macrocyclic lactones. This is largely the result of more-or-less complete reliance on anthelmintic for parasitic control. Any specific parasite control measure may be unsustainable when used separately.For successful worm control measure depends on a combination of different measures rather than solely depend on anthelmintic. The effective non-chemical methods for parasitic control are grazing management strategies and biological control. These should form part of integrated nematode parasite control programmes for grazing livestock to maintain long-term sustainability.
At present, the non-chemotherapeutic control of pasture related infections is based mainly on grazing management strategies. Preventive strategies, where young, previously unexposed stock, are turned out on parasite-free pastures, can be used for grazing first season dairy heifers. Repeated moves of the cattle or alternate grazing with other species, is one of the strategies for effective control of nematodes.
High stocking rates seem to be an important risk factor. Methods available for the control of the parasitic infections are mainly based on chemical treatment, non-chemical management practices, immune modulation and biological control.Various arms of Integrated Worm Management involving anthelmintic management and covering Targeted Selected Treatment system, grazing management, nutritional management, biological control, Phyto therapeutic control are now available for widespread adoption.Parasitic diseases are a global problem and considered as a major obstacle in the health and product performance of animals. These may be due to endo-parasites that live inside the body, or ectoparasites such as ticks, mites, flies, fleas, midges, etc., which attack the body surface. Parasitic diseases are one of the greatest disease problems in grazing livestock worldwide.Parasite infestations may cause a significant economic loss because they retard growth, impair reproduction, lower milk production and may even cause death in infected animals. Also, some domestic animal parasites threaten the health of the human population.
Malaria and intestinal worms are parasitic diseases that are still widespread throughout the world. Insects and domestic animals (cattle, sheep, swine, dogs, etc.) can transmit parasites to humans. While some parasites are specific to a region or a particular climate, others are found worldwide.
Parasites infest their hosts to varying degrees in a variety of ways such as:
1. They rob the host of its nutrients;
2. They eat, digest, and destroy the host’s tissues;
3. They poison the host with toxic metabolic products.
Control of these parasites is now becoming a serious concern, due to the widespread and rapid development of resistance to chemotherapy. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), concluded that parasitism had the highest global index as an animal health constraint to the poor keepers of livestock throughout the world.The major species of nematode parasites that cause major problems are Haemonchus, Ostertagia/ Teladorsagia, Tricho- strongylus, Nematodirus and Cooperia spp. However, nematode infections in grazing livestock are almost always a mixture of species.All have deleterious effects and collectively they lead to chronic ill thrift. Economic evaluations consistently show that the major losses due to parasites are on animal production, rather than on mortality. Conventional methods of controlling nematode parasites of grazing livestock have been with the use of synthetic chemotherapeutic drugs.Largely because of the remarkable developments in these products in terms of efficacy, safety, the spectrum of activity and remaining relatively inexpensive, livestock producers have relied almost exclusively on their use.
However, the spectre of resistance to all the major groups of broad-spectrum anthelmintic now looms large in the control of nematode parasites, particularly for the small ruminant industry, throughout the world.In a future where the very real possibility exists that resistance will have rendered all chemical families of anthelmintic ineffective, this is cause for serious concern and for escalation of efforts to develop sustainable helminths control technologies.Owing to favourable climatic conditions for development and survival of are parasitic stages and in absence of alternative control strategies, control of parasitic gastroenteritis in ruminants is primarily attempted by the frequent use of anthelmintic at short intervals, particularly in intensive and semi-intensive management systems, which has been shown to result in the emergence of very high levels of anthelmintic resistance.Efforts are now being made to develop and use control options alternatives to chemotherapy, viz., targeted selective treatment, grazing management, biological control, host resistance to parasites, worm vaccine etc., which would not only reduce the use of chemical anthelmintic but also the cost of animal production as a whole.The control strategies alternative to chemotherapy reveals that some of them are in the technology stage while others are still under research and development. Biological control by predacious fungi, worm vaccine, and exploitation of breed resistance are still undergoing laboratory research while targeted selective treatment, grazing management and exploitation of nutrition-parasite interaction can immediately be applied as an adjunct to chemotherapy.
The requirement today is coordinated, continued and committed effort for technology transfer and extension education to achieve the goal of “sustainable Parasite Control”.For better livestock productivity, it is essential to free from diseases, selection of high producing animals and optimal feeding. Helminths infections are a major cause of production loss in all cattle-producing countries in the world. With the advent of the broad-spectrum anthelmintic, the more dramatic and obvious effects of clinical parasitism are seen less often in many countries.
However, the subclinical effects in cattle whose outward appearance disguises the adverse economic impact is still a problem of great magnitude. The goals of control are as follows:
a. Prevent heavy exposure in susceptible hosts
b. Reduce overall levels of pasture contamination,
c. Minimize the effects of parasite burdens
d. Encourage the development of immunity in the animals
Endoparasitic infection is probably one of the most economic and production losses in livestock worldwide. It decreases feed intake, utilization of feed, body weight gain, milk production and reproductive performance.It is also important concerning the development of a resistant strain of gastrointestinal parasites to broad-spectrum anthelmintic. Pasture management combined with nutritional supplementation with concentrates and /or forage is the most anti-parasite strategy in organic livestock farming.
Grazing Management
Grazing management in worm control programmes based on epidemiological knowledge is simply to provide clean pasture on which stock may safely graze. There are various forms of grazing management usually practised to control worm burden in various places. Grazing management is one of the ways of reducing the frequency of anthelmintic treatment. Grazing management strategies may be of preventive, evasive or diluting.
1. Alternation of host species: Alternate or integrated grazing has been used to control gastrointestinal parasites in ruminants. It is common practice to graze calves followed by older cattle, taking advantage of increased resistance in these older immunocompetent animals. Small ruminants and cattle, small ruminants and horses, or horses and cattle are the most logical candidates for alternate grazing strategies.
A recent study of mixed (and alternate) grazing with nose-ringed sows and heifers, showed promising results in controlling Ostertagia infections in the cattle whereas the little effect on the nematode infections of sows was noted.
2. Rotational grazing: This is a grazing management technique involving the intensive subdivision of a pasture in which each constituent paddock is grazed for a short time and then spelt for a relatively much longer time.
In a simple example, the total area for grazing subdivided into 15 paddocks, each of which could be grazed for 1 week and spelt for 14 weeks. The grazing time in such a system is thus 1 week, and the rotation length is 15 weeks.
Ticks were eradicated from a costal island in Queensland by removing all known hosts for 5 months and larval survival was almost zero after about 16 weeks. One modelling study for B. micro plus in Australis indicated that a single annual spelling period in summer of between eight and 12 weeks would substantially reduce tick populations.
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an eco-friendly approach which aims at keeping pest population at below economic threshold levels by employing all available alternate pest control methods and techniques such as cultural, mechanical and biological with emphasis on use of bio-pesticides and pesticides of plant-origin like Neem formulations. The use of chemical pesticides is advised as a measure of last resort when pest population in the crop crosses economic threshold levels .
Suppression of pest population below economic threshold level through the adoption of feasible and affordable Good Agricultural Practices aiming least disturbance to the eco system and environment.
“Any activity of one species that reduces the adverse effect of another.” In pest management, biological control usually refers to the action of parasites, predators or pathogens on a pest population which reduces its numbers below a level causing economic injury. Herbivorous insects and pathogens that attack pest weeds are also considered biocontrol agents.
Biological control is a part of natural control and can apply to any type of organism, pest or not, and regardless of whether the biocontrol agent occurs naturally, is introduced by humans, or manipulated in any way.
Biological control differs from chemical, cultural, and mechanical controls in that it requires maintenance of some level of food supply (e.g., pest) in order for the biocontrol agent to survive and flourish. Therefore, biological control alone is not a means by which to obtain pest eradication.
| Biological control of insect pests and diseases through biological means is most important component of IPM. In broader sense, biocontrol is use of living organisms to control unwanted living organisms (pests). In other words, deliberate use of parasitoids, predators and pathogens to maintain pest population at level blow those causing economic loss either by introducing a new bioagent in the environment of pest or by increasing effectiveness of those already preset in the field. |
| Parasitoids: These are the organisms which lay eggs in or on the bodies of their hosts and complete their life cycles on host bodies as a result of which hosts die. A parasitoid may be of different type depending on the host developmental stage in or on which it completes its life cycle. For example, egg, larval, pupal, adult, egg-larval and larval pupal parasitoids. Example are different species of Trichogramma, Apanteles, Bracon, Chelonus, Brachemeria, Pseudogonotopus etc. |
| Predators: These are free living organisms which prey upon other organisms for their food. Examples are different species of spiders, dragon flies, damsel flies, lady bird beetles, Chrysopa species, birds etc. |
| Pathogens: These are micro-organisims which infest and cause diseases in their hosts as a result of which hosts are killed. Major groups of pathogens are fungi, virus and bacteria. Some nematodes also cause diseases in some insect pests. Important examples of fungi are different species of Hirsutella, Beauveria, Nomurae and Metarhizium which have been reported to infect and kill large number of insects (upto 90%) in the fields. Among viruses, most important examples are of Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus (NPV) and Granulosis viruses. Outbreak of viruses in armyworms, cut worms, leaf folders, hairy caterpillars and plant hoppers have been reported many times. Among bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) and B. popillae are very common examples.
Diseases of pests can be mass multiplied in the laboratory at a low cost in liquid or powdered formulations that can be sprayed like ordinary chemical pesticides. These formulations are known as biopesticides. The different types of biocontrol practices are grouped as under:- |
| a. Introduction
In this process, a new species of bioagent is introduced in a locality for its establishment against its host. This is done only after thorough laboratory examination and field trials for its efficacy. b. Augmentation In this process, the population of natural enemies already present in the area is increased by releasing either laboratory reared or field collected bioagents of same species in such number as would require to suppress the pest population in that area. c. Conservation This is most important component of biological control and plays a major role in pest suppression. In this process, natural enemies present in the nature are protected from being killed. |
The biological control of pests involves using natural enemies of the pest to control it — instead of chemical agents like insecticides and herbicides. Not only should this be safer for the environment, but once established – the natural enemies might be able to sustain their population avoiding the need for future treatments.
Consumers are becoming more concerned about pesticide usage on ornamental plants and turfgrass in and around their homes and on the fruits and vegetables they eat. Not only are the negative health and environmental risks of pesticides of concern but also the impacts of neonicotinoids and other broad-spectrum pesticides on pollinators and other beneficial organisms. Growers and green industry professionals are searching for alternative pest management tactics to satisfy consumer demands and the desire for sustainability and operational flexibility. Many are considering biological control. The benefits of biological control include reduced reliance on pesticides, decreased potential for development of pesticide resistance, flexibility in usage of personal protective equipment, shorter (or no) restricted entry intervals, and reputational benefit of being a sustainable and responsible grower or professional. Biological control can also be used to manage pest populations that have developed pesticide resistance. This publication provides an introduction to biological control and explains how to integrate biological control into an integrated pest management (IPM) program. For the purposes of this publication, pests are defined as any undesirable insect, mite, plant (weed), or organism that causes disease (pathogen) or damage on ornamental plants, turfgrasses, fruits, and vegetables.
What is Biological Control?
In nature, organism populations suffer frequent attacks and high mortality rates from predators, parasites, parasitoids, and diseases, collectively called “natural enemies.” Biological control tactics use natural enemies or agents (some practitioners call them “beneficials”) to manage pests. The ultimate goal of biological control is to suppress pest population and damage without pesticide or with reduced pesticide use. Natural enemies are utilized differently depending on the target pest, host, environmental condition, and pest life cycle. There are three general approaches to biological control.
Classical Biological Control
Classical biological control refers to the practice of introducing one or a group of natural enemy species of foreign origin to control a pest that many times is also foreign in origin (called exotic, introduced, or invasive).1 Often, the natural enemies are found in the home range of the invasive pest. Some notable examples of classical biological control include the use of decapitating flies (several Pseudacteon species) against red imported fire ants, and a group of flea beetles, thrips, and stem borers used against alligator weed. Because of the long, rigorous, and costly process of finding, testing, quarantining, and rearing these natural enemies, classical biological control programs are typically conducted by scientists at governmental agencies or universities with public funding. Modern classical biological control programs mandate extensive testing of the natural enemy host ranges before introduction so that the selected natural enemies attack only the intended target pest and do not cause harm to other non-target organisms. Once released into the environment, these selected natural enemies spread and manage the pest population with minimal assistance and intervention from the practitioners. The practical application of classical biological control by growers, professionals, and consumers on ornamental plants, turfgrasses, fruits, and vegetables is minimal.
Fortuitous or adventive biological control is a variant of classical biological control where natural enemies arrive from elsewhere by their own means and control the exotic pest population.2 These adventive natural enemies may have arrived with the pest or at a later time without introduction. There are also incidences where native natural enemies switch to using invasive pests as food or host on their own.
Augmentative Biological Control
Augmentative biological control refers to the practice of releasing biological control agents (often mass-reared in insectaries) into an area where natural enemies are not present or present at a number too low to suppress a pest population.3 The goal of augmentative biological control is to increase the number or the effectiveness of natural enemies in an area to a level high enough to control the pest population. This type of biological control is most often practiced in greenhouses, nurseries, and some fruit and vegetable fields. The mass-produced biological control agents are purchased from the suppliers and released/applied en masse into the infested area to kill the pests. Biological control agents mass-produced by insectaries are often host-specific (i.e., they only attack one or two kinds of pests). Therefore, practitioners need to identify the pest species accurately so that the correct natural enemy species can be purchased for release. Depending on the pest and biological control agent species, as well as the environment and production practices, augmentative biological control can be achieved through inoculative releases or inundative releases. In inoculative releases, the biological control agents are released in small numbers to establish a population that provides long-term and sustained suppression of the pest population. In inundative releases, the biological control agents are released in large numbers to quickly overwhelm the pest population without the expectation of propagating the biological control agent population or continuing the suppression of the pest population.
Conservation Biological Control
Conservation biological control refers to a collection of methods and approaches in manipulating the habitat, plant diversity, production practice, and pest management practice to increase the population and effectiveness of natural enemies. An area with more complex and diverse plant and animal communities is known to have a greater diversity of natural enemies and a lower abundance of pests. Conservation biological control practitioners often start with manipulating the farmscape or landscape, such as growing insectary plants (i.e., plant species that can attract and retain natural enemies or provide natural enemies with food and shelter). Natural enemy diversity, abundance, and effectiveness increase as plant diversity and resources provided increase. Other conservation biological control practices seek to minimize impacts of habitat manipulation or farming practices on natural enemies. For example, growers or landscape care professionals may use mulch to provide shelters for ground beetles, or reduce pesticide use, or use pesticides that have minimal impacts on the natural enemies (i.e., compatible pesticides).
Biological control is a complex pest management strategy that requires a comprehensive understanding of the ecology and behavior of pests and natural enemies. As a result, biological control is often more difficult to design and put into action than simply spraying pesticides (chemical control). Biological control can sometimes be more expensive than conventional chemical control. When designed and implemented correctly, however, the benefits of biological control in terms of environmental sustainability, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness can outweigh these shortcomings.
Agents of Biological Control
Adults feed individually, while larvae tend to destroy host plants in groups. Both stages are phytophagous, meaning they create holes within leaves or cause complete defoliation . This may reduce plant vigor, photosynthesis, and yield in tomatillos. Like other leaf beetles, the three-lined potato beetle evolved a physiological pathway to avoid/tolerate the lethal tropane alkaloids found in various nightshade plants.
- Parasites and Parasitoids
Parasite – an organism that lives in or on the body of another organism (the host) during some portion of its life cycle.
Parasitoid – an arthropod that parasitizes and kills another arthropod (insects, mites, spiders, and other close relatives) host; a parasitoid is parasitic in its immature stages and free living as an adult.
Parasitoids have been used in biological control more than any other type of agent. The major types of insects that are parasitoids: wasps, flies, some beetles, mantisflies, and twisted-winged parasites.
Adult female parasitoids lay their eggs inside the host (the host arthropod is usually in its immature stage) by penetrating the body wall with their ovipositor or they attach their eggs to the outside of the host’s body.
- Predators
Predator – “Free-living animal that feeds on other animals (prey); it may attack prey in both its immature and adult stages; usually more than one prey individual is required for the predator to complete its life cycle.”
Major types of animals that are predators: birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, arthropods, and some plants (e.g., Venus fly trap). Major types of insects that are predaceous: dragonflies and damselflies, mantids, true bugs, some thrips, lacewings and relatives, beetles, some wasps and ants, and some flies. Spiders and some mites are also important predators of arthropods.
- Pathogens
Use of microbial pathogens has become a very popular method of pest management. Major pathogens used in biological control of insects:
Bacteria – Bacillus thuringiensis = Bt (many caterpillar pests, beetles, mosquitoes, others).
Viruses – Nucleopolyhedrosis viruses (Gypsy moth, European corn borer), granulosis viruses (Codling moth).
Fungi – Metarhizium (cockroach motels), Beauveria bassiana (Colorado potato beetle, Corn rootworms).
Protozoa – Nosema locustae (grasshoppers).
Nematodes – Steinernema and Heterorhabditis spp. (Soil weevils, Stem-boring caterpillars).
- Herbivorous Insects and Microbial Pathogens of Weed Pests
Numerous species of plant-feeding insects have been evaluated for control of pest weeds. The greatest successes have been in rangelands, forests, and other natural habitats where other weed control approaches (e.g., herbicides, cultivation) are impractical or uneconomical. Some pathogens have also been looked at as weed biocontrol agents (e.g., plant rusts). The goal when using a weed biocontrol agent is generally one of weed population reduction and not eradication. Importation of a biocontrol agent from the region of origin of the weed has been the most common approach. It is generally a long-term process which requires sustained efforts, but which can reap long-term benefits.
Types of Biological Control Agents
Natural enemies of insects and mites generally fall into four different types, or guilds, based on how they utilize their prey or hosts: predators, parasites, parasitoids, and pathogens. Predators are organisms that feed on the target pests and include insects such as lady beetles, green lacewings, rove beetles, hover flies, and predatory mites (table 1). Parasites and parasitoids are interchangeable terms for some practitioners, but there are significant differences between the two types. Typically, parasites are microorganisms that live, feed, and lay eggs on or in a host without killing it. Parasitoids do the same as parasites but eventually kill the host. Parasitoids are typically parasitic insects such as tachinid flies or parasitic wasps (table 1). Pathogens include microorganisms, such as fungi, bacteria, nematodes, and viruses that cause diseases in pests. Pathogens that are used against insects and mites are referred to as “entomopathogenic.”
Natural enemies of plant pathogens are generally microorganisms similar to their targets (i.e., fungi, viruses, and bacteria). These microorganisms interact with plant pathogens in four primary ways: competition, hyperparasitism, induced resistance, and production of antimicrobial compounds.5 Competition is relatively straightforward. A large number of beneficial microorganisms is applied to the environment, which takes up all the available living spaces or resources and denies occupancy by plant pathogens. Bacillus subtilis is a common example, where products containing this bacterium are applied to soil or soilless growing medium to out-compete root rot causing pathogens (table 2). Hyperparasitism occurs when a beneficial microorganism parasitizes and eventually kills a plant pathogen. Some beneficial microorganisms can induce or cause plants to produce defensive chemical compounds to fend off pathogens (i.e., resistance). Hyperparasitism and induced resistance are very specific interactions among plants, beneficial microorganisms and pathogens, but are not widely utilized commercially. Production of antimicrobial metabolites that stop growth or kill the pathogens is the most common way biological control is used for disease management. The beneficial microorganisms, often bacteria, are mass-reared in fermentation vessels to produce specific antimicrobial compounds, which are later extracted and used as antimicrobial pesticides. The beneficial microorganisms can also be applied to the plants. When the beneficial microorganisms die, their cells release the antimicrobial compounds onto the leaf surface, thus killing the pathogens nearby or protecting the leaf from infection. Once again, some B. subtilis products are examples of using antimicrobial compounds. These products are sometimes mixed with copper-based fungicides to enhance the effect.
While some biological control agents or beneficial microorganisms can feed or parasitize a large number of pest species, some are effective against only one or two species of pests. For example, the predatory mite Amblysieus swirskii can feed on thrips, whiteflies, broad mites, and spider mites, whereas another predatory mite, Phytoseiulus persimilis, only feeds on spider mites (table 1). Differences also occur within the same biological control agent species. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki is effective only against caterpillars, but Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. galleriae is effective only against white grubs (table 1). Because the relationships between biological control agents and pests can be quite specific, accurate identification of the pest organism or disease (often to the species level) is crucial to selecting the correct biological control agent species and the success of the biological control program.
When biological control agents are introduced or released into an environment, their application methods differ among species. Larger agents (sometimes referred to as “macro biological control agents”), such as predatory mites and parasitoids, are applied in loose carrier (usually bran), sachets, or cards adhered with eggs or pupae. Microbial biological control agents (sometimes referred to as “micro biological control agents”) are often diluted in water and sprayed onto the plants or drenched onto medium or soil.
Biological Control as Part of an IPM Program
No pest management tactic acts independently in an IPM program. The same principle applies to biological control tactics. For example, pest species must be accurately identified to select the correct biological control agents or microbial products. Also, biological control is most effective against a small pest population or when pesticides that can negatively impact the survival and functions of the biological control agents are removed from the program. Biological control must be an integral part of an IPM program, where biological control tactics are adopted in consideration of other tactics within the program and vice versa.
An IPM program starts with scouting. In an IPM program that incorporates biological control, both the pest and natural enemy populations must be sampled, and their densities or abundance determined. Biological control performs more effectively when biological control tactics are applied when the pest population is still small. The release of biological control agents does not signal the end of scouting but a need for continuation so that other pest management tactics can be applied when the need arises. Successful biological control will suppress the pest population to a level that would not cause damage, and therefore, pesticide use can be delayed or avoided completely. However, when the pest population increases above the economic or aesthetic threshold, or the biological control agent population or effectiveness decreases, pesticides may have to be applied to suppress the pest population and damage and allow biological control to catch up.
Cultural and production practices that growers employ may also impact biological control. There are often more natural enemies and greater biological control effectiveness when the fields or landscapes contain more abundant and diverse vegetation. Growers and landscape designers should strive to practice environmental engineering or production practices that incorporate many plant species, particularly those that can provide resources to the biological control agents. Intercropping and cover cropping with insectary plants help attract and retain biological control agents and serve to reduce weed management needs and costs, improve soil health, and control soil erosion. Maintaining vegetation and mulch/debris allows biological control agents to find refuge and resources and maintain a consistent ever-present population that can disperse as pest management needs arise.
Which pesticides are used, and how and when, has a significant impact on the success of biological control. Biological control agents are as susceptible as, and in some cases, more sensitive to pesticides than their target pests or diseases. Broad-spectrum pesticides can kill or affect a wide variety of biological control agents. For example, organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides are very toxic to many biological control agents and pollinators, and fungicides that target multiple sites (such as copper and mancozeb) can reduce the effectiveness of beneficial microorganisms. These pesticides should not be used in conjunction with biological control. Instead, pesticides that have a reduced risk or lower toxicity to the biological control agents (commonly referred to as the compatible pesticides) should be used. Additionally, some pesticides may also destroy habitats of the biological control agents and should not be used. For example, the use of broad-spectrum herbicides and other indiscriminate weed management practices must be eliminated or carefully considered if companion plants are used. How pesticides are applied also impacts the success of biological control. Application methods (such as drench) and timing (depending on the biological control agents) that avoid direct contact or leave behind large amounts of residue on the plant surface should be used.
Biological control is a knowledge-intensive strategy of pest management. Successful implementation of a biological control program requires a thorough understanding of the pests, the natural enemies, their environment (including other pest management practices), and the interactions of all factors. Success is often achieved after many considerations, modifications of current production, and pest management practices, as well as trial-and-error. Despite being challenging to adopt, biological control and IPM, in general, create benefits that contribute to building a sustainable environment and increasing profitability by reducing management inputs.
Table 1. Commercially available biological control agents for major arthropod pests.7
| Types | Species | Commonly known as | Target insects and mites |
| Predatory mite | Amblydromalus limonicus | Limonicus mite | Thrips, whitefly |
| Predatory mite | Amblyseius andersoni | Andersoni mite | Twospotted spider mite, russet mite, rust mite, broad mite |
| Predatory mite | Amblyseius degenerans | Degenerans mite | Thrips, broad mite, twospotted spider mite |
| Predatory mite | Amblyseius swirskii | Swirskii mite | Thrips, whitefly, and broad mite |
| Predatory mite | Galendromus occidentalis | Galendromas mite | Twospotted spider mite, errophyid mite, russet mite |
| Predatory mite | Mesoseiulus longipes (formerly Phytoseiulus longipes) | Longipes mite | Twospotted spider mite |
| Predatory mite | Neoseiulus californicus (formerly Amblyseius californicus) | Californicus mite | Twospotted spider mite, broad mite, cyclamen mite |
| Predatory mite | Neoseiulus cucumeris (formerly Amblyseius cucumeris) | Cucumeris mite | Thrips, fungus gnat, twospotted spider mite, tarsonemid mite |
| Predatory mite | Neoseiulus fallacis (formerly Amblyseius fallacis) | Fallacis mite | Twospotted spider mite, European red mite, citrus red mite |
| Predatory mite | Phytoseiulus persimilis | Persimilis mite | Twospotted spider mite |
| Predatory mite | Stratiolaelaps scimitus (formerly Hypoaspis miles) | Hypoaspis mite | Fungus gnat larva, thrips pupa |
| Predatory beetle | Adalia bipunctata | Ladybird beetle | Aphid |
| Predatory beetle | Dalotia coriaria (formerly Atheta coriaria) | Rove beetle | Thrips, fungus gnat |
| Predatory beetle | Cryptolaemus montrouzieri | Mealybug destroyer | Mealybug, soft scale |
| Predatory beetle | Cybocephalus nipponicus | Cybocephalus | Armored scale |
| Predatory beetle | Delphastus catalinae | Delphastus | Whitefly |
| Predatory beetle | Hippodamia convergen | Ladybird beetle | Aphid |
| Predatory beetle | Rhyzobius lopanthae | Lindorus | Armored scale, soft scale, mealybug |
| Predatory beetle | Stethorus punctillum | Spider mite destroyer | Twospotted spider mite |
| Lacewings | Chrysoperla spp. | Green lacewing | Aphid, mealybug, whitefly |
| Lacewings | Micromus variegatus | Brown lacewing | Aphid, whitefly, mealybug |
| Lacewings | Sympherobius barberi | Brown lacewing | Aphid, thrips, whitefly, spider mite, small caterpillar, leafhopper |
| Predatory flies | Aphidoletes aphidimyza | Predatory midge | Aphid |
| Predatory flies | Feltiella acarisuga | Predatory midge | Spider mite |
| Predatory thrips | Scolothrips sexmaculatus | Scolothrips | Spider mite |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Anagyrus vladimiri (formerly Anagyrus psedudococci) | Anagyrus | Citrus mealybug, grape mealybug |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Aphelinus abdominalis | Abdominalis | Potato aphid |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Aphidius colemani | Colemani | Cotton/melon aphid, green peach aphid, |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Aphidius ervi | Ervi | Foxglove aphid, pea aphid, potato aphid |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Aphidius matricariae | Matricariae | Green peach aphid |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Aphytis melinus | Aphytis | Oleander scale, citrus scale |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Dacnusa sibirica | Dacnusa | Leafminer |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Diglyphus isaea | Diglyphus | Leafminer |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Encarsia formosa | Encarsia | Greenhouse whitefly |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Eretmocerus eremicus | Eretmocerus | Sweetpotato whitefly |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Eretmocerus mundus | Mundus | Sweetpotato whitefly |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Leptomastix dactylopii | Dactylopii | Mealybug |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Pediobius foveolatus | Pediobius | Mexican bean beetle |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Peristenus relictus | Peristenus | Lygus bug |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Tamarixia radiata | Tamarixia | Asian citrus psyllid |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Trichogramma brassicae | Trichogramma | Moth egg |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Trichogramma minutum | Trichogramma | Moth egg (eastern U.S.) |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Trichogramma ostriniae | Trichogramma | European corn borer |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Trichogramma platneri | Trichogramma | Moth egg (western U.S.) |
| Parasitic wasp (parasitoid) | Trichogramma pretiosum | Trichogramma | Moth egg |
| Predatory true bug | Dicyphus hesperus | Dicyphus | Whitefly |
| Predatory true bug | Orius insidiosus | Minute pirate bug, insidious flower bug | Thrips, whitefly, aphid |
| Predatory true bug | Podisus maculiventris | Spined soldier bug | Colorado potato beetle, caterpillars |
| Predatory true bug | Zelus renardii | Assassin bug | Various (a generalist predator) |
| Entomopathogenic nematode | Heterorhabditis bacteriophora | Nemasys® G and others | White grub, Colorado potato beetle, black vine weevil |
| Entomopathogenic nematode | Heterorhabditis megidis | NemaSeek™ and others | Black vine weevil larva, soil-borne beetle larva |
| Entomopathogenic nematode | Steinernema carpocapsae | Millenium® and others | Chinch bug, armyworm, peach tree borer, and others. |
| Entomopathogenic nematode | Steinernema feltiae | Nemasys® and others | Thrips, fungus gnat |
| Entomopathogenic nematode | Steinernema kraussei | Nemasys® L | Black vine weevil |
| Entomopathogenic nematode | Steinernema riobrave | Nemasys® R and others | Mole cricket, root weevil, caterpillar |
| Entomopathogenic fungus | Beauveria bassiana | BotaniGard®, Mycotrol®, Velifer™, and others | Aphid, grub, chinch bug, grasshopper, cricket, sod webworm, leafhopper, whitefly, thrips |
| Entomopathogenic fungus | Hirsutella thompsonii | Hirsutella | Spider mite |
| Entomopathogenic fungus | Isaria fumosoroseus | Ancora®, Nofly WPTM, and others | Whitefly, aphid, thrips, mealybug, fungus gnat, weevil, leafhopper |
| Entomopathogenic fungus | Metarhizium anisopliae | Met 52®, Tick-EX, and others | Grasshopper, thrips, tick, spider mite, weevil, whitefly |
| Entomopathogenic fungus | Nomuraea rileyi | Nomuraea | Caterpillar |
| Entomopathogenic fungus | Verticillium lecanii | Mealikil® | Aphid, scale, whitefly |
| Entomopathogenic bacterium | Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. | Venerate® | Aphid, stink bug, leafhopper, small caterpillar |
| Entomopathogenic bacterium | Chromobacterium subtsugae | Grandevo® | Aphid, armyworm, cutworm, sod webworm, chinch bug, masked chafer, and oriental beetle, whitefly, thrips |
| Entomopathogenic bacterium | Bacillus papillae | Milky spore | Japanese beetle grub |
| Entomopathogenic bacterium | Bacillus sphaericus | Mosquito dunks and others | Mosquito larva |
| Entomopathogenic bacterium | Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies aizawai (Bta) | Agree®, XenTari® and other | Caterpillar |
| Entomopathogenic bacterium | Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies galleriae (Btg) | grubGone!® G and others | White grub |
| Entomopathogenic bacterium | Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki (Btk) | Dipel®, Thuricide®, and others | Caterpillar |
| Entomopathogenic bacterium | Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis (Bti) | Gnatrol® and other | Larva of mosquito, blackfly, and fungus gnat |
| Entomopathogenic bacterium | Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies tenebrionis (Btt) | Novodor®, Trident®, and other | Colorado potato beetle, leaf beetle |
| Entomopathogenic protozoa | Nosema locustae | NOLO BAIT™ and others | Grasshopper |
| Entomopathogenic virus | Nucleopolyhedrosis virus (NPV) | NPV | Caterpillar |
Table 2. Commercially available biological control agents for plant pathogens.7
| Types | Species | Commonly known as | Target diseases |
| Bacterium | Agrobacterium radiobacter | Agrobacterium | Crown gall |
| Bacterium | Bacillus amyloliquefaciens | Double Nickel®, Stargus™ (strain F727), Taegro® 2 (strain FZB24) | Cercospora, Collectrichum, Phytophthora, Powdery mildew, Rhizoctonia, Sclerotinia |
| Bacterium | Bacillus licheniformis | Roots EcoGuard® and others | Dollar spot, anthracnose, brown rot (peaches) |
| Bacterium | Bacillus pumilus | Sonata® and others | Rust, downy mildew, powdery mildew, white mold, fire blight, scab, early and late blight, bacterial spot, northern and southern leaf blight |
| Bacterium | Bacillus subtilis | Rhapsody® (QST 713 strain), Companion® (GB03 strain), and others | Pythium, Fusarium, Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia, powdery mildew, Colletotrichum, Erwinia, Pseudomonas, Xanthomonas, Cercospora |
| Bacterium | Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain AFS009 | Zio™ and others | Colletotrichum. Rhizoctonia, Sclerotinia, Botrytis, Fusarium, Pythium, Phytophthora |
| Bacterium | Pseudomonas fluorescens | Pseudomonas fluorescens | Fireblight |
| Bacterium | Streptomyces spp. | Actinovate® and others | Fusarium, damping off, Pythium, Phytophthora, fire blight, Verticillium, Sclerotinia, downy mildew, Botrytis, powdery mildew, Botrytis, Phytomatotricum, Sclerotinia, Alternaria |
National Policy on IPM
The indiscriminate and unilateral use of pesticides was the only plant protection tool during sixties and seventies for sustaining of agricultural production potential of the high yielding varieties under the intensive cropping systems. This has led to several ill-effects like human and animal health hazards, ecological imbalance, development of resistance in the pests to pesticides, pests resurgence and environmental pollution as well as destruction of natural enemies (bio-control agents) of pests and increased level of pesticides residues in soil, water, food with the increased use of pesticides.
National Policy statement on IPM was made by the then Hon’ble Union Agriculture Minister of India in 1985. Later on National policy on Agriculture – 2000 and National policy on Farmers – 2007 have also supported the IPM. It was also supported by the Planning Commission document for 12th Plan addressing the negative impact of chemical pesticides. In order to minimize the use of hazardous chemical pesticides and to manage the insect pest/disease attack as well as to increase the crop productivity, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Co-operation (DAC) has launched a scheme “Strengthening and Modernization of Pest Management (IPM) Approach in India in 1991-92”, as cardinal principle and main plank of Plant protection strategy in overall crop production programme. Under the ambit of IPM programme, the Govt. of India has established 31 Central IPM centers in 28 States and One UT. In 12th Five year plan EFC Memo, a “National mission on Agricultural Extension and Technology (NMAET)” was formed under which a “sub-mission on Plant Protection and Plant Quarantine” was introduced from the year 2014-15. “Strengthening and Modernization of Pest Management Approach in India has become one of the components of this sub-mission with mandate to popularize adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) through training and demonstration in crops inter-alia promotion of biological control approaches in crop protection technology.
Compiled & Shared by- Team, LITD (Livestock Institute of Training & Development)
Image-Courtesy-Google
Reference-On Request.
