Biocontrol News and Information 29(1), 1N–18Npestscience.com

General News

Biological Control of the Mexican Bromeliad Weevil

The Mexican bromeliad weevil, Metamasius calli-zona, is destroying native bromeliad populationsthroughout south Florida (USA). Southern Floridahas 16 native species of bromeliads, of which 12 aresusceptible to attack by the weevil. The femaleweevil lays her eggs in the bromeliad leaf and soonafter the larva emerges it bores into the plant’s stem.After extensive feeding by the weevil grub, the plantdies before producing seeds. The weevil was firstdetected in Florida in 1989, certainly as a result ofinfested plants being imported from southernMexico1. In 1993, a tachinid fly parasitizing therelated bromeliad-eating weevil Metamasius quadri-lineatus was found in the montane forests ofHonduras. It turned out that the fly was a new spe-cies, and therefore was recently described andnamed Lixadmontia franki in honour of Universityof Florida (UF) Professor J. Howard Frank2. Earlyobservations in the laboratory indicated that the flyreadily parasitizes the larvae of M. callizona, thusbecoming the focal point of a biological control pro-gramme directed against the ‘evil weevil’, asbromeliad aficionados call it.

Female L. franki are ready to find hosts approxi-mately eight days after mating. It is unclear yetwhether the female fly deposits mature eggs orneonate larvae deep among the bases of the leaves ofa weevil-infested plant. Whichever the case, theyoung tachinid maggot burrows through the macer-ated plant tissue and frass produced by the weevillarva. Once a host is contacted, the maggot boresthrough the host’s integument quickly to live as anendoparasitoid. Susceptible weevil hosts are in thethird to fifth instar, rarely in the second and never inthe first instar. Parasitized weevils continue to feedand often advance to the next instar; they may evenconstruct a pupal chamber made of macerated planttissue and saliva. However, parasitized weevilsalways die before pupating. Usually, only one matureL. franki larva emerges from a parasitized host, butit is not uncommon to see two or three larvae comeout of a cadaver. On rare occasions, as many as fiveto nine maggots will emerge from a single host; inthese cases, the resulting adult flies are muchsmaller than their solitary counterparts. One to twodays after emerging from its host, the fly larva willpupate. Total time from penetration of a host topupation is 2-3 weeks at 21ºC; pupal incubation timeis three weeks.

The technology for producing large numbers of fliesin the laboratory was initially developed with M.quadrilineatus at the Escuela Agrícola Panameri-cana in Honduras3. Larvae of M. quadrilineatuswere placed inside pieces of bromeliad stem set inplastic cups. Weevil feeding on the plant material forthree days was necessary for successful parasitism.

Most final instars of the parasitoid exited their host13–16 days after initial exposure to the flies. Thetechnology was subsequently refined and expandedfor M. callizona in the quarantine facility at UF’sHayslip Biological Control Research and Contain-ment Laboratory at the Indian River Research andEducation Center. Pineapple crowns obtained fromlocal grocery stores are exposed to M. callizonafemales for one week, after which they are removed.The pineapple crowns are held at 25ºC for threeweeks, at which time the weevil larvae inside thecrowns should be in the third instar. Twelve infestedcrowns are placed five days per week in a large para-sitization cage containing 150–300 adult L. franki ofmixed ages; crowns remain in the cage for ten days.Afterwards, the crowns are placed in a smaller cageto monitor the emergence of any adult flies that werehiding in the crown at the time of its removal fromthe parasitization cage. Weevil larvae are collectedfrom the pineapple crowns, placed in plastic cups andfed fresh pineapple leaves twice weekly. Puparia ofmaggots that emerge from hosts are placed in cupswith moistened paper towel and held in a rearingroom at 21ºC and with >70% relative humidity. Asadult flies emerge, they are sexed and either placedin the breeding colony or accumulated in a smallportable cage to await release in the field.

From June 2007 to January 2008, releases of over1200 adult L. franki were made at seven sitesthroughout south Florida. These sites include theLake Rogers Northwest Equestrian Park in Hillsbor-ough Co., Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge inPalm Beach Co., Enchanted Forest in Brevard Co.,Big Cypress National Preserve and Collier SeminoleState Park in Collier Co., Highlands Hammock StatePark in Highlands Co., and Savannas Preserve StatePark in St Lucie Co. The tree vegetation at thesesites varies from mixed pine–oak to oak–palm tocypress. Flies taken to the release sites were 5–10days old as adults. Releases always took place atabout 9:00 a.m. in an area where a large weevil pop-ulation was known to exist. The number of fliesreleased varied from 51–164 with an equal sex ratioor slight female bias.

Evaluation of establishment of L. franki begins sixweeks following a release. The procedure uses sen-tinel pineapple crowns obtained from local grocerystores and infested with third instar weevils. Theseare placed in the release site in 0.6 × 0.6 × 0.1 m trayswith hardware cloth (metal mesh screening used out-side windows for mosquito-proofing) bottoms. Sixcrowns are placed in each tray and eight trays areplaced in the site for each evaluation period. Thetrays are suspended in the forest canopy by a nylonrope secured to four eyelets attached to the four cor-ners of the top side of the tray. The trees from whichthe trays are hung are selected by marking off linesto each cardinal direction from the centre of wherethe fly was released. In each direction, a tree with at

Are we on your mailing list?Biocontrol News and Information is always pleased to receive news of research, conferences, new products or patents, changes in personnel, collaborative agreementsor any other information of interest to other readers. If your organization sends out press releases or newsletters, please let us have a copy. In addition, the editorswelcome proposals for review topics.

2N Biocontrol News and Information 29(1)

least five medium to large bromeliads is selected forhanging a tray. Four trays are suspended near thecentral point of the release site.

The sentinel plants are collected after they have beenin the field for two weeks and taken to the laboratorywhere they are held in cages for emergence of adultflies. Once the sentinel pineapples reach anadvanced stage of decomposition, they are dissectedand all weevil larvae are removed and placed inplastic cups with food. The larvae are monitoreddaily for pupation (= unparasitized) or emergence offly larvae (= parasitized). Establishment is deter-mined by the presence of the fly’s F2 generation inthe exposed weevil hosts in the sentinel plants.

So far, L. franki has only been recovered at one sitein one evaluation period, at the Lake Rogers Park fol-lowing the first release on 29 June 2007. Two adultfemales emerged from the sentinel pineapple crownsand host cadavers were found in the decomposedplant material. Since L. franki originates from cool,shady, moist, high elevation tropical forests, therehas been concern about the fly’s ability to adapt to ahot, low elevation subtropical environment. Thisrecovery confirms that released L. franki females areable to find hosts in native bromeliads during thehumid but hot Florida summer, their adult progenyare able to find mates in subtropical oak hammocks,and the F1 females are able to locate infested pine-apple crowns to produce a second generation. Asadditional releases continue, establishment may beaided by the cooler but drier winter and early springmonths.

The ultimate goal of the programme is to reduce thepopulations of the Mexican bromeliad weevil suchthat it is no longer a significant ecological pest of animportant part of the state’s floral natural heritage.Once this goal has been achieved, a programme forrepopulating devastated areas with small plantsgrown from seed specifically collected from a numberof hard-hit areas can begin.

1Frank, J.H. & Thomas, M.C. (1994) Metamasiuscallizona (Chevrolat) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), animmigrant pest, destroys bromeliads in Florida.Canadian Entomologist 126, 673–682.

2Wood, D.M. & Cave, R.D. (2006) Description of anew genus and species of weevil parasitoid fromHonduras (Diptera: Tachinidae). Florida Entomolo-gist 89, 239–244.

3Suazo, A., Arismendi, N., Frank, J.H. & Cave, R.D.(2006) Method for continuously rearing Lixadmontiafranki (Diptera: Tachinidae), a potential biologicalcontrol agent of Metamasius callizona (Coleoptera:Dryophthoridae). Florida Entomologist 89, 348–353.

Further information:www.savebromeliads.ifas.ufl.edu and www.fcbs.org

By: Ronald D. Cave, Indian River Research & Education Center, University of Florida, Ft. Pierce, FL 34945, USA.Email: rdcave@ufl.edu

Biocontrol of Whitefly on Coconut Palms in the Comoros

A whitefly that has been attacking coconut palms inthe Comoros in the Indian Ocean since 2000 has beencontained by classical biological control, according toa report from the French organization CIRAD(Centre de Coopération Internationale en RechercheAgronomique pour le Développement) in December2007.

Aleurotrachelus atratus was first described fromcoconut in Brazil but has spread extensively, espe-cially to tropical islands. In the Comoros, infestationsreached economically damaging levels. According tothe Ministry of Agriculture, it resulted in a 55% dropin coconut yields on the three islands of Ngazidja(Grande Comore), Ndzuani (Anjouan) and Mwali(Moheli); Ngazidja, the largest island and site of thecapital Moroni, was by far the worst affected. Theinsect attacks the fronds and feeds on the palm sap,excreting honeydew on which sooty mould fungidevelop. Sooty mould causes the characteristic darkcolouring seen on the upper side of the fronds onaffected palms. The whitefly problem was all themore serious because coconuts play a vital role inComoran society.

In the absence of any means of controlling the newpest, a research programme, aimed at identifyingand introducing a biological control agent in theregion, was launched in 2005 by CIRAD and theAgriculture, Fisheries and Environment ResearchInstitute (INRAPE) in the Comoros within the CropProtection Network for the Indian Ocean (PRPV).The programme has now been completed.

During the two years of the programme, theresearchers found a species new to science in theaphelinid genus Eretmocerus (since described asEretmocerus cocois Delvare1), which was effectivelyparasitizing populations of the whitefly in the IndianOcean islands of Réunion (France) and Maore(Mayotte: geographically part of the Comoros archi-pelago but administered by France). After testingshowed it to be specific to the pest whitefly and, inparticular, that it was not a threat to endemic white-flies in Comoros, it was introduced for the first timein early 2007, into an experimental cage on Ngazidja.Three hundred females collected in Réunion wereintroduced to the cage, which was placed on a heavilyinfested coconut palm some two metres tall. Thefemale parasitoids are attracted by their host and layeggs under whitefly larvae on the fronds of coconutpalms. Eggs are deposited on the integument ofsecond- and third-instar larvae, and after hatchingthe parasitoid larva pierces and enters the host’sbody. As a solitary endoparasitoid, it consumes thewhitefly larva and eventually forms a parasitoidmummy.

Eight months after the release, the team checkedthat the introduced parasitoids had acclimatized tothe semi-natural conditions of the experimental cageon Ngazidja, and also recorded it on Ndzuani, whereit apparently arrived by itself. They found that thephytosanitary condition of the coconut groves in theComoros had improved significantly. Whitefly larval

News 3N

densities had been cut by 12% on Ngazidja, 62.5% onNdzuani and 73% on Mwali. Production hadincreased, which resulted in a drop in coconut prices,to the benefit of consumers.

The main objective set for the programme, i.e. tobring whitefly population levels below a damagethreshold using a natural parasitoid, was thusachieved. However, the whitefly–parasitoid balancewill need to be monitored for the first few years afteracclimatization, to confirm the success of the opera-tion and measure the increase in coconut palmgrowth and coconut production on the three islands.

1Delvare, G., Genson, G., Borowiec, N., Etienne, J.,Anli-Liochouroutu, A.K. & Beaudoin-Ollivier, L.(2007) Description of Eretmocerus cocois sp. n.(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea), a parasitoid of Aleuro-trachelus atratus (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on thecoconut palm. Zootaxa (in press)

Main source: www.cirad.fr/en/actualite/communique.php?id=849

Contact: Nicolas Borowiec, Serge Quilici & Bernard Reynaud, CIRAD, UMR Peuplements végétaux et bioagresseurs en milieu tropical, Station de Ligne Paradis, Pôle de Protection des Plantes – 3P, 7, chemin de l’IRAT, 97410 Saint Pierre, La Réunion.

Email: nicolas.borowiec@cirad.frserge.quilici@cirad.fr bernard.reynaud@cirad.fr

Classical Biological Control Introductions to Manage Olive Fruit Fly

California produces about 99% of the olives commer-cially grown in the USA. These olives may be curedto produce the ‘California black olive’ commonlyfound on pizza and deli-sandwiches (i.e., table olive)or they may be pressed to produce top quality virginolive oil that is used in cooking and salads. Prior to1998, the major arthropod pests of California oliveswere olive scale, Parlatoria oleae, and black scale,Saissetia oleae. These pests were controlled withminimal insecticide usage. Olive scale was com-pletely controlled by the parasitoids Aphytismaculicornis and Coccophagoides utilis. Black scalewas best managed by pruning olive trees to facilitateair movement and increase canopy temperatures,which desiccates the early developmental stages.Growers occasionally used insecticides against mod-erate to high black scale populations.

The Olive Fly Threat

The olive fruit fly (OLF), Bactrocera oleae, was dis-covered in California in 1998, and quickly becamethe primary olive pest throughout the state. OLF isthe primary pest of olives worldwide and causesmuch damage in parts of the Mediterranean basinand Africa. This tephritid only threatens the Cali-fornia olive industry because the larvae develop onlyin olive fruit. However, OLF adults are quite fre-quently found within nearby crop systems (e.g.

citrus), where they are most likely seeking food (e.g.honeydew, yeast, bird excrement) and water. OLFlarval stages are extremely damaging to olives. Tableolive processors maintain a ‘zero tolerance’ level forOLF infested fruit. This means that the presence ofOLF maggots or pupae within a single fruit will beenough to cause rejection of a grower’s entire crop.Rejected shipments may be used for oil, but bringless revenue to the grower because of the cultivarused (i.e., cultivars vary with respect to oil content,flavour, and size) and lack of fruit maturity (i.e.,table olives are harvested green). Although fruit des-tined for the oil press can withstand more OLF injury(10–30% depending on the time of processing afterharvest) than table olives, control of OLF is stillimportant because significant reductions in oilquality result from the damage caused by larvae tothe fruit pulp, which allows entry of fungi and bac-teria that increase pulp acidity. Commercial growersface a continual threat of re-infestation from theunknown number of ornamental and landscape olivetrees in the state.

Current management recommendations are to applyGF-120 NF Naturalyte Fruit Fly Bait (Dow Agro-Sciences LLC) once weekly or twice monthly fromtwo weeks prior to olive pit hardening (early June)until fruit are harvested in the fall (for table olives)or winter (for oil production). This means that mostolive growers have transitioned from occasionaltreatments for arthropod pests (i.e., black scale, olivescale) in their orchards to as many as 32 treatmentsin one season for OLF. Repeated applications of GF-120 may impact biological control agents (e.g. greenlacewing adults), which may feed upon foliarresidues.

Progress towards Classical Biological Control

A classical biological control introduction pro-gramme was initiated in 2004 to reduce dependenceon chemical controls. Biological control of OLF variesthroughout its range in Europe, Africa, and theMiddle East. No ‘silver bullet’ natural enemy hasbeen recognized that is effective throughout the geo-graphical range of OLF. Thus, various braconidspecies were shipped to the quarantine facility at theUniversity of California at Berkeley. These includedspecies that were naturally associated with OLF:Bracon celer, Psyttalia concolor, Psyttalia nr.humilis, Psyttalia lounsburyi, Psyttalia pon-erophaga, and Utetes africanus. Additionally,Diachasmimorpha kraussii, Diachasmimorpha long-icaudata, and Fopius arisanus were also consideredas potential ‘new associations’ with OLF. These nat-ural enemies were imported from South Africa,Kenya, Pakistan, and Hawaii. Cooperators on theproject that aided in collection and importation ofnatural enemies included Alan Kirk and Kim Hoe-lmer, USDA-ARS European Biological ControlLaboratory, Montferrier-sur-Les, France; RussellMessing, University of Hawaii, Kauai AgriculturalResearch Center, Kapaa, Kauai, Hawaii; andVaughn Walton and Rob Stodder, University of Stel-lenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa. As part of theeffort to evaluate them as potential biological controlagents of OLF, biology studies were conducted inCalifornia. The following species have been evalu-

4N Biocontrol News and Information 29(1)

ated using OLF eggs or larvae as hosts: B. celer, D.kraussii, D. longicaudata, P. concolor, P. pon-erophaga, P. lounsburyi, and F. arisanus. Also ofsignificant importance to a classical biological con-trol programme is the assessment of the potentialnon-target impacts of the agents selected for intro-duction and establishment. Studies to date indicatethat P. lounsburyi and P. ponerophaga preferredonly OLF for reproduction and did not reproduce inthe non-target tephritid species (i.e. the weed biocon-trol agents Chaetorellia succinea – attacks yellowstar thistle; and Parafreutreta regalis – attacks capeivy) offered to them. Permits have been issued for thefield release of these two parasitoids.

Efforts are presently underway to establish perma-nent populations of Psyttalia lounsburyi throughoutthe olive growing regions of California. Currently,the parasitoid is being tested in field cages to deter-mine its ability to effectively impact OLF populationsunder semi-natural conditions in both coastal (e.g.,Sonoma and Napa Counties) and interior (e.g.,Fresno, Tulare, Yolo, and Sacramento Counties)regions. For this, OLF adults are caged on branchesthat have susceptible stage olives. After the inocu-lated OLF reach a development stage (e.g., second-instar) that is susceptible to the parasitoid, adult P.lounsburyi are added into cages. Successful para-sitism is determined, as well as parasitism rates andparasitoid development times. Additional parasitoidspecies will be evaluated after permits are issuedand rearing methods improved.

Once field cage trials have indicated promising can-didate species for the various release locations (i.e.,interior vs. coastal areas), we will begin general fieldreleases in California. Follow-up fruit sampling andanalyses of population dynamics of flies and parasi-toids at release and non-release sites will beconducted to determine field impact, using standardsampling methodologies. These will include (1)visual assessment of olive fruit infestation levels atharvest periods, (2) adult OLF phenology and den-sity assessment with pheromone traps, and (3)monthly collections of infested fruit from the tree andground to rear parasitoids and determine effective-ness. Trapping, fruit sampling, and parasitoidrecruitment methodologies will be used to quantifyindispensable mortality and evaluate the ultimateextent of biological control success.

Further Reading

Daane, K.M., Sime, K.R., Wang, X.-G., Nadel, H.,Johnson, M.W., Walton, V.M., Kirk, A. & Pickett,C.H. (2007) Psyttalia lounsburyi (Hymenoptera: Bra-conidae), potential biological control agent for theolive fruit fly in California. Biological Control 44, 79–89.

Johnson, M.W., Zalom, F.G., Van Steenwyk, R.,Vossen, P., Devarenne, A.K., Daane, K.M., Krueger,W.H., Connell, J.H., Yokoyama, V., Bisabri, B.,Caprile, J. & Nelson, J. (2006) Olive fruit fly manage-ment guidelines for 2006. UC Plant ProtectionQuarterly 16(3), 1–7.

Nadel, H., Johnson, M.W., Gerik, M. & Daane, K.M.(2007) Ingestion of spinosad bait GF-120 andresulting impact on adult Chrysoperla carnea (Neu-roptera: Chrysopidae). Biocontrol Science andTechnology 17, 995–1008.

Sime, K.R., Daane, K.M., Andrews, J.W., Jr., Hoe-lmer, K., Pickett, C.H., Nadel, H., Johnson, M.W. &Messing, R.H. (2006) The biology of Bracon celer as aparasitoid of the olive fruit fly. BioControl 51, 553–567.

Sime, K.R., Daane, K.M., Kirk, A., Andrews, J.W.,Johnson, M.W. & Messing, R.H. (2007) Psyttalia pon-erophaga (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) as a potentialbiological control agent of olive fruit fly Bactroceraoleae (Diptera: Tephritidae) in California. Bulletin ofEntomological Research 97, 1–10.

Sime, K.R., Daane, K.M., Messing, R.H. & Johnson,M.W. (2006) Comparison of two laboratory culturesof Psyttalia concolor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), asa parasitoid of the olive fruit fly. Biological Control39, 248–255.

Sime, K.R., Daane, K.M., Nadel, H., Funk, C.S.,Messing, R.H., Andrews, J.W., Jr., Johnson, M.W. &Pickett, C.H. (2006) Diachasmimorpha longicaudataand D. kraussii (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) as para-sitoids of the olive fruit fly. Biocontrol Science andTechnology 16, 169–179.

By: Marshall W. Johnsona*, Kent M. Daaneb, KarenSimeb, Hannah Nadela, Charles H. Pickettc and Xin-geng Wanga

a[*Corresponding author] Department of Ento-mology, University of California, Riverside, CA92521, USA. Email: mjohnson@uckac.eduFax: +1 559 646 6593

bDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, andManagement, University of California, Berkeley, CA94720-3114, USA.

cBiological Control Program, California Departmentof Food and Agriculture, 3288 Meadowview Road,Sacramento, CA 95832, USA.

Weaver Ants in Biological Control: Bringing History Up to Date

Weaver ants (Oecophylla spp.) are famed in the bio-logical control world for being the first recordedbiocontrol agents (their use in citrus was firstdescribed in 304 AD in China). Now Paul Van Mele1,who has worked with weaver ants in Southeast Asia(O. smaragdina) and West Africa (O. longinoda), hasreviewed literature on the use of Oecophylla over thelast century. He points out that a scant 70 publishedreferences from Asia and fewer than 25 from Africasince the 1970s indicates they have been largelyneglected by researchers. He draws on the work thathas been published to highlight the potential forthese generalist predators to reduce pest numbers

News 5N

and therefore pesticide use in conservation biologicalcontrol in tree crops.

The author begins by looking at societal perceptionsof weaver ants up to and during the colonial era, andsome little-known facts emerge. For example, despitethe long-standing use of weaver ants in China, someVietnamese scientists lay claim to their countrybeing the origin of weaver ant use in citrus. Cer-tainly, traditional knowledge and a holistic worldview have influenced the way in which research hasbeen conducted in that region. A different pictureemerges in Africa, with Oecophylla often being per-ceived as a nuisance insect. Colonial entomologistsfocusing on plantation crops tended to favour sci-ence-driven (classical biocontrol) solutions whichneeded no farmer input, so weaver ants were largelyneglected by them. Not until O. longinoda was shownto control coconut ‘gumming’ disease (which in factturned out to be caused by a coreid bug) did its repu-tation begin to gain acceptance among Europeanscientists.

Van Mele identifies some Oecophylla ‘champions’from this period, including Michael Way who pio-neered the work on weaver ants as biological controlagents in coconuts in Zanzibar. His publications(1953–54) indicated how the detailed informationprovided on biology, behaviour and ecology could beused to enhance control of pests. This was followedby more work in this crop in the Solomon Islands byEric S. Brown (1959).

The author then presents a series of crop casestudies, reviewing literature on Oecophylla incoconut, cocoa, citrus, cashew, mango and timberthrough to the present day. Although Van Melefound a paucity of literature, he has assembled a listof just over a hundred references.

Research in coconuts, citrus and cashew allowedweaver ants to be incorporated into pest manage-ment strategies.

• The pioneering work in coconut, described above,continued in ex-British colonies, although it took 40years for acceptable methods of weaver ant estab-lishment and management to be developed.Research conducted largely in East Africa showedthat the type and management of non-crop vegeta-tion and intercrops was critical in managing compet-ing ant species; the exclusion of Pheidolemegacephala, in particular, had a marked effect onthe efficacy of weaver ants in promoting betteryields.• Research in citrus pest management in Asiagrew out of the emergence of insecticide resistance,and was significant in that it required scientists towork with farmers, drawing on and enhancing tradi-tional knowledge. Notably, farmers had alreadyevolved methods for controlling the competing blackants (Dolichoderus thoracicus) and optimizing theperformance of weaver ants, and were knowledgea-ble about which intercrops to avoid. • A management system using weaver ants to con-trol all main pests in cashew was successfully devel-oped in Australia and led to increased yields and

profits. The task was made easier because there isno serious competition from other ant species, andharvesting methods do not bring people into contactwith the weaver ants at this stage. Making progress in other crops has been more diffi-cult. In cocoa, coffee and mango, the perception ofweaver ants as a nuisance during harvest has been amajor hurdle. This is a common perception in planta-tion crops worldwide, yet methods have beendeveloped to reduce this nuisance2. But in thesethree crops there are other factors.

• In cocoa, weaver ants have the capacity to controla range of pests, including the mirid/capsid bugsthat are major pests in West African cocoa. But thecomplex ant mosaic has proved difficult to manage,while measures to combat serious disease con-straints in cocoa (e.g. open canopy architecture) donot always favour weaver ants. In addition, policiesof blanket spraying against pests have disruptedweaver ant activity and the establishment of IPMschemes.• Limited research has been carried out on weaverants in coffee, but mutualistic relationships withkey scale insect pests hinders promotion of them forbeneficial purposes.• Research indicates that weaver ants controlmango pests, including the devastating fruit flies,and increase fruit quality and yields. But in bothAsia and Africa, farmer interviews reveal that thelarge size of mango trees means the beneficialimpact of weaver ants in this crop may be missed –even when it is recognized in citrus. Tree size alsomeans pickers often have to climb them, and inthese circumstances ant aggressiveness is a realissue. However, people have developed cultural andharvesting methods to overcome this problem.• The potential for weaver ants in timber crops islargely untapped although research has indicatedthey reduce important pests in a number of timberspecies. Van Mele concludes that Oecophylla has consider-able actual use and potential, both alone and as partof a pest management system, where research buildson traditional knowledge. For each of the above cropshe summarizes what he sees as the potential forresearch activities with farmers. He suggests thatemerging markets for organic and sustainably man-aged products provide an opportunity to value whathas already been achieved.

1Van Mele, P. (2008) A historical review of researchon the weaver ant Oecophylla in biological control.Agricultural and Forest Entomology 10, 13–22.

2Van Mele, P. & Cuc, N.T.T. (2003) Ants as friends:Improving your Tree Crops with Weaver Ants. CABIBioscience, UK.

Contact: Paul Van Mele, Africa Rice Center (WARDA), 01 BP 2031 Cotonou, Benin.Email: p.vanmele@cgiar.orgFax: +229 21 35 05 56

6N Biocontrol News and Information 29(1)

A Community Based Biocontrol Programme for Blackberry in Australia

European blackberry (Rubus fruticosus aggregate)has become one of southern Australia’s worst envi-ronmental weeds. Deliberately introduced in the mid1800s, it quickly became invasive and is now one ofAustralia’s twenty Weeds of National Significance(WoNS). Dense infestations of blackberry outcom-pete native plants and prevent their germination,destroy native animal habitat and impact on theamenity of public lands. In agricultural areas, black-berry thickets replace pasture, exclude livestock andprevent access to waterways.

Blackberry infests about nine million hectares –more than the area of Tasmania. Australia playshost to at least 14 different but closely related speciesof weedy European blackberry and many of thesehave the potential to spread further.

The blackberry leaf-rust fungus Phragmidium viol-aceum has been present in Australia for more than20 years following unauthorised and authorisedintroductions. It coevolved with blackberry inEurope and provides useful control in some areas ofsouthern Australia but not others.

Now additional strains of the leaf-rust fungus arebeing released as part of a national programme toenhance biological control of European blackberry.In early 2004, eight strains were approved by Biose-curity Australia for release at experimental sites inNew South Wales and Western Australia. Thestrains are now being mass-produced and releasedacross the country as part of a three-year coordinatednational project that began in June 2006. Thesereleases are being made in partnership with land-holders and land managers and the guidelinesdeveloped to help the community make thesereleases can be seen at:www.ento.csiro.au/weeds/blackberry/project.html

Stakeholders have been invited to put in expressionsof interest and from these the most suitable sites forrelease are chosen. Selected landholders are thenprovided with release kits with easy-to-follow guide-lines. The kits were initially distributed in NewSouth Wales, the Australian Capital Territory,South Australia, Queensland and Western Aus-tralia. Releases in Tasmania began in late 2007.There is also a parallel state-based release pro-gramme being undertaken by the VictorianDepartment of Primary Industries.

Stakeholders participating in the programme areasked to provide voucher blackberry specimens,which are identified and used to generate a nationalmap of blackberry taxa. This will eventually be amajor knowledge tool in the fight against this WoNS.

Molecular tools are being employed to assess estab-lishment and persistence of the strains over time atspecific sites, while their impact on blackberrygrowth parameters is measured using fungicideexclusion techniques.

It is hoped that these strains (or new recombinantgenotypes), will establish in areas they are climati-

cally suited to and on blackberry species they favour.Where these strains become active, they should helpto contain current infestations and slow the weed’sspread. It will take several seasons to measure thecumulative impact of the additional strains but it isalready obvious that the rust disease was not verysevere at most sites in the 2005 and 2006 growingseasons because of the drought.

The project is a research partnership betweenCSIRO, the Victorian Department of Primary Indus-tries and the University of Tasmania, with financialsupport from the Australian Government Depart-ment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry underthe Defeating the Weed Menace Initiative. It is led byDr Louise Morin from CSIRO Entomology and theCooperative Research Centre for Australian WeedManagement.

Contact: Louise Morin, CSIRO Entomology, Australia.Email: louise.morin@csiro.au

ESA 2007 Awards for Biocontrol and IPM Scientists

Amongst the Entomological Society of America’s(ESA’s) award winners in 2007 was Mark Hoddle(Director of the Center for Invasive SpeciesResearch, Entomology Department, University ofCalifornia, Riverside) who received the Syngenta-sponsored Recognition Award in Entomology,awarded to entomologists who have made or aremaking significant contributions to agriculture.Since joining the Center in 1997, his research hasfocused on invasive arthropod pest species and theircontrol with natural enemies. He is co-author of anew book on biological control to be published in thesummer of 2008, and one of the principle organizersof the bi-annual California Conference on BiologicalControl and the International Symposium on theBiological Control of Arthropods.

Recognized for their contributions to IPM were PeterA. Follett and William D. Hutchison.

Peter Follet (US Department of Agriculture –Agri-cultural Research Service, US Pacific BasinAgricultural Research Center, Hilo, Hawaii) receivedthe Distinguished Achievement Award in Horticul-tural Entomology for contributions to the Americanhorticulture industry. His research programmefocuses on developing new or improved pest manage-ment methods and postharvest treatments forquarantined pests that restrict the export of tropicalfruits and vegetables from Hawaii. He is nationallyand internationally recognized for his research ontropical invasive pests, pest risk management, andhigh temperature and irradiation quarantinetreatments.

The Distinguished Achievement Award in Exten-sion, for outstanding contributions in extensionentomology, went to William (Bill) D. Hutchison(Professor of entomology and extension entomologist,University of Minnesota). His outreach and researchfocus includes the development of ecologically based

News 7N

IPM for vegetables and grapes, with a goal ofreducing economic and environmental risk. In 1996,he and several graduate students developed theVegEdge website to support timely access ofresearch-based vegetable IPM results for growers,vegetable processors, crop consultants and extensionstaff in the Midwest Region. VegEdge is home tofactsheets, real-time monitoring data for severalinsect pests, and the Minnesota Fruit & VegetableIPM News, a joint effort with the Minnesota Depart-ment of Agriculture IPM Program. During thesummer months, VegEdge receives more than 2500requests per day. Dr Hutchison has been veryresponsive to the needs of vegetable producers in theNorth Central Region. He recently led a multi-stateeffort to better understand migratory behaviour andinsecticide resistance in Helicoverpa zea, an effortthat combines traditional research with data frommultiple cooperators, to assist growers and IPM fieldrepresentatives with real-time and strategic decisionmaking.

Indian Company Receives Award for Pheromone Work

Pest Control (India) Private Limited, Bangalore(PCI), who established India’s first and so-far onlyfully-fledged commercial pheromone synthesisfacility, was awarded the 2007 National Award forR&D Efforts in Industry in the area of agro and foodprocessing industries by DSIR (Department of Scien-tific and Industrial Research, Government of India).The award, principally for their work on sugarcaneborer pheromones, was presented by the DirectorGeneral, Council of Scientific and IndustrialResearch at a function organized jointly by DSIR andFICCI (Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerceand Industry) in Delhi on 15 November. Their phe-romone facility is housed at PCI’s Bio-ControlResearch Laboratories (BCRL), which themselvesbroke new ground when first built in 1981 as India’sfirst commercial biocontrol laboratories.

Sugarcane borers cause up to some 55% reduction inyield and require active intervention throughoutmost of the crop season. Long crop duration, thenature of the crop canopy, the concealed habits of thevarious pests and overlapping generations makechemical control difficult and expensive. However,although the pheromone constituents for the majorsugarcane borers were identified and the efficacy ofsex pheromones for managing them was validatedduring the 1980s, the absence of indigenous commer-cial pheromone synthesis facilities and a simple,cheap and portable water trap meant the technologywas not adopted in India.

This has changed with PCI’s establishment of thepheromone facility at BCRL and their pioneering ofcommercial in-country pheromone synthesis. Theirpheromone technology for four species of sugarcanepests now provides a stand-alone and environmen-tally friendly method of pest management.Perfecting this technology meant developing proto-cols for synthesis of eight different compounds toover 95% purity on a laboratory scale, scaling up forcommercial production at affordable rates, blending

the compounds in appropriate ratios for each sugar-cane borer species, and production of lures. PCI alsodesigned and patented a cost-effective, easy-to-use,portable, water-based trap – the Wota-T – for usewith the pheromone lures. An innovative lure holderprevents immersion of the lure in water and at thesame time protects it from sunlight.

The success of the enterprise is reflected in the saleof 150,000 lures and 92,000 water traps in the firstthree years. The award citation also notes PCI’s col-laboration with national and internationalorganizations in the synthesis and supply of phe-romone lures for a range of pests including whitestem borer of coffee, coconut beetles and cocoa podborer. PCI now sells its products and traps bothwithin India and abroad.

Contact: Dr K.P. Jayanth, Bio-Control Research Laboratories, A division of Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 36/2, Sriramanahalli, Nr. Rajankunte, DodballapurRoad, Arakere Post, Bangalore 561 203, India.Fax: +91 80 2846 8838Email: jayanth.kp@pcil.in / jayanthk@vsnl.com Web: www.pcil.in

Hitting Heads against Walls

Biocontrol scientists generally think of conservationin terms of biodiversity, but ‘conservation’ can have anon-biological meaning; although that does not ruleout biological control.

A report in Deuschtse Welle (www.DW-World.De) inDecember 2007 described how bacterial treatmentwas showing promise for cleaning Europe’s historicbuildings of the grime and soot that not only detractfrom the buildings’ aesthetic appeal, but can alsodamage the fabric of the monuments: sulphurdioxide in the air reacts with the limestone thatmany monuments are built with to form a damaginggypsum layer that causes the stone to flake. Thismakes removing the deposits a tricky task, and atask made more complex because surfaces such asmarble develop a ‘noble patina’, a surface changethat occurs naturally as buildings age and adds tothe character of the stone.

A multidisciplinary team from several Italian insti-tutes, led by Francesca Cappitelli (AgriculturalFaculty, University of Milan), carried out a small-scale trial with the sulphate-reducing bacteriumDesulfovibrio vulgaris on one of Milan cathedral’smarble spires, and found the process to be less dam-aging and more effective than a chemical treatmentoften used by conservators. The bacteria metabolizethe sulphates into gases which diffuse into the airwithout damaging the underlying noble patina. Cap-pitelli and her team have obtained an Italian patentfor the biocleaning process, and have applied for aninternational patent.

In contrast, although chemical cleaning methodshave been considerably improved in recent decades,they can still corrode the surface of the stone; Cap-pitelli’s study found the chemical treatment they

8N Biocontrol News and Information 29(1)

used ate away more than the deposits and changedthe granular structure of the stone's surface. Thereare also concerns about the human and environ-mental toxicity of the chemicals.

But is biological treatment risk free? Rightly, thearticle went on to consider its possible adverseimpacts. But what a pity that it quoted Peter Martinfrom the Masonry Conservation Research Group atAberdeen's Robert Gordon University, who, whilecorrectly pointing out that scientists have to becareful not to introduce something that creates new

problems, unfortunately cited the cane toad as hisexample of “some of the biological control systemsthat have gone wrong.”

While cane toads could undoubtedly compete withgargoyles on Europe’s ancient cathedrals for lastplace in a beauty contest, could he not have chosen amore appropriate example? Or perhaps he couldn’tfind one; biological control disasters are actuallyrather rarer than the press would have the publicbelieve.

IPM Systems

This section covers integrated pest management(IPM) including biological control, and techniquesthat are compatible with the use of biological controlor minimize negative impact on natural enemies. Asin many recent issues, we are featuring microbialsand biopesticides, focusing on some promisingresearch.

Metarhizium: a New Sting in the Tale

Metarhizium anisopliae has many potential applica-tions as a biopesticide against a wide range ofinsects, from disease vectors such as mosquitoes toagricultural pests – including locusts, which is wherethe technology has had most success. Many scientificand technical hurdles have been overcome in productdevelopment, yet the potential of M. anisopliae toplay a greater part in insect biocontrol remains lim-ited by efficacy in terms of pathogenicity (capacity tocause disease) and virulence (capacity to kill), and bycost.

A possible new avenue is signalled in a ‘Brief Com-munication’ in Nature Biotechnology1, in whichChengshu Wang (Chinese Academy of Sciences,Shanghai) and Raymond St Leger (University ofMaryland, USA) described how they inserted geneticmaterial for a scorpion toxin into a naturally occur-ring strain of M. anisopliae, then demonstrated itsexpression by the fungus in the haemocoel of targetinsects and its lethal effects on the insects.

The neurotoxic venom of the scorpion Androctonusaustralis (AaIT) is one of the most toxic insect-selec-tive peptides known. Wang and St Leger chose toinsert genetic material coding for this into M. anisop-liae strain 549, rather than a more host-specificstrain, because strain 549’s broad host range wouldallow them to test the modified fungus against botha mosquito (Aedes aegypti) and the lepidopterantobacco hornworm (Manduca sexta). In terms ofdelivery, fungal biocontrol agents such asMetarhizium differ from bacteria and viruses in thatthey do not need to be ingested but can infect a hostfrom contact application of the conidia (spores);hyphae penetrate a susceptible insect’s cuticle andgrow into its body. Wang and St Leger chose the pro-moter M. anisopliae MCL12 to drive the gene’sexpression because it produces rapid and high-levelexpression, but only in the insect’s haemolymph,

thus restricting expression to the period after thefungus has penetrated the cuticle.

Bioassays to assess the LD50 conidial concentrationindicated that the genetically modified fungus (des-ignated strain AaIT-549) increased fungal toxicity22-fold against M. sexta caterpillars and nine-foldagainst adult female A. aegypti compared to theunmodified fungus. Survival times were also signifi-cantly reduced; using spore concentrations of themodified and unmodified strains high enough to killmost insects, survival times were reduced 28% and38% for M. sexta and A. aegypti, respectively.Enhanced pre-lethal effects of AaIT-549 were alsorecorded, with caterpillars exhibiting reducedfeeding, while mosquitoes showed reduction inresponses to host presence sooner than with unmodi-fied strain 549.

In a ‘News and Views’ article in the same issue3,Matthew Thomas (CSIRO, Australia) and AndrewRead (Pennsylvania State University, USA) wereimpressed not only by the enhanced pathogenicityand virulence of strain AaIT-549 but also by theimplications this – especially enhanced patho-genicity – has for the cost effectiveness of abioinsecticide developed from such a strain. Morerapid kill should give better control, while greaterpathogenicity means less product should be needed.Also, while modified and unmodified spores have thesame longevity, the persistence of treatment withmodified spores should be longer because fewerspores are needed to cause a lethal infection – thisshould reduce frequency of re-treatment, and there-fore cost once again.

Thomas and Read recognized the significance ofWang and St Leger’s work as signposting a novel‘paratransgenic’ method whereby pathogens coulddeliver molecules to control insects – or evenmicrobes and viruses they carry. But none of theauthors underestimate the hurdles.

Host specificity is an important environmentalsafety feature of a pesticide, biological or otherwise.Wang and St Leger noted that as this is mediated inM. anisopliae strains mostly through “recognitionevents on the cuticle”, the presence of the transgene,which is active only post-penetration, should notcompromise it. They showed that two non-target spe-cies (the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and the

News 9N

cockroach Blatella germanica) were unaffected byhigh topical doses of AaIT-549, but injecting thetransgenic conidia killed them within four days. Inany case, there is no reason to believe that the genefor the neurotoxin could not be inserted into strainsof M. anisopliae with much narrower host specificity(e.g. var. acridum, the locust strain used in GreenMuscle® and Green Guard®), although whether itwould be as effective in any strain would need to beassessed. Wang and St Leger also pointed out thepossibility of engineering the genetics of gene expres-sion so that spores are not produced by cadavers (e.g.through over-expression of the extracellular chymoe-lastase (Pr1) protease, which causes a hyperimmuneresponse that kills the fungus as well as being toxicto the insect) and there should thus be no onwardtransmission or environmental persistence of thetransgenic strain. However, Thomas and Read notethat non-hosts may be infected but mount an effec-tive immune response, and in the presence of a bigdisease challenge even highly resistant hosts cansuccumb; in both cases expression of the toxin wouldincrease mortality in these non-target hosts.

The inadvertent ‘escape’ of transgenes and theiracquisition by other species/strains is a hotly debatedissue in the field deployment of genetically modified(GM) organisms. Thomas and Read point out thatthe absence of a sexual cycle in Metarhizium mini-mizes the chances of the transgene being transferredbetween strains of M. anisopliae.

But Thomas and Read note that little is known aboutinherited variability in resistance to fungal infectionin insects, and ask whether the selective pressure ofa more virulent pathogen would lead to the develop-ment of resistance as it has done with chemicals.They suggest a detailed ecological analysis would becalled for to quantify all these risks to non-targetspecies.

Wang and St Leger point out that the AaIT geneitself has already passed a good few regulatory hur-dles towards release; in earlier work researchersinserted the toxin gene into a baculovirus to getfaster kill in lepidopteran larvae. However, the mod-ified fungus is a step forward for two reasons. Firstly,it widens the potential targets from lepidopterans,which are the commonest hosts of baculoviruses, totargets in the Diptera, Orthoptera and Coleopterawhich also tend to be less (or not at all) susceptible toBacillus thuringiensis products. Secondly,Metarhizium, unlike baculoviruses, does not need aliving host and is far more amenable to mass produc-tion. Although nothing hides the fact that it stilltakes days rather than minutes to kill its target, interms of pricing, a more potent form of M. anisopliaecould begin to compete with chemical insecticides.

The science and potential are exciting, but whetherGM fungal pathogens enter the marketplace willcome down to social and political as well as commer-cial factors. The US Environmental ProtectionAgency has already approved field tests of tworecombinant strains of M. anisopliae, including onethat over-expressed the Pr1 protease referred toabove. There are several genetically engineered

insecticidal bacteria on the market, providing anobvious precedent for this work.

But quite apart from the reluctance of various sec-tors and parts of the world to embrace GMtechnology in any form, GM biopesticides raise spe-cific issues. At present a traditional biopesticide hasthe virtue of being a ‘green’ and ‘natural’ biocontroltechnology, something that separates biopesticidesfrom chemicals and allows them to be used, forexample, in organic farming. A GM fungus (espe-cially one with something as emotive as a scorpiontoxin) is a rather different kettle of fish. For example,the principle driver behind the adoption ofMetarhizium for locust control in Australia (GreenGuard®) is that a number of the key recession areasfor the locusts are used for organic beef production. Itis possible that a GM fungus could kill locusts evenquicker or make the technology cheaper, but thesebenefits would have to be viewed against possibleloss of the current driver for adoption. While all prod-ucts should be evaluated and judged on their impacts(both positive and negative), that logic does not nec-essarily prevail. With GM technology currentlyexcluded from ‘green’ agriculture, GM biopesticidesmay find themselves in no-man’s land.

In the end, the health sector may provide the bestopportunity for GM Metarhizium, and in particularits deployment against mosquitoes with the prospectof reducing deaths from malaria. If this technologywere to prove able to rapidly deplete mosquito popu-lations in urban settings, then it is likely to beaccepted by people living in areas where malaria isendemic. And this could lead to much more, given theemergence of new mosquito-borne diseases in recentyears and their trade- and climate change-fuelledspread.

1Wang, C. & St Leger, R.J. (2007) A scorpion neuro-toxin increases the potency of a fungal insecticide.Nature Biotechnology 25, 1455–1456. DOI:10.1038/nbt1357.

2Wang, C. & St Leger, R.J. (2006) A collagenous pro-tective coat enables Metarhizium anisopliae to evadeinsect immune responses. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences USA 103(17), 6647–6652.

3Thomas, M.B. & Read, A.F. (2007) Fungal bioinsec-ticide with a sting. Nature Biotechnology 25, 1367–1368. DOI: 10.1038/nbt1207-1367.

Also see: Whetstone, P.A. & Hammock, B.D. (2007)Delivery methods for peptide and protein toxins ininsect control. Toxicon 49, 576–596.

Contacts: Chengshu Wang, Institute of Plant Physiology and Ecology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, ChineseAcademy of Sciences, Shanghai 200032, China.Email: cswang@sibs.ac.cn

Raymond St Leger, Department of Entomology, University of Maryland,College Park, Maryland 20742, USA.Email: stleger@umd.edu

10N Biocontrol News and Information 29(1)

Matthew Thomas & Andrew Read, Centre for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Departments of Biology and Entomology, 208 Mueller Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.Email: mbt13@psu.edu / a.read@psu.edu

US Government Licenses Chromobacterium

A bacterium discovered by US Department of Agri-culture – Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) scientists, which is toxic to a variety of croppests, has been licensed as a technology to MarroneOrganic Innovations, Inc., of Davis, California andNatural Industries, Inc., of Houston, Texas.

In 2003 a team at the ARS Invasive Insect Biocontroland Behavior Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, ledby Phyllis Martin, discovered a species of Chromo-bacterium, which exhibited insecticidal activity, fromsoil rich in decomposed hemlock leaves collected fromthe Catoctin Mountain region in central Maryland. Itwas subsequently described as C. subtsugae.

The bacterial colonies are cream in colour when theystart to form but turn deep purple in 24–48 hours inthe presence of oxygen. The unusual purple coloniesproved to be lethal to immature Colorado potato bee-tles (Leptinotarsa decemlineata). The colour comesfrom the pigment violacein, but tests with isolatedpigment showed it was not involved in C. subtsugae’stoxic properties. Moreover, the related purple bac-teria C. violaceum was not toxic to Colorado potatobeetle when tested under the same regime as C.subtsugae.

Subsequently, the team showed C. subtsugae to beactive against a wide range of other pests in labora-tory assays. The bacterium is also stable in theenvironment, and readily ingested by most of theinsect targets.

• The bacterium killed 80–100% of adults of thechrysomelid beetles Diabrotica undecimpunctatahowardi and D. virgifera virgifera and 100% of pen-tatomid bug Nezara viridula (southern green stinkbug) adults within six days; live bacteria were notneeded to kill the stink bugs. • When fed pollen-based diet containing bacteria,50% of Aethina tumida (small hive beetles) diedwithin five days, and survivors weighed 10% of con-trol beetles. • Weights of caterpillars of two moths, the tobaccohornworm (Manduca sexta) and the gypsy moth(Lymantria dispar) fed diet containing bacteria were80% and 40% less, respectively, through feedinginhibition, although the bacteria did not have lethaleffects in these species. • The bacterium was also shown to have activityagainst the silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii)and diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella).The laboratory tests suggested that C. subtsugae pro-duces multiple toxins that are responsible for itseffects on the range of pests. Results from field testsconfirmed the effects found in the laboratory. In July

2007, a patent was granted for use of the bacteriumas a biocontrol agent against the pests. Additionalstudies will be conducted to determine potential tox-icity to non-target insects.

The process of turning it into a biopesticide involvesa number of steps, identified by Pamela Marrone ofMarrone Organic Innovations as:

• Purify and identify the compound(s) causing theinsecticidal activity and develop analytical methodsfor these compounds to detect them in fermentationfor quality control purposes• Develop a commercial fermentation process andscale up to large scale; optimize yields of microbe +associated insecticidal compounds• Conduct initial up/down rat toxicity (oral) todetermine toxicity range, then if that is acceptable,do a ‘six-pack’ set of acute tests (oral LD50, dermal,eye, etc.) on the technical grade active ingredient(TGAI)• Develop a commercial formulation• Conduct acute toxicity and ecotoxicity tests onformulated material• In parallel with the above, conduct efficacy stud-ies in the laboratory, greenhouse and field• Develop and submit an EPA (US EnvironmentalProtection Agency) package

Further information

Martin, P.A.W., Gundersen-Rindal, D., Blackburn,M. & Buyer, J. (2007) Chromobacterium subtsugaesp. nov., a betaproteobacterium toxic to Coloradopotato beetle and other insect pests. InternationalJournal for Systematic and Evolutionary Microbi-ology 57, 993–999.

Martin, P.A.W., Hirose, E. & Aldrich, J.R. (2007)Toxicity of Chromobacterium subtsugae to southerngreen stink bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) andcorn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journalof Economic Entomology 100(3), 680–684.

Web: www.freepatentsonline.com/7244607.html

Contact: Phyllis Martin, Insect Biocontrol Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, 10300 Baltimore Ave, Beltsville, MD, USA.Email: Phyllis.Martin@ars.usda.gov

Pam Marrone, CEO/Founder, Marrone Organic Innovations, Inc. (MOI), 2121Second Street, Suite B-107, Davis, CA 95618, USA.Email: pmarrone@marroneorganics.comWeb: www.marroneorganics.com/

Yersinia Shows Promise as Bacterial Insecticide

A new species of bacterium isolated from diseasedand dead grass grubs collected in various locations inthe South Island of New Zealand is exciting scien-tists with its potential as a bioinsecticide for a widerange of insect pests.

News 11N

New Zealand’s AgResearch announced the discoveryof the novel bacterium Yersinia entomophaga MH96in November 2007. The genetics of this disease-causing organism have been confirmed, and it hasbeen found to kill many insect species within two tothree days of infection.

The most common bacterial biological control agentto date, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), includes manystrains, each of which targets a specific insect sub-group. According to AgResearch, what makes thislatest discovery of such significance is the wide rangeof insects the bacterium is active against, includingbeetles, grass grubs, moths and caterpillars; i.e. themajor destroyers of agricultural and horticulturalcrops around the world. Yersinia entomophaga is thefirst Yersinia bacterium to be shown to containpotent insecticidal toxins, according to AgResearchScientist Dr Mark Hurst.

Developing application methods for Y. entomophagaas a biocontrol agent will need to take account of itswide spectrum of activity. AgResearch notes that itcould be delivered through a variety of technologiesincluding seed drilling, or through bait which wouldbe formulated to attract only target species. Yersiniaentomophaga has shown limited survival in the fieldso long-term environmental effects are not antici-pated. In addition, it has been shown to be safe tobees.

First discovered in 1996, it has taken Hurst and histeam more than ten years to test and refine their dis-covery and secure the necessary patents. They arenow ready to take the bacterium to the world as amarketable, commercial product. Biological controlmarkets are largely untapped, as discoveries such asthis are rare. Potential markets in New Zealandinclude dairy and field crop farmers; grass grubs andPorina spp. are major pastoral pests of New Zealandagricultural land used for dairy farming. Furtherafield, beetles are big destroyers of many field cropsincluding maize, cotton and sugar cane, as well asturf grasses in global markets such as Australia,Europe and the USA.

Contact: Mark Hurst, AgResearch, PO Box 60, Lincoln, New Zealand.Email: mark.hurst@agresearch.co.nzFax: +64 3 983 3946

Aphid Harbours ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ Bacteria

Aphids are unable to manufacture a number ofessential amino acids that the plant phloem on which

they feed does not supply. Some of the symbiotic bac-teria they harbour in their haemocoels synthesizethe missing nutrients. Although it is known thatinteractions between aphids and their symbionts canbe influenced by the plant species on which theinsects are reared, the underlying mechanisms arenot understood. Now research at the University ofYork, UK, has found that some of the symbiontscould potentially be exploited as a novel way to con-trol the aphids1.

While studying interactions between black beanaphids (Aphis fabae) and their associated bacteria,the York researchers discovered an intriguing newcategory of organism that they dubbed ‘Jekyll andHyde’ bacteria. Black bean aphids are polyphagousand thrive on a number of plant species. In most sit-uations their internal bacteria are harmless orbeneficial – this is their ‘Jekyll’ side. But on somehosts, the relationship between insect and bacteriawas found to change and the bacteria exhibited a dis-ruptive ‘Hyde’ side: the insects grew and reproducedvery slowly, while the bacteria themselves prolifer-ated to very high densities in a short time. Thus,results showed that Aphis fabae grew more slowly onthe labiate plant Lamium purpureum than on Viciafaba (broad bean – a common host for A. fabae), andthe negative effect of L. purpureum on aphid growthwas consistently exacerbated by the bacterial sec-ondary symbionts Regiella insecticola andHamiltonella defensa, which attained high densitiesin L. purpureum-reared aphids.

Further investigations revealed that the amino acidcontent of the phloem of L. purpureum was very low;and A. fabae on chemically defined diets of low aminoacid content also grew slowly and had elevated sec-ondary symbiont densities. The researcherssuggested that the phloem nutrient profile of L. pur-pureum promotes deleterious traits in the secondarysymbionts and disturbs insect controls over bacterialabundance. The next step is to explore precisely howthe aphids control their symbiotic bacteria, whichmay suggest ways in which the bacteria can be‘turned against’ their hosts.

1Chandler, S.M, Wilkinson, T.L. & Douglas, A.E.(2008) Impact of plant nutrients on the relationshipbetween a herbivorous insect and its symbiotic bac-teria. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275(1634),565–570). DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1478

Training News

e

In this section we welcome all your experiences eitherfrom working directly with the end-users of arthropodand microbial biocontrol agents, or from other rele-vant educational activities on natural enemies andIPM aimed at students, farmers, extension staff orpolicymakers.

Where Participation Falls Down

The concept of farmer participation in training andresearch has gained wide acceptance in recent years.Reviewing whether initiatives are sustained and

12N Biocontrol News and Information 29(1)

how well they work is a critical element of improvingthe approach.

Carchi Revisited

The province of Carchi in northern Ecuador isdependent on the potato, which has been grown theresince time immemorial. In recent decades, agricul-tural intensification and its adverse ecologicalconsequences meant farmers became reliant on pes-ticides. While these played a vital role in sustainingproduction, over-use and poor practices had adverseeffects on environmental and human health.

Some six years ago, BNI reported an initiative to pro-mote change, and particularly pesticide reduction,through participatory learning and action withfarmer households1. The multi-institutional broad-based Eco-Salud project in Carchi was established in1997 with the FFS approach at its heart. The FFSsexperimented with use of technologies such as adultweevil traps, late blight-resistant potatoes, specificand low-toxicity pesticides, and pre-spray moni-toring. After two seasons of FFSs, the application ofIPM techniques had led to a reduction of pesticideapplications from 12 (in conventional plots) to sevenin IPM plots, while production was maintained orincreased. FFS participants had also discovered howto maintain production with considerably less finan-cial outlay.

The article noted that “The real test for an FFS iswhether the practices learnt are adopted and workfor the farmers in their own fields, year on year.Early evidence in Carchi is promising with farmersappearing highly motivated. FFS graduates areshowing a willingness to experiment and adapt theIPM technologies they learnt in the FFS.”

According to Marc Schut and Stephen Sherwood,writing in LEISA2, this optimism was shortlived;they reported they had found “systematic translationof FFS (and FFS-like methodologies) from people-centred to more technology-centred designs.” Afteran earlier LEISA article (2003) cited systematic ero-sion of the FFS methodology, Schut and Sherwoodsought for the underlying reasons for the changes byvisiting FFSs, interviewing FFS participants, gradu-ates, facilitators and master trainers, and by holdingmeetings and workshops. They concluded that socialfactors rather than incompetency were responsible,and include three case studies documenting how dif-ferent factors – donor demands, extensionistpreferences, and distant supervision – altered howFFSs were conducted in different ways. They alsoidentify the extremes of FFS ‘by design’ that theyencountered, and how these touch all areas of FFSmethodology.

They discuss how to ‘protect’ the FFS approach frombeing drawn back into the technology transfer top-down paradigm it should be challenging. They argueattention needs to be given to who is in the “driver’sseat” and call for more conducive conditions forpeople-centred development. There has been someprogress on this front in the Andean region. InEcuador, for example, an initiative by agroecologynetworks is setting up a new collective charged with

advocacy. Analogous national and regional activitiesare beginning to create a network of like-mindedplayers.

1See: BNI 22(4) (December 2001), IPM Systems:‘Potato IPM should focus on pesticide reduction’;www.pestscience.com/Bni22-4/IPM.htm

2Schut, M. & Sherwood, S. (2007) FFSs in transla-tion: scaling up in name but not in meaning. LEISA23(4) (December 2007), 28–29. www.leisa.info/

Contact: Marc Schut, Communication and Innovation Studies Group,Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands.Email: marc.schut@wur.nl

Stephen Sherwood, Communication and Innovation Studies Group,Wageningen University and Research Centre /World Neighbours Andes Area Program, Quito, Ecuador.Email: ssherwood@wnandes.org

Unsustainability of Participatory Approaches in Sustainable Agriculture

In New Zealand, participatory approaches, usuallyresearch partnerships, are used to try and developintegrated, holistic models of sustainable agricul-ture. But the authors of a recent paper1 argue thatthis means participatory methods, which were origi-nally conceived “to facilitate positive change inmarginalized communities,” are being used in areasfor which they are inherently unsuitable.

They argue that to understand where participatoryapproaches are and are not appropriate, one needs toconsider their nature and purposes. The differentparticipatory methodologies and philosophies gener-ally share a demand for research participants to playa major role in determining the research agenda,determining and negotiating both outcomes andmethods.

The paper considers two case studies, deliberatelychosen because of their different social, economic andcultural contexts, Both are projects facilitated bystate-owned Crop and Food Research (CFR) and areconcerned with improving environmental and eco-nomic sustainability of cropping systems. The casestudies were drawn up through semi-structuredinterviews with farmers, scientists, consultants andfarmer representatives in the projects:

• Crop Science for Maori: a five-year project withMaori farmers in the remote and impoverished EastCape to develop organic vegetable production. • Wheat Calculator Project for commercial wheatfarmers on the Canterbury Plains. While the area isprime wheat-growing country and farmers want toimprove profitability, it is susceptible to nitrateleaching, and this is worsened by intensification;because the aquifers deliver drinking water to manycommunities there is political pressure to preservethem.

News 13N

Both case studies brought out the importance offarmers’ groups. The existence of a farmers’ group isan indication that farmers already desire change,and farmers’ groups have a demonstrated role infacilitating research projects and providing a man-date for researchers. In the case studies here, theyalso proved crucial for the environmental componentof both projects.

Despite some substantial criticisms, interviewees forboth case studies thought their projects were suc-cessful, but in the judgement of the authors, theinitiatives failed to heighten farmers’ understandingof the environment, a key goal in any programme forsustainable agriculture.

Participants in the organic vegetable projectadmitted progress towards agreed goals has been“painfully slow” (perhaps because the timetable wasunrealistic), but scientists and growers judged it asuccess because of the understanding, trust andrespect built up, which has not been the case for pre-vious non-participatory projects. However, whileparticipants from the Maori community had a beliefin the health and environmental principles of organicproduction, a far more important motivation wasthat, by reviving their culturally important croppingtradition, they might attract young people back tothe region.

The Wheat Calculator project involved participatorydevelopment of a farmer-friendly decision-supportsoftware tool, the Wheat Calculator, to optimizetiming of fertilizer and irrigation interventions. Twomajor benefits predicted in advance by CFR scien-tists were (a) a reduction in excess soil nitrate and (b)potentially increased profitability through optimizedproductivity and reduced expenditure. However,interviews with participating farmers revealed thatit was increased profitability that mostly attractedthem to the project. Moreover, they saw the WheatCalculator not as a method of protecting the environ-ment, but a measure to pre-empt nitrate-restrictinglegislation.

What is common to both case studies, therefore, isthat the goals of the participants were at odds withthe objectives of the scientists and policymakers.

In the case of the Crop Science for Maori project, par-ticipants were most concerned with improvingquality of life: they hoped most of all that the projectwould provide a positive example of economic possi-bilities to attract young people who had migratedaway. Realizing the health and environmental bene-fits of organic production, which were the statedaims of the project, were of secondary and tertiaryimportance (respectively).

With the Wheat Calculator project, the farmers’prime goal of greater profitability again suggeststhat improving quality of life was their main motiva-tion. Although farmers were aware of the potentialenvironmental effects of their farming practices,minimizing them was of lower (long-term) impor-tance than maximizing profitability.

Thus both the case studies demonstrate the potential(and, in both these cases, realized) clash between thegoals of policymakers and those of research partici-pants – wherein lies the problem with participatoryresearch, which by its very nature is supposed toserve the participants alone. In short, the authorsargue, participatory research is not a methodologyfor realizing policy goals.

The case studies here also illustrate what tends tohappen where this is attempted. The project facilita-tors find themselves prioritizing the different goalsand making trade offs. Farmers need to see theresearch will contribute to their goals before theywill participate, while the facilitators themselvesneed to make sure research is in line with thedemands of the funding agencies. 1Bruges, M. & Smith, W. (2008) Participatoryapproaches for sustainable agriculture: a contradic-tion in terms. Agriculture and Human Values 25, 13–23.

Contact: Willie Smith Email: W.Smith@auckland.ac.nz

Announcements

s

Are you producing a newsletter or website, holding ameeting, running an organization or rearing a nat-ural enemy that you want biocontrol workers to knowabout? Send us the details and we will announce ithere.

Harmonia in BioControl

For anyone who has missed it, the first 2008 issue ofBioControl (Volume 53, No. 1) is devoted to the har-lequin ladybird, Harmonia axyridis. Following aforeword that considers ‘From biological control toinvasion: the ladybird Harmonia axyridis as a modelspecies’, by Helen Roy and Eric Wajnberg, 19 furtherpapers deal variously with its spread, distribution

and impact (historical, current and potential) in theUSA and Europe; research on aspects of its biology,phenology, ecology and population genetics; and cur-rent control measures and research relevant to itsfuture management.

Web: www.springerlink.com/content/102853/

Royal Society Journal on Sustainable Agriculture

A special double issue of Philosophical Transactionsof the Royal Society B is devoted to sustainable agri-culture. The issues (Volume 363, Numbers 1491 and1492: 12 and 27 February 2008) are edited by ChrisPollock, Jules Pretty, Ian Crute, Chris Leaver, and

14N Biocontrol News and Information 29(1)

Howard Dalton. Articles of particular interest to BNIreaders are:

• ‘Biological control and sustainable food produc-tion’ by J. S. Bale, J. C. van Lenteren & F. Bigler(No. 1492, pp. 761–776).• ‘Integrated pest management: the push-pullapproach for controlling insect pests and weeds ofcereals, and its potential for other agricultural sys-tems including animal husbandry’ by A. Hassanali,H. Herren, Z. R. Khan, J. A. Pickett & C. M. Wood-cock (No. 1491, pp. 611–621). Web: http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/102022

LEISA on Pest Management

The December 2007 issue of the LEISA magazine onlow external input and sustainable agriculture(Volume 23, No. 24) was devoted to ‘Pest Manage-ment’. The articles cover development of IPM, andtraining and knowledge dissemination (using avariety of participatory methods) for a range of pestsin developing countries.

Web: www.leisa.info/

Neobiota Conference

The Fifth European Conference on Biological Inva-sions, ‘Neobiota: Towards a Synthesis’, will be held inPrague, Czech Republic, on 23–26 September 2008.The meeting is being organized by the Institute ofBotany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic,Department of Invasion Ecology (Prùhonice) andCharles University Prague – Faculty of Science,Department of Ecology (in cooperation with the

Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague). Confer-ence topics include:

• Ecology of invasive alien plant and animal spe-cies • Large-scale patterns of biological invasions:present and future • Pathways and vectors: towards a general scheme • Impact and risk assessment • Conservation of biodiversity • Prevention, monitoring, control and eradication • Policy and legislationThe deadline for abstract submission for contribu-tions (talks and posters) is 30 April 2008.

Email: neobiota@ibot.cas.czWeb: www.ibot.cas.cz/neobiota/

Rice Black Bugs

The Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice)has published 'Rice Black Bugs: Taxonomy, Ecology,and Management of Invasive Species'. This 800-pagebook reinterprets old problems and introduces newecological techniques for the management of riceblack bugs (RBB). In four sections, the book coversclarifications on its confusing taxonomy using tradi-tional and modern taxonomic tools, country reportsof RBB experiences, and approaches to managementof RBB pest species.

Price: US$102 in developed countries, US$52 in developing countries (both plus P&P).Email: prri@philrice.gov.ph / joshiraviph@gmail.comWeb: www.philrice.gov.ph/

Conference Reports

s

Have you held or attended a meeting that you wantother biocontrol workers to know about? Send us areport and we will include it here.

Biopesticides: the Regulatory Challenge

The RELU (Rural Economy and Land Use) fundedresearch project, 'Biological Alternatives to ChemicalPesticides in the Food Chain: An Assessment of Sus-tainability', undertaken by the Department ofPolitics and International Studies in conjunctionwith Warwick HRI, held its final workshop in War-wick, UK, on 31 October 2007. The meetingpresented findings from their project on the environ-mental and regulatory sustainability of biopesticidesas alternatives to chemical pesticides in the foodchain. The event was sponsored by RELU andAgraquest.

Changes in crop protection in recent years –including EU legislation leading to the withdrawal ofsome major pesticides from use, increased pestresistance to certain chemical pesticides, and a con-

sumer/retailer trend towards produce with zerodetectable residues – have meant the scope for theuse of biological control agents has increased, yettheir entry into the market place and (thus) uptakein farming systems has been lower than expected.The meeting presented findings from a three-yearstudy into why this is the case and what the possibleways of rectifying the situation are.

Participants at the workshop heard the followingpresentations:

• Dr David Chandler (Warwick HRI, University ofWarwick) and Professor Wyn Grant (Department ofPolitics and International Studies, University ofWarwick): ‘Biopesticides: environmental and regula-tory sustainability.’• Dr Don Edgecomb (Agraquest, Inc., USA): 'TheAgraquest pipeline – biological and natural basedtechnologies.’• David Cary (Market Development Manager Exo-sect Ltd, UK) and Roma Gwynn (Rationale Biopesti-cides Consultants, Scotland): ‘Regulatory

News 15N

experiences of biopesticides in UK, EU and else-where.’• Dr Peter C. Leendertse (CLM, Netherlands):‘Natural pesticide experiences from the Nether-lands.’ • Richard Davis (Pesticides Safety Directorate –PSD, UK): ‘The regulatory response: the biopesti-cides scheme.’Dave Chandler and Wyn Grant noted that hypoth-eses for the lower than expected uptake ofbiopesticides include both regulatory and economicpressures. The burden of developing biopesticidestends to be shouldered by small- to medium-sizedenterprises (SME), and gathering enough field baseddata for registration can be a lengthy and expensiveprocess. With registration costs high, and a majorcost for registration being efficacy testing of theproduct, it was suggested that a more appropriatemodel could be followed, whereby registration isgranted and then efficacy testing carried out in thefirst five years after the product launch. The role ofretailers in growers’ decision-making was identified.They may have requirements that go beyond theexisting approval system, and because they cannotendorse particular products do not usually promotethe use of environmentally friendly alternatives. Acost–benefit analysis indicated a negative balancefor R&D of products and for growers, but a positivebalance for consumers.

Don Edgecomb gave a presentation on Agraquest’sexperiences of registration in the USA and an over-view of its products. The majority are based onmicrobial metabolites or plant extracts; one ofinterest in the pipeline is the fungus Muscodor albuswhich produces volatile compounds against a widerange of fungi. The product and its formulation werediscussed as a postharvest agent [also see BNI 28(4)December 2007, pp. 69N–74N].

Exosect mainly works on Lepidopteran pheromonesand was the first company to have a product regis-tered in the new Biopesticide Scheme in the UK. Thekey elements of the Biopesticide Scheme are pre-sub-mission meetings, reduced registration fees and aBiopesticides Champion within PSD1. David Caryexplained that SMEs often register a product basedon the results of early trials and there is thus morelimited opportunity for product optimization. Carycommended the new system on its new proportionalfee structure and the ability the scheme gives a com-pany to work out a realistic timeline before returnscan be expected on a product. The pre-submissionprocess was also commended as it enables companiesto cut out any unnecessary work which is irrelevantto registration. He underlined his belief that the keyto success is mutual recognition between EuropeanUnion countries, therefore by-passing the need forregistration in each country. Currently Exosect areworking to develop ‘concept orchards’ which is a wayof demonstrating the products’ ability to work andgaining the trust of growers/end-users.

Peter C. Leendertse described the Netherlands’experience through Project GENOEG, which trans-lates as ‘effective use of natural pesticides’ and wasset up to facilitate registration of natural pesticides

to the market and to create an inventory of effectivenatural pesticides. The project included aid with theregistration of natural products, extension work edu-cating growers and updating the list of effective‘products of natural origin’ (PNOs). The project hashelped with registration of ten PNOs, and withoutthis help it is possible the applicants would not havestarted or succeeded in having their products regis-tered. (See www.genoeg.net)

Richard Davis presented on behalf of the PSD (Pesti-cide Safety Directorate). He outlined how theBiopesticide Scheme was launched in order toincrease availability of biopesticides in the UK. Heexplained that free pre-submission meetings wereintroduced to ascertain how many data would beneeded to go forward to register a product, and gavean overview of the new fee structure. Pre-submissionmeetings are a vital component of the schemeensuring that only work necessary for registration iscarried out on products, avoiding extra costs toresearchers. With the introduction of a new ‘Biopes-ticides Champion’2 researchers have an importantfirst point of contact in the PSD, able to advise andoffer assistance in the registration process. Disap-pointment was expressed, however, at the lack ofpeople coming forward for advice/pre-submissionmeetings so far.

The outputs of the RELU project are to be written upas book to be published by CABI.

Further information on the RELU project and thismeeting is available at: www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/

Other useful websites: 1PSD New Biopesticide Scheme: www.pesticides.gov.uk/environment.asp?id=1846 RELU, Rural Economy and Land Use Programme:www.relu.ac.uk/REBECA, Regulation of Biological Control Agents:www.rebeca-net.de/

Contacts: Wyn Grant, Department of Politics and International Studies,University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK;Email: w.p.grant@warwick.ac.uk

2Lisa Moakes, Biopesticides Champion, PSD; Email: lisa.moakes@psd.defra.gsi.gov.uk

By: Bryony Taylor, Biopesticides Group, CABI Europe, UK, Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7TA, UK.[This report also appears in an adapted form in International Pest Control 50(1).]

Indian Biopesticide International Conference: Biocicon – 2007

The Department of Advanced Zoology and Biotech-nology, Palayamkottai organized a three-dayinternational conference on Biopesticides at StXavier’s College from 28–30 November 2007. DrJelumn (Deputy Director, National Centre for PlantProtection Training, Hyderabad) in his introductoryremark emphasized the need of registration of pesti-

16N Biocontrol News and Information 29(1)

cides and biopesticides. Dr B. V. David from SunAgro-Biotech, Chennai highlighted approaches inIPM and their impact on the environment. He alsoreported on usage of pesticides in various crops, andits impact on the environment, humans and domesticanimals. Need and necessity of incorporation ofbiopesticides in agriculture was also highlighted.Rev. Fr Britto Vincent, S. J. Rector, Rev. Dr AntoneyLeo Tagore, S. J. secretary and Rev. Dr AlphonseManicakam, S. J. Principal of the college underlinedthe importance of biopesticides. Dr K. Sahayaraj, theOrganising secretary of the conference, outlined thedynamics of the conference.

In the first day’s technical session, Dr Hem Sexena,Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur; Dr Y.G.Prasad, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agri-culture, Hyderabad; and Dr P. Jeyakumar, NationalCentre for Integrated Pest Management (IPM),IARI, New Delhi, delivered the lead papers on micro-bial insecticides, Achaea janata granuloviruses andbiomolecules in pest management. Eminent scien-tists and researchers for various parts of Indiadelivered 19 oral presentations on IPM, microbialinsecticides and plant- and microbe-basedbiomolecules.

During the second day, Dr Pathipati Usha Rani,Indian Institute of Chemical Technology,Hyderabad; Dr Stephen D. Samuel, Regional CoffeeResearch Station, Thandigudi; and Professor RohanRajapakse, University of Ruhuna, Sri Lanka,chaired three sessions covering plant products indefoliators, other pests and stored products manage-ment, respectively. Young and senior scientistspresented their findings from both laboratory andfield research. In all, two lead papers, 20 oral papersand four posters including a poster by Dr RomanPavela, Crop Research Institute, Czech Republic, onplant products and their use in pest management.All the presentations highlighted the importance ofplants and their biomolecules in management of var-ious pests. They also recommended utilizing variouslocally available plants in cost effective and environ-mental pest management.

During the third day deliberations were on naturalenemies in pest control. The first session was chairedby Dr R. Sundararaj, Wood Biodegradation Division,Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Banga-lore. He highlighted the distribution and role ofvarious natural enemies, which dwell in sandalwoodgrowing areas of South India. In this session five oralpresentations were delivered on this aspect. The lasttechnical session, chaired by Dr K. P. Sanjayan, G.S.Gill Research Institute, Chennai, was on biotech-nology in pest management. He delivered an invitedlecture on ‘Induction of specific biochemical path-ways in plants for pest management’. Junior, youngand senior researchers presented six oral and 13posters from various parts of the world includingBangladesh and Indonesia. All presentations werediscussed adequately and suggestions were broughtout and presented by Dr B. Victor from the Depart-ment of Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology.

Dr S. Vincent, Member secretary, TamilnaduCouncil for Science and Technology (TNSCST),

Chennai, chaired the valedictory function afternoonof the conference’s third day. He pointed out theimpact of various pesticides in various agro-ecosys-tems (both fresh and marine water bodies andterrestrial systems), the necessity of IPM, naturalenemies, and plant-based and microbes-based insec-ticides in agriculture. He also highlighted thevarious avenues available for juniors and scientistsin the field of biopesticides in TNSCST. The bestpaper presentation honoured ten young scientists.Rev. Dr Alphonse Manicakam, S.J. expressed theimportance of conferences and symposia in the fieldof higher education, followed by an overall report onthe conference read by Dr T. A. Sethuramalingam.Dr K. Sahayaraj, the Organising secretary, gave thevote of thanks and declared that he would like tostart the Society for Advancement of Crop Protectionand also an International Journal on Biopesticides.

By: Dr K. Sahayaraj, Organising secretary, Biopesticide International Conference.(BIOCCON-2007).

DOM Symposium on Microbial Formulation

The First International Domestication of Microor-ganism (DOM) Symposium on MicrobialFormulation, held on 4–5 December 2007 in Upp-sala, Sweden was attended by almost one hundredparticipants from over 20 countries in Europe, theAmericas, Asia and Africa.

The symposium was opened by Professor JohanSchnürer (Swedish University of Agricultural Sci-ences [SLU]), the DOM programme director, whogave a brief outline of DOM research on safetyassessment, fermentation and formulation. Pro-fessor Schnürer ended by extending an invitation forinternational research cooperation to both academiaand industry. Dr David A Schisler (US Departmentof Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service,National Center for Agricultural UtilizationResearch [USDA-ARS NCAUR]) began the firstmorning with an invited presentation, ‘Fermenta-tion: prelude to success in the formulation ofbioactive agents’. This was followed by presentationson ‘Influence of the fermentation on the viability andefficacy of freeze-dried cells of Pseudomonas fluores-cens Pf153’ by Dr Isabella Bisutti (BBA Institute forBiological Control, Germany); ‘DOM projectapproaches to stabilization of viable microorganisms’by Dr Sebastian Håkansson (SLU); ‘Stabilisation oflactic acid bacteria: relevance of physical propertieson formulation efficiency’ by Fernanda Fonseca(Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique[INRA], France); and ‘Freeze-drying of Lactobacilluscoryniformis Si3’ by Åsa Schoug (SLU). After lunch,Professor John H. Crowe (University of California,Molecular and Cellular Biology, USA) gave aninvited presentation on ‘The utility of trehalose forpreserving microorganisms’. Professor Crowe is the‘elder statesman’ of dry-preservation biology and hispresentation was particularly well received. Subse-quent presentations were on ‘A gelatine capsulemethod to preserve and spread cells of Pseudomonasputida as biosensors of aromatic chemicals in soil’ byDr Aitor de las Heras (Centro Nacional de Biotec-

News 17N

nología – Consejo Superior de InvestigacionesCientíficas [CNB-CSIC], Spain); ‘Design of self-assembled metal oxide micelles for encapsulation ofbacteria in bio-control applications’, by ProfessorVadim Kessler (SLU); ‘Development of biocontrolagents adapted to environmental stress conditions’by Dr Neus Teixido (Institute of Agro-Food Researchand Technology [IRTA], Spain); ‘Product develop-ment for extended shelf-life of Serratia entomophila,a microbial control agent for grass grub in New Zea-land’ by Dr Trevor A. Jackson (AgResearch Ltd., NewZealand); and ‘Development of a starter culturetablet targeting fermented milk applications’ by DrErwan Henri (Danisco, France)

The second day began with an invited presentationby Dr Jan Dijksterhuis (Centraalbureau voor Schim-melcultures [CBS], the Netherlands) on ‘Ascosporesof thermotolerant fungi - nature's perfect formula-tions’. Dr Dijksterhuis’ presentation on fungal cellbiology attracted a lot of interest from the partici-pants, in particular in connection with the relevanceof fundamental biological studies for industrial for-mulations. He was followed by presentations on‘Development of vacuum-drying processes of PGPRPseudomonas isolates for application in various agri-cultural systems’ by Dr Jolanta Levenfors (MicrobialActivity for a Sound Environment [MASE], Sweden);‘Comparison of different drying techniques for poten-tial biocontrol agents’ by Dr Dietrich Stephan (BBAInstitute for Biological Control, Germany); ‘Formula-tion of the yeast Dekkera bruxellensis for ethanolproduction’ by Johanna Blomqvist (SLU); and ‘Firstresults about the fermentation and freeze-drying for-mulation of a Metschnikowia pulcherrima for thebiological control of postharvest disease’ by DrDavide Spadaro (Agroinnova, Italy). The final after-noon began with Professor Peter J Lillford (Centrefor Novel Agricultural Products [CNAP], Universityof York, UK) giving an invited presentation on ‘Whyorganisms need a PhD in physical chemistry’. Hishumorous and forceful presentation was one of thehighlights of the symposium. The final presentationswere on ‘The use of ATP technology to measure bac-terial numbers and physiological status’ by Dr ArneLundin (Biothema AB, Sweden); and ‘Optimizationof large scale production and bioformulation of Pan-toea agglomerans strain Eh-24’ by Dr TugbaAdiyaman-Koltuksuz, Science and TechnologyCenter [EBILTEM], Turkey.

Eleven posters were also displayed.

The scientific atmosphere at this first InternationalFormulation Symposium with attendants from bothindustry and academia was very open, friendly andinformative. December in Sweden is an extremelydark period of the year, but participants werewarmed by the sights and sounds of traditionalSwedish Lucia carol singers in white frocks andcandle wreaths, a typical ‘Julbord’ (Christmas smor-gosbord) with schnaps and singing, followed by avisit from the 300-year-old birthday boy and Upp-sala’s most famous citizen – Carl von Linnaeus.

The DOM programme is planning to arrange acourse and a one-day symposium on: ‘Microbes andRegulatory Systems’ in the autumn of 2008, probably

early October. Intended participants are industrialdevelopment staff, regulatory officers and universityscientists and PhD students. More information will follow on the DOM web site:www.mistra.org/DOM

SMCB & IOBC Meet in Mexico

The Sociedad Mexicana de Control Biológico (SMCB)and the International Organization for BiologicalControl (IOBC), Nearctic Regional Section, held ajoint symposium, entitled ‘Biological ControlWithout Borders’ on 13–15 November 2007 inMerida (Yucatan), Mexico. The Symposium was heldin conjunction with the SMCB’s annual NationalCongress, and was attended by approximately 275scientists and students from at least nine countries.

Plenary addresses were ‘Augmentative biologicalcontrol in Latin America: How far have we come?’ byDra Vanda Bueno (Brazil) and Dr Joop van Lenteren(Netherlands); and ‘Holistic pest management: morethan IPM?’ by Dr Juan Barrera (Mexico). Themeeting consisted of a roundtable discussion on‘Mass-rearing natural enemies in Latin America’,convened by Dra Bueno; and four symposia: ‘Ecolog-ical interactions between biological control and GMcrops’, organized by Dr Jonathan Lundgren (USA);‘Biological control and management of the CentralAmerican locust’, organized by Dra Ludivina Barri-entos Lozano, Dr Eduardo Slazar Solís and M. C.Juan Jasso Argumedo (Mexico); ‘Biocontrol and IPMof protected crop pests in the Americas’, organized byDrs Luis Cañas (USA), Les Shipp (Canada), VandaBueno (Brazil), Graeme Murphy (Canada) and JohnSanderson (USA); and ‘Biological control of weedsthroughout the Americas’, organized by Rob Wieden-mann (USA). The symposia featured dual-languageslides to allow attendees to follow the presentations,regardless of the language in which the paper waspresented. There were also 78 submitted papers and60 poster presentations.

Prior to the Symposium and Congress, SMCB heldits annual three-day National Course on BiologicalControl, which was attended by 182 students, and aworkshop on managing Central American locusts,with 61 participants.

The SMCB holds its National Congress each year,but the 2007 meeting was the first one held in collab-oration with IOBC.

Report compiled by: Hugo Arredondo Bernal andLuis Rodriguez-del-Bosque (SMCB), and RobWiedenmann (IOBC).

ESA in San Diego

The annual meeting of the Entomological Society ofAmerica (ESA) was held on 8–13 December 2007 inSan Diego, California. Over 2850 people registered,including 700 students, making it one of the mostattended meetings ever. Leon G. Higley of the Uni-versity of Nebraska-Lincoln delivered an informativeand insightful Founders’ Memorial Lecture on the

18N Biocontrol News and Information 29(1)

life and contributions to entomology of Dr Asa Fitch,one of the pioneer figures in American economicentomology. More than 1300 talks and approxi-mately 670 posters were presented, making itpractically impossible to take them all in. Fortu-nately, all presentations that were recorded are nowfreely accessible on the ESA website(www.entsoc.org) to those who registered for themeeting.

A record number of 70 symposia were conducted. Thetheme of the meeting was ‘Making Connections’, anda number of symposia reflected this theme in theirtopics. Thirty symposia directly connected to biolog-ical control and pest management were:

• Biocontrol: economic, social, and ethical factorsshaping its success• Classical biological control using pathogens andnematodes• Successes, challenges, and frontiers in biologicalcontrol of saltcedar in the western U.S.• Biological control of knapweeds: lessons learnedand questions raised• Soybean aphid in the north central US: imple-menting IPM at the landscape scale• Corn rootworm genetics: current status, goals forthe future, and implications toward resistance man-agement• Lady beetle linkages: connections of the Coccinel-lidae• Neonicotinoid insecticides: exposing and navigat-ing their multifaceted ramifications for pest man-agement in turf and ornamentals• Greenhouse pest management: research, imple-mentation and opportunities• Colony collapse disorder in honey bees: insightinto status, potential causes, and preventive meas-ures• Exotic forest pests: Are we making any progress?• Invasive bark beetles in the forests of the UnitedStates• Bark and wood boring beetles: innovations andinitiatives with the U.S. Forest Service• Influence of molecular technology on invasivespecies programs• Invasive pests: a growing problem in a shrinkingagricultural landscape• Integrating integrated pest management

• Implementing IPM through conservation pro-grams: opportunities, experiences, and strategies tomove forward• New developments from industry for insect pestmanagement solutions• Advances in Bt resistance: from mechanisms tomonitoring• Bt crops and resistance monitoring: innovationand influence in U.S. pest management• Harmonizing laboratory methods to evaluatepotential effects of GM crops on non-target arthro-pods• Regulatory framework connecting the scienceand application of transgenic insects• Recent advances in research of subterranean ter-mites and their roles in population managementprograms• Ecology of invasive mosquitoes: factors control-ling their spread and ecological and public healthimpacts• Prevention and management of vectors and pestsof public health importance• Recent advances in vector sand fly research: con-necting laboratory and field efforts to develop novelapproaches to leishmaniasis control• Recent developments in insect repellentsresearch• Insect antiviral resistance• Making connections between traditional and newapproaches for host plant resistance research• Diagnostic tools/protocols to detect arthropod-associated pathogensThe increasingly popular Linnaean Games was wonby the team from the University of Arkansas. TheInsect Photo Salon displayed hundreds of photo-graphic images of insects and other arthropods thatwere submitted by members of ESA, and the Photo-graphic Society of America. Exhibits from 54 privateand public organizations and vendors provided infor-mation, demonstrated new technological apparata,and sold items such as imaging equipment, entomo-logical supplies, jewellery, books, and T-shirts.

The 2008 ESA annual meeting will be held in Reno,Nevada on 15–20 November 2008. The theme of thatmeeting is ‘Metamorphosis: A New Beginning’. Youcan bet on it being a good meeting.

By: Ron Cave, University of Florida.