Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T02:28:29.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How organic producers can make classical biological control work for them

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

R. G. Van Driesche
R. G. Van Driesche
Affiliation:
Biological Control Coordinator, Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003.
Get access

Abstract

Organic producers have traditionally understood the value of conserving the natural enemies of the pests of the crops they grow. An equal appreciation of the value of importing new species of natural enemies is also needed. Given this understanding, the interests of organic farmers could then be promoted by efforts to stimulate greater activity by government agencies in charge of such importations. Furthermore, the focus of such importations could be altered to target more precisely pests of crops most commonly grown by organic producers. This would benefit organic farmers by permanently solving or greatly reducing the intensity of problems from many introduced crop pests. The potential benefit of a coordinated federal and state program of classical biological control could be very large for organic farmers. There is an increasing interest nationwide in expanding the use of classical biological controls. Organic producers now have the opportunity to add their influence to this trend to reshape the country's pest control agenda away from chemicals and toward biological controls and to focus this at least in part on those pests of greatest concern to organic producers. To do so, however, organic producers will have to learn a new lesson, i.e., the difference between native and imported pests and the value of importation as a means to control the latter.

Keywords

classical biological controlalternative agricultureintroduced pestsparasitespredatorspublic policy
Type
Commentary
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 4 , Issue 3-4 , December 1989 , pp. 169 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Boller, E. F., Remund, U., and Candolfi, M. P.. 1988. Hedges as potential sources of Typhlodromus pyri, the most important predatory mite in vineyards of northern Switzerland. Entomophaga 33:249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Day, W. H. 1981. Biological control of the alfalfa weevil in the northeastern United States. In Papavizas, C. (ed.). Biological Control in Crop Production. BARC Symposium, Number 5. Allanheld, Osmun, Totowa, New Jersey. 461 pp.Google Scholar
3.DeBach, P. 1964. Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Reinhold Publ. Corp., New York, New York. 844 pp.Google Scholar
4.DeBach, P. 1974. Biological Control by Natural Enemies. Cambridge Univ. Press, London and New York. 323 pp.Google Scholar
5.Doutt, R. L., and Nakata, J.. 1973. The Rubus leafhopper and its egg parasitoid: An endemic biotic system useful in grape-pest management. Environ. Entomol. 2:381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Hazzard, R. V., Ferro, D. N., Van Driesche, R. G., and Tuttle, A. F.. 1990. Mortality to eggs of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) from predation by Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Environ. Entomol. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Huffaker, C. B., and Messenger, P. S. (eds.). 1976. Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, and London. 788 pp.Google Scholar
8.Laing, J. E., and Hamai, Junji. 1976. Biological control of insect pests and weeds by imported parasites, predators and pathogens. In Huffaker, C. B. and Messenger, P. S. (eds.). Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, and London. 788 pp.Google Scholar
9.Prokopy, R. J., Christie, M., and Stanley, D.. 1990. Evaluation of releases of Amblyseiusfallacis predatory mites on apple trees. Massachusetts Fruit Notes 55(1):12–16.Google Scholar
10.Van Driesche, R. G. 1989a. What every state needs-a biological control coordinator. The IPM Practitioner Vol. 11(9), 09 pp. 5–7.Google Scholar
11.Van Driesche, R. G. 1989b. Extending biological control: The role of extension agents in the use of natural enemies. The IPM Practitioner Vol. 11(10), Oct. pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
12.Van Driesche, R. G., and Carey, E.. 1987. Opportunities for increased use of biological control in Massachusetts. MA Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 718. 141 pp.Google Scholar
13.Van Driesche, R. G., and Taub, G.. 1983. Impact of parasitoids on Phyllonorycter leafminers infesting apple in Massachusetts, USA. Prot. Ecol. 5:303–317.Google Scholar
14.Weires, R. W. 1984. Economic impact of a flucythrinate-induced resurgence of the Cornstock mealybug (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on apple. J. Econ. Entomol. 77:186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Williams, D. W. 1984. Ecology of a blackberry leafhopper-parasite system and its relevance to California grape agroecosystems. Hilgardia 52(4). 33 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar