Talk:Biological pest control

wrong order - balance

This article leads off with issues/problems with Biological pest control. It should start with more of a useful description of the topic for people who want to know about the subject before the soapbox is mounted. Yes there are problems however the use of biological controls is generally more environmentally concious than chemical control methods. 198.103.184.76 (talk)strider22 —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Ladybug

people keep mentioning ladybugs as a bio control agent, however i have heard that ladybugs are rarely used as a weevil is a lot more efficient. is lady bug the best organism to be talking about then?--Hypo Mix 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Convergent ladybeetles (Hippodamia convergens) are the most commonly available insect sold in garden centers and nurseries in the US. I am not familiar with a weevil being used or a weevil that is more efficient in any type of bio control. Most weevils are plant feeders unless you are referring to a type of assassin bug which have very general appearing mouth parts, such as the minute pirate bug (Orius spp.)Bugguyak 11:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

might be an Australian thing... just so long as they are commonly used in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypo Mix (talk • contribs) 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Many weevils are used in the biological control of weeds. I don't know of any that feed on insects or compete with ladybugs for prey.botanybob 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i think i got the weevils part wrong, but i remember a lecturer saying something about an insect being more effective than lady bugs and therefore ladybugs being not commonly used, but it might be an Australian bug in which case it wouldnt be sold in the US (unsigned)

I've heard of ladybugs being used to control aphids (and have done so), but never weeds.71.84.247.116 (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Most of this article (including pictures, formatting and references) is directly lifted from an Answers.com article on the subject. Answers.com article Dr. Root 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked on this reference and it appears that the search engine at Answers.com was simply referencing the wikipedia article on the subject, thus it is a copy of the wikipedia article rather than the other way around.--botanybob 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC) bffdbfdbfgdzfgvcdmjcghmgchmch

adverse effects?

What about the adverse effects of introducing species/ diseases as biological control? I think a section on this would be useful.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.154.228 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Definitely need something on cane toads--58.6.95.17 (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Could be expanded though. Hope this helps. Bugguyak (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the external link to the Cane Toads page so it now points to the intended page instead the ever-popular 404 66.216.234.115 (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC) This stuff i plagirized — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.3.33 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

garden

"It has a tapering segmented grey/black body with orange/yellow markings nettles in the garden and by leaving hollow stems and some plant debris over-winter so that they can hibernate over winter."???

"seek out and Parasitize slugs": small P.

expand context for this subject

Biological control is used and studied in a much wider context than organic gardening. For example, it has become the standard method of pest control on several commercial greenhouse crops such as tomatoes. It is also the subject of a large body of research work in applied entomology. As someone who works and has done research in this field, I found it odd that the introduction to this article is actually about organic gardening. It seems to me that the introduction should be about biological control in general, and its use in organic (or non-organic gardening for that matter) should be given as an example.

I agree that this article needs to be expanded in order to be accurate. There is no mention of the types of biocontrol, such as conservation, augmentation, and classical biological control.--Bugguyak 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC

What stood out to me, was the small amount of information on the use of biological control to control invasive species by introducing a predator from the invasive species' original environment. I don't know much about the subject, but UC riverside has a wealth of information on it. http://www.biocontrol.ucr.edu/index.html 71.84.247.116 (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Microbial biocontrol section needed

There is one mention of the fungus Trichoderma on the page. Should also be linked to Entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), and others. Nemetona 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See biopesticide Roy Bateman (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

History and development of biological control section needed

It may also be useful to have some background information on the history of and development of biological control. This will help establish the scientific basis of this field. Some mention should be made of Paul DeBach's work and his colleague's and students. He was very influential in developing the field based on good scientific and technological foundations. For a brief summary of his work see Paul DeBach Trebot 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Plants section comments

I do not believe that this section is well tied to the topic of biological control. Initial bullets are good, but the list of pest-repellant and deterrant plants goes beyond the topic. The effectiveness of this approach is highly questionable and methods are poorly documented. I would like to remove the table from this section and focus on the use of plants to provide food and habitat for beneficial organisms. Any other thoughts? --botanybob 21:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I support this. Bugguyak 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

reference

I think there is a mistake on references. The article of Collier et al. 2003 is more an article of T. Collier et R. Van Steenwyk -2004- A critical evaluation of augmentative biological control. Biological Control (31): 245-256 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.169.113 (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed "Other fungi ... evoke stress response of the plant facilitating further plant defence reactions." - agree citation needed Roy Bateman (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Pleasantly surprised to see our website listed as a reference in Wikipedia! But we have formally changed our name and web address. Can you please update our link (formerly FDR Project) to: http://www.frogsafe.org.au/cane_toads/ In particular, our page on the attempted biological control project against the cane toad is: http://www.frogsafe.org.au/cane_toads/toad_virus.shtml Thanks. Deborah Pergolotti, President, Frog Safe, Inc. Frogsafe (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Extra predators and moulds to include

Please include :

• Phytoseiulus persimilis (against spider mites)
• Amblyseius californicus (against spider mites)
• Amblyseius cucumeris (against spider mites) Spider mites and their natural enemies
• Typhlodromips swirskii (aginst spider mites, thrips, and white fly)
• Feltiella acarisuga (against spider mites)
• Stethorus punctillum (against spider mites)
• Macrolophus caluginosus (against spider mites)
• Encarsia formosa (against white fly)
• Eretmocerus spp. (against white fly)White flies and their natural enemies

as natural predators and

• Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (known by the trade name PreFeRal) against white fly

as a mould

• Metarhizium anisopliae; this mould is used in the battle against the north african locusts with much success (under the LUBILOSA-project)

into the article. perhaps it is already best to put on seperate page. Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease

I am looking for some reviews for the article rabbit haemorrhagic disease. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisakauth (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for putting in some hard work. By the way, you can sign with four tildes. OptimistBen (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Copper oxide chloride

Copper oxide chloride also seems to be used frequenly as a (semi?)-biological pest control agent. Please include

Biological control is typically defined as the control of pest populations by use of living organisms or viruses. A chemical treatment wouldn't fall under the category of biological control since there isn't an organism involved. Kingofaces42 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Booklet

Information from following booklet may be translated by google translate and included: http://www.west-vlaanderen.be/upload/povlt/site-2007/PDF/publicaties/vijand/VGW-2007.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.60.196 (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Octopamine physiological effect in humans

Octopamine is considered an exciting target for new insecticides primarily because for many years it was thought to be absent in vertebrates. This leads most researchers to jump to the conclusion that it is not effective in vertebrates. However, this does not necessarily have to be the case. Several review papers discuss octopamine's watershed dichotomy between vertebrates and invertebrates.

Octopamine in invertebrates and vertebrates. A review. JC David, JF Coulon - Prog Neurobiol, 1985 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Prog Neurobiol. 1985;24(2):141-85

TYRAMINE AND OCTOPAMINE: Ruling Behavior and Metabolism T Roeder - Annual Review of Entomology, 2005 - Annual Reviews

The possible role of octopamine as a synaptic transmitter: a review. TP Hicks - Can J Physiol Pharmacol, 1977 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But whatever the findings, the dichotomy remains due to size differences between terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.216.69 (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Example

Here's an example, wasps used in Thailand to protect agriculture: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/world/asia/19thai.html

Dhollm (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Create category of cities using biological control?

It seems to me it would be interesting to create a category to list cities that do regular annual municipal pest control, both biological and chemical. Whitehorse applies biological mosquito control as one of their stated municipal programs on their city website, alongside water and sewage and emergency services. It is well described/presented, so I linked that program to this page. A category for all such cities I think would be very interesting. Thoughts?--Tallard (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada is reported to exclusively use it for it's affordable housing extermination of bed bugs. Someone needs to find a source to cite however as this comes directly from the company offline. The company is discussed recently online as having been profitable in the first year but it's sustainability is it's failure as well. Encyclopedia's that rely upon it's pushing it's advances on world misunderstand the problem is in other direction. It grows too slowly in absence of marketing the profitability seems a requirement and represents a failure to raise capital to actually address the market disruptively.

For example as a franchiser of biocontrol for indoor extermination instead of the manufacturer giving away the license to too few or too many users. So I concur with your "interesting" opportunity to consolidate from the use end. I am also aware of a dozen years having passed. This entire new industry- indoor elimination of this pest with fungus- arose during this time much delayed however. I don't think there is current a page on the product, despite it having exclusivity due to costs of label approval not just it's patent. It seems that despite concerns of some it is overregulated this elimination of failing chemical poisons to use mature safe live organisms instead that do not need to be GMO etc.

I think the standard for market success, for competition, is not hard to find. Has the product which is superior to DDT done as well to eliminate it as history shows previously occurred? The list you asked for demonstrates now that unique buying power of government seems to matter in early adoption. 172.58.19.59 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Links

as off-shoots from the Conservation section; here are following useful extra article; they can perhaps be added in the see also or external links section:

• https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Beekeeping/Plants_for_Honey_Bees
• https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Beekeeping/Plants_for_Bumblebees
• https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Plants_for_birds_%28food%29
• https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Plants_for_butterflies_%28food%29
• Insectary_plants

KVDP (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Natural vs artificial bio pest control

I added this link:

• Study conducted showing that simply leaving 1/4 of land uncultivated (rainforest) can provide cost-effective biological pest control

See also here.

I think we need to mention that simply "doing nothing" in certain areas of the farmland (ie if it's land with trees ((rain)forest) ) can also provide bio pest control. This seems to me to be much more cost-effective than providing bio pest control using some artificial way. KVDP (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the 'Conservation' section that's already in the article implicitly covers this, though the info could perhaps be expanded. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that natural predators being allowed to repopulate deserves great focus as it distinguishes created ones that use "life" to create the 'weapon' be it called GMO'd or not.

But the research on batbugs evolving to ground dwelling prey -us- suggests it actually predates bats or might of gone up not down. Again this is at least hard to source but societally extremely important. Arguments however are found EVERYWHERE that the fungus currently used indoors in homes is found in ordinary soil. Sourcing therefore needs only those links plus those acknowledging we used to live on the soil, protected by it's fungus's not just impacted by it negatively.

Reporting by the UAE as translated from there language to English suggests much could be changed is fungus is used in homes. "wide Impact" is the word choice I recall... but historically this is untrue and there is likey great sourcing on the history of bedframes especially as some cultures still futon or live on the floor directly if not dirt.

The medical article talking about the pest claims it was accepted as coexisting until DDT so we have a bad source there because I think alternatives to distance from soil used to exist, but my goal is not for speculation just for the work needed here to source being identified in TALK far better.

DDT is one of the reasons disruption with biocontrol is not occurring- it is still being used as it is easy to obtain however illegally and catastrophically.

One fourth of land sounds costly itself but also to the third party not billing. The ownership of the fungus for residential indoor extermination has a level of fraud sustaining it. Peer reviewed journals compare water based

competition with the oil label approved product. But it seems comparing it to oil without the label approved is the answer there and I do not believe such research is limited to label approved formulations at all. In writing this I wonder if recent approval in Hawaii of this fungus that includes an old journal article in full online bizarrely is helping me figure out what's missing from our coverage specific to this issue I close with. Los Angeles city limits is baddly infested and has not a single exterminator on the company website but does have a shelter imposter buying it directly for it's own use. That shelter used an exterminator who did not know they competed against fungus but now has adopted that fungus as part of it's product line as they loved using it for mosquitoes.

So this article is quite abstract and does not inform learner's adequately that fungus often the problem can also be the solution. That it can be a problem for plants or animals. And that regulator approval of fungus as solution under catagory of pesticide has a counterintuitive not being best word history but requires more boutique regulation not yet present in America.

For example the danger in applying dormant fungul spores against indoor insects is from oil emulsion and that emulsion is in fact toxic to target organisms as well explaining product application criteria that cuts against customer actual interests to deal with regulatory environment.

So a section TITLED regulatory challenges to wider adoption or something acknowledging the normal power of industry is against if present at all disruptive use of nature versus classic pesticides.

One thing this encyclopedia can aspire to in sourcing quality information is this area of silence. The insect does in trying to get away from it's prey or source of food create opportunity for existing bed design to be exploited but the general public is not getting information to help it improve solutions. Orkin for example deliberately censors the full name of the fungus Canada forces them to use. In an effort at transparency arguably they substitute latin to describe what part of fungus is used not which one.

Our silence is furthering too much shenaniganry 172.58.19.59 (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree; that method still asks for some input of the farmer. I think we need to add a new subsection (1.4 Leaving zones of land as is). I added this info at the see also section which can then be moved there:

• Permaculture zone 5: leaving an environment as is also sparks the creation of natural predators for areas that are under cultivation

KVDP (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Needs topic split

Tries to cover too large a topic. Topic wanders focuses mostly on bugs - though i got here searching for weed control. It names weed control then says nothing about it - waste of time looking.

No good or specific advice is given except the obvious: get rid of it somehow, by one of the plainly obvious methods. Did NOT mention the most obvious: manually.

THE WORSE: SUGGESTS GOVERNMENT IS THE PRIMARY PROVIDER OF PEST AND WEED CONTROL.

Hiding rant
That's the most jackass thing i've ever heard. and btw importation of species by gov has as often caused DEVISTATION and cost as it has improvement. what a facist.

One name drop product is given but not competetors, also that is wrong to do in article as well.

GOVERNMENT

a government monopoly INTENTIONALLY PLANTED the weeds i'm LEARNING to get rid of - it's well known in my area they did. GOVERNMENT

AFTER i asked the "agent" not to plant anything and he offered an explanation it was not weed.

Bugs, some pests that eat plants

Often local authorities keep track of certain pests and have a plan ready. Though there may be other remedies.

Weeds, De-thatching

Weeds have weak roots and thus pull easier than grass. Thus if dethatched and corrections are made (sun, seeding, soil) the grass should win with thatching.

See heavy duty rake: Rake (tool) and lawn devices about dethatching.

Lawn chemicals work by the same principle, they constrict root systems to a point in which weaker roots do less well. Some chemicals are safe for the environment others not so much, none are safe around small children. If you have a soar throat: stop.

Lawncare experts use both chemicals and de-thatching, and of course farming and planning as said above. 72.219.202.186 (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I formatted your comments into one section to make them easier to reply to. Remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. It's also not a how-to manual, so you'll need to consult professional or university content for help with your weed problem.

Otherwise though, I do agree that the article is unwieldy, but it's needs a major rework before any splitting would even be considered. It does read from the perspective of controlling insects with bio-control, which is very much an undue weight issue since we aren't getting as much on plants or other pest organisms where bio-control is used. Ironically, I'm an entomologist that specializes in biological control, but I would like to take some of the main textbooks on the topic and rework the general content and summarize things better in the future to cover both the pests and biological control agents better and more concisely (probably later this fall). Something for the to-do list, but I'll be keeping an eye on this page. Otherwise, governments actually do tend to be the biggest user of bio-control (at least in classical/importation), and mechanical removing of weeds is not biological control (you need another organism controlling the pest), so those aren't particularly issues here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Additions

The article is receiving additions from several students at the moment. These are individually quite well organised and cited, but there are obvious questions of balance and lack of top-level planning – among other things, the changes are not being reflected in the lead, and placement seems to be random from the point of view of the subject as a whole. While I sympathize with the general idea of making Wikipedia an educational tool, the lack of co-ordination at article level is an issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Earwig (Dermaptera)

Article on Earwig does not talk about it being a beneficial enemy of a pest. It is mostly referred to as a pest. Article on Biological Pest Control mentions it as a predator that should be encouraged in gardens by hanging a upside down flower pot full of straw or wood dust. Both are marked good articles.Uralunlucayakli (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid you will find such inconsistencies all over the place on Wikipedia. Sources do not always agree and editors have different views as to what to include and what to omit. You can make alterations yourself as long as they are backed by reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitional problems

There are definitional problems to this article. The first sentence that enumerates certain species that are used by humans for biological pest control seems arbitrary. Why are, for example, no cats included that were domesticated by humans very early on against mice? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Rodents would be a pest, so there's nothing wrong with the definition. Not all examples are going to be given. Some biocontrol literature does talk about cats, but they tend to focus on more "modern" historical examples where there was directed biocontrol. Cats would fall into a more historical and not as pointed example. Part of the WP:DUE aspect is that a lot of the research has been related to insects where general predation isn't focused on as much (relatively), but species-specific controls like many parasitoids. That's what the field of study largely took off from, so that's where sources tend to focus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A new formulation in science - Pestiphages

Pestiphages (Latin: pestis «pest» + greek. φαγεῖν «to eat»), — introduced organisms, that destroy pest organisms in agroecosystems. Pestiphages are an important biological component of agrobiodiversity and have a substantial role in ecologization of agriculture. Pest organisms of agrocenosis and pestiphages are in detrimental type of biological interaction. The inhibitive influence of pestiphages have bioregulated the populations of pest organisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hovsep Grigoryan (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Hovsep Grigoryan (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Conflict of interest editing

Hi IBMA and @Viewmont Viking: It looks like IBMA is here to promote their own organization. Nonetheless I think this edit was mostly appropriate. The IBMA seems relevant to this page. I suggest we just leave the Bacillus thuringiensis link out because that's already mentioned in the article. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

small Asian mongoose (Herpestus javanicus) - other sources

Hi,

The effects of the small Asian mongoose uses a regular news article without peer reviewed research. Other peer review studies (Hays & Conant 2007 and references within) have discussed that the mongoose has in fact reduced the rat population on the cane fields as originally intended but most certainly have also attacked non-targeted species as well.

If the intent is to show negative impacts then this should discuss other non-target species. If the intent is to point to document the lack of regulation at the time, then the reference to the news article can stay.

References

Title

"Biological control" is by an order of magnitude the most common name for this topic. It should never have been moved to "Biological pest control". I'll revert it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the redirect was way back in 2003 that really wasn't ever an article in the first place.[1] I'm personally fine with biological pest control though and don't see any issues with it. Us entomologists, etc. do indeed use biological control, but the current title is a bit more informative for readers who may not be familiar with it as a sort of natural disambiguation. KoA (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking. The usual practice is to use the most common name (I've seen editors get *really* insistent on this point), and there is no doubt that "Biological control" is by far the most common. But I think it's also the better term, as the control is or could be of a wide range of conditions including microbial pathogens, for instance. Perhaps someone felt that adding "pest" was helpful to very young or ignorant readers, but we should not be talking down to our readership; it is far less confusing to be introduced to the most common term, which one will then come across in scientific or other publications all over the literature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Pests, pathogens and other perils

KoA, you appear to be asserting that a pathogen, something that causes disease, is a kind of pest. In that case, a person who works to prevent or treat disease is a pest control agent: better tell the vaccinators, pharmacists, doctors, nurses, and vets that they're pest controllers then. Joking apart, this simply isn't normal usage. A pest is a rather loosely defined thing, something that's basically a nuisance to someone, whether a farmer (spray it), a holidaymaker (rub on some mosquito repellent), or someone riding the metro (tread on their foot). A pathogen is a disease agent, like a malaria parasite, a coronavirus, a streptococcus bacterium. Honestly, we don't call treating those "pest control". I'll tweak the text, if you don't mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Pest management absolutely does deal with pathogens, which are just one subset of pest organisms. That's nothing controversial. Pest control gives a good primer on this: Pest control is the regulation or management of a species defined as a pest; such as any animal, plant or fungus that impacts adversely on human activities or environment. Whether it's agriculture, conservation, public health, etc. there's a pretty wide diversity of pests out there. KoA (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Something's gone very wrong over there. As they say, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If decades of sources have suddenly had a huge paradigm shift that pathogens are no longer pests, that really does needs a lot of strong sources outright stating that. That would mean we'd have to no longer consider fungicides a type of pesticide for one, and I can think of quite a few plant pathologists that would be rather shocked that such a thing happened without them knowing. At least in the agriculture science world, plant pathology, entomology, and weed science are the three main pest disciplines, but when you get outside of ag., then you have a lot of public health related disease pests like malaria, etc. you mentioned. KoA (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)