Weed Biocontrol against a Broader Canvas in Durban

Approximately 450 delegates from 50 countries moved into Durban, South Africa for the 4th International Weed Science Congress, which was hosted by the Southern African Weed Science Society in association with the International Weed Science Society, on 20-24 June 2004. The event was preceded by a variety of tours of general interest and followed by technical tours which covered aquatic and environmental invasive weeds as well as agricultural weed problems. Apart from one or two minor glitches (our hotel bus ran either 55 minutes before or 5 minutes after the keynote speakers commenced each morning!) the event was well run and congratulations and thanks are due to the organizing committee.

Each day started with a dawn-patrol plenary address before the conference split into six concurrent sessions. Biological control took pride of place (along with five other topics) by being allocated a slot during the first session of the first day! In all there were eight half-hour papers and six 15-minute verbal presentations interspersed with a poster session consisting of 16 posters that dealt with different aspects of biological control.

There was no specific theme for the session and a variety of topics were addressed. John Hoffmann (South Africa) set the ball rolling by pointing out that if expectations are moderated, biological control becomes much more plausible and an enormous amount can be achieved with even moderately damaging agents, including those that reduce only the reproductive capacity of the target weed species. Robinson Pitelli (Brazil) then discussed the future role of bioherbicides in biological control, identifying situations where bioherbicides would be especially useful and concluding that their future lay in the hands of small companies capable of large-scale production of a variety of formulations.

Mic Julien (Australia) broadened the scope of the discussion by looking at the opportunities and challenges for biological control in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific island states, notably the low proportion of weeds currently being tackled with biological control, especially grasses, and the difficulty of getting support for projects in remote, sparsely populated, low-economic lands that characterize the Australian outback and Pacific islands. Joachim Sauerborn (Germany) brought the discussion back to specifics and addressed the issue of using biological control against parasitic weeds in crops, noting that agents that reduce seeding would be especially beneficial because most damage has already occurred by the time the weeds emerge from their host plants and are amenable to other types of control.

Cheryl Lennox (South Africa) used the case of the deliberate introduction of Prosopis into Africa to castigate agencies that continue to promote agroforestry with exotic species, many of which become substantial weeds. She highlighted the difficulties and restrictions this practice imposes on biological control because of the conflicts that arise between those promoting the plants as a useful resource and those trying to remove the plants from invaded areas. Mark Wright (Hawaii) concluded the morning session with a proposal that probabilistic risk assessments should be used during decision-making stages in biological control. He suggested that a series of probabilities can be incorporated into 'precision trees' (or equivalents) to evaluate overall potential risk (or not).

The poster session on biological control included 16 posters which covered a range of topics including: the use of pathogens (three) and viruses (one) as classical biological control agents; a study showing no nontarget effects of ragwort natural enemies on native Senecio species in Australia (one); the ecology of Rubus species and their native natural enemies in Iran (one); biology and host specificity of potential agents for specific weeds (two); prospects for biological control of wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) in Australia (one); the development and use of bioherbicides (three); overviews of incomplete programmes (two); and weeds as alternate hosts for pest and predatory mites in agricultural situations (two). The organizers are to be complimented on allocating ample time in the middle of the day for the poster presentations and Raghavan Charudattan added a sparkle by allowing the presenters a few minutes on the podium to emphasize the essence of their work. Both of these arrangements enhanced exposure to the posters and gave them more coverage than is normal for a conference such as this.

The day concluded with a series of six 15-minute verbal presentations on various aspects of biological control including: ways of successfully involving communities in biological control (Raelene Kwong, Australia); how PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) has been used to determine the diversity and types of soil-borne natural enemies of weeds (Steven Hallett, USA); the role of defensive leaf trichomes in determining, and explaining, the host specificity of a potential biological control agent (Chrysomelidae) of tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) (Daniel Gandolfo, Argentina); the recent release and establishment of Gratiana boliviana on tropical soda apple in USA and progress with screening two additional agents for this weed (Julio Medal, USA); the potential use of pathogens to control a grass weed (Imperata cylindrica) in West Africa (Fen Beed, Benin); and the use of toxic metabolites of fungal pathogens as natural herbicides for grass weeds (Mariano Fracchiolla, Italy).

In summary this was an excellent day to be in Durban listening to, and reading about, a fascinating range of topics dealing with biological control. Our sincere thanks go to Raghavan Charudattan and Helmuth Zimmerman for organizing a very successful, informative and enjoyable session.

Having filled the first day with biological control, opportunities arose during the rest of the week to learn more about aquatic weed management (which inevitably included a considerable contribution from biological control), technology transfer, herbicide resistance and degradation, integrated weed management, molecular and biotechnology approaches to weed control, natural products and allelopathy, physical approaches in weed management, and organic farming, among others.

As always, besides the formal presentations, the meeting provided ample opportunity for colleagues from different backgrounds to meet and interact on an informal level over good food fortified with excellent beverages. In contrast to the 4-yearly International Symposia on Biological Control of Weeds (the last in Canberra during 2003) the International Weed Science Congresses bring together a broad mix of people from different research backgrounds. Any biocontrollers who want to learn more about how 'the other half' deal with their weeds should attempt to get to the next (5th) Weed Science Congress in Vancouver, Canada - it should be well worth the trip.

By: John Hoffmann, University of Cape Town

---

SIP in Finland

The 37th Annual Meeting of the Society for Invertebrate Pathology (SIP) and the 7th International Conference on Bacillus thuringiensis were held at the University of Helsinki, Finland on 1-6 August 2004. The meeting had two plenary sessions ('SIP the past, present and future' and 'Invertebrate pathogens as pests'), together with symposia and workshops on the following topics: Second generation transgenic crops; Significance of the entomopathogenic nematode infected-host in the soil ecosystem, and potential impact on microbial control; Virus ecology; Honeybee pathology; Nematodes and cold adaptations; Insect-fungal associations; Bringing pathogens from the laboratory to the field; Risk assessment and non-target effects of Cry toxins in sprays and transgenic plants; Can microsporidia be seriously considered as biological control agents; Oryctes virus - from discovery to classical microbial agent; Genome analysis methodology; Fungi and nematodes under unfavorable conditions; Genomics and pathogenesis of invertebrate pathogens; New advances in research and development of insecticidal proteins; Risk assessment; Microbial control in greenhouses and nurseries; Status of microbial control products; Microbial control education. Although sessions in other areas would make interesting reporting too, this report focuses on presentations relevant to the (particularly fungal) biopesticide sector.

Participants were not universally optimistic about the prospects for biopesticides, especially fungal products. At the first Plenary Session Jeff Lord (US Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service) gave a presentation on the commercialization of microbials which drew attention to the importance of making realistic assessments of product potential, the timeframe for product development and the degree of market penetration that might be achieved. He also cautioned against allowing biopesticide development to be product- rather than market-led.

There was an excellent workshop on risk assessment and registration. A paper by Anita Fjelsted (Danish Environmental Protection Agency) gave an overview of registration of microbial plant protection products and active microorganisms in the European Union (EU). Another by Hermann Strasser (Leopold-Franzens University, Innsbruck, Austria), Claudio Altomare (Institute of Food Production Science, Bari, Italy) & Tariq Butt (University of Wales - Swansea, UK [UWS]) dealt with the EU project RAFBCA (Risk Assessment of Fungal Biological Control Agents). There is great concern about metabolites such as oosperein or destruxins entering the food chain. The safety of present products was indicated by the statistic that it would take 338 kg of oosperein to kill 50% of Paramecium in 1000 m³ of pondwater - equivalent to 2.4 x 10⁶ kg of product per hectare! [Also see: 'European insights on fungal biocontrol agents', this section.]

A session on microbial products indicated that there are relatively few new fungal products coming onto the market. Apart from Emerald Bio (who acquired Mycotech and still produce Mycotrol) there is very little attention to, and commercialization of, mycoinsecticides, although some Trichoderma products are available. In contrast, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), virus and nematode products, where effective production, formulation and marketing have been achieved, are still making successful, but small, impacts on the global pesticide market.

In the fungal session, a paper by Ernst-Jan Scholte (Wageningen University, Netherlands) and collaborators in Austria, the Netherlands and Tanzania described how Metarhizium anisopliae might be used to reduce malaria by targeting adult mosquitoes. In first field trials using black cloth impregnated with conidia, he had achieved 34% control and a very significant decline in daily survival rates. Otherwise, an increasing emphasis was discernible from other presentations on the ecological value of conserving entomopathogens and of interactions with other beneficials such as parasitoids and predators. A paper by Zengzhi Li, Meizhen Fan, Bin Wang & Degui Ding (Anhui Agricultural University, China) on control of masson pine caterpillar (Dendrolimus punctatus) in southeastern China suggested that inoculative application of Beauveria bassiana could result in unstable control, but that endemic levels of the pathogen were able to maintain control because isolates survive when pine caterpillar numbers are low by infecting other hosts. The topic of formulation, although frequently aired, indicated that no significant developments had been made.

The conference had a very healthy entomopathegenic nematode (EPN) content. There is increasing interest in formulating nematodes and, as reported last year, use of cadavers as carriers for EPNs.

The major messages about biopesticides from this conference were that: (1) registration of biopesticides is a stumbling block to their increased use; (2) the science has not progressed significantly in the last few recent years, and perhaps a major funded research campaign or project is needed to change this; (3) funding is increasingly difficult to obtain; and (4) there is strong interest in conservation of entomopathogens; much of the fungal work reported was related to enhancing the pathogen or exploiting natural levels.

---

European Insights on Fungal Biocontrol Agents

A workshop held on 30 September 2004 in Brussels, Belgium, 'New Insights into Risk Assessment and Registration of Fungal Biocontrol Agents in Europe', brought together industry, policy makers, regulators and scientists to give new insights on the risk assessment and registration of fungal biocontrol agents (BCAs), currently covered largely by European Commission (EC) Plant Protection Directive 91/414. The workshop was organized by the RAFBCA consortium (Risk Assessment of Fungal Biological Control Agents EC Project coordinated by Tariq Butt in collaboration with IBMA [International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association] and IOBC [International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants]).

Presentations and round table discussions covered the following topics: (1) Biocontrol industry IBMA perspective: experiences in registration of microbial BCAs in Europe (Willem Ravensberg, Koppert, Netherlands); (2) Registration consultant perspective: comparison of chemicals vs BCAs: experiences, problems, solutions and suggestions (Wolfgang Oellrich, GAB Consulting, Germany); (3) European Union - United States - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development perspective on registration (Anita Fjelsted, Danish Environmental Protection Agency); (4) How has RAFBCA contributed to the risk assessment of BCAs? (Tariq Butt, University of Wales - Swansea, UK [UWS]); (5) EC Directive 91/414: how can the introduction of new BCAs on the European market be facilitated? (6) Case study 1: Fungal BCA for pest control in a field crop: potato (Hermann Strasser, Leopold-Franzens University, Innsbruck, Austria); (7) Case study 2: Fungal BCA for pest control in a glasshouse crop: tomato/cucumber (Anke Skrobek, UWS); (8) New methodologies and tools for assessing risks of metabolites (Milton Typas, University of Athens, Greece); (9) Conclusions and RAFBCA strategy for risk assessment in view of Directive 91/414 (Tariq Butt). There was also a poster session and time for discussions with the RAFBCA team and participants.

The presentations pointed to differences between US and European markets for BCAs (the latter is much smaller), and that the return of investment in Europe is unacceptable mainly owing to costs for registration and the registration period, which are much higher and longer, respectively, than in USA. The technical presentations focused mainly on the RAFBCA contributions to the development of methodology for extraction, identification and evaluation of metabolites (e.g. oosporein) from fungal BCAs. RAFBCA research data from case studies showed that metabolites did not enter the food chain (www.rafbca.com).

Although many of the participants felt that some extensive changes to the current registration requirements would help the European Union (EU) regulatory process, the regulators were not in favour of any kind of rewriting of the Directives simply because of the length of time it takes to get anything through the EC process. However, they were keen to keep up a dialogue and use each new microbial registration package to build on their experience with the intention that the process would thus become easier with time. The EC also plans to conduct a study of the differences between US and EU regulations for registration of BCAs. This exercise would promote a better understanding of the technical requirements of the US regulations, and allow the evaluation of features which could be incorporated into the EC Directive to facilitate the registration of BCAs in Europe.

By: Marilena Aquino de Muro, CABI Bioscience

---

Environmental Impact of Invertebrates for Biological Control of Arthropods: Methods and Risk Assessment

The biological control community is taking seriously the calls for better-structured and more detailed environmental risk assessment of invertebrates for arthropod biological control. Recently some 25 experts from all over the world gathered for an intensive full-week workshop (19-25 June 2004) in Engelberg, Switzerland (funded by the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape and Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, and organized by Agroscope FAL Reckenholz and CABI Bioscience Switzerland Centre) to put together a synthesis of current knowledge, and to provide recommendations for further research and regulatory guidance in this area. The emphasis was on providing science-based guidance for those assessing and evaluating environmental risks, and on providing up-to-date information on existing methods and their application for evaluating nontarget effects. The starting point was to address all the information requirements for environmental risk assessment laid out in a recent OECD publication1. A further aim was to compile all this information for a book, which is to be published by CABI Publishing during 2005.

Altogether, 15 specific topics were examined and discussed in detail. Authoritative experts summarized each topic (see below) using the following framework:

1. Introduction of the topic and explanation of why it is important from the point of view of nontarget effects and environmental risks.
2. Description of methods used (or that can be used) to answer questions that arise:
   - Methods described in detail, where possible highlighting examples
   - Methods evaluated, advantages and disadvantages summarized, highlighting gaps in knowledge where no proper methods are available
   - Where appropriate, methods used in other fields of ecology, entomology or biological control considered for application in the assessment of nontarget effects
3. As a final step, guidance provided on what methods should be used to gather the information requested in the OECD guidelines¹.

Selection of Nontarget Species for Host Specificity Tests

This topic was summarized by Ulli Kuhlmann, Urs Schaffner and Peter Mason. The overall aim was to provide guidance on selecting those species for host specificity tests which will allow generalization of the results to describe the host range of the candidate agent without undue expansion of the test list. Key concepts had to be defined first, such as host specificity, performance, ecological preference, behavioural preference, fundamental host range, ecological host range, host range expansion and host shift. The methods for selection of nontarget species can be grouped into four categories:

• Phylogenetic: representative species from taxa related to the target
• Ecological: geographical distribution, habitat, feeding niche
• Biological: feeding and oviposition behaviour, temporal occurrence
• Availability: field-collected material, commercial sources

A flow-chart was produced for selecting appropriate test species, with three categories (habitat/microhabitat; phylogeny; safeguard species) leading to an initial test list. Two filters are then used to narrow the list down: one considering the relevant ecological and biological attributes, and the other accessibility and availability of the material. This leads to a revised test list and host specificity testing, with an additional feedback loop considering behavioural attributes of the organisms.

Relevance of Host Specificity in Biological Control and Methods for Testing

The topic was introduced by Joop van Lenteren, Don Sands, Matthew Cock and Thomas Hoffmeister. Host range tests aim to demonstrate whether or not a natural enemy can feed, develop or reproduce on a nontarget species. Knowledge of the biology and behaviour of the natural enemy is essential when designing such tests. To design powerful laboratory tests is a challenge, as it is difficult to include factors such as multitrophic chemical communication, learning, and wide host ranges involving many host plant species. Points to take into account when designing host specificity tests include:

• Knowledge of natural enemy foraging behaviour
• Quality and rearing conditions of the host plant, host and natural enemy
• Genetic changes
• Unnatural hosts, artificial diets
• Host or natural enemy infection with pathogens
• Behavioural variation in natural enemies: know its origin!
• Importance of relevant multitrophic conditions (all relevant stimuli should be present, host should have been on the host plant long enough to produce herbivore-induced synomones)

Difficulties in interpretation of data obtained with host-range testing include confusing effects of test design, leading possibly to false positives (non-host attacked in absence of natural host or non-host attacked in close proximity to natural host) and false negatives (valid but less preferred host neglected in presence of preferred host).

The conclusions from this session include recommendations to express the degree of polyphagy by the number of species, genera, tribes, subfamilies, families, etc. attacked, rather than simply designating a natural enemy as monophagous or polyphagous. The determination of host specificity of non-specialist natural enemies will always be a complicated and time-consuming affair, while it will be relatively simple for monophagous and oligophagous natural enemies. However, there is as yet little quantitative data, making it difficult to generalize. Currently most host-range testing data arise from relatively simple experiments, and many of the issues raised here have not been taken into account. Based on discussions a revised guideline has been suggested for a sequential test to determine the host range of invertebrates used in classical and inundative biological control of arthropods. In particular, host specificity choice tests using a small-scale arena are not considered appropriate in the revised guideline whereas choice tests using a large-scale arena are considered to provide reliable results.

Effects of Competition, Displacement and Intraguild Predation in Biological Control and Evaluation Methods

This topic was summarized by Russell Messing, Bernard Roitberg and Jacques Brodeur. They started with a clear question: "Can we measure and predict indirect impacts of biological control using competition, displacement, and secondary interactions?", and provided a simple answer: "no". These indirect effects may involve killing (one kills another), interference competition (one excludes another), exploitation competition (one uses up the resources), apparent competition (one raises biotic mortality) and circuitous competition (enrichment; subtle and convoluted). Some rules of thumb can be presented, however, to aid in selecting natural enemies. These include:

• r-selected species should be imported first; K-selected species withheld (counter-balanced competition)
• Moderately effective agents pose greatest risks
• Lack of density dependence on the target increases the risk to nontargets
• In weed biological control: avoid introducing herbivores that are especially vulnerable to acquiring predators and parasites
• In tephritid biological control: avoid pupal parasitoids

The Risks of Interbreeding and Methods for Determination

A synthesis of this topic was provided by Keith Hopper and Eric Wajnberg. Different levels of interbreeding were delineated: (1) Court: recognize as potential mates, but may not copulate; (2) Mate: copulate, but may not produce progeny; (3) Hybridize: produce F1 hybrids, which may be inviable or sterile; (4) Introgress: transfer DNA sequences between species, which may spread and affect fitness, behaviour, or ecology.

The consequences of interbreeding may include changes in fitness (without introgression), evolution (from changed fitness or introgression), and changes in abundance (from changed fitness or evolution). In biological control it will be difficult and expensive to predict and detect interbreeding. If necessary, one might consider introducing only agents, which (1) have no close, native relatives, (2) do not mate in the laboratory with close, native relatives, and (3) have little or no likelihood of introgression with native species.

Factors that Determine Establishment of Natural Enemies and their Evaluation Methods

Guy Boivin, Ursula Kölliger and Franz Bigler summarized this topic. Clearly, establishment is not detrimental but rather a pre-requisite of successful classical biological control while it is generally considered detrimental in inundative biological control if exotic agents are being used. Establishment is affected by abiotic factors such as temperature and humidity, and many biotic factors including the availability of host/prey, competition, the presence of other natural enemies, and the availability of other food sources. For establishment studies the priorities appear to involve first the temperature responses and the availability of host/prey, and secondly factors such as humidity, competition and other natural enemies and food sources.

Significance of Dispersal and Assessment in Environmental Risk Evaluations

A synthesis was provided by Nick Mills, Dirk Babendreier and Antoon Loomans. Again, dispersal in relation to nontarget effects is relevant for inundatively released biological control agents only. Dispersal is defined as the exploratory undirected movement of individuals away from the habitat of origin. Dispersal distance of biological control agents defines the radius of potential nontarget impacts; this in turn depends on the application strategy and species specific traits. The density of dispersers defines the potential population-level impacts on nontarget hosts. Modifiers that influence the density include agent longevity, biotic resources available and abiotic factors. Existing study methods include various mark-release-recapture (MRR) techniques producing density-distance curves; following of movement paths of individuals to produce spatio-temporal coordinates, and boundary flux recaptures.

Risks Posed by Contaminants and Methods for Determination

This topic was introduced by Mark Goettel and Doug Inglis. 'Contaminants' include all unwanted substances that may be associated with biological control agents, such as human pathogens, insect pathogens, all microorganisms, pesticide residues, radioisotopes, frass, hyperparasites and all other invertebrates. They may constitute a risk to the biological control agent itself, to the user (human health issues) or to the environment (biodiversity issues). The occurrence of contaminants is typically a quality control issue for biological control agent producers. There are, however, no government standards for it, and typically no in-house standardization, poor training of production personnel in microbiological methods, very limited support from public institutions and limited formal training opportunities in this area. The conclusion was that enormous effort is necessary to screen for all potential contaminants and that instead one may test only for those organisms that are known to be harmful and to occur together with the biological control agent. The extent to which measures for prevention of transfer of contaminants are implemented must be weighed in relation to the present transfer of unknown or unwanted substances by other means. For example, presently there are no regulations for the importation of many invertebrates. Consequently one must consider the possibility of introduction of contaminants via biological control agents in the context of other methods of inadvertent introduction. (i.e. movement of people, forestry and agricultural products, etc).

Evaluation of Post-Release Nontarget Effects

Barbara Barratt, Heikki Hokkanen and Bernd Blossey provided the background for this discussion. Monitoring nontarget impacts of biological control agents is likely to be the most effective means by which real progress can be made in improving the pre-release decision-making process. Only by validating the predictions of pre-release studies made in the artificial environment of quarantine facilities can the level of scientific uncertainty be reduced, and the confidence of biological control practitioners and regulators improve in the future. Given that we will never, in the foreseeable future, achieve complete certainty of knowledge of the extremely complex ramifications of releasing a new species into any new environment, there is potential for a progressive improvement that can be attained by feeding back information from field releases into each new biological control proposal. The significance of this improvement will depend upon the quality, scale and time-scale of post-release information that can be obtained. At a higher level, the ideal would be for nationally or internationally based environmental monitoring programmes to provide sufficient detail to detect environmental changes precipitated by biological control. This situation seems to be a long way off, and so our recommendations for post-release monitoring are by default second best. However, given appropriate multidisciplinary collaboration, one might be able move the goal posts slightly nearer.

Environmental Risk Assessment of Invertebrate Natural Enemies and the Use of a 'Quick Scan' Method

Antoon Loomans and Joop van Lenteren presented the results of a 'quick scan' exercise involving some 150 currently used biological control agents. These agents are well known and applied in various parts of the world. The rationale of the exercise was to reduce effort involved in conducting a risk assessment for these agents by making a quick scan of available information. The quick scan method is built on the methodology outlined in a paper by Van Lenteren et al.2. There is a basic difference in approach between the advanced evaluation and the quick scan methods. In the advanced evaluation the lead question is, "Do we have sufficient and reliable information to issue a permit for import and release?" and it is based on a quantitative evaluation. On the other hand, when using the quick scan method the question is, "Do we have good reasons (e.g. are there any nontarget effects and environmental risks known elsewhere and/or expected in the area of release) to stop continuation of release?", and is thus based on a qualitative evaluation. The results of a quick scan could help to establish lists of species that can be used in certain, specified areas or (parts of) ecoregions of the world. This would result in greatly reduced costs for regulation of the majority of biological control agents currently used.

The quick scan method was applied to the some 150 species of natural enemy currently commercially available in northwestern Europe. Based on a thorough review of available information, application of the quick scan method to these natural enemies results in the conclusion that 5% of the species are too risky for release, that for 15% of the species more information is needed before being able to conclude that they may continue to be released, and that for the remaining 80% of the species releases can be continued.

The Usefulness of Ecoregions for Safer Import and Release of Exotic Species

Matthew Cock, Dirk Babendreier, Franz Bigler, Ulli Kuhlmann and Urs Schaffner provided the basis for this discussion. An ecoregion is an area of similar climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegetation, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant variables. The concept could be useful for predicting spread of alien pests, for predicting spread of alien biological control agents, for decision making for introductions, and for quarantine decisions for study purposes. It was concluded that ecoregions are more useful than artificial delineations, e.g. political boundaries, in biological control, but that they cannot be used for making predictions in specific cases.

The workshop also discussed in some detail a few other issues, about which there will be more in the forthcoming book. Richard Stouthamer explained the potential of 'Species and strain identification and the use of molecular methods', and Thomas Hoffmeister, Dirk Babendreier and Eric Wajnberg discussed 'Statistical tools to improve the quality of experiments for assessing nontarget effects'. A further contribution by Ralf-Udo Ehlers ('Risks and reasons') emphasized the socioeconomic impacts of regulations and, in particular, the dangers of over-regulation to the future of biological control.

By: Ingeborg Menzler-Hokkanen, Dirk Babendreier, Franz Bigler, Heikki Hokkanen and Ulrich Kuhlmann

Further Information

¹OECD (2003) Guidance for information requirements for regulation of invertebrates as biological control agents (IBCAs). OECD, Paris, 19 pp.

²Van Lenteren, J.C.; Babendreier, D.; Bigler, F.; Burgio, G.; Hokkanen, H.M.T.; Kuske, S.; Loomans, A.J.M.; Menzler-Hokkanen, I.; Van Rijn, P.C.J.; Thomas, M.B.; Tommasini, M.G. and Zeng, Q.Q. (2003) Environmental risk assessment of exotic natural enemies used in inundative biological control. BioControl 48, 3-38.

Contact: Franz Bigler and Dirk Babendreier,
Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, Reckenholzstrasse 191, CH - 8046 Zürich, Switzerland.
Email: franz.bigler@fal.admin.ch
or dirk.babendreier@fal.admin.ch

Ulrich Kuhlmann, CABI Bioscience Switzerland Centre, Rue des Grillons 1, CH - 2800
Delémont, Switzerland.
Email: u.kuhlmann@cabi.org

---

Sunn Pest Meeting

The 2nd International Sunn Pest Conference, held in Aleppo, Syria on 19-22 July 2004, attracted nearly 150 participants from 23 countries, which reflects the status of this important pest. The conference allowed participants to reflect on the progress made during a DFID (UK Department for International Development) funded project, which came to an end in September, and to discuss issues.

Sunn pest (a complex of pentatomid bugs) is a major pest of wheat and barley, injecting salivary toxins which reduce yield and seed germination and destroy the baking qualities of the flour. It occurs in a broad sweep across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Fifteen million hectares may be sprayed with chemicals each year, yet there is lack of agreement on fundamentals such as injury levels, where the pest over-winters and what its basic behaviour is. The DFID-funded project aimed to fill some of these information holes, and to begin the search for sustainable control options. These include policy changes, monitoring, the development of resistant cultivars, the use of pheromones, and biological control including egg parasitoids and the development of mycoinsecticides.

There were over 60 oral presentations and two poster sessions together with some excellent, stimulating and fresh keynote talks in this exceptionally well-organized conference. Papers covered policy matters, moving from aerial to ground spraying (which is equivalent to moving from government to farmer responsibility - and cost), economics and practical control. Sessions on sunn pest biology and ecology led on to those concerning control, with a number of papers on the use of Beauveria bassiana to control both over-wintering and summer populations.

Keynote speakers covered IPM in the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Research) (Khaled Makkouk); lessons from IPM programmes (Peter Kenmore); the development of Green Muscle, the locust mycoinsecticide (Christiaan Kooyman); rational biopesticide use (Charles Vincent); economics of IPM research (Doug Gollin); and furthering the cause of IPM through public and private enterprises (Lukas Brader).

It would be impossible to describe the full range of country reports and other presentations made by the many participants. Further information can be obtained via ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas; www.icarda.cgiar.org). However, policy and economic issues were covered by Aden Aw-Hassan (ICARDA, Syria), Aykut Gul (University of Cukurova, Turkey) and Hossein Noori (Qazvin Agricultural and Natural Research Centre, Iran).

Amongst the scientific presentations, a paper by Steve Edgington (CABI Bioscience, UK) reported that a B. bassiana formulation had given 86% mortality in field trials at ICARDA in 2004. It was suggested that an effective mycoinsecticidal product could be achieved in 3-4 years. Stress was laid on the likelihood that a successful mycopesticide would greatly reduce the land areas requiring treatment, perhaps to 10% of that sprayed now, as natural enemy complexes were restored. Bill Reid (University of Vermont, USA) described significant effects from using granular formulations of B. bassiana applied around the edges of a field to control the migrating insects as they invaded the crop.

Egg parasitoids were covered by Mohammed Abdulhai (General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research, Syria) amongst others; plant breeding by Mustapha El-Bouhssini (ICARDA, Syria); and David Hall (Natural Resources Institute, UK) outlined latest developments on pheromone use.

Clearly, the science has gone well in the first phase of this project, and new funding for a second phase is being sought so that the results achieved can be translated into solutions to this key pest for cereal farmers in the immediate and wider region.

Further information:
www.uvm.edu/~entlab/sunnpest/

---

Fruitful IOBC Meeting

The 6th International Conference on Integrated Fruit Production, held on 26-30 September 2004 in Trento, northern Italy, was organized by the IOBC (International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants) West Palaearctic Regional Section (WPRS) Working Groups (WGs) on Integrated Protection of Fruit Crops and on Pheromones1 and Other Semiochemicals in Integrated Production2, together with IASMA (Istituto Agrario di San Michele all'Adige) and its associated SafeCrop Centre (Centre for Research and Development of Crop Protection with Low Environment and Consumer-Health Impact)3.

The meeting was divided into two parts: the Orchard Group (WG Integrated Protection of Fruit Crops) and the Pheromone Group (WG Pheromones and Other Semiochemicals in Integrated Production) had 2 days each.

The Orchard Group part of the meeting was organized around the themes: (1) Integrated fruit production: state of the art; (2) The use of biological control agents and semiochemicals in integrated fruit protection; (3) Side effects of pesticides on beneficial organisms; (4) Pesticide resistance and its integrated management and control (5) Organic fruit production; and (6) Pesticides shortages, especially for soft fruits.

The Pheromones Group part of the meeting, which is covered in the remainder of this report, saw presentations on the increased use of pheromones in Italy, Germany and Switzerland. Its theme, 'As mating disruption gains ground', underlined that insect control by pheromones has become a reality. Mating disruption, by aerial dissemination of synthetic sex pheromone, is used on approximately 100,000 ha of European orchards and vineyards. The area treated may grow further in view of increasing problems associated with the use of conventional insecticides. More widespread use of pheromones, however, demands more reliable and economic application techniques. Four decades of pheromone research have laid the groundwork for practical applications, but tools and knowledge could still be improved. In the face of increasingly limited resources, this meetings series aims to stimulate further development by enhancing communication and collaboration between the academic world, extension services and the plant protection industry.

The over-riding impression gained at the Pheromone Group meeting was that mating disruption has moved from being an 'alternative' technology to being mainstream. Various participants, including representatives of agrochemical companies and researchers working on insecticide resistance, acknowledged the role of mating disruption in resistance management. They agreed that the expected reduction in compounds registered for use in orchards (with many compounds on their way out) plus the European Union drinking water protection threshold of 0.1 g/litre4 will increase resistance problems - and that mating disruption is the solution to the problem. It was also clear that pheromone-mediated mating disruption is expected to become the most widely used method for insect control in orchards by the end of this decade.

A young scientist (<30 years old) poster competition was well supported. Young scientists and students submitted posters on the use of semiochemicals and/or biological control agents in integrated fruit (included grape) protection. The first prize of i2000, donated by CBC Europe, was won by Asya Ter-Hovhannesyan (Institute of Zoology of National Academy of Sciences of RA, 7 Sevak Str, Yerevan 375014, Armenia) with a poster entitled 'Development of the IPM programs in apple orchards by autosterilization wild populations of codling moth'. The second prize of i1000, given by Andermat Biocontrol, was awarded to the Algerian Nadia Lombarkia, for a poster about her research carried out at IASMA, 'The relationships between granulovirus Madex® efficacy on Cydia pomonella fruit damage and apple tree surface metabolites'.

¹IOBC/WPRS WG on Integrated Protection of Fruit Crops:
www.iobc-wprs.org/wg_sg/index.html

²IOBC/WPRS WG on Pheromones and Other Semiochemicals in Integrated Production:
www.iobc-wprs.org/wg_sg/index.html and http://phero.net/iobc/

³IASMA and SafeCrop Centre:
www.ismaa.it

⁴Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution. COM (2003) 550 final, 2003/0210 (COD):
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/groundwater.html

---

Aquatic Invasives Conference in Ireland

The 13th International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species was held on 20-24 September 2004 in Ennis, County Clare (Ireland), hosted by the Institute of Technology, Sligo. This conference series began life as the Zebra Mussel Conference but has expanded in size and scope to become the biggest conference of its type in the world. This year's conference brought together over 300 participants from 36 countries who presented 210 papers. Sessions included international cooperation, shipping, invasive crustaceans, fishes, plants and bivalves, impacts on marine and freshwater systems, industrial biofouling, policy and prevention, vectors and corridors, and control methods including biocontrol.

Invasive species are relatively new to the European agenda. A team from Queen's University, Belfast (Northern Ireland) have just completed a cross-border initiative, the Invasive Species in Ireland study and their guidelines look likely to be implemented. As more and more European countries are waking up to invasive species, a number of 'famous' invasives are emerging as problems in European waters, including Azolla in Spain and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in Portugal. There is a huge body of knowledge on the biology and control of weeds such as these from programmes around the world, which Europe could draw from. However, the need for management of information on aquatic invasive species and international cooperation were overarching themes, revisited repeatedly by speakers during the conference. Another issue that was often commented on was that many species were being presented as problematic invasive species in one ecosystem whilst being endangered or protected/valued species in their areas of origin.

Web: www.aquatic-invasive-species-conference.org/

---

British Ecologists Recognize Aliens

The British Ecological Society (BES) Annual Meeting was held at Lancaster University on 6-9 September 2004. One of its thematic topics, 'Non-native and invasive species: defining the problem, identifying research needs and applying practical solution', was addressed over four sessions comprising 24 papers. The event also provided the opportunity for a joint meeting, hosted by the BES Invasive Species Specialist Group, of the UK Biodiversity Research Group and the Biological Control Working Group of the European Weed Research Society (EWRS).

It was clear not only from the invasives sessions, but also from more general ecology sessions (especially on biodiversity) that invasive alien species (IAS) now occupy an increasing high profile within the BES and the chairman of the opening session described it as an historic coming together of specialist groups working on all aspects of IAS. It became obvious, however, that many ecologists remain wary of biological control and still need convincing as to its safety and benefits.

It is not possible to summarize the plethora of papers presented within the different sessions but it is worthwhile flagging several which provided unpublished data on some key invasive weeds. For example, within the thematic topic 'Intractable clonal weeds' (two sessions comprising 13 papers all on bracken), papers from Denmark, India, Venezuela and the UK dealt specifically with human and health problems posed by carcinogenic substances released by bracken into the environment. This strengthens the case for management of bracken, not just in the UK but worldwide, and specifically the use of classical biological control tactics. In a session on 'Invasive species ecology', results were presented which showed how Rhododendron ponticum impairs ecosystem function in Irish streams due to the high density of poor quality leaf litter which has severe impacts on algal and invertebrate populations, with subsequent knock-on effects on game fisheries, tourism and local economies: yet further evidence of the multifarious, cryptically-sinister activities of this plant in the British Isles.

The Presidential Address by Alastair Fitter (University of York) entitled 'Darkness visible: reflections on underground ecology' highlighted the pivotal role of soil fungi, and in particular vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae, in ecosystem stability. Moreover, Prof. Fitter succeeded against all odds in inspiring the audience in what is, as he admitted, an alien and potentially uninspiring subject to the great majority of ecologists. Indeed a fervent mycologist could not have sold the idea better that fungi underpin all terrestrial life systems. The biodiverse nature of soil was emphasized by an on-going study of "a small and insignificant patch of Scottish hillside - the most studied soil system in the world". Astonishingly high numbers of 'species' of all life forms were recorded, based mainly on molecular characterization rather than classical taxonomy since systematic expertise was often not accessible, especially in mycology and nematology.

This meeting flagged that IAS are now firmly on the agenda of the BES and, importantly, more pragmatic biocontrol-related, rather than theoretical, solutions to their long-term management are now being considered in the UK.

❑