Exposé
Insect biological control: a global perspective
Gontijo, Lessando M.; Torres, Jorge B.; Abram, Paul K.; Alfaro-Tapia, Armando; Arredondo-Bernal, Hugo C.; Biondi, Antonio; Cloyd, Raymond A.; Costamagna, Alejandro C.; Desneux, Nicolas; D’Ottavio, Marie; Furlong, Michael J.; Greco, Nancy M.; Labbe, Roselyne; Hill, Martin; Lavandero, Blas; Li, Tian-Hao; Lomelí-Flores, José R.; Lucas, Eric; Messelink, Gerben J.; Rocca, Margarita; Rodriguez-Garcia, Marcela; Parra, José R. P.; Peñalver-Cruz, Ainara; Sokame, Bonoukpoè Mawuko; Thackeray, Sean; Urbaneja, Alberto; Vargas, German; Zalucki, Myron P.; Zang, Lian-Sheng
publication en ligne: Sep 24, 2025
manuscrit accepté: Jun 9, 2025
revision du manuscrit reçu: Jun 6, 2025
révision du manuscrit demandée: Feb 19, 2025
manuscrit reçu: Dec 12, 2024
Open Access (article peut être télechargé gratuitement)
Abstract
The intentional use of biological control agents to manage arthropod pests dates back to as early as 304 AD, when Chinese farmers used weaver ants to manage citrus pests. Over time, biological control has evolved into distinct approaches: classical, augmentation, and conservation. Prior to the advent of pesticides, most insect pest management relied on natural and classical biological control. The most common strategy used at first, despite regional variations, was the importation of biological control agents. Nonetheless, due to issues with unintentional non-target impacts, numerous failures in the introduction, and longer periods required for implementation, augmentative and conservation approaches have become more frequently practiced. Additionally, growing demands from the government and the public for more sustainable farming, along with investments from private companies, have sped up the progress and use of augmentative biological control around the world. This extensive use of insect biological control agents and the ongoing development of new insights underscore the need for a thorough and up-to-date global review. We combine expertise from several world regions to address the unique historical, developmental, and regional challenges associated with augmentative insect biological control. From region to region, we observed differences in pest-natural enemy systems, places of implementation (greenhouse vs. field), type and level of investment (public vs. private), history of implementation, awareness of ecologically based strategies, and other factors. There are also many similarities, especially regarding the upcoming challenges in addressing the rising demand from the agricultural sector and climate change. These include producing and assessing the quality of biological control agents, establishing more biological control enterprises, improving the logistics of natural enemy transportation, making more use of native biological control agents in augmentative biological control, optimizing the utilization of mass-reared and resident biological control agents, increasing the application of ecologically based strategies at local and landscape levels, and promoting interdisciplinary collaborations. Taken together, the article offers an examination of the distinctive aspects of augmentative biological control programs and their associated challenges around the world.
Mots-clefs
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) • Mass rearing • Regulatory frameworks • Ecological intensification • native natural enemies • sustainable crop protection • entomopathogens • predators • parasitoids