which types of landscape/habitat management are effective ... · kneu wp3 – habitat management...

KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control

WHICH TYPES OF LANDSCAPE/HABITAT MANAGEMENT ARE EFFECTIVE AT

PROVIDING NATURAL PEST CONTROL ?

LIVOREIL, Barbara.1, HUTCHISON, James2, ZULKA, Klaus Peter3, , GRENIER, Anne-Sophie 4,

LEPERCHEC, Sophie 5, DICKS, Lynn2 & SUTHERLAND, William. J.2

1. Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité, 195 rue St Jacques, 75013 Paris, France. 2. Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street,

Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK 3. Environment Agency Austria (EAA), Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria 4 INRA, UMR 1349 IGEPP, F-35653 Le Rheu, France 5 INRA Centre de Recherche de Rennes, DV-IST Erist - Délégation à l’expertise scientifique collective,

à la prospective et aux études (DEPE) - Bibliothèque UMR SAS, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc 35042 Rennes

cedex

Corresponding author: [email protected]

Telephone +00 33 180 05 89 54

mailto:[email protected]


ABSTRACT

Background

To provide resources to 9 billion human beings in the near future, to preserve ecosystem services

and biodiversity altogether, and to face climate change are challenging agriculture. Using fewer

pesticides should help restoring populations of natural enemies acting against these pests. Relying on

local ecosystems to effectively provide natural pest control allows farmers to decrease costs on

pesticides and to avoid costs linked to release of commercially captive-bred bio-control agents. This

review aims at listing the interventions on habitat management which favour a sustainable presence

of natural pest control agents. A second objective is to assess the effectiveness of such interventions

on control agents and/or pests and/or yield.

Methods

Searches will be made on CAB Abstracts and secondarily on Web of Science. Consultation of

stakeholders will be initiated to collect grey literature and if possible traditional knowledge in order

to examine how this could be included in a systematic approach. This type of knowledge should be

taken into account in future IPBES assessments. Searches will be conducted in English, on all years,

and will be filtered to retain those which strictly examine habitat management intervention in

terrestrial landscapes, with a measured impact on natural pest control agents.

Results

Expected results are a list of interventions on habitat and landscape elements, which will form the

squeletton of a systematic map. Depending on the availability of experts, some subtopics may be

developed into a full systematic review, or will be acknowledged as knowledge gaps. Reviews

identified during the searches may be examined to assess their characteristics compared to a

systematic review.

Conclusion

This work is conducted as a case-study aiming at testing the prototype of network of knowledge

synthesis and transfer elaborated within the FP7 programme “Biodiversity Knowledge”

(www.biodiversityknowledge.eu). Other aspects of this project are the evaluation of the availability

of stakeholders and experts, barriers to knowledge transfer, and incorporation of various types of

knowledge in the synthesis. This case study benefits from the cooperation with a current programme

led at Cambridge University, UK, (www.conservationevidence.org).

KEYWORDS pest control, semi-natural habitat, ecosystem service, agrofunctional biodiversity, beneficial fauna,

non-crop habitat

BACKGROUND

/projects/biodiversityknowledge/

http://www.conservationevidence.org/


The need to provide resources to 9 billion human beings in the near future, whilst altogether

preserving ecosystem services and biodiversity and facing climate change poses new challenges to

agriculture (Tillman et al. 2001). The 1996 UN summit in Rome has expressed the goal to halve the

number of malnourished people by 2015, which may not be attained (von Witzke 2008). The

European Union, the United States, China and India have also set ambitious biofuel targets that

further increase the strain on production capacities (Ravindranath et al. 2009). Without doubt,

agricultural production has to be increased at many levels and in many countries.

In Europe, agricultural intensification has led to a substantial yield increase since between 1960 and

1980. It also triggered amalgamation of fields, structural simplification of agricultural landscapes and

reduction of seminatural remnant areas, with severe consequences for many farmland bird species

(Donald et al. 2001), farmland biodiversity (Benton et al. 2003, Tews et al. 2004) and associated

ecosystem services (Tscharntke et al. 2005). Broad spectrum pecticides1 initially used in intensive

agricultural practices have caused a degradation of regulatory ecosystem services such as pest

regulation by natural enemies (Bianchi et al. 2006). Modern pesticides are more efficient at targeting

only the pest of concern. Even if the quantity of pesticide seems to have declined, the number and

extent of applications has increased (Robinson & Sutherland 2002). Overuse of pesticides can induce

new pest outbreaks (pest resurgence), selects resistant pest populations (insects, bacteria, and

weeds), increases risks to human health (of the farmers as well as the consumers downstream, e.g.

Buckley et al. 2011) and poses obstacles to trade in the form of residues (e.g. Pimentel et al. 1992,

Fawcett et al 1994, Simpson & Roger 1995, WHO/UNEP 1989).

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (www.fao.org) acknowledges that

“increasing agricultural production with little or no consideration for long-term environmental

sustainability led to negative consequences such as degraded land and a reduction of ecosystem

goods and services. In turn, these environmental consequences have negative repercussions on the

ability of agro-ecosystems to produce desired quantities of safe and quality foods. Increased

agricultural productivity can happen through improved use and management of agricultural

biodiversity resources (such as seeds, pollination, beneficial fauna, etc), to achieve higher yields while

promoting the sustainability of the farming systems (…) This will also contribute to implementing

adaptation strategies for climate change” (http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-

themes/theme/spi/scpi-home/framework/ sustainable-intensification-in-fao/four-key-areas-of-

1 Pesticides and pests are defined by FAO (www.fao.org) as “any substance or mixture of substances

intended for preventing, destroying or controlling any pest, including vectors of human or animal

disease, unwanted species of plants or animals causing harm during or otherwise interfering with the

production, processing, storage, transport or marketing of food, agricultural commodities, wood and

wood products or animal feedstuffs, or substances which may be administered to animals for the

control of insects, arachnids or other pests in or on their bodies. The term includes substances

intended for use as a plant growth regulator, defoliant, desiccant or agent for thinning fruit or

preventing the premature fall of fruit. Also used as substances applied to crops either before or after

harvest to protect the commodity from deterioration during storage and transport”.

http://www.fao.org/

http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/spi/scpi-home/framework/%20sustainable-intensification-in-fao/four-key-areas-of-scpi/en/



scpi/en/). New ways are sought to reconcile agricultural production and the preservation of diversity

in agricultural landscapes, and changes in regulation and practices can help to achieve such goals.

Countries use policy reform to apply alternatives to pesticides. In 1992, the European Common

Agricultural Policy created agri-environment programmes to encourage low input (e.g. fertilizers and

pesticides), better protection of natural habitats within agricultural landscapes, and change of land

use for environmental needs. (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/ fr/som_fr/report.htm).

Use of pesticides in agriculture has declined since the 90s in the European Community, although this

varies greatly depending on crop and forecast (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/fr/

som_fr/report.htm). The efficiency of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to meet environmental

challenges remains controversial, especially for pollution and consumption of water, land conversion

and wildlife destruction (EC 2006, Barbut & Baschet 2005, Kleijn & Sutherland, 2003). At the national

level, Sweden and Denmark adopted policies targeting a reduction of 50% of pesticides since 1986

(Thonke 1991), but reductions were also observed in Norway and Finland without any formal policies

(Gianessi et al 2001). The programme ECOPHYTO2018 in France aims at a progressive eradication of

53 of the most dangerous chemicals, and a decrease of 50% in the use of pesticides within 10 years

(2018). The meta-programme SMaCH (Sustainable Management of Crop Health,

www.inra.fr/les_recherches/metaprogrammes) combines research and adaptive management to

favor biodiversity as a way to control diseases and decrease pesticides, via the organization and

management of landscapes.

With regard to practices, Integrated Pest Management (IPM2) is an ecological approach to managing

pests to improve crop production and protection by using less pesticides and relying on natural

biological processes (e.g. www.endure-network.eu, www.pure-imp.eu). The recent concept of

Functional Agrobiodiversity aims at identifying which elements of biodiversity provide key services

for agroecosystems (ELN-FAB, the European Network for Functional Agrobiodiversity, www.eln-

fab.eu). DIVERSITAS defines agrobiodiversity as “managed and unplanned biodiversity in agricultural

ecosystems, which closely interact with wild biodiversity within the larger landscape matrix”

(www.agrobiodiversity-diversitas.org). DIVERSITAS is already developing a science plan and

implementation strategy on agrobiodiversity and several projects are endorsed which should end in

2012. APPEAL (www.biodiversa.org/87) is a research project funded under the ERA-Net scheme,

aiming at assessing ecosystem services including biological pest control provided by natural enemies.

It focus mostly on aphids and their natural predators and examines how the natural enemy’s fauna is

affected by land-use change.

Using fewer pesticides (quantity, spectrum) may prevent a strong control of the quantity and

diversity of pests, but it should help restoring populations of natural enemies which will act against

2 FAO definition: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) means the careful consideration of all

available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that

discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to

levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the

environment. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to

agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.


http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/%20fr/som_fr/report.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/fr/%20som_fr/report.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/fr/%20som_fr/report.htm

http://www.inra.fr/les_recherches/metaprogrammes

http://www.endure-network.eu/

http://www.pure-imp.eu/

http://www.eln-fab.eu/

http://www.eln-fab.eu/

http://www.agrobiodiversity-diversitas.org/

http://www.biodiversa.org/87


these pests. Aubertot et al. (2005) describe bio-control as the use of live beings to prevent or

decrease damages caused by pests. They report 3 types of bio-control: a/ introduction of a new

species, b/ release of captive-bred natural control agents to increase local populations, this release

being massive (flooding effect) or in small quantity aiming at establishing viable population

(inoculation); c/ habitat manipulation in order to enhance beneficial effect of indigenous control

agents (e.g. Bianchi et al. 2006, Champlin-Kramer et al, 2011, Veres et al. 2011). This last option

matches requirements of preservation of local biodiversity whilst releases of exotic species or natural

species outside of their natural range may be criticized. Relying on local ecosystems to effectively

provide natural pest control allows farmers not only to decrease costs on pesticides but also those

linked to release of commercially captive-bred bio-control agents.

To provide an efficient regulatory service, the populations of natural enemies must be in good status.

Provision of shelters, food, reproduction areas, can play an essential role in maintaining such

populations (and other biodiversity as well) and this role can be filled by non-crop habitats (Bianchi

et al. 2006). According to ELN-FAB, the knowledge about how to use ecosystem services is still

scattered and often poorly accessible. Allocating means for sown wildflower strips, beetle banks or

other landscape elements to promote natural pest control requires a clear understanding of the

potentials and limitations of such measures, if possible before the launch of the new 2014–2020

Common Agricultural Policy. The goal of this work is to contribute to the synthesis of knowledge

concerning agrobiodiversity and its related ecosystem services by assessing the effectiveness of

interventions aiming at manipulating non-crop habitat or landscape features in order to maintain or

support natural (indigenous) population of pest control agents.

This work is conducted as a case-study aiming at testing the prototype of network of knowledge

synthesis and transfer elaborated within the FP7 programme “Biodiversity Knowledge”

(www.biodiversityknowledge.eu, Annex 1). This programme is envisioned as an embryo of the

establishment of an EU Mechanism, linked to IPBES. This case study also benefits from the

cooperation with a current programme led at Cambridge University, UK, aiming at producing a

synopsis of evidence of the effect of interventions enhancing natural pest control in food-producing

systems (www.conservationevidence.org).

OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT

Unlike a traditional systematic review, the question was not addressed by a commissioner but

originated from a consultation of policy-makers by FRB and EAA within the conduct of the

Biodiversity Knowledge project. In France, discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture (MAAPRAT), in

relationship with INRA, led to the topic of biological control and landscape management

interventions in connection with Ecophyto 2018. In Austria, the Ministry of Agriculture and

Environment was contacted and particularly emphasized the need for synthetic knowledge about

flower strips. Finally, the following concern emerged: Within the context of a reduction of the use of

pesticides, we expect a positive feedback in return on biological control of pests resulting from a

better preservation of functional biodiversity. The question which could be addressed to a NoK could

be to know if any landscape management interventions could sustain or improve this ecosystem




service provided to agriculture. (the agricultural context may need to be refined according to the type

of agriculture and/or landscape)

This work will address separately the two aspects of this request:

1) To list the interventions on habitat and landscape that are favorable to natural pest control (Part

I), and

2)/ to establish the state of evidence for each of them as far as possible (Part II).

To establish a list of interventions, a collaboration was set up with the Cambridge Conservation

Science Group (CCSG) which has started to work on a similar topic in June 2012 (“Enhancing natural

pest control in food-producing ecosystems: evidence for the effects of interventions”,

www.conservationevidence.com). CCSG contacted us after we FRB launched a call to the current

Biodiversity Knowledge “Network of Knowledge” as established by the first work package team

(Biodiversity Knowledge WP1, 2011). The first part of CCSG’s work consists in listing all interventions

found in a selection of peer-reviewed journals. All interventions that promote natural pest control

whilst altogether having a positive effect on the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

are retained. We will thus rely on this list and complement it if needed with the results of searches

for knowledge conducted at FRB/INRA (see below).

To address the effectiveness of interventions, we will use the methodology of a systematic review for

environmental management (www.environmentalevidence.org) combined with the approach used in

Cambridge. INRA will conduct a comprehensive and systematic search using keywords and search

strings and various databases based on a list of search terms provided by FRB, using the literature

identified by Cambridge as a benchmark list to test the efficiency of the search. FRB and EEA will then

conduct a critical appraisal (CEE 2010) of a subset of papers as a wide number of publications are

expected and we will probably lack time to examine them all. Consultation with stakeholders and

decision-makers will help give priority to interventions of timely policy-relevance, rather than

extracting a random subset of papers. This decision will also be influenced by the availability of

volunteer experts to form working groups, assess the papers relevant to the topic, and contribute to

reporting results. Meta-analysis will be conducted only if good relevant data are identified and expert

statistician can contribute. The BiodiversityKnowledge project does not allow to hire working groups

as would normally be the case for the conduct of a systematic review.

Combining the Cambridge synopsis of evidence approach and a critical appraisal approach should

lead to the establishment of a systematic map, with knowledge gaps highlighted as well as possible

recommendations for the conduct of full systematic reviews.

The Biodiversity Knowledge project is related to the establishment of an EU Mechanism, linked itself

to IPBES (www.ipbes.net). As a consequence, we will explore the opportunity to include in this work

some non-academic knowledge (practitioners, managers, networks of farmers) as this type of

knowledge will be taken into account in IPBES assessments

(http://www.ipbes.net/plenary/intersessional.html, see for instance Annex 3 of

http://www.ipbes.net/component/docman/doc_download/1021-ipbes-draft-procedures-for-the-

preparation-review-and-acceptance-of-ipbes-publications-for-review.html?Itemid=159). A narrative

synthesis of non-academic knowledge will be added as a specific chapter and its outcomes will be

compared to that provided by the scientific papers. . To achieve this, collection of knowledge will be

http://www.conservationevidence.com/

http://www.environmentalevidence.org/

http://www.ipbes.net/

http://www.ipbes.net/plenary/intersessional.html

http://www.ipbes.net/component/docman/doc_download/1021-ipbes-draft-procedures-for-the-preparation-review-and-acceptance-of-ipbes-publications-for-review.html?Itemid=159

http://www.ipbes.net/component/docman/doc_download/1021-ipbes-draft-procedures-for-the-preparation-review-and-acceptance-of-ipbes-publications-for-review.html?Itemid=159


established by consultation (questionnaires) and/or workshops of stakeholders based on

identification of specialized hubs (Biodiversity Knowledge WP1 work, ELN-Fab, Alter-Net and other

identified networks). Synergies and discrepancies with academic knowledge will be discussed.

METHODS / DESIGN

SEMANTICS:

A large part of the confusion in landscape ecology literature comes from the fact that habitat =

remnant = patch <> matrix. This oversimplification hides the adequate terminology to account for

differential use of landscape elements (for example a species forages in highly disturbed fields,

hibernates in field margins and reproduces in fallow areas because the larvae do not tolerate soil

treatment). In the following, we will distinguish between landscape, landscape elements (hedgerows,

flower strips, seminatural patches) and habitat (where a particular species or an ensemble of species

can live). Habitat management means then to improve habitat conditions by intervening on

landscape elements for particular species. Relevant literature on this topic is for instance papers by

Fahrig (2003), FIshcher & Lindenmayer (2006), Lindenmayer & Fischer (2007).

In the following, we define “landscape” as a spatial arrangement of landscape elements and

ecosystems. This can include seminatural grassland as well as agroecosytems, private gardens and

semi-urbanised area in an agricultural context. “Landscape elements” refer to some vegetation

ensembles defined by a given structure (e.g. hedgerow, forest patches) and/or composition/function

(e.g. flower strip, riparian areas,…). In this study, landscape elements are mostly described at the

scale of the field or cultivated parcel.

We may thus face two situations:

- Macro-level: impact of landscape structure, composition, alteration, configuration of

landscape elements.

- Micro-level: impact of structure, conditions, quality (e.g. vegetation height, density, plant

species composition

PART I – List of interventions

SEARCHES

Cambridge Conservation Science Group

The guidelines for the conduct of a synopsis of evidence are available upon request at

www.conservationevidence.org. The content (list of titles) of a selection of a selection of the most

relevant peer-reviewed scientific journals is perused (all volumes, issues, and years) in order to

identify titles of papers that are eligible for the request. Papers are then extracted and stored in End

Note libraries. The list of interventions is built up incrementally as soon as a new type of intervention

is identified.

FRB and EAA working group



To help with the search and selection of relevant literature, the question is divided into components

called PICO (Population, Intervention or exposure, Comparator and Outcomes; CEE, 2010).

Population Intervention Comparators Outcomes

Any indigenous

regulators of pests (all

taxa)

Any intervention

consisting in creating,

restoring, or

maintaining natural or

seminatural landscape

elements , improving

habitat conditions for

species, as well as their

respective proportion

at the landscape level

e.g. sowing flower

strips, keeping

hedgerows, growing

ground cover…

No intervention,

destruction, other

types of interventions,

control plots

Species richness,

abundance, density,

biomass, dispersion,

occupation, presence,

reproduction,

settlement, viability,

Searches have been designed by an iterative exchange between FRB (BL) and INRA (ASG & SL) and

will be conducted at INRA (Search Working Group). These searches aim to extract a comprehensive

and unbiased range of literature relevant to the topic. It will rely on a list of search terms related to

the different components of the question (subject, intervention, outcome, context) combined into

one or several search strings (or search equations) which will be used in one or several databases. In

order to define the best possible search strings, we first conducted a scoping exercise, then used its

results to elaborate the final list of search terms and search strategies.

SCOPING Scoping is used to conduct a preliminary assessment of the amount of literature available, a first set

of keywords and references and to help plan the rest of the work. PZ scoped the literature on BIOSIS

and SCOPUS whilst BL scoped Web of Knowledge using generic keywords and simple search strings

(Annex 2). From the outcomes of this scoping exercise, and a preliminary list of interventions from

the Cambridge CSG (Annex 3), we established a preliminary list of keywords according to the

elements composing the question (see Annex 4), and a first list of references (Annex 5) in order to

test the comprehensiveness of subsequent searches. A second benchmark list of references was

provided later by Cambridge CSG, independently from our scoping exercise, as a result of the

completed perusal of the journal Biological Control to extract all possible interventions related to

pest control (Annex 5). It was also used to test the efficiency of our search strings at a later stage.

SEARCH TERMS AND LANGUAGES


Search terms are organized according to the elements identified previously in the request. Searches

will be conducted in English language but may retrieve papers written in other languages (when

abstracts in English are provided). The initial list of keywords is given in Annex 4. We could not obtain

a comprehensive list of names of natural enemies of pest. In order to narrow the search to pests

related to agriculture, we used a list of pest species obtained from INRA (www.inra.fr/hyppz/) using

the Latin names of genus for all pests identified in this website (see search string below).

SEARCH STRINGS AND/OR COMBINATIONS OF SEARCHES Given the breadth of the topic, crops, interventions, pests and pest’s natural enemies, the literature

will be extracted using a combination of search strings that each relate to the different components

of the question.

The explanation of search strings given below addresses searches conducted in CAB Abstracts, where

the strings can be identified as DE (descriptors) or TS (topics). Descriptors are subject index terms

and phrases assigned to each record to characterize the substantive content of the original

document. Descriptors are assigned from the CAB thesaurus. With a total of 59,000 terms (48,500

preferred terms; 10,500 non-preferred terms) it is the largest thesaurus covering agriculture and

related subjects. To identify descriptors appropriate for the search in CAB Abstracts, each initial

keyword is compared to the CAB Thesaurus and its corresponding Descriptor or Cabicode is

identified. This allows to reduce the number of search terms without reducing the number of

keywords actually searched by the search engine. This also allows the search to retrieve papers

whose keywords may not have been identified by the researchers.

Search string 1: POPULATION

This string combines the list of names of pest (latin names, genus only) OR a list of natural enemies as

defined by broad categories.

1. DE=(predatory insects OR predatory arthropods OR predatory birds OR predatory mites OR natural enemies OR predators OR Biological control agent OR pest OR predator prey relationships OR pests)

OR

2. TS=(Acalitus OR Acanthoscelides OR AcidiaOR Aclypea OR Acrolepiopsis OR Aculops OR Aculus OR Acyrthosiphon OR Adoxophyes OR Aegeria OR Aglaope OR Agriotes OR Agromyza OR Agrotis OR Aleurolobus OR Aleurothrixus OR Anarsia OR Anthonomus OR Aonidiella OR Aphanostigma OR Aphelenchoides OR Aphelenchus OR Aphidula OR Aphis OR Apion OR Apodemus OR Arammichnus Archips OR Argyrotaenia OR Arion OR Aspidiotus OR Athalia OR Atomaria OR Aulacaspis OR Aulacorthum OR Autographa OR Bemisia OR Blaniulus OR Blitophaga OR Brachycaudus OR Brachycorynella OR Brevicoryne OR Bruchus OR Byturus OR Cacoecia OR Cacopsylla OR Calepitrimerus OR Capitophorus OR Capnodis OR Capua OR Carduelis OR Cecidophyes OR Cecidophyopsis OR Ceratitis OR Ceroplastes OR Ceuthorhynchus OR Chaetosiphon OR Chromaphis OR Chrysomphalus OR Cirphis OR Clysia OR Cnephasia OR Coenorhinus OR Colaspidema OR Coleophora Colomerus Columba OR Conorhynchus OR Contarinia OR Coroebus OR Corvus OR Corylobium OR Cossus OR Crioceris OR Cryptomyzus OR Curculio OR Cydia OR Dactylosphaera OR Dacus OR Dasineura OR Delia OR Deroceras OR Dialeurodes OR Ditylenchus OR Dysaphis OR Dysaulacorthum OR Empoasca OR Eotetranychus OR Epidiaspis OR Eriophyes OR Eriosoma OR Eulecanium OR Euparypha OR Euphyllura OR Eupoecilia OR Eurydema OR Euxoa OR Euzophera OR Forficula OR Frankliniella OR Fringilla OR Geoktapia OR Globodera OR Gortyna OR Grapholitha OR Gryllotalpa OR Gymnoscelis OR

http://www.inra.fr/hyppz/


Haltica OR Haplodiplosis OR Haplothrips OR Hapsidolema OR Harpalus OR Hedya OR Helicoverpa OR Heliothis OR Helix OR Heterodera OR Homoeosoma OR Hoplocampa OR Hyalopterus OR Hylemyia OR Hypera OR Hyperomyzus OR Hypoborus OR Hyponomeuta OR Icerya OR Jacobiasca OR Kakothrips OR Korscheltellus OR Laspeyresia OR Lepidosaphes OR Leptinotarsa OR Leptohylemyia OR Lepus OR Leucoptera OR Limothrips OR Liothrips OR Liriomyza OR Lobesia OR Lycophotia OR Lyonetia OR Macrosiphum OR Mamestra OR Melanaphis OR Melanchra OR Meligethes OR Meloidogyne OR Melolontha OR Metatetranychus OR Metopolophium OR Metriochroa OR Micractis OR Microtus OR Monostira OR Mythimna OR Mytilococcus OR Myzocallis OR Myzus OR Nasonovia OR Oberea OR Oecophyllembius OR Operophtera OR Ophiomyia OR Ophonus OR Oryctolagus OR Oscinella OR Ostrinia OR Otiorhynchus OR Oulema OR Palomena OR Palpita OR Pammene OR Pandemis OR Panonychus OR Parahypopta OR Parus OR Passer OR Passerinia OR Pegomyia OR Pemphigus OR Peribatodes OR Phasianus OR Philophylla OR Phloeotribus OR Phorbia OR Phorodon OR Phthorimaea OR Phyllocoptes OR Phyllonorycter OR Phyllotreta OR Phytocoptella OR Phytometra OR Phytonemus OR Phytonomus OR Phytoptus OR Pica OR Pieris OR Platyparea OR Plutella OR Polia OR Polyphylla OR Pratylenchus OR Prays OR Prolasioptera OR Protrama OR Pseudaulacaspis OR Psila OR Psylliodes OR Pyrrhula OR Quadraspidiotus OR Radopholus OR Resseliella OR Rhagoletis OR Rhopalosiphum OR Rhynchites OR Ruguloscolytus OR Saissetia OR Scaphoideus OR Scotia OR Scrobipalpa OR Scutigerella OR Sesamia OR Sitobion OR Sitodiplosis OR Sitona OR Sparganothis OR Spilonota OR Spodoptera OR Stephanitis OR Stigmella OR Sturnus OR Sus OR Synanthedon OR Talpa OR Tetranychus OR Thrips OR Tipula OR Toxoptera OR Trialeurodes OR Trichodorus OR Tylenchulus OR Vasates OR Vespa OR Vesperus OR Vespula OR Viteus OR Xiphinema OR Xyleborus OR Yponomeuta OR Zabrus OR Zeuzera OR Zophodia)

Search string 2: INTERVENTION As before, the first part of this string is composed of generic descriptors which actually target a larger number of keywords.

3. DE=(Companion crops OR Farming systems OR grassland* OR Border effects OR forest borders OR Intercropping OR crop management OR cropping systems OR crop establishment OR habitats OR territory OR biotopes OR hedges OR Landscape OR land use OR fallow OR strip* OR linear plantations OR shelterbelts OR ground cover OR trap crops OR Tillage OR agricultural land OR interspecific competition OR grazing OR cultural control)

OR

4. TS=("Banker plant* system*" OR "companion vegetation*" OR "companion plant* " OR "Buffer width*" OR "buffer zone*" OR corridor* OR "field margin*" OR farmscaping OR "integrated production" OR "repellent plant*" OR "spatial arrangement*" OR "set-aside" OR "set aside" OR refuge OR Compost* OR "integrated crop management" OR habitat OR "crop system" OR groundcover OR "flowering borders" OR landscape OR interplanting

Search string 3: OUTCOMES

5. #7 TS=((increas* OR decreas* OR declin* OR regulat* OR impact* OR variabilit* OR reduc* OR effect* OR intensit* OR sustain* OR maintain* OR support* OR chang* OR enhanc* OR affect* OR abundance) SAME (abundance OR "population size" OR presence OR "species richness" OR "species diversity" OR biocontrol OR "pest control"))

Final search combination: String 1 AND string 2 AND String 3


These strings were adapted for use in Web of Science by using wildcards (*) and commas to delimit

expressions (see Annex 7). In Web of Science, descriptors do not exist, all keywords are identified as

Topic. Due to lack of resources, we could build a search in WoS as an iterative process and we are

aware that this current search may not be comprehensive. Examination of results will tell us if we

need to run more specific searches using precise keywords for some subgroups of topics.

PUBLICATION DATABASES SEARCHED Due to resource limitations, we will only peruse 2 databases: CAB Abstracts and Web of Science.

Priority will be given to CAB Abstracts as this database typically addresses topics related to

agriculture. Moreover, its thesaurus allows to simplify the search whilst ensuring its breadth.

CAB Abstracts and Web of Science will be consulted over all years (CAB: 1973-now; WoS: 1975-now),

without lemmatization in WoS (using wildcards).

All literature extracted will be stored as EndNote files.

INTERNET SEARCHES CONDUCTED (E.G. GOOGLE SCHOLAR) No searches were conducted on Google due to the expected huge number of references already

identified from the databases (but see below).

Two website will be perused to find existing synthetic evidence

- www.conservationevidence.com for synopsis

- www.environementalevidence.org for systematic reviews

SPECIALIST SEARCHES AND SUPPLEMENTARY SEARCHES (NON ACADEMIC KNOWLEDGE) Searches will be conducted on organizational websites upon recommendations of experts. Similarly,

snowballing (perusing literature cited at the end of papers) will be implemented on reviews and

books when identified. Literature provided by stakeholders will be stored on a special file when not

already identified by the searches.

A list of organizations that will be contacted in order to get some grey literature, reports, or collect

traditional/practitioner’s knowledge is provided in Annex 7 and will be completed subsequently. The

networks ELN-FAB and Alternet will relay calls for knowledge to a wider audience.

STUDY INCLUSION CRITERIA Relevance of the studies to the request is assessed initially both by Cambridge CSG and by FRB-EAA

based on title. When in doubt, a paper is kept and assessed again at next stage (abstract, full text) to

benefit from more information. For the papers extracted by INRA, given limitations of resources, a

decision will be made with stakeholders whether to limit selection at abstract and full text stages to

some subtopics of particular interest, but the complete database (EndNote) will be available for

subsequent finalization if possible.

From the list extracted by INRA, the two reviewers (BL, PZ) will compare their decision-making about

relevance of papers by conducting a Kappa test on a random extract of 30 papers at title (and

possibly abstract) stage. The Kappa statistics (Edwards et al. 1985) will have to be lower than 0.6,

otherwise the two reviewers will discuss reasons for discrepancy and clarify rules for

inclusion/exclusion, eventually reporting about any modification of the criteria listed above. At

abstract and full-text, we hope to include expert groups that will examine a group of references

related to their field of expertise (e.g. agroforestry, hedgerows, flower strips… or some specific pests

http://www.conservationevidence.com/

http://www.environementalevidence.org/


like aphids). Experts will meet at workshops organized for this purpose (as well as critical appraisal).

Kappa tests will be conducted as often as possible.

A priori criteria for inclusion or rejection of paper at any stage are given below. When in doubt about

accepting or discarding a paper, it will be retained until examined at the next stage.

Relevant populations:

Any natural (live) control agent which may impact populations of pests, except in freshwater or

marine waters. Papers on pests not attacking resources (e.g. mosquitos) will not be retained. Pest

control agents such as microbes, viruses, protozoans, fungi, parasites will not be retained unless they

are clearly native and linked to some habitat features. It is here considered that enhancing such

populations rely mostly on release procedure rather than interventions on landscape elements

Biocontrol of pests affecting livestock and poultry (but not captive bred animals in zoos or fur

market…) will be retained, as well as those affecting any resource that may not be food (e.g. timber,

horticulture, pharmaceuticals, and so on).

Relevant interventions

Any modification of habitat features or landscape (maintaining, restoring, transforming,

manipulating, creating) at the field scale or at a larger scale is eligible. Some studies will probably be

situations of exposure, where no intervention occurs but the effect of the landscape

structure/composition/design is assessed by comparing different sites or plots. Introduction of exotic

biological control agents will be discarded (augmentative release of native pest control agents may

be covered by Cambridge University), as well as food supplementation, physical barriers (nets),

artificial traps, repellent pheromones, mating disruption techniques as they are not linked to habitat

features.

Relevant outcomes

Increase of indigenous biocontrol agents (ladybugs, spiders, birds...) measured as species richness,

abundance, survival rates, reproduction rates, ... AND/OR eventually as a secondary effect,

decreased or maintained populations of pests. It could also be a reduced latency in regulation by

natural predators at the onset of an infestation by pests. In case of control-agents of very small size,

cryptic or as acting as parasites or parasitoids, measuring changes in the pest population may be

easier than verifying that these changes have been created by a successful infestation. Papers just

reporting increase in population or efficiency of pest control agents will be retained, papers

measuring both an increase of pest control action and a decrease of pests would be even better but

may be more difficult to find. Papers just reporting changes in the pest population may be biased by

the possible lack of demonstration of direct causality between the pest-control agent and the pest

population and will be retained but examined only if time/manpower allow us to do so.

Relevant context

The studies should preferably include a reported decrease of the use of pesticides in the field and

even in the neighborhood (no spillage). This decrease could be measured as a total quantity of

pesticide used, a decreased frequency of use, a decreased range of pesticides or a change towards

pesticides with a more specific and narrow spectrum, or better by some chemical proxys measured in

the field and its surroundings indicating the decrease of presence of the molecules of pesticide. It


could also encompass a change from conventional agriculture to integrated pest management

programmes or biological agriculture.

Relevant types of study design and papers

Any study conducted in the field. Simulations, models or scenario will be discarded. Reviews with

quantitative analysis (meta-analysis or re-analysis of data) will be considered as papers. Narrative

reviews will be examined as opinion papers or as a special category.

The best expected study design would be one with a BACI design (before/after/control/intervention),

or with multiple replicates in time and space (beyond BACI, Underwood 1996). Plots would be far

away from each other to prevent spillage but not too much to prevent heterogeneity in microclimate

or soil. However, a random allocation of plots to treatment/control seems rarely possible in

landscape studies (Hargrove & Pickering 1992).

PART II – Effectiveness of interventions

A first insight of the evidence of an effectiveness of an intervention will be provided in published

literature by the results of statistics and discussion from the authors. Yet, to draw a conclusion across

several studies, their respective contribution at providing sound results must be taken into account.

Indeed, the strength of the evidence can be affected by the research design, which controls more or

less for biases and confounding variables. Ability of authors to take into account these problems in

their research design and the discussion of the results contribute to the establishment of a level of

confidence in these results (“critical appraisal”). This can be expressed in a narrative way (level of

confidence, based on explicit criteria), or as a weight attributed to effect sizes in a meta-analysis

(Borenstein et al 2009).

Cambridge Conservation Science Group

The effectiveness of interventions is by reading relevant papers and by extracting information using a

standardized methodology (Conservation Evidence, 2012). It relies on identification of the research

design of each study, and report of the results as provided by the authors.

FRB-EAA and experts

The critical appraisal recommended in a systematic review approach goes further than that of

Conservation Evidence in several ways. The research design and identification of biases and

confounding variables as described by the authors of the study will be compared to a “golden

standard” which is the ideal experimental design that should be implemented to get as close as

possible to a robust answer. This standard provides explicit scientific criteria explaining why the peer-

evaluators conclude that the results of a study is of high, medium or low confidence (see below).

Preliminary criteria are presented in the following chapters but may need to be completed. Each

study will thus be assessed based for its susceptibility to biases. A subset of all relevant papers

(related to one or several interventions, depending on experts available), will be examined at full text

to extract descriptive information, using the Cambridge CGS working grid as a template and

complementing it with information about effect modifiers and biases as given below.


For non academic knowledge, effectiveness of an intervention will rely on the opinion of

stakeholders. As for a survey, the number of independent opinion reporting effectiveness out of the

number of opinions reporting ineffectiveness or no opinion will be an indicator of the perceptions of

stakeholders concerning a given intervention. Attention will be paid to the number of answers and

the affiliation of answerers as we do not have resources to conduct a structured survey with samples

representative of the population of farmers or conservationists.

POTENTIAL EFFECT MODIFIERS AND REASONS FOR HETEROGENEITY

Effect modifiers are confounding variables that may impact the value or sign of the effect size (i.e.

intensity of the impact of the intervention calculated as a difference or ratio between a “Before” and

a “After” measurement) (Borenstein et al 2009, CEE 2010). Trying to establish a comprehensive list of

possible sources of bias affecting the results of an experiment or observation is important prior to

the conduct of the study in order to guide the reading at full text and assessment of the quality of

each study. Well-conducted studies will have a research design aiming at minimizing bias or

controlling them. Less rigorous studies may nevertheless report bias and try to take them into

account, which should be acknowledged.

Given the breadth of the question, we expect to identify a long list of confounding variables/effect

modifiers and causes for heterogeneity. Bases on preliminary reading of some literature, a

preliminary list of biases is given below:

1. The increase of populations of natural pest control agents could be simply due to the

decrease of pesticides, rather than to the effect of habitat manipulation itself. The two

factors can interact in synergy or in opposition. Discriminating among the respective role of

each factor implies to have measured them.

2. The quality of soil, diversity of cultivars (varieties of crop), history of the use of pesticides will

often vary across sites without any possible experimental manipulation of these parameters.

Reporting them is an asset of any publication.

3. Wind can affect spillover of pesticides, dispersion of pests and natural enemies. Some hedges

are primarily designed to stop wind (damages on orchards) rather than to favor natural pest

control. As a consequence, the existence of hedges, the linear of hedges may not be a good

indicator of functional agrobiodiversity.

4. Insects move across fields or habitats, for instance for reproduction, or to overwintering

sites. They can change crop according to their life-cycle or stage (egg/larvae/adult).

Monitoring should take into account season, life cycle and mobility.

5. Surroundings can affect results. A pesticide-free site may be impacted by high pesticide

impacted surrounding fields but also by non agricultural habitats (roads, water, other

crops)… Discriminating among these confounding variable may be tricky. Similarly, creating a

new landscape element in an area where there are plenty of them already (and hedge in a

semi open area) may be successful in terms of rapid colonization by biocontrol agents, but

may not have a huge impact on pests as regulation would have occurred already. On the


other hand, creating an hedge in a widely open area may be very beneficial for biodiversity

(new niche) but hard to colonize if isolated.

6. One crop may have several pests (specialists vs generalist), one pest may have several

enemies, one enemy can target several pests, can switch according to season and lifecycle,

one enemy also has its own enemies.

7. Parasitoids, diseases or predators do not act the same way, there may be a latency before

effectiveness can be observed.

8. Eradicating one pest can create an empty niche and attract other pests, so yield may not

increase in spite of effective pest control on the targeted pest.

STUDY QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Study quality will be assessed based on a hierarchy of evidence established in medicine and

conservation (Stevens & Milne, 1997; Pullin & Knight 2001) and refined to match the specificities or

limitations of research designs observed in the context of this review. Expert consultation

(workshops) will be organized to reach a consensus about the various study designs, bias and quality

available and agree on criteria to rank them according to quality.

A range of a priori criteria defining the robustness of the research design, the ideal and optimal

research protocol needs to be established before the literature is read. Following the classification

used by Cambridge CSGG, correlative studies will be distinguished from those testing a causality.

Indeed, the impact of an intervention can only be assessed if its effect is measured in comparison to

what was observed before it took place. With this in mind, a preliminary list is proposed below,

ranking study designs according to their low to high susceptibility to biases.

1. BACI experiment, replicated or not, with randomized allocation of plots to treatment, double

blinded monitoring

2. BACI Experiments, replicated or not with randomized allocation of plots to treatment

3. BACI experiment, no replicate, no randomization, no blinded measurement (probably very

common)

4. Time series, replicated in space, with control plots

5. Time series, replicated, without control (correlative)

6. Comparisons of two or more plots, no replication in time (correlative)

7. Time series on one plot (correlative)

8. Observations with no specific design (common in traditional knowledge; correlative)

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction will only be conducted if time and experts allow to do so. If possible, this will only

occur on a sub-topic (one or a few interventions).

Other information that will be extracted from papers read at full-text is the following:

WHERE: How many sites, Habitat, Region and country


WHEN: Year & season

RESOURCE, PEST and NATURAL CONTROL AGENT: RESOURCE targeted by pest, Pest latin and

common name, Pest broad taxon, Control agent latin and common, Control agent broad taxon.

INTERVENTION: Intervention 1, Intervention 2, Intervention 3 (…), Use of pesticides

STUDY DESIGN: Sample size & unit, Details of sampling or techniques (interventions): Replication

(over sites or population/indiv), Randomisation of intervention, Site comparison , Time-series,

Control, Baseline, Paired sites, Before/after, Statistics, Critical appraisal/ Comments

RESULTS: Main results, Extra results, Conflicting results

BIASES AND CONFOUNDING VARIABLES: Biases identified by authors, Confounding variables as

described by authors, Subgroup analysis

COMPETING INTEREST The authors declare that they have no competing interests

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS The work presented here was carried out in collaboration between all authors. PZ initiated dialogue

with decision-makers in Austria; Claude-Anne Gauthier, Cécile Blanc and Aurélien Carbonnière (FRB)

did the same in France. BL initiated and wrote the manuscript, established the list of initial search

terms. PZ and BL conducted the scoping of the bibliography. SL and ASG elaborated the search strings

by iteration, in constant dialogue with BL. JH provided guidance and explanation regarding synopsis

of evidence, list of interventions, and bibliography extracted from Biological control. Collaboration

with the Cambridge Conservation Science Group occurred all along the establishment of this protocol

n order to prevent duplication and redundancy and ensure the articulation of our respective

programmes. The interest of the two methodologies of evidence-based approaches will be further

highlighted in the final report.

Other authors are expected to join the review. Given strict time limitations and poor availability of

experts at the onset of this work, we will use this draft protocol as a dissemination tool to get them

involved in its revision and in the improvement of the whole project.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BL and PZ are funded by the FP7 KNEU “Biodiversity knowledge” project (project 265299). ASG and

SL have worked within the context of a Search Working Group planned within the KNEU mission of

FRB. LVD, JH and WJS are funded by NERC as part of the Knowledge Exchange Programme on

Sustainable Food Production. WJS is funded by Arcadia.

REFERENCES


Aubertot JN, Barbier JM, Carpentier, Gril JJ, Guichard L, Lucas P, Savary S, Savini I, Voltz M (Eds):

Pesticides, agriculture et environnement. Réduire l'utilisation des pesticides et limiter leurs

impacts environnementaux. In Rapport d'Expertise Scientifique Collective INRA et Cemagref;

2005.

Barbut L, Baschet J-F: L’évaluation des politiques de soutien de l’agro-environnement. Notes et

études économiques 2005, 22: 37-68.

Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD: Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in

Ecology and Evolution 2003, 50: 182–188.

BIanchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke, T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a

review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc Roy Soc 2006,

273:1715-1727.

Biodiversity Knowledge WP1: Mapping the knowledge landscape 2011:

http://www.biodiversityknowledge.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:wp1

mapping-the-knowledge-landscape&catid=8:the-project-steps.

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR: Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley &

Sons; 2009.

Buckley NA, Eddleston M, Li Y, Bevan M, Robertson J: Oximes for acute organophosphate pesticide

poisoning. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD005085. DOI:

10.1002/14651858.CD005085.pub2.

CEE Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (Ed.): Guidelines for Systematic reviews in

Environmental Management 2010: version 4, 71pp. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/

Documents/Guidelines.pdf

Chaplin-Kramer R, O’Rourke ME, Blitzer EJ, Kremen C: A meta-analysis of cropt pest and natural

enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecology Letters 2011, 14:922-932.

Conservation Evidence: Guide to writing for Conservation Evidence. Cambridge University; July

2012.

European Commission: EU rural development monitoring data, synthesis report 2001-3, SEC 2006,

508: 11.4.2006.

Fahrig L: Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

2003, 34: 487-515.

Fawcett RS, Christensen BR, Tierney DP: The impact of conservation tillage on pesticide runoff into

surface water: a review and analysis. Journal of soil and water conservation 1994, 49:126-135

Ferron P, Deguine JP: Crop protection, biological control, habitat management and integrated farming. A review. Agronomy forSustainable Development 2005, 25: 17-24.

Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB: Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and

conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos, 2006, 112: 473-480.

Giannessi L, Rury K, Rinkus A: An evaluation of pesticide use reduction policies in Scandinavia. Outlooks on Pest Management 2009, October: 1-7.

Hargrove WW, Pickering J : Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape

Ecology 1992, 6: 251–258.

Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ: How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and

promoting biodiversity. Journal of applied ecology 2003, 40: 947-969

Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J: Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution 2007, 22: 127–132.

/projects/biodiversityknowledge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:wp1mapping-the-knowledge-landscape&catid=8:the-project-steps

/projects/biodiversityknowledge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:wp1mapping-the-knowledge-landscape&catid=8:the-project-steps

http://www.environmentalevidence.org/%20Documents/Guidelines.pdf

http://www.environmentalevidence.org/%20Documents/Guidelines.pdf


Pimentel D, Acquay H, Biltonen M, Rice P, Silva M, Nelson J, Lipner V, Giodano S, Horowitz A,

D’Amore M: Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 1992, 42:750-760.

Ravindranath NH, Manuvie R, Fargione J, Canadell JG, Berndes G, Woods J, Watson H, Sathaye J :

Greenhouse gas implications of land use and land conversion to biofuel crop. In Proceedings of

the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project

Rapid Assessmen: 22-25 September 2008; Gummersbach Germany. Edited by Howarth RW,

Bringezu S. Ithaca NY: Cornel University; 2009: 111–125.

Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ: Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain.

Journal of Applied Ecology 2002, 39: 157–176.

Simpson IC, Roger PA: The impact of pesticides on nontarget aquatic invertebrates in wetland

ricefields : a review. Natural Resource Management and Policy 1995, 7: 249-270.

Thonke KE: Political and Practical Approaches in Scandinavia to Reduce Herbicide Inputs. In: Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference – Weeds; 1991: 1183-1190.

Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C, 2005. Landscape perspectives on

agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters

2005, 8: 857–874.

Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielboerger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F: Animal species

diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: The importance of keystone structures.

Journal of Biogeography, 2004, 31: 79-92.

Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R, Schindler D, Schlesinger W,

Simberloff D, Swackhamer D, 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental

change. Science 2001, 292: 281–284.

Underwood AJ: Spatial and temporal problems with monitoring. In River restoration. Selected

extracts from The Rivers Handbook. Edited by Petts G, Calow P. Oxford: Blackwell Science;

1996:182-204.

Veres A, Petit S, Conord C, Lavigne C: Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their

control by natural enemies? A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2011,

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.027.

von Witzke H: Agriculture, world food security, bio-energy and climate change: some

inconvenient facts. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 2008, 47: 1–4.

WHO./UNEP: Public Health Impact of Pesticides used in Agriculture.OMS & PNUE, Geneva,

Switzerland; 1989.


ADDITIONAL FILES - ANNEXES

Annex 1. Presentation of the KNEU Project

To organize and facilitate knowledge exchange at the European level and sustain a regional node of

IPBES, the FP7-KNEU project (renamed Biodiversity knowledge, www.biodiversityknowledge.eu) is in

charge of developing a knowledge network (NoK) for European expertise on biodiversity and

ecosystem services to inform policy making and economic actors (KNEU Description of Work

document, 2010). The project begins with the mapping of the biodiversity knowledge hubs in Europe,

develops a prototype (see website) which is used as a vehicle to carry out case studies in relevant

policy fields (agriculture, biodiversity conservation, marine issues) in order to test its functioning and

effectiveness. The experience gained provides input for refining the recommended design of a future

functional Network of Knowledge (NoK). More specifically, the test cases aim at evaluating the

virtues, limitations and the sphere of applicability of various approaches to knowledge assessment

and communication, and how the NoK prototype can address these issues.

Annex 2. Scoping exercise conducted preliminary to searches, results from BIOSIS and SCOPUS

(years 1969 to 2012) scoped in March 2012 and Web of Knowledge (all years) in April 2012 using

the following search terms

Search Terms Results

BIOSIS & SCOPUS Topic=(ecosystem services AND method*) 3194

Topic=(flower strip* AND ecosystem service*) 3

Topic=(flower strip* AND biodiversity) 33

Topic=(pollination AND ecosystem service* AND yield) 20

Topic=(set-asides AND ecosystem services) 12

Topic=(agricultural input AND biodiversity) 230

Topic=(pesticid* AND biodiversity) 2115

Topic = (pest control AND generalist predator) 28 (BIOSIS) and 20 (SCOPUS)

Web of Knowlegde

Landscape management AND (pest control OR (bio* control)) 5456 (bio*control OR integr*pest*OR lutte biol*) AND (biodivers* OR conserv*) 2762 Integrated pest management AND (biodiv* OR conserv* OR restor* OR landscape 1437 Decrease* AND pesticide*) AND (biodiv* OR conserv*) 1406 Integrated pest management AND edge* 103 Integrated pest management AND orchard* 1046

Annex 3 – Preliminary list of interventions provided by Cambridge Conservation Science Group

Around the field or dividing it Create/maintain/manage field margins as banks of natural enemies



Develop flower strips Plant or develop barriers to stop or limit infestation by pests Grow repellent or confusing plants/strips Provide bird perches for predatory birds to rest and to look for prey (rodents or other birds, e.g. starlings). Grow attractive plants to trap pests (trap crop) Use push-pull techniques (combination of attractant and repellant) Provide holes in the soil to enhance habitat for spiders Practice timely cutting of non-crop plants utilized by natural enemies (for food, shelter etc) to encourage dispersal into the crop Manage hedges and habitat corridors to benefit natural enemies (keep unsprayed, fill gaps). Mixed with crop, directly affecting cultivation practices Use mulching to create habitats and food whilst suppressing weeds Plant cover crop in the field to provide shelter for natural enemies Cultivate several crops altogether (decrease attractiveness) Ploughing under live (green manuring) and dead organic material to provide shelter and alternative food for natural enemies of pests and to make the soil more suppressive against plant pathogens. Reduce tillage to restore soil natural enemies At the landscape level Divide crops into smaller areas, increase the perimeter-to-area ratio of agricultural fields to facilitate spillover of natural enemies of agricultural pests Provide set-aside areas of natural habitat on farmland Increase heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes, including natural habitat remnants. Improve landscape-scale connectivity between natural or non-crop habitat remnants to enhance dispersal of natural enemies of pests Decrease the level of land-use intensity in the landscape, e.g. through large-scale conversion to organic farming Increase the availability of shelter belts, hedgerows and other woody habitats in the landscape to provide habitat for natural enemies Increase the availability of perennial crops in the landscape (e.g. through crop rotation with ley) to enhance natural enemies Restore flower-rich natural habitats such as species-rich grassland, road verges, areas beneath power lines


Annex 4. Initial list of keywords used to build up the search strategy

Population/Sub

ject (statistical

unit)

Targeted pest Intervention/Exposure Outcome Filtering by type of

crop/resource

Habitat/landscape

features

Action Immediate Secondary Tertiary

Pest control agents Predators Entomophag* Control agents (Latin names, common names) Mammals Birds Insects Arthropods Arachnids Plants Parasitoids Parasites,

(latin names, common names) Birds, insects Acarians Arthropods Nematods Diseases Rodents Weeds Fungi Mold Parasites Mammals Fish Helminths Ravageurs Bio-agresseurs Pest competitors

agrosystem* seminatural habitat* set-aside vegetation crop* edge* OR hedge* field margin* ground-cover habitat* hedge* landscape non-crop habitat* ((bankerOR companion OR beneficial)SAME plant*) plantes de service auxilliaires functional agrobiodiversity stand* strip* flower strip* ground$cover perimeter trap crop set$aside* channels

Design* Compos* Arrang* Structur* Proportion Manipulati* Manag* Spatial arrangement farmscaping Repell* (plants) Attracti* (plants) Grow* Maintain* sheep-grazing enherbement tillage intercrop (conservation biological control CBC) diversification (integrated pest management) integrated production inter-guild interactions

Increased population of control agents Increased efficiency of CA Sustainable pop of CA Increased diversity of CA Decreased latency of regulation of pest (latency of presence in the field, targeted dispersal…) Spill-over

Decrease of pest Decline of pest outbreaks increased mortality (of pest), predation on pest, infestation (of pests by parasitoids or diseases)

Increased crop yield Increased crop quality

(cotton) Grapevine Vineyard Garden* Orchard Apple Citrus Meadows Road verges/margins Tree lines Cereal* (maize, wheat…?) Biofuel* Timber Horticulture Green/Glasshouses EDF underline Roundabouts Greenwalls? Game/hunters Pharmaceuticals Essential oils Cosmetics Ornament (inc fur) Sugar and starch Seeds


diseases (bact, viruses) Mold, fungi Genes, molecules Vectors (transportant bees and molecules) Agents de lute, auxiliaires

buffer inter$crop fallow* wood lot* (biodiversity reservoir*) margin* corridors shelterbeds Border trapping Flower beds Tree lines, tree planting refuges road verges holes barriers grassland

intra-guild interactions IPM lutte intégrée manipulating multi-crop multi-enemy vegetation types agroforestry (functional agrobiodiversity) Push-pull Rotation

Fibers (clothes, insulation) Recreational (tobacco, … drugs?)

KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control

Annex 5. Lists of references used to test the comprehensiveness of the searches

A. From the scoping exercise (83 references)

Adler, L. S. H., R. V.; 2009; Comparison of Perimeter Trap Crop Varieties: Effects on Herbivory, Pollination, and Yield in Butternut Squash

Alhmedi, A. H., E.; Bodson, B.; Francis, F.; 2006; Inter- and intra-guild interactions related to aphids in nettle (Urtica dioica L.) strips closed to field crops

Altieri, M. A. S., L. L.; 1985; COVER CROP MANIPULATION IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ORCHARDS AND VINEYARDS - EFFECTS ON ARTHROPOD COMMUNITIES

Aluja, M. J., A.; Camino, M.; Pinero, J.; Aldana, L.; Castrejon, V.; Valdes, M. E.; 1997; Habitat manipulation to reduce papaya fruit fly (Diptera : Tephritidae) damage: Orchard design, use of trap crops and border trapping

Arlettaz, R. M., Melanie Linda; Mosimann-Kampe, Paul; Nussle, Sebastien; Abadi, Fitsum; Braunisch, Veronika; Schaub, Michael; 2012; New vineyard cultivation practices create patchy ground vegetation, favouring Woodlarks

Baveco Hans; Bianchi Felix; ; Pest-suppressive landscapes from a natural enemy perspective Baverstock, J. P., M.; Clark, S. J.; Copeland, J. E.; Pell, J. K.; 2011; Potential value of the fibre nettle

Urtica dioica as a resource for the nettle aphid Microlophium carnosum and its insect and fungal natural enemies

Bell, J. R. T., Michael; Sunderland, Keith D.; Skirvin, David J.; Mead, Andrew; Kravar-Garde, Lidija; Reynolds, Kelly; Fenlon, John S.; Symondson, William O. C.; 2008; Beneficial links for the control of aphids: the effects of compost applications on predators and prey

Bianchi F. J. J. A.; Goedhart P. W.; Baveco J. M.; ; Enhanced pest control in cabbage crops near forest in The Netherlands

Bianchi, Booij & Tscharntke; 2006; Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control

Boutin, C. J., B.; Desgranges, J. L.; 1994; MODIFICATIONS OF FIELD MARGINS AND OTHER HABITATS IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS IN QUEBEC, CANADA, AND EFFECTS ON PLANTS AND BIRDS

Brewer, M. J. N., Takuji; 2010; Habitat Affinity of Resident Natural Enemies of the Invasive Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae), on Soybean, With Comments on Biological Control

Brown, M. W.; Johnson, R. S. C. C. H.; 2002; Are flowering plants taboo in peach orchards? Brust_1994_Natural Enemies in Straw-Mulch Reduce Colorado Potato Beetle Populations and.pdf;

1994; Canal, N. A. P. O., Maria L.; Gonzales, Luisa F.; 2010; Human urine as a natural attractant of

Anastrepha obliqua (Diptera: Tephritidae) Cavanagh, A. F. A., Lynn S.; Hazzard, Ruth V.; 2010; Buttercup Squash Provides a Marketable

Alternative to Blue Hubbard as a Trap Crop for Control of Striped Cucumber Beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Chen, M.; 2011; Evaluating alfalfa cutting as a potential measure to enhance abundance of predators to Aphis gossypii in cotton-alfalfa intercropping system

Choate, B. D., Frank; 2011; Ants as biological control agents in agricultural cropping systems Coli, W. M.; 1993; Effect of bare ground, all grass, or all broadleaf ground covers on biological mite

control and on tree growth and productivity Collins, K. L. B., N. D.; Wilcox, A.; Holland, J. M.; Chaney, K.; 2002; Influence of beetle banks on cereal,

aphid predation in winter wheat Conlong, D. E. R., R. S.; 2009; Conventional and New Biological and Habitat Interventions for

Integrated Pest Management Systems: Review and Case Studies using Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Conlong, D. E. R., R. S.; 2010; Biological and habitat interventions for integrated pest management systems


Cuthbertson, A. G. S. M., A. K.; 2010; Ecological benefits of Anystis baccarum in an orchard ecosystem and the need for its conservation

De Veres, Petit, Conord & Lavigne; Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their control by natural enemies? A review

Debras, J. F. S., R.; Dutoit, T.; 2011; Hedgerow effects on the distribution of beneficial arthropods in a pear orchard in Southern France

Debras, J.-F. D., Audrey; Rieux, Rene; Dutoit, Thierry; 2007; A prospective research on the hedgerow's 'source' function

Diaz, Fernanda M. R., Augusto; Poveda, Katja; 2012; Efficiency of different egg parasitoids and increased floral diversity for the biological control of noctuid pests

Dickler, E.; 1978; INFLUENCE OF BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS ON THE CODLING MOTH IN AN ORCHARD WITH GREEN COVERED AND CLEAN CULTIVATED SOIL

El Titi, A.; 1988; CONSERVATION OF BENEFICIAL AGENTS BY REDUCED TILLAGE REGIME AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR SOIL PESTS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF SUGAR BEETS IN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

Ellis, J. A. W., A. D.; Tooker, J. F.; Ginzel, M. D.; Reagel, P. F.; Lacey, E. S.; Bennett, A. B.; Grossman, E. M.; Hanks, L. M.; 2005; Conservation biological control in urban landscapes: Manipulating parasitoids of bagworm (Lepidoptera : Psychidae) with flowering forbs

Frank, S. D.; 2010; Biological control of arthropod pests using banker plant systems: Past progress and future directions

Gladbach David J.; Holzschuh Andrea; Scherber Christoph; et al.; ; Crop-noncrop spillover: arable fields affect trophic interactions on wild plants in surrounding habitats

Gurr, G. M. R., Donna M. Y.; Catindig, Josie Lynn A.; Cheng, Jiuan; Liu, Jian; La Pham, Lan; Heong, Kong Luen; 2012; Parasitoids of the rice leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis and prospects for enhancing biological control with nectar plants

Hagy, H. M. L., George M.; Bleier, William J.; 2008; Optimizing the use of decoy plots for blackbird control in commercial sunflower

Hald, A. B.; 1994; COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT-TECHNIQUES FOR CROP MARGINS IN RELATION TO WILD PLANTS (WEEDS) AND ARTHROPODS

Hart, B. J. M., W. J.; Limb, T. M.; Davies, W. P.; 1994; HABITAT CREATION IN LARGE FIELDS FOR NATURAL PEST REGULATION

Harwood, R. W. J. H., J. M.; Macleod, A.; Sherratt, T. N.; Wratten, S. D.; 1994; MANAGING FIELD MARGINS FOR HOVERFLIES

Hossain, Z. G., G. M.; Wratten, S. D.; Raman, A.; 2002; Habitat manipulation in lucerne Medicago sativa: arthropod population dynamics in harvested and 'refuge' crop strips

Jobin, B. C., L.; Belanger, L.; 2001; Bird use of three types of field margins in relation to intensive agriculture in Quebec, Canada

Karg, J. B., Stanislaw; 2009; Effect of landscape structure on the occurrence of agrophagous pests and their antagonists

Khan, Z. M., Charles; Pittchar, Jimmy; Pickett, John; Bruce, Toby; 2011; Push-pull technology: a conservation agriculture approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in Africa UK government's Foresight Food and Farming Futures project

Landis, D. A. W., S. D.; Gurr, G. M.; 2000; Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture

Lassiter, B. R. J., David L.; Wilkerson, Gail G.; Shew, Barbara B.; Brandenburg, Rick L.; 2011; Influence of Cover Crops on Weed Management in Strip Tillage Peanut

Lovei, G. L.; 1981; COCCINELLID COMMUNITY IN AN APPLE ORCHARD BORDERING A DECIDUOUS FOREST

May, M. J. E., C.; Mott, J.; Pack, R.; Russell, C.; 1994; COMPARISON OF 5 DIFFERENT BOUNDARY STRIPS - INTERIM-REPORT OF 1ST 2 YEARS STUDY

Merwin, I. A. R., J. A.; Curtis, P. D.; 1999; Orchard groundcover management systems affect meadow vole populations and damage to apple trees


Michael, D. R. L., David B.; Cunningham, Ross B.; 2010; Managing rock outcrops to improve biodiversity conservation in Australian agricultural landscapes

Mikunthan, G. M., M.; 2008; Impact of habitat manipulation on mycopathogen, Fusarium semitectum to control Scirtothrips dorsalis and Polyphagotarsonemus latus of chilli

Milsom, T. P. T., D.; Lane, P.; Wright, B.; Donaghy, S. J.; Moodie, P.; 1994; BOUNDARY STRIPS IN CEREAL FIELDS - DYNAMICS OF FLORA, WEED INGRESS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CROP YIELD UNDER DIFFERENT STRIP MANAGEMENT REGIMES

Mitchell, E. R. H., G. G.; Johanowicz, D.; 2000; Management of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera : plutellidae) in cabbage using collard as a trap crop

Miyazawa, K. T., H.; Yamagata, M.; Nakano, H.; Nakamoto, T.; 2002; The effects of cropping systems and fallow managements on microarthropod populations

Mols, C. M. M. V., Marcel E.; 2007; Great Tits (Parus major) Reduce Caterpillar Damage in Commercial Apple Orchards

Naranjo, S. E.; 2001; Conservation and evaluation of natural enemies in IPM systems for Bemisia tabaci

Ohno, S. M., Akiko; Ganaha-Kikumura, Tomoko; Gotoh, Tetsuo; Kijima, Keisuke; Ooishi, Tsuyoshi; Moromizato, Chie; Haraguchi, Dai; Yonamine, Kaname; Uezato, Takumi; 2010; Non-crop host plants of Tetranychus spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) in the field in Okinawa, Japan: Determination of possible sources of pest species and inference on the cause of peculiar mite fauna on crops

Paulson, G. S. A., R. D.; 1992; INTRODUCING ANTS (HYMENOPTERA, FORMICIDAE) INTO PEAR ORCHARDS FOR THE CONTROL OF PEAR PSYLLA, CACOPSYLLA-PYRICOLA (FOERSTER) (HOMOPTERA, PSYLLIDAE)

Pearce, S. Z., M. P.; 2005; Does the cutting of lucerne (Medicago sativa) encourage the movement of arthropod pests and predators into the adjacent crop?

Prokopy, R. J.; 2003; Two decades of bottom-up, ecologically based pest management in a small commercial apple orchard in Massachusetts

Prokopy, R. J. C., W. M.; 1994; Influence of understory cover and surrounding habitat on interactions between beneficial arthropods and pests in orchards. Papers presented at the 19th International Congress of Entomology, 28 June-4 July 1992, Beijing, People's Republic of China

Rieux, R. S., S.; Defrance, H.; 1999; Role of hedgerows and ground cover management on arthropod populations in pear orchards

Rusch, A. V.-M., Muriel; Sarthou, Jean-Pierre; Roger-Estrade, Jean; 2010; BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INSECT PESTS IN AGROECOSYSTEMS: EFFECTS OF CROP MANAGEMENT, FARMING SYSTEMS, AND SEMINATURAL HABITATS AT THE LANDSCAPE SCALE: A REVIEW

Samu, F. R., V.; Erdelyi, C.; Balazs, K.; 1997; Spiders of the foliage and herbaceous layer of an IPM apple orchard in Kecskemet-Szarkas, Hungary

Scheid Barbara E.; Thies Carsten; Tscharntke Teja; ; Enhancing rape pollen beetle parasitism within sown flower fields along a landscape complexity gradient

Schmidt, Roschewitz, Thies & Tscharntke; ; Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders

Schmutterer, H.; 1997; Side-effects of neem (Azadirachta indica) products on insect pathogens and natural enemies of spider mites and insects

Shi, G. L., Suqi; Zhao, Lilin; Cao, Hui; Miao, Zhenwang; Li, Dengke; Feng, Jin; Zhang, Jiugang; 2006; Functional groups of natural enemies and their temporal-spatial dynamics in jujube orchard intercropped with herbage

Simon, S. D., H.; Rieux, R.; Reboulet, J. N.; 1998; Hedgerows as reservoirs of arthropods for crop protection

Singh, S. K. S., G.; 2003; Management of termite infestation in mango orchard by cultural practices and organic amendments

Smith et al_1996_Influence of Ground Cover on Beneficial Arthropods in Pecan.pdf; ;


Smith, M. W. M., Phillip G., Jr.; Koul, O. C. G. W.; 2007; Role of Cover Crops in the Management of Arthropod Pests in Orchards

Stanyard, M. J. F., Rick E.; Gibb, Timothy J.; 1997; Effects of orchard ground cover and mite management options on the population dynamics of European red mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) and Amblyseius fallacis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in apple

Takemoto, H. O., Kazuro; 1996; Integrated pest management of Thrips palmi in eggplant fields, with conservation of natural enemies: effects of the surroundings and thrips community on the colonization of Orius spp

Tao, Z.-L. L., Zhi-Yi; 1993; Effect of floral undergrowth in citrus orchards on predatory mite population Tavares, W. S. C., I.; Silva, R. B.; Figueiredo, M. L. C.; Ramalho, F. S.; Serrao, J. E.; Zanuncio, J. C.; 2011;

SOIL ORGANISMS ASSOCIATED TO THE WEED SUPPRESSANT Crotalaria juncea (FABACEAE) AND ITS IMPORTANCE AS A REFUGE FOR NATURAL ENEMIES

Thomas et al_1991_Creation of 'Island' Habitats in Farmland to Manipulate Populations of.pdf; ; Tsitsilas, A. H., Ary A.; Weeks, Andrew R.; Umina, Paul A.; 2011; Impact of groundcover manipulations

within windbreaks on mite pests and their natural enemies Vollhardt Ines M. G.; Bianchi Felix J. J. A.; Waeckers Felix L.; et al.; ; Spatial distribution of flower vs.

honeydew resources in cereal fields may affect aphid parasitism Walton, N. J. I., Rufus; 2011; Influence of Native Flowering Plant Strips on Natural Enemies and

Herbivores in Adjacent Blueberry Fields Warlop, F.; 2006; Limitation of olive pest populations through the development of conservation

biocontrol Weaver, D. B. R., R.; Carden, E. L.; 1995; Comparison of crop rotation and fallow for management of

Heterodera glycines and Meloidogyne spp in soybean Wielgoss Arno; Clough Yann; Fiala Brigitte; et al.; ; A minor pest reduces yield losses by a major pest:

plant-mediated herbivore interactions in Indonesian cacao Wyss, E.; 1995; THE EFFECTS OF WEED STRIPS ON APHIDS AND APHIDOPHAGOUS PREDATORS IN AN

APPLE ORCHARD Zajac, R.; 1979; THE INFLUENCE OF BIRD FEEDING ON THE NUMBER OF OVER WINTERING LARVAE OF

THE CODLING MOTH LASPEYRESIA-POMONELLA IN ORCHARDS OF CENTRAL POLAND Zehnder et al. ;Arthropod pest management in organic crops, Ann Rev Entomol 2007 Zhan, Z.-x. Q., Liang-miao; Lin, Ren-kui; Wei, Hui; Ying, Zhao-yang; Weng, Bo-qi; 2005; The structure

and stability of arthropod community in the longan orchards interplanting with Chamaecrista nictitans cv. Minyin

B. From Biological Control journal as extracted by Cambridge Conservation Science Group (264

references)

Acheampong, S. S., John D.; 2004; Effects of the agricultural adjuvant Sylgard 309 and the insecticide pymetrozine on demographic parameters of the aphid parasitoid, Diaeretiella rapae; 31; 133-137

Aguilar-Fenollosa, E. I.-G., M. V.; Pascual-Ruiz, S.; Hurtado, M.; Jacas, J. A.; 2011; Effect of ground-cover management on spider mites and their phytoseiid natural enemies in clementine mandarin orchards (I): Bottom-up regulation mechanisms; 59; 158-170

Aguilar-Fenollosa, E. I.-G., M. V.; Pascual-Ruiz, S.; Hurtado, M.; Jacas, J. A.; 2011; Effect of ground-cover management on spider mites and their phytoseiid natural enemies in clementine mandarin orchards (II): Top-down regulation mechanisms; 59; 171-179

Ahonsi, M. O. B., Dana K.; Emechebe, Alphonse M.; Lagoke, Segun T.; Sanginga, Nteranya; 2003; Potential of ethylene-producing pseudomonads in combination with effective N2-fixing bradyrhizobial strains as supplements to legume rotation for Striga hermonthica control; 28; 01-oct

Albajes, R. L., Belén; Pons, Xavier; 2011; Two heteropteran predators in relation to weed management in herbicide-tolerant corn; 59; 30-36


Al-Dobai, S. R., Stuart; Sivinski, John; 2012; Tachinidae (Diptera) associated with flowering plants: Estimating floral attractiveness; 61; 230-239

Alfano, G. L., Giuseppe; Lima, Giuseppe; Vitullo, Domenico; Ranalli, Giancarlo; 2011; Characterization of composted olive mill wastes to predict potential plant disease suppressiveness; 58; 199-207

Alumai, A. G., Parwinder S.; Hoy, Casey W.; Willoughby, David A.; 2006; Factors affecting the natural occurrence of entomopathogenic nematodes in turfgrass; 36; 368-374

Ang, B. N. K., L. T.; Holtzman, G. I.; Wolf, D. D.; 1994; Competitive Growth of Canada Thistle, Tall Fescue, and Crownvetch in the Presence of a Thistle Defoliator, Cassida rubiginosa Müller (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae); 4; 277-284

Ang, B. N. K., L. T.; Holtzman, G. I.; Wolf, D. D.; 1995; Canada Thistle [Cirsium arvense (L) Scop.] Response to Density of Cassida rubiginosa Müller (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Plant Competition; 5; 31-38

Araj, S.-E. W., Steve; Lister, Alison; Buckley, Hannah; Ghabeish, Ihab; 2011; Searching behavior of an aphid parasitoid and its hyperparasitoid with and without floral nectar; 57; 79-84

Arthurs, S. P. L., Lawrence A.; Miliczky, Eugene R.; 2007; Evaluation of the codling moth granulovirus and spinosad for codling moth control and impact on non-target species in pear orchards; 41; 99-109

Arthurs, S. T., Matthew B.; Langewald, Juergen; 2003; Field observations of the effects of fenitrothion and Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum on non-target ground dwelling arthropods in the Sahel; 26; 333-340

Azzouz, H. G., Philippe; Wäckers, Felix L.; Kaiser, Laure; 2004; Effects of feeding frequency and sugar concentration on behavior and longevity of the adult aphid parasitoid: Aphidius ervi (Haliday) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 31; 445-452

Baggen, L. R. G., Geoff M.; 1998; The Influence of Food on Copidosoma koehleri (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), and the Use of Flowering Plants as a Habitat Management Tool to Enhance Biological Control of Potato Moth, Phthorimaea operculella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae); 11; sept-17

Baggen, L. R. G., Geoff M.; 1998; The Influence of Food on Copidosoma koehleri(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), and the Use of Flowering Plants as a Habitat Management Tool to Enhance Biological Control of Potato Moth,Phthorimaea operculella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae); 11; sept-17

Barbour, J. D. F. J., R. R.; Kennedy, G. G.; 1997; Populations of Predaceous Natural Enemies Developing on Insect-Resistant and Susceptible Tomato in North Carolina; 9; 173-184

Bardin, S. D. H., H. C.; Moyer, J. R.; 2004; Control of Pythium damping-off of sugar beet by seed treatment with crop straw powders and a biocontrol agent; 29; 453-460

Bargabus, R. L. Z., N. K.; Sherwood, J. E.; Jacobsen, B. J.; 2004; Screening for the identification of potential biological control agents that induce systemic acquired resistance in sugar beet; 30; 342-350

Barraclough, E. I. B., E. P. J.; Philip, B. A.; Wohlers, M. W.; Malone, L. A.; 2009; Tritrophic impacts of Bt-expressing transgenic pine on the parasitoid Meteorus pulchricornis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) via its host Pseudocoremia suavis (Lepidoptera: Geometridae); 49; 192-199

Baur, M. E. B., D. J.; 2003; Effect of Bt-cotton expressing Cry1A(c) on the survival and fecundity of two hymenopteran parasitoids (Braconidae, Encyrtidae) in the laboratory; 26; 325-332

Bayram, A. S., Gianandrea; Onofri, Andrea; Conti, Eric; 2010; Sub-lethal effects of two pyrethroids on biological parameters and behavioral responses to host cues in the egg parasitoid Telenomus busseolae; 53; 153-160

Begum, M. G., Geoff M.; Wratten, Steve D.; Nicol, Helen I.; 2004; Flower color affects tri-trophic-level biocontrol interactions; 30; 584-590

Berndt, L. A. W., Steve D.; 2005; Effects of alyssum flowers on the longevity, fecundity, and sex ratio of the leafroller parasitoid Dolichogenidea tasmanica; 32; 65-69

Berndt, L. A. W., Steve D.; Scarratt, Samantha L.; 2006; The influence of floral resource subsidies on parasitism rates of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in New Zealand vineyards; 37; 50-55


Boulter, J. I. B., Greg J.; Trevors, Jack T.; 2002; Assessment of compost for suppression of Fusarium Patch (Microdochium nivale) and Typhula Blight (Typhula ishikariensis) snow molds of turfgrass; 25; 162-172

Broatch, J. S. D., Lloyd M.; O’Donovan, John T.; Harker, K. Neil; Clayton, George W.; 2010; Responses of the specialist biological control agent, Aleochara bilineata, to vegetational diversity in canola agroecosystems; 52; 58-67

Brust, G. E.; ; 1994; Natural Enemies in Straw-Mulch Reduce Colorado Potato Beetle Populations and Damage in Potato; 4; 163-169

Bugg, R. L. D., James D.; McNeill, Patrick J.; 1991; Cool-season cover crops in the pecan orchard understory: Effects on coccinellidae (Coleoptera) and pecan aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae); 1; août-15

Bugg, R. L. W., L. Theodore; 1989; Ammi visnaga (L.) Lamarck (Apiaceae): Associated Beneficial Insects and Implications for Biological Control, with Emphasis on the Bell-Pepper Agroecosystem; 6; 241-268

Burgess, E. P. J. P., Bruce A.; Barraclough, Emma I.; Marshall, Richelle K.; Christeller, John T.; 2009; Impacts on the predatory carabid beetle Ctenognathus novaezelandiae of pure and mixed diets of natural field-collected prey and Spodoptera litura fed control or transgenic avidin tobacco; 48; 55-62

Burkett-Cadena, M. K.-B., Nancy; Lawrence, Kathy S.; van Santen, Edzard; Kloepper, Joseph W.; 2008; Suppressiveness of root-knot nematodes mediated by rhizobacteria; 47; 55-59

Byrne, F. J. T., Nick C.; 2007; Lethal toxicity of systemic residues of imidacloprid against Homalodisca vitripennis (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) eggs and its parasitoid Gonatocerus ashmeadi (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae); 43; 130-135

Cai, Q.-N. M., Xiao-Mu; Zhao, Xin; Cao, Ya-Zhong; Yang, Xiao-Qin; 2009; Effects of host plant resistance on insect pests and its parasitoid: A case study of wheat-aphid–parasitoid system; 49; 134-138

Cárdenas, M. R., Francisca; García, Pedro; Pascual, Felipe; Campos, Mercedes; 2006; Impact of agricultural management on spider populations in the canopy of olive trees; 38; 188-195

Casey, C. A. P., Michael P.; 2005; Evaluation of a mechanical dispenser and interplant bridges on the dispersal and efficacy of the predator, Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in greenhouse cut roses; 32; 130-136

Cavalcanti, F. R. R., M. L. V.; Carvalho, C. P. S.; Silveira, J. A. G.; Oliveira, J. T. A.; 2006; Induced defence responses and protective effects on tomato against Xanthomonas vesicatoria by an aqueous extract from Solanum lycocarpum infected with Crinipellis perniciosa; 39; 408-417

Chacón, J. M. A., Mark K.; Heimpel, George E.; 2012; Combined effects of host-plant resistance and intraguild predation on the soybean aphid parasitoid Binodoxys communis in the field; 60; 16-25

Chalfoun, N. R. C., A. P.; Díaz Ricci, J. C.; 2011; Induced resistance activated by a culture filtrate derived from an avirulent pathogen as a mechanism of biological control of anthracnose in strawberry; 58; 319-329

Charleston, D. S. K., Rami; Dicke, Marcel; Vet, Louise E. M.; 2005; Impact of botanical pesticides derived from Melia azedarach and Azadirachta indica on the biology of two parasitoid species of the diamondback moth; 33; 131-142

Charleston, D. S. K., Rami; Dicke, Marcel; Vet, Louise E. M.; 2006; Impact of botanical extracts derived from Melia azedarach and Azadirachta indica on populations of Plutella xylostella and its natural enemies: A field test of laboratory findings; 39; 105-114

Chen, L.-L. Y., Min-Sheng; Chen, Shao-Bo; 2011; Effects of cover crops on spider communities in tea plantations; 59; 326-335

Chen, M. L., Zhi-cheng; Ye, Gong-yin; Shen, Zhi-cheng; Hu, Cui; Peng, Yu-fa; Altosaar, Illimar; Shelton, Anthony M.; 2007; Impacts of transgenic cry1Ab rice on non-target planthoppers and their main predator Cyrtorhinus lividipennis (Hemiptera: Miridae)—A case study of the compatibility of Bt rice with biological control; 42; 242-250


Chen, S. D., Hezhong; Fan, Yuqin; Li, Weijiang; Cohen, Yigal; 2006; Dry mycelium of Penicillium chrysogenum induces expression of pathogenesis-related protein genes and resistance against wilt diseases in Bt transgenic cotton; 39; 460-464

Chen, S.-Y. D., D. W.; Mitchell, D. J.; 1996; Population Development of Heterodera glycines in Response to Mycoflora in Soil from Florida; 6; 226-231

Chithrashree, U., A. C.; Chandra Nayaka, S.; Reddy, M. S.; Srinivas, C.; 2011; Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria mediate induced systemic resistance in rice against bacterial leaf blight caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae; 59; 114-122

Corbett, A. L., Thomas F.; Theodore Wilson, L.; 1991; Interplanting alfalfa as a source of Metaseiulus occidentalis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) for managing spider mites in cotton; 1; 188-196

Cordero, R. J. B., Jeffrey R.; Kuhar, Thomas P.; 2007; Susceptibility of two diamondback moth parasitoids, Diadegma insulare (Cresson) (Hymenoptera; Ichneumonidae) and Oomyzus sokolowskii (Kurdjumov) (Hymenoptera; Eulophidae), to selected commercial insecticides; 42; 48-54

Cui, L.-L. F., Frédéric; Heuskin, Stéphanie; Lognay, Georges; Liu, Ying-Jie; Dong, Jie; Chen, Ju-Lian; Song, Xu-Ming; Liu, Yong; 2012; The functional significance of E-β-Farnesene: Does it influence the populations of aphid natural enemies in the fields?; 60; 108-112

Cutler, G. C. S.-D., C. D.; Tolman, J. H.; Harris, C. R.; 2006; Toxicity of the insect growth regulator novaluron to the non-target predatory bug Podisus maculiventris (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae); 38; 196-204

Daugherty, M. P. B., Cheryl J.; Welter, S. C.; 2007; Bottom-up and top-down control of pear psylla (Cacopsylla pyricola): Fertilization, plant quality, and the efficacy of the predator Anthocoris nemoralis; 43; 257-264

Davidson, M. M. B., R. C.; Wratten, S. D.; Conner, A. J.; 2006; Impacts of insect-resistant transgenic potatoes on the survival and fecundity of a parasitoid and an insect predator; 37; 224-230

Davies, J. T. I., John E.; Allen, Geoff R.; 2005; The impact of gorse thrips, ryegrass competition, and simulated grazing on gorse seedling performance in a controlled environment; 32; 280-286

De Bruijn, S. L. B., Edward W.; 2006; Biological control of Canada thistle in temperate pastures using high density rotational cattle grazing; 36; 305-315

Defagó, M. T. D., Analía; Avalos, Delia S.; Palacios, Sara M.; Valladares, Graciela; 2011; Effects of Melia azedarach extract on Cotesia ayerza, parasitoid of the alfalfa defoliator Colias lesbia; 57; 75-78

Demers, A. M. B., D. K.; Backman, P. A.; 2006; Enhancing incidence of Puccinia punctiformis, through mowing, to improve management of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense); 39; 481-488

Díaz, M. F. R., Augusto; Poveda, Katja; 2012; Efficiency of different egg parasitoids and increased floral diversity for the biological control of noctuid pests; 60; 182-191

Duso, C. M., Valeria; Pozzebon, Alberto; Castagnoli, Marisa; Liguori, Marialivia; Simoni, Sauro; 2008; Comparative toxicity of botanical and reduced-risk insecticides to Mediterranean populations of Tetranychus urticae and Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae); 47; 16-21

Duso, C. P., Alberto; Capuzzo, Caterina; Maria Bisol, Paolo; Otto, Stefan; 2003; Grape downy mildew spread and mite seasonal abundance in vineyards: evidence for the predatory mites Amblyseius andersoni and Typhlodromus pyri; 27; 229-241

Dutton, A. K., Heiri; Romeis, Jörg; Bigler, Franz; 2003; Prey-mediated effects of Bacillus thuringiensis spray on the predator Chrysoperla carnea in maize; 26; 209-215

Eben, A. B., Mary E.; 1997; Host Plant and Substrate Effects on Mortality of Southern Corn Rootworm from Entomopathogenic Nematodes; 8; 89-96

Eilers, E. J. K., Alexandra-Maria; 2009; Landscape context and management effects on an important insect pest and its natural enemies in almond; 51; 388-394

Ekesi, S. M., Nguya K.; Mohamed, Samira A.; Lux, Slawomir A.; 2005; Effect of soil application of different formulations of Metarhizium anisopliae on African tephritid fruit flies and their associated endoparasitoids; 35; 83-91


Ellis, J. A. W., A. D.; Tooker, J. F.; Ginzel, M. D.; Reagel, P. F.; Lacey, E. S.; Bennett, A. B.; Grossman, E. M.; Hanks, L. M.; 2005; Conservation biological control in urban landscapes: Manipulating parasitoids of bagworm (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) with flowering forbs; 34; 99-107

Epstein, D. L. Z., R. S.; Brunner, J. F.; Gut, L.; Brown, J. J.; 2001; Ground Beetle Activity in Apple Orchards under Reduced Pesticide Management Regimes; 21; 97-104

Er, M. K. G., Ayhan; 2004; Effects of selected pesticides used against glasshouse tomato pests on colony growth and conidial germination of Paecilomyces fumosoroseus; 31; 398-404

Escribano, A. W., Trevor; Goulson, David; Cave, Ronald D.; Caballero, Primitivo; 2000; Parasitoid–Pathogen–Pest Interactions of Chelonus insularis, Campoletis sonorensis, and a Nucleopolyhedrovirus in Spodoptera frugiperda Larvae; 19; 265-273

Fadamiro, H. Y. C., Li; 2005; Utilization of aphid honeydew and floral nectar by Pseudacteon tricuspis (Diptera: Phoridae), a parasitoid of imported fire ants, Solenopis spp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae); 34; 73-82

Fagan, W. F. H., Arief Lukman; Ariawan, Hartjahyo; Yuliyantiningsih, Sri; 1998; Interactions between Biological Control Efforts and Insecticide Applications in Tropical Rice Agroecosystems: The Potential Role of Intraguild Predation; 13; 121-126

Farinós, G. P. d. l. P., Marta; Hernández-Crespo, Pedro; Ortego, Félix; Castañera, Pedro; 2008; Diversity and seasonal phenology of aboveground arthropods in conventional and transgenic maize crops in Central Spain; 44; 362-371

Fernández, C. R. g.-K., Rodrigo; Warrior, Prem; Kloepper, Joseph W.; 2001; Induced Soil Suppressiveness to a Root-Knot Nematode Species by a Nematicide; 22; 103-114

Ferry, A. L. T., S.; Dugravot, S.; Cortesero, A. M.; 2009; Field evaluation of the combined deterrent and attractive effects of dimethyl disulfide on Delia radicum and its natural enemies; 49; 219-226

Filippi, M. C. C. d. S., Gisele Barata; Silva-Lobo, Valácia L.; Côrtes, Márcio Vinícius C. B.; Moraes, Alessandra Jackeline G.; Prabhu, Anne S.; 2011; Leaf blast (Magnaporthe oryzae) suppression and growth promotion by rhizobacteria on aerobic rice in Brazil; 58; 160-166

Franco, J. C. S., Elsa Borges da; Fortuna, Taiadjana; Cortegano, Elisabete; Branco, Manuela; Suma, Pompeo; Torre, Ivan La; Russo, Agatino; Elyahu, Miriam; Protasov, Alex; Levi-Zada, Anat; Mendel, Zvi; 2011; Vine mealybug sex pheromone increases citrus mealybug parasitism by Anagyrus sp. near pseudococci (Girault); 58; 230-238

Frank, S. D. S., Paula M.; Denno, Robert F.; 2011; Plant versus prey resources: Influence on omnivore behavior and herbivore suppression; 57; 229-235

Galvan, T. L. K., R. L.; Hutchison, W. D.; 2005; Effects of spinosad and indoxacarb on survival, development, and reproduction of the multicolored Asian lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae); 34; 108-114

García, M. O., Félix; Castañera, Pedro; Farinós, Gema P.; 2010; Effects of exposure to the toxin Cry1Ab through Bt maize fed-prey on the performance and digestive physiology of the predatory rove beetle Atheta coriaria; 55; 225-233

Gardiner, M. M. L., D. A.; Gratton, C.; Schmidt, N.; O’Neal, M.; Mueller, E.; Chacon, J.; Heimpel, G. E.; 2010; Landscape composition influences the activity density of Carabidae and Arachnida in soybean fields; 55; nov-19

Garrido-Jurado, I. R., F.; Campos, M.; Quesada-Moraga, E.; 2011; Effects of soil treatments with entomopathogenic fungi on soil dwelling non-target arthropods at a commercial olive orchard; 59; 239-244

Garrido-Jurado, I. T., J.; Barrón, V.; Corpas, A.; Quesada-Moraga, E.; 2011; Soil properties affect the availability, movement, and virulence of entomopathogenic fungi conidia against puparia of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae); 58; 277-285

Gerling, D. N., Steven E.; 1998; The Effect of Insecticide Treatments in Cotton Fields on the Levels of Parasitism of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) sl; 12; 33-41

Gillespie, M. W., Steve; Sedcole, Richard; Colfer, Ramy; 2011; Manipulating floral resources dispersion for hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in a California lettuce agro-ecosystem; 59; 215-220


Goertz, D. L., Andreas; Solter, Leellen F.; 2004; Influence of Dimilin on a microsporidian infection in the gypsy moth Lymantria dispar (L.) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae); 30; 624-633

Grafton-Cardwell, E. E. O., Yuling; Bugg, Robert L.; 1999; Leguminous Cover Crops to Enhance Population Development of Euseius tularensis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in Citrus; 16; 73-80

Hariprasad, P. N., H. M.; Chandra nayaka, S.; Niranjana, S. R.; 2009; Advantage of using PSIRB over PSRB and IRB to improve plant health of tomato; 50; 307-316

Harish, S. K., M.; Kumar, N.; Balasubramanian, P.; Samiyappan, R.; 2009; Induction of defense-related proteins by mixtures of plant growth promoting endophytic bacteria against Banana bunchy top virus; 51; 16-25

Harvey, C. D. A., Khalil M.; Griffin, Christine T.; 2012; The impact of entomopathogenic nematodes on a non-target, service-providing longhorn beetle is limited by targeted application when controlling forestry pest Hylobius abietis; 62; 173-182

Harvey, C. T. E., Micky D.; 2004; Effect of habitat complexity on biological control by the red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in collards; 29; 348-358

Henderson, D. R. R., Ekaterini; Ramirez, Ricardo A.; Wilson, John; Snyder, William E.; 2009; Mustard biofumigation disrupts biological control by Steinernema spp. nematodes in the soil; 48; 316-322

Heping, W. L., Meng; Baoping, Li; 2008; Effects of feeding frequency and sugar concentrations on lifetime reproductive success of Meteorus pulchricornis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 45; 353-359

Héraux, F. M. G. H., Steven G.; Weller, Stephen C.; 2005; Combining Trichoderma virens-inoculated compost and a rye cover crop for weed control in transplanted vegetables; 34; 21-26

Higaki, M. A., Ishizue; 2011; Response of a parasitoid fly, Gymnosoma rotundatum (Linnaeus) (Diptera: Tachinidae) to the aggregation pheromone of Plautia stali Scott (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and its parasitism of hosts under field conditions; 58; 215-221

Hilbeck, A. K., George G.; 1996; Predators Feeding on the Colorado Potato Beetle in Insecticide-Free Plots and Insecticide-Treated Commercial Potato Fields in Eastern North Carolina; 6; 273-282

Hogg, B. N. B., Robert L.; Daane, Kent M.; 2011; Attractiveness of common insectary and harvestable floral resources to beneficial insects; 56; 76-84

Holland, J. M. O., H.; Southway, S.; Moreby, S.; 2008; The effectiveness of field margin enhancement for cereal aphid control by different natural enemy guilds; 47; 71-76

Hoy, C. W. G., Parwinder S.; Lawrence, Janet L.; Jagdale, Ganpati; Acosta, Nuris; 2008; Canonical correspondence analysis demonstrates unique soil conditions for entomopathogenic nematode species compared with other free-living nematode species; 46; 371-379

Hummel, J. D. D., Lloyd M.; Clayton, George W.; Harker, K. Neil; O’Donovan, John T.; 2010; Responses of the parasitoids of Delia radicum (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) to the vegetational diversity of intercrops; 55; 151-158

Hwang, J. B., D. M.; 2003; Expression of induced systemic resistance in poinsettia cuttings against Rhizoctonia stem rot by treatment of stock plants with binucleate Rhizoctonia; 27; 73-80

Iriti, M. C., Giulia; Vitalini, Sara; Mignani, Ilaria; Soave, Carlo; Fico, Gelsomina; Faoro, Franco; 2010; Chitosan-induced ethylene-independent resistance does not reduce crop yield in bean; 54; 241-247

Irvin, N. A. H., Mark S.; Castle, Steven J.; 2007; The effect of resource provisioning and sugar composition of foods on longevity of three Gonatocerus spp., egg parasitoids of Homalodisca vitripennis; 40; 69-79

Irvin, N. A. H., Mark S.; 2007; Evaluation of floral resources for enhancement of fitness of Gonatocerus ashmeadi, an egg parasitoid of the glassy-winged sharpshooter, Homalodisca vitripennis; 40; 80-88

Jabbour, R. B., Mary E.; 2009; Soil management effects on entomopathogenic fungi during the transition to organic agriculture in a feed grain rotation; 51; 435-443

Jacometti, M. A. W., S. D.; Walter, M.; 2007; Management of understorey to reduce the primary inoculum of Botrytis cinerea: Enhancing ecosystem services in vineyards; 40; 57-64

Jacometti, M. J., Nina; Wratten, Steve; 2010; Enhancing biological control by an omnivorous lacewing: Floral resources reduce aphid numbers at low aphid densities; 55; 159-165


Jagdale, G. B. K., S.; Grewal, P. S.; 2009; Entomopathogenic nematodes induce components of systemic resistance in plants: Biochemical and molecular evidence; 51; 102-109

Jaros-Su, J. G., Eleanor; Zhang, Jianxin; 1999; Effects of Selected Fungicides and the Timing of Fungicide Application on Beauveria bassiana-Induced Mortality of the Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae); 15; 259-269

Jetiyanon, K. K., Joseph W.; 2002; Mixtures of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for induction of systemic resistance against multiple plant diseases; 24; 285-291

Jeun, Y. C. P., K. S.; Kim, C. H.; Fowler, W. D.; Kloepper, J. W.; 2004; Cytological observations of cucumber plants during induced resistance elicited by rhizobacteria; 29; 34-42

Jones, V. P. S., Shawn A.; Wiman, Nik G.; Horton, David R.; Miliczky, Eugene; Zhang, Qing-He; Baker, Callie C.; 2011; Evaluation of herbivore-induced plant volatiles for monitoring green lacewings in Washington apple orchards; 56; 98-105

Jones, W. A. C., M. A.; Wolfenbarger, D. A.; 1998; Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Insecticides on Two Parasitoids Attacking Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae); 11; 70-76

Kaplan, I. T., Jennifer S.; 2011; Do plant defenses enhance or diminish prey suppression by omnivorous Heteroptera?; 59; 53-60

Kaspi, R. P., Michael P.; 2005; Abamectin compatibility with the leafminer parasitoid Diglyphus isaea; 35; 172-179

Kehrli, P. L., Michael; Bacher, Sven; 2005; Mass-emergence devices: a biocontrol technique for conservation and augmentation of parasitoids; 32; 191-199

Kilic-Ekici, O. Y., Gary Y.; 2004; Comparison of strains of Lysobacter enzymogenes and PGPR for induction of resistance against Bipolaris sorokiniana in tall fescue; 30; 446-455

Klingen, I. W., Karin; 2007; The effect of pesticides used in strawberries on the phytophagous mite Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) and its fungal natural enemy Neozygites floridana (Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales); 43; 222-230

Koné, S. B. D., Antoine; Tweddell, Russell J.; Antoun, Hani; Avis, Tyler J.; 2010; Suppressive effect of non-aerated compost teas on foliar fungal pathogens of tomato; 52; 167-173

Kramarz, P. S., John D.; 2003; Population level effects of cadmium and the insecticide imidacloprid to the parasitoid, Aphidius ervi after exposure through its host, the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris); 27; 310-314

Kurek, E. J.-Ś., J.; 2003; Rye (Secale cereale) growth promotion by Pseudomonas fluorescens strains and their interactions with Fusarium culmorum under various soil conditions; 26; 48-56

Kuske, S. W., Franco; Edwards, Peter J.; Turlings, Ted C. J.; Babendreier, Dirk; Bigler, Franz; 2003; Dispersal and persistence of mass released Trichogramma brassicae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) in non-target habitats; 27; 181-193

Kyei-Poku, G. K. K., Yasuhisa; 1998; Nondevelopment of Cotesia kariyai (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Entomopoxvirus-Infected Larvae of Pseudaletia separata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae); 11; 209-216

Lacoume, S. B., Christophe; Chevrier, Claude; 2009; Male hypofertility induced by Paraquat consumption in the non-target parasitoid Anisopteromalus calandrae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae); 49; 214-218

Latha, P. A., T.; Ragupathi, N.; Prakasam, V.; Samiyappan, R.; 2009; Antimicrobial activity of plant extracts and induction of systemic resistance in tomato plants by mixtures of PGPR strains and Zimmu leaf extract against Alternaria solani; 50; 85-93

Laubertie, E. A. W., Steve D.; Hemptinne, Jean-Louis; 2012; The contribution of potential beneficial insectary plant species to adult hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) fitness; 61; 01-juin

Lavandero, B. W., Steve; Shishehbor, Parviz; Worner, Sue; 2005; Enhancing the effectiveness of the parasitoid Diadegma semiclausum (Helen): Movement after use of nectar in the field; 34; 152-158

Lawo, N. C. R., Jörg; 2008; Assessing the utilization of a carbohydrate food source and the impact of insecticidal proteins on larvae of the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea; 44; 389-398

Lawrence, J. L. H., Casey W.; Grewal, Parwinder S.; 2006; Spatial and temporal distribution of endemic entomopathogenic nematodes in a heterogeneous vegetable production landscape; 37; 247-255


Lee, D.-H. N., Jan P.; Sanderson, John P.; 2011; Avoidance of natural enemies by adult whiteflies, Bemisia argentifolii, and effects on host plant choice; 58; 302-309

Lee, J. C. H., George E.; 2005; Impact of flowering buckwheat on Lepidopteran cabbage pests and their parasitoids at two spatial scales; 34; 290-301

Li, Y. R., Jörg; ; 2010; Bt maize expressing Cry3Bb1 does not harm the spider mite, Tetranychus urticae, or its ladybird beetle predator, Stethorus punctillum; 53; 337-344

Liu, T.-X. S., Philip A.; 2004; Lethal and sublethal effects of two insect growth regulators on adult Delphastus catalinae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), a predator of whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae); 30; 298-305

Liu, X.-x. Z., Qing-wen; Zhao, Jian-Zhou; Li, Jian-cheng; Xu, Bao-liang; Ma, Xiao-mu; 2005; Effects of Bt transgenic cotton lines on the cotton bollworm parasitoid Microplitis mediator in the laboratory; 35; 134-141

Ludy, C. L., A.; 2006; A 3-year field-scale monitoring of foliage-dwelling spiders (Araneae) in transgenic Bt maize fields and adjacent field margins; 38; 314-324

Luo, S. L., Jiancheng; Liu, Xiaoxia; Lu, Ziyun; Pan, Wenliang; Zhang, Qingwen; Zhao, Zhangwu; 2010; Effects of six sugars on the longevity, fecundity and nutrient reserves of Microplitis mediator; 52; 51-57

Maingay, H. M. B., Robert L.; Carlson, Robert W.; Davidson, Nita A.; 1991; Predatory and Parasitic Wasps (Hymenoptera) Feeding at Flowers of Sweet Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Miller var. dulce Battandier & Trabut, Apiaceae) and Spearmint (Mentha spicata L., Lamiaceae) in Massachusetts; 7; 363-383

Malandraki, I. T., Sotirios E.; Pantelides, Iakovos S.; Paplomatas, Epaminondas J.; 2008; Thermal inactivation of compost suppressiveness implicates possible biological factors in disease management; 44; 180-187

Maoz, Y. G., Shira; Argov, Yael; Coll, Moshe; Palevsky, Eric; 2011; Biocontrol of persea mite, Oligonychus perseae, with an exotic spider mite predator and an indigenous pollen feeder; 59; 147-157

Markó, V. K., Balázs; Fountain, Michelle T.; Cross, Jerry V.; 2009; Prey availability, pesticides and the abundance of orchard spider communities; 48; 115-124

Martinson, T. W. I., Livy; English-Loeb, Greg; 2001; Compatibility of Chemical Disease and Insect Management Practices Used in New York Vineyards with Biological Control by Anagrus spp. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), Parasitoids of Erythroneura Leafhoppers; 22; 227-234

Martinuz, A. S., A.; Menjivar, R. D.; Sikora, R. A.; 2012; Effectiveness of systemic resistance toward Aphis gossypii (Hom., Aphididae) as induced by combined applications of the endophytes Fusarium oxysporum Fo162 and Rhizobium etli G12; 62; 206-212

Masetti, A. L., Alberto; Burgio, Giovanni; 2010; Effects of flowering plants on parasitism of lettuce leafminers (Diptera: Agromyzidae); 54; 263-269

Mathews, C. R. B., Dale G.; Brown, M. W.; 2004; Habitat manipulation of the apple orchard floor to increase ground-dwelling predators and predation of Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae); 30; 265-273

McVean, R. I. K. S., S. M.; Thompson, D. J.; Begon, M.; 2002; Dietary stress reduces the susceptibility of Plodia interpunctella to infection by a granulovirus; 25; 81-84

Medo, J. C., Ľudovít; 2011; Factors affecting the occurrence of entomopathogenic fungi in soils of Slovakia as revealed using two methods; 59; 200-208

Mendel, Z. A., Fabienne; Dunkelblum, Ezra; 2004; Kairomonal attraction of predatory bugs (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) and brown lacewings (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae) to sex pheromones of Matsucoccus species (Hemiptera: Matsucoccidae); 30; 134-140

Mesquita, A. L. M. L., Lawrence A.; 2001; Interactions among the Entomopathogenic Fungus, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes), the Parasitoid, Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), and Their Aphid Host; 22; 51-59

Messina, F. J. S., Suzann M.; 2001; Effectiveness of Lacewing Larvae in Reducing Russian Wheat Aphid Populations on Susceptible and Resistant Wheat; 21; 19-26


Meyling, N. V. T.-K., Kristian; Eilenberg, Jørgen; 2011; Below- and aboveground abundance and distribution of fungal entomopathogens in experimental conventional and organic cropping systems; 59; 180-186

Michalková, V. P., S.; 2009; How glyphosate altered the behaviour of agrobiont spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) and beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae); 51; 444-449

Michaud, J. P. G., Angela K.; 2005; Suitability of pollen sources for the development and reproduction of Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) under simulated drought conditions; 32; 363-370

Millar, L. C. B., Mary E.; 2002; Effects of tillage practices on entomopathogenic nematodes in a corn agroecosystem; 25; 01-nov

Mmbaga, M. T. S., R. J.; 2009; Epiphytic microbial communities on foliage of fungicide treated and non-treated flowering dogwoods; 49; 97-104

Monot, C. P., Emmanuel; Le Corre, Daniel; Silué, Drissa; 2002; Induction of systemic resistance in broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis) against downy mildew (Peronospora parasitica) by avirulent isolates; 24; 75-81

Moser, S. E. O., John J.; 2009; Non-target effects of neonicotinoid seed treatments; mortality of coccinellid larvae related to zoophytophagy; 51; 487-492

Moura, R. G., Patrı´cia; Cabral, Susana; Soares, António Onofre; 2006; Does pirimicarb affect the voracity of the euriphagous predator, Coccinella undecimpunctata L. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)?; 38; 363-368

Nafziger Jr, T. D. F., Henry Y.; 2011; Suitability of some farmscaping plants as nectar sources for the parasitoid wasp, Microplitis croceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Effects on longevity and body nutrients; 56; 225-229

Nakai, M. K., Yasuhisa; 1997; Granulosis Virus Infection of the Smaller Tea Tortrix (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Effect on the Development of the Endoparasitoid,Ascogaster reticulatus(Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 8; 74-80

Nakai, M. K., Yasuhisa; 1998; Effects of the Timing of Entomopoxvirus Administration to the Smaller Tea Tortrix, Adoxophyes sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on the Survival of the Endoparasitoid, Ascogaster reticulatus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 13; 63-69

Nantawanit, N. C., Arun; Panijpan, Bhinyo; Ruenwongsa, Pintip; 2010; Induction of defense response against Colletotrichum capsici in chili fruit by the yeast Pichia guilliermondii strain R13; 52; 145-152

Naranjo, S. E. E., Peter C.; Hagler, James R.; 2004; Conservation of natural enemies in cotton: role of insect growth regulators in management of Bemisia tabaci; 30; 52-72

Naranjo, S. E. E., Peter C.; 2009; The contribution of conservation biological control to integrated control of Bemisia tabaci in cotton; 51; 458-470

Nash, M. A. T., Linda J.; Hoffmann, Ary A.; 2008; Effect of remnant vegetation, pesticides, and farm management on abundance of the beneficial predator Notonomus gravis (Chaudoir) (Coleoptera: Carabidae); 46; 83-93

Navie, S. C. P., T. E.; McFadyen, R. E.; Adkins, S. W.; 1998; Efficacy of the Stem-Galling Moth Epiblema strenuana Walk. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) as a Biological Control Agent for Ragweed Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus L.); 13; 01-août

Navntoft, S. W., S. D.; Kristensen, K.; Esbjerg, P.; 2009; Weed seed predation in organic and conventional fields; 49; nov-16

Niranjan Raj, S. L., S. N.; Amruthesh, K. N.; Niranjana, S. R.; Reddy, M. S.; Shetty, H. S.; 2012; Histo-chemical changes induced by PGPR during induction of resistance in pearl millet against downy mildew disease; 60; 90-102

Nusawardani, T. R., John R.; Obrycki, John J.; Bonning, Bryony C.; 2005; Effects of a protease-expressing recombinant baculovirus insecticide on the parasitoid Cotesia marginiventris (Cresson); 35; 46-54

Okubara, P. A. C., Douglas R.; Kwak, Youn-sig; Skinner, Daniel Z.; 2010; Induction of defense gene homologues in wheat roots during interactions with Pseudomonas fluorescens; 55; 118-125


Olson, D. M. C., A. M.; Rains, G. C.; Potter, T.; Lewis, W. Joe; 2009; Nitrogen and water affect direct and indirect plant systemic induced defense in cotton; 49; 239-244

Olson, H. A. B., D. Michael; 2007; Induced systemic resistance and the role of binucleate Rhizoctonia and Trichoderma hamatum 382 in biocontrol of Botrytis blight in geranium; 42; 233-241

Orre, G. U. S. W., S. D.; Jonsson, M.; Hale, R. J.; 2010; Effects of an herbivore-induced plant volatile on arthropods from three trophic levels in brassicas; 53; 62-67

Paine, T. D. H., C. C.; Byrne, F. J.; 2011; Potential risks of systemic imidacloprid to parasitoid natural enemies of a cerambycid attacking Eucalyptus; 56; 175-178

Pane, C. S., Riccardo; Piccolo, Alessandro; Scala, Felice; Bonanomi, Giuliano; 2011; Compost amendments enhance peat suppressiveness to Pythium ultimum, Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia minor; 56; 115-124

Papachristos, D. P. M., Panagiotis G.; 2008; Adverse effects of soil applied insecticides on the predatory coccinellid Hippodamia undecimnotata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae); 47; 77-81

Park, K. S. K., Joseph W.; 2000; Activation of PR-1a Promoter by Rhizobacteria That Induce Systemic Resistance in Tobacco against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci; 18; 02-sept

Pavuk, D. M. S., Benjamin R.; 1992; Influence of weed communities in corn plantings on parasitism of Ostrinia nubilalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) by Eriborus terebrans (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae); 2; 312-316

Perazzolli, M. D., Silvia; Ferrari, Alessandro; Elad, Yigal; Pertot, Ilaria; 2008; Induction of systemic resistance against Plasmopara viticola in grapevine by Trichoderma harzianum T39 and benzothiadiazole; 47; 228-234

Perazzolli, M. R., Benedetta; Bozza, Elisa; Pertot, Ilaria; 2011; Trichoderma harzianum T39 induces resistance against downy mildew by priming for defense without costs for grapevine; 58; 74-82

Pereira, P. N., Andrea; Etcheverry, Miriam; 2007; Effects of biocontrol agents on Fusarium verticillioides count and fumonisin content in the maize agroecosystem: Impact on rhizospheric bacterial and fungal groups; 42; 281-287

Pfannenstiel, R. S. M., Bruce E.; Unruh, Thomas R.; 2012; Leafroller parasitism across an orchard landscape in central Washington and effect of neighboring rose habitats on parasitism; 62; 152-161

Pina, T. A., Poliane Sá; Urbaneja, Alberto; Jacas, Josep A.; 2012; Effect of pollen quality on the efficacy of two different life-style predatory mites against Tetranychus urticae in citrus; 61; 176-183

Poletti, M. M., A. H. N.; Omoto, C.; 2007; Toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus macropilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and their impact on functional response to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae); 40; 30-36

Porcel, M. C., B.; Campos, M.; 2011; Biological and behavioral effects of kaolin particle film on larvae and adults of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae); 59; 98-105

Powell, J. R. W., John M.; 2004; Interguild antagonism between biological controls: impact of entomopathogenic nematode application on an aphid predator, Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae); 30; 110-118

Prasad, R. P. S., W. E.; 2004; Predator interference limits fly egg biological control by a guild of ground-active beetles; 31; 428-437

Prasifka, J. R. K., Peter C.; Heinz, Kevin M.; Sansone, Christopher G.; Minzenmayer, Richard R.; 1999; Predator Conservation in Cotton: Using Grain Sorghum as a Source for Insect Predators; 16; 223-229

Prischmann, D. A. J., David G.; Wright, Lawrence C.; Teneyck, Roak D.; Snyder, William E.; 2005; Effects of chlorpyrifos and sulfur on spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) and their natural enemies; 33; 324-334

Pumariño, L. A., Oscar; 2012; The role of omnivory in the conservation of predators: Orius majusculus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) on sweet alyssum; 62; 24-28

Ramirez Ii, R. A. H., Donna R.; Riga, Ekaterini; Lacey, Lawrence A.; Snyder, William E.; 2009; Harmful effects of mustard bio-fumigants on entomopathogenic nematodes; 48; 147-154


Rapusas, H. R. B., Dale G.; Coll, Moshe; 1996; Intraspecific Variation in Chemical Attraction of Rice to Insect Predators; 6; 394-400

Rebek, E. J. S., Clifford S.; Hanks, Lawrence M.; 2005; Manipulating the abundance of natural enemies in ornamental landscapes with floral resource plants; 33; 203-216

Rebek, E. J. S., Clifford S.; Hanks, Lawrence M.; 2006; Influence of floral resource plants on control of an armored scale pest by the parasitoid Encarsia citrina (Craw.) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae); 37; 320-328

Rehman, S. U. B., Harold W.; Nigg, Herbert N.; Harrison, Jay M.; 1999; Residual Effects of Carbaryl and Dicofol on Aphytis holoxanthus Debach (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae); 16; 252-257

Rehman, S. U. B., H. W.; Nigg, H. N.; Harrison, J. M.; 2000; Increases in Florida Red Scale Populations through Pesticidal Elimination of Aphytis holoxanthus Debach in Florida Citrus; 18; 87-93

Roberts, J. M. K. W., Andrew R.; Hoffmann, Ary A.; Umina, Paul A.; 2011; Does Bdellodes lapidaria (Acari: Bdellidae) have a role in biological control of the springtail pest, Sminthurus viridis (Collembola: Sminthuridae) in south-eastern Australia?; 58; 222-229

Rodriguez-Saona, C. K., Ian; Braasch, Joseph; Chinnasamy, Durairaj; Williams, Livy; 2011; Field responses of predaceous arthropods to methyl salicylate: A meta-analysis and case study in cranberries; 59; 294-303

Rogers, M. A. K., Vera A.; Martin, Luis A.; 2007; Effect of soil application of imidacloprid on survival of adult green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), used for biological control in greenhouse; 42; 172-177

Rostás, M. T., Ted C. J.; 2008; Induction of systemic acquired resistance in Zea mays also enhances the plant’s attractiveness to parasitoids; 46; 178-186

Ruiu, L. S., A.; Floris, I.; 2007; Susceptibility of the house fly pupal parasitoid Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to the entomopathogenic bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis and Brevibacillus laterosporus; 43; 188-194

Ruiu, L. S., A.; Floris, I.; 2008; Effects of an azadirachtin-based formulation on the non-target muscoid fly parasitoid Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae); 47; 66-70

Ruiz, L. F., Salvador; Cancino, Jorge; Arredondo, José; Valle, Javier; Díaz-Fleischer, Francisco; Williams, Trevor; 2008; Lethal and sublethal effects of spinosad-based GF-120 bait on the tephritid parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 44; 296-304

Sáenz-de-Cabezón Irigaray, F. J. Z., Frank G.; Thompson, Patricia B.; 2007; Residual toxicity of acaricides to Galendromus occidentalis and Phytoseiulus persimilis reproductive potential; 40; 153-159

Sanchez, J. A. G., David R.; McGregor, Robert R.; 2003; The effects of mullein plants (Verbascum thapsus) on the population dynamics of Dicyphus hesperus (Heteroptera: Miridae) in tomato greenhouses; 28; 313-319

Sanders, C. J. P., Judith K.; Poppy, Guy M.; Raybould, Alan; Garcia-Alonso, Monica; Schuler, Tanja H.; 2007; Host-plant mediated effects of transgenic maize on the insect parasitoid Campoletis sonorensis (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae); 40; 362-369

Sant'Ana, J. B., Roberto; Abdul-Baki, Aref A.; Aldrich, Jeffrey R.; 1997; Pheromone-Induced Movement of Nymphs of the Predator,Podisus maculiventris(Heteroptera: Pentatomidae); 10; 123-128

Sarfraz, R. M. D., L. M.; Keddie, B. A.; 2012; Influence of the herbivore host’s wild food plants on parasitism, survival and development of the parasitoid Diadegma insulare; 62; 38-44

Sarvary, M. A. N., Jan; Reissig, Harvey; Gifford, Kathleen M.; 2007; Potential for conservation biological control of the obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR) Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) in orchard systems managed with reduced-risk insecticides; 40; 37-47

Schneider, M. I. S., G.; Pineda, S.; Viñuela, E.; 2004; Action of insect growth regulator insecticides and spinosad on life history parameters and absorption in third-instar larvae of the endoparasitoid Hyposoter didymator; 31; 189-198

Shakya, S. W., Phyllis G.; Coll, Moshe; 2009; Effect of pollen supplement on intraguild predatory interactions between two omnivores: The importance of spatial dynamics; 50; 281-287


Shanmugam, V. K., Nandina; 2011; Biological management of vascular wilt of tomato caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycospersici by plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial mixture; 57; 85-93

Sher, R. B. P., Michael P.; Kaya, Harry K.; 2000; Biological Control of the Leafminer Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess): Implications for Intraguild Predation between Diglyphus begini Ashmead and Steinernema carpocapsae (Weiser); 17; 155-163

Shi, J. L., Aiyuan; Li, Xueping; Feng, Shujie; Chen, Weixin; 2011; Inhibitory mechanisms induced by the endophytic bacterium MGY2 in controlling anthracnose of papaya; 56; 02-août

Siddiqui, Y. M., Sariah; Ismail, Razi; Rahmani, Mawardi; 2009; Bio-potential of compost tea from agro-waste to suppress Choanephora cucurbitarum L. the causal pathogen of wet rot of okra; 49; 38-44

Silva, H. S. A. R., Reginaldo da Silva; Macagnan, Dirceu; Halfeld-Vieira, Bernardo de Almeida; Pereira, Maria Cristina Baracat; Mounteer, Ann; 2004; Rhizobacterial induction of systemic resistance in tomato plants: non-specific protection and increase in enzyme activities; 29; 288-295

Simmons, A. T. G., Geoff M.; 2006; The effect on the biological control agent Mallada signata of trichomes of F1 Lycopersicon esculentum × L. cheesmanii f. minor and L. esculentum × L. pennellii hybrids; 38; 174-178

Singh, S. R. W., Keith F. A.; Port, Gordon R.; Northing, Phil; 2004; Consumption rates and predatory activity of adult and fourth instar larvae of the seven spot ladybird, Coccinella septempunctata (L.), following contact with dimethoate residue and contaminated prey in laboratory arenas; 30; 127-133

Singhai, P. K. S., B. K.; Srivastava, J. S.; 2011; Biological management of common scab of potato through Pseudomonas species and vermicompost; 57; 150-157

Sivinski, J. W., David; Holler, Tim; Dobai, Shoki Al; Sivinski, Robert; 2011; Conserving natural enemies with flowering plants: Estimating floral attractiveness to parasitic Hymenoptera and attraction’s relationship to flower and plant morphology; 58; 208-214

Smith, M. W. A., Don C.; Eikenbary, Raymond D.; Rice, Natasha R.; Shiferaw, Asrat; Cheary, Becky S.; Carroll, Becky L.; 1996; Influence of Ground Cover on Beneficial Arthropods in Pecan; 6; 164-176

Stavrinides, M. C. M., Nicholas J.; 2009; Demographic effects of pesticides on biological control of Pacific spider mite (Tetranychus pacificus) by the western predatory mite (Galendromus occidentalis); 48; 267-273

Stelinski, L. L. P.-S., K. S.; Liburd, O. E.; Gut, L. J.; 2006; Control strategies for Rhagoletis mendax disrupt host-finding and ovipositional capability of its parasitic wasp, Diachasma alloeum; 36; 91-99

Story, J. M. G., W. R.; White, L. J.; Smith, L.; 2000; Effects of the Interaction of the Biocontrol Agent Agapeta zoegana L. (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae) and Grass Competition on Spotted Knapweed; 17; 182-190

Stutz, S. E., Martin H.; 2011; Effects of the landscape context on aphid-ant-predator interactions on cherry trees; 57; 37-43

Sundaramoorthy, S. R., T.; Ragupathi, N.; Samiyappan, R.; 2012; Combinatorial effect of endophytic and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria against wilt disease of Capsicum annum L. caused by Fusarium solani; 60; 59-67

Sutherland, A. M. G., W. Douglas; Parrella, Michael P.; 2010; Effects of fungicides on a mycophagous coccinellid may represent integration failure in disease management; 54; 292-299

Szendrei, Z. W., Donald C.; 2009; Response of predators to habitat manipulation in potato fields; 50; 123-128

Takada, M. B. Y., Akira; Takagi, Shun; Iwabuchi, Shigeki; Washitani, Izumi; 2012; Multiple spatial scale factors affecting mirid bug abundance and damage level in organic rice paddies; 60; 169-174

Thomson, L. J. H., A. A.; 2006; Field validation of laboratory-derived IOBC toxicity ratings for natural enemies in commercial vineyards; 39; 507-515

Thomson, L. J. H., Ary A.; 2009; Vegetation increases the abundance of natural enemies in vineyards; 49; 259-269


Thomson, L. J. H., Ary A.; 2010; Natural enemy responses and pest control: Importance of local vegetation; 52; 160-166

Thomson, L. J. M., Julia; Sharley, David J.; Nash, Michael A.; Tsitsilas, Angelos; Hoffmann, Ary A.; 2010; Effect of woody vegetation at the landscape scale on the abundance of natural enemies in Australian vineyards; 54; 248-254

Ting, A. S. Y. M., S. W.; Tee, C. S.; 2012; Evaluating the feasibility of induced host resistance by endophytic isolate Penicillium citrinum BTF08 as a control mechanism for Fusarium wilt in banana plantlets; 61; 155-159

Torres, J. B. R., John R.; 2006; Interactions of Bt-cotton and the omnivorous big-eyed bug Geocoris punctipes (Say), a key predator in cotton fields; 39; 47-57

Torres, R. T., N.; Usall, J.; Abadias, M.; Mir, N.; Larrigaudiere, C.; Viñas, I.; 2011; Anti-oxidant activity of oranges after infection with the pathogen Penicillium digitatum or treatment with the biocontrol agent Pantoea agglomerans CPA-2; 57; 103-109

Traugott, M. W., Sonja; Strasser, Hermann; 2005; Effects of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria brongniartii on the non-target predator Poecilus versicolor (Coleoptera: Carabidae); 33; 107-112

Trillas, M. I. C., Eva; Cotxarrera, Lurdes; Ordovás, José; Borrero, Celia; Avilés, Manuel; 2006; Composts from agricultural waste and the Trichoderma asperellum strain T-34 suppress Rhizoctonia solani in cucumber seedlings; 39; 32-38

Unruh, T. R. P., Robert S.; Peters, Catharine; Brunner, Jay F.; Jones, Vincent P.; 2012; Parasitism of leafrollers in Washington fruit orchards is enhanced by perimeter plantings of rose and strawberry; 62; 162-172

Vasiliauskas, R. L., V.; Thor, M.; Stenlid, J.; 2004; Impact of biological (Rotstop) and chemical (urea) treatments on fungal community structure in freshly cut Picea abies stumps; 31; 405-413

Vattala, H. D. W., S. D.; Phillips, C. B.; Wäckers, F. L.; 2006; The influence of flower morphology and nectar quality on the longevity of a parasitoid biological control agent; 39; 179-185

Velten, G. R., Anja S.; Cardona, César; Dorn, Silvia; 2007; Effects of a plant resistance protein on parasitism of the common bean bruchid Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) by its natural enemy Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae); 43; 78-84

Viji, G. U., W.; Romaine, C. P.; 2003; Suppression of gray leaf spot (blast) of perennial ryegrass turf by Pseudomonas aeruginosa from spent mushroom substrate; 26; 233-243

von Mérey, G. E. V., Nathalie; Lange, Elvira de; Degen, Thomas; Mahuku, George; Valdez, Raymundo López; Turlings, Ted C. J.; D’Alessandro, Marco; 2012; Minor effects of two elicitors of insect and pathogen resistance on volatile emissions and parasitism of Spodoptera frugiperda in Mexican maize fields; 60; juil-15

Wade, M. R. Z., Myron P.; Wratten, Steve D.; Robinson, Katherine A.; 2008; Conservation biological control of arthropods using artificial food sprays: Current status and future challenges; 45; 185-199

Walker, G. P. H., Tim J. B.; Kale, Alan J.; Wallace, Andrew R.; 2010; An adjustable action threshold using larval parasitism of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in IPM for processing tomatoes; 52; 30-36

Walker, M. K. S., M. A. W.; Wallace, A. R.; 2007; Indirect non-target effects of insecticides on Tasmanian brown lacewing (Micromus tasmaniae) from feeding on lettuce aphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri); 43; 31-40

Wang, X.-G. J., Ekhlass A.; McGraw, Benjamin K.; Bokonon-Ganta, Aimé H.; Messing, Russell H.; Johnson, Marshall W.; 2005; Effects of spinosad-based fruit fly bait GF-120 on tephritid fruit fly and aphid parasitoids; 35; 155-162

Wang, Y. L., Yunhe; Romeis, Jörg; Chen, Xiuping; Zhang, Jie; Chen, Hongyin; Peng, Yufa; 2012; Consumption of Bt rice pollen expressing Cry2Aa does not cause adverse effects on adult Chrysoperla sinica Tjeder (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae); 61; 246-251

Wehnert, M. M., Michael; 2012; ‘Allochthonous Kairomones’ in stands of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) – Approach for nature-based bark beetle management with clerid beetles (Thanasimus spp.); 62; 16-23


Werling, B. P. H., Jason; Straub, Cory; Gratton, Claudio; 2012; Influence of native North American prairie grasses on predation of an insect herbivore of potato; 61; 15-25

Werling, B. P. M., Timothy D.; Gratton, Claudio; Landis, Douglas A.; 2011; Influence of habitat and landscape perenniality on insect natural enemies in three candidate biofuel crops; 59; 304-312

Williams Iii, L. P., Leslie D.; Manrique, Verónica; 2003; Toxicity of field-weathered insecticide residues to Anaphes iole (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), an egg parasitoid of Lygus lineolaris (Heteroptera: Miridae), and implications for inundative biological control in cotton; 26; 217-223

Winkler, K. W., Felix L.; Kaufman, Leyla V.; Larraz, Virginia; van Lenteren, Joop C.; 2009; Nectar exploitation by herbivores and their parasitoids is a function of flower species and relative humidity; 50; 299-306

Witting-Bissinger, B. E. O., D. B.; Linker, H. M.; 2008; Effects of floral resources on fitness of the parasitoids Trichogramma exiguum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) and Cotesia congregata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 47; 180-186

Xiao, Y. C., Jianjun; Cantliffe, Daniel; McKenzie, Cindy; Houben, Katherine; Osborne, Lance S.; 2011; Establishment of papaya banker plant system for parasitoid, Encarsia sophia (Hymenoptera: Aphilidae) against Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in greenhouse tomato production; 58; 239-247

Yogev, A. R., Michael; Hadar, Yitzhak; Cohen, Roni; Wolf, Shmuel; Gil, Lidor; Katan, Jaacov; 2010; Induced resistance as a putative component of compost suppressiveness; 54; 46-51

Youn, Y. N. S., M. J.; Shin, J. G.; Jang, C.; Yu, Y. M.; 2003; Toxicity of greenhouse pesticides to multicolored Asian lady beetles, Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae); 28; 164-170

Yu, T. Y., Chen; Lu, Huangping; Zunun, Mahbuba; Chen, Fangxia; Zhou, Tao; Sheng, Kuang; Zheng, Xiaodong; 2012; Effect of Cryptococcus laurentii and calcium chloride on control of Penicillium expansum and Botrytis cinerea infections in pear fruit; 61; 169-175

Zannou, I. D. H., Rachid; Agboton, Bonaventure; de Moraes, Gilberto José; Kreiter, Serge; Phiri, George; Jone, Abu; 2007; Native phytoseiid mites as indicators of non-target effects of the introduction of Typhlodromalus aripo for the biological control of cassava green mite in Africa; 41; 190-198

Zemková Rovenská, G. Z., Rostislav; Schmidt, Jörg E. U.; Hilbeck, Angelika; 2005; Altered host plant preference of Tetranychus urticae and prey preference of its predator Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) on transgenic Cry3Bb-eggplants; 33; 293-300

Zhang, S. M., Anne-Laure; Reddy, M. S.; Kloepper, Joseph W.; 2002; The role of salicylic acid in induced systemic resistance elicited by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria against blue mold of tobacco; 25; 288-296

Zhang, S. S., David A.; Boehm, Michael J.; Slininger, Patricia J.; 2007; Utilization of chemical inducers of resistance and Cryptococcus flavescens OH 182.9 to reduce Fusarium head blight under greenhouse conditions; 42; 308-315


Annex 6. Search terms and strings that will be used in Web of Science

#9 #8 AND #7 AND #4

#8 TS=((increas* OR decreas* OR declin* OR regulat* OR impact* OR variabilit* OR reduc* OR

effect* OR intensit* OR sustain* OR maintain* OR support* OR chang* OR enhanc* OR affect* OR

abundance) SAME (abundance OR "population size" OR presence OR "species richness" OR "species

diversity" OR biocontrol OR "pest control"))

#7 #6 OR #5

#6 TS=("Banker plant* system*" OR "companion vegetation*" OR "companion plant*" OR "Buffer

width*" OR "buffer zone*" OR corridor* OR "Field margin*" OR farmscaping OR "integrated

production" OR "repellent plant*" OR "Spatial arrangement*" OR "set-aside" OR "set aside" OR

refuge OR Compost* OR "integrated crop management" OR "crop system" OR groundcover OR

"flowering borders" OR interplanting)

#5 TS=("Companion crop*" OR "Farming system*" OR grassland* OR "Border effect*" OR "forest

border*" OR Intercropping OR "crop management" OR "cropping system*" OR "crop establishment"

OR habitat* OR territory OR biotope* OR hedge* OR Landscape* OR "land use" OR fallow OR strip*

OR "linear plantation*" OR shelterbelt* OR "ground cover" OR "trap crop*" OR Tillage OR

"agricultural land" OR "interspecific competition" OR grazing OR "cultural control")

;

#4 #1 OR #2 OR #3

#3 TS=(Acalitus OR Acanthoscelides OR AcidiaOR Aclypea OR Acrolepiopsis OR Aculops OR Aculus OR

Acyrthosiphon OR Adoxophyes OR Aegeria OR Aglaope OR Agriotes OR Agromyza OR Agrotis OR

Aleurolobus OR Aleurothrixus OR Anarsia OR Anthonomus OR Aonidiella OR Aphanostigma OR

Aphelenchoides OR Aphelenchus OR Aphidula OR Aphis OR Apion OR Apodemus OR Arammichnus

Archips OR Argyrotaenia OR Arion OR Aspidiotus OR Athalia OR Atomaria OR Aulacaspis OR

Aulacorthum OR Autographa OR Bemisia OR Blaniulus OR Blitophaga OR Brachycaudus OR

Brachycorynella OR Brevicoryne OR Bruchus OR Byturus OR Cacoecia OR Cacopsylla OR

Calepitrimerus OR Capitophorus OR Capnodis OR Capua OR Carduelis OR Cecidophyes OR

Cecidophyopsis OR Ceratitis OR Ceroplastes OR Ceuthorhynchus OR Chaetosiphon OR Chromaphis

OR Chrysomphalus OR Cirphis OR Clysia OR Cnephasia OR Coenorhinus OR Colaspidema OR

Coleophora Colomerus Columba OR Conorhynchus OR Contarinia OR Coroebus OR Corvus OR

Corylobium OR Cossus OR Crioceris OR Cryptomyzus OR Curculio OR Cydia OR Dactylosphaera OR

Dacus OR Dasineura OR Delia OR Deroceras OR Dialeurodes OR Ditylenchus OR Dysaphis OR

Dysaulacorthum OR Empoasca OR Eotetranychus OR Epidiaspis OR Eriophyes OR Eriosoma OR

Eulecanium OR Euparypha OR Euphyllura OR Eupoecilia OR Eurydema OR Euxoa OR Euzophera OR

Forficula OR Frankliniella OR Fringilla OR Geoktapia OR Globodera OR Gortyna OR Grapholitha OR

Gryllotalpa OR Gymnoscelis OR Haltica OR Haplodiplosis OR Haplothrips OR Hapsidolema OR

Harpalus OR Hedya OR Helicoverpa OR Heliothis OR Helix OR Heterodera OR Homoeosoma OR

Hoplocampa OR Hyalopterus OR Hylemyia OR Hypera OR Hyperomyzus OR Hypoborus OR

Hyponomeuta OR Icerya OR Jacobiasca OR Kakothrips OR Korscheltellus OR Laspeyresia OR


Lepidosaphes OR Leptinotarsa OR Leptohylemyia OR Lepus OR Leucoptera OR Limothrips OR

Liothrips OR Liriomyza OR Lobesia OR Lycophotia OR Lyonetia OR Macrosiphum OR Mamestra OR

Melanaphis OR Melanchra OR Meligethes OR Meloidogyne OR Melolontha OR Metatetranychus OR

Metopolophium OR Metriochroa OR Micractis OR Microtus OR Monostira OR Mythimna OR

Mytilococcus OR Myzocallis OR Myzus OR Nasonovia OR Oberea OR Oecophyllembius OR

Operophtera OR Ophiomyia OR Ophonus OR Oryctolagus OR Oscinella OR Ostrinia OR Otiorhynchus

OR Oulema OR Palomena OR Palpita OR Pammene OR Pandemis OR Panonychus OR Parahypopta OR

Parus OR Passer OR Passerinia OR Pegomyia OR Pemphigus OR Peribatodes OR Phasianus OR

Philophylla OR Phloeotribus OR Phorbia OR Phorodon OR Phthorimaea OR Phyllocoptes OR

Phyllonorycter OR Phyllotreta OR Phytocoptella OR Phytometra OR Phytonemus OR Phytonomus OR

Phytoptus OR Pica OR Pieris OR Platyparea OR Plutella OR Polia OR Polyphylla OR Pratylenchus OR

Prays OR Prolasioptera OR Protrama OR Pseudaulacaspis OR Psila OR Psylliodes OR Pyrrhula OR

Quadraspidiotus OR Radopholus OR Resseliella OR Rhagoletis OR Rhopalosiphum OR Rhynchites OR

Ruguloscolytus OR Saissetia OR Scaphoideus OR Scotia OR Scrobipalpa OR Scutigerella OR Sesamia

OR Sitobion OR Sitodiplosis OR Sitona OR Sparganothis OR Spilonota OR Spodoptera OR Stephanitis

OR Stigmella OR Sturnus OR Sus OR Synanthedon OR Talpa OR Tetranychus OR Thrips OR Tipula OR

Toxoptera OR Trialeurodes OR Trichodorus OR Tylenchulus OR Vasates OR Vespa OR Vesperus OR

Vespula OR Viteus OR Xiphinema OR Xyleborus OR Yponomeuta OR Zabrus OR Zeuzera OR Zophodia)

#2 TS=("predatory insect*" OR "predatory arthropod*" OR "predatory bird*" OR "predatory mite*"

OR "natural enem*" OR predator* OR "BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT*" OR PEST* OR "predator prey

relationship*")

#1 TS=(parasitoid* OR bacteri* OR Nematod* OR fung* OR virus* OR insect* OR bird* or arthropod*

or mites)


Annex 7. List of organization contacted to collect grey literature and non academic knowledge

A. In France, Strategic Orientation Council of FRB