<museum2.htm> [Use Landscape
orientation to print] Comprehensive
Account <Navigate to
COMMUNITY INSTRUCTION>
HISTORY OF
BIOLOGICAL PEST CONTROL
Dr. E. F.
Legner, University of California, Riverside (Contacts) The recorded history
of biological control may be considered as dating from Egyptian records of
4,000 years ago, where domestic cats were depicted as useful in rodent
control. Insect Predation
was recognized at an early date, but the significance of entomophagy and exploitation
was lost except for a few early human populations in Asia where a
sophisticated agriculture had developed.
The Chinese citrus growers placed nests of predaceous ants, Oncophylla smaradina, in trees where the ants fed on foliage-feeding
insects. Bamboo bridges were
constructed to assist the ants in their movements from tree to tree. Date growers in Yemen went to North Africa
to collect colonies of predaceous ants which they colonized in date groves to
control various pests. Insect Parasitoidism
was not recognized until the turn of the 17th Century. The first record is attributed to the
Italian, Aldrovandi (1602). He observed the cocoons of Apanteles glomeratus being attached to larvae of Pieris rapae (the imported cabbageworm). He incorrectly thought that the cocoons
were insect eggs. Printed
illustrations of parasitoids are found in Metamorphosis
by J. Goedart (1662) <PHOTO>.
He described "small flies" emerging from butterfly
pupae. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek in 1700 (van Leeuwenhoek 1702) described
the phenomenon of parasitoidism in insects.
He drew a female parasitoid laying eggs in aphid hosts. Vallesnieri
(1706) <PHOTO> first correctly interpreted this
host-parasitoid association and probably became the first to report the
existence of parasitoids. Bodenheimer (1931), however, noted
that several earlier entomologists recognized the essence of
parasitoidism. Cestoni (1706) reported other parasitoids from eggs of
cruciferous insects. He called
aphids, "cabbage sheep," and their parasitoids, "wolf
mosquitoes." Erasmus Darwin (1800) discussed the
useful role of parasitoids and predators in regulating insect pests. During the remainder
of the 18th Century an ever increasing number of references to entomophagous
and entomogenous organisms appeared in the literature, largely in the form of
papers dealing with parasitoid biologies.
Diseases of silkworms were recognized early in the 18th Century. De
Reamur (1726) <PHOTO> described and illustrated Cordyceps fungus infecting a
noctuid larva. Biological Control Efforts in
the 18th Century By 1762 the first successful
importation of an organism from one country to another for biological control
took place with the introduction of the mynah
bird from India to the island of Mauritius, for locust control. Further development
of modern biological control awaited the recognition of the fact that insect
pest problems were population phenomena.
The controversial publications of Malthus
appeared toward the end of the 18th Century, and generated considerable
interest in the subject of populations.
Malthus' work will be discussed further in the next section on
"Concepts in Population Ecology." Biological Control Efforts in the Early 19th
Century A number of articles
appeared during the first half of the 19th Century that lauded the beneficial
effects of entomophagous insects. Erasmus Darwin (1800)
recommended protecting and encouraging syrphid flies and ichneumonid wasps
because they destroyed considerable numbers of cabbage-feeding
caterpillars. Kirby & Spence (1815) [see
<PHOTO>] showed that predaceous coccinellids
controlled aphids. Hartig (1827)
recommended the construction of large rearing cages for parasitized
caterpillars, with the ultimate aim of mass release. Ratzeberg (ca. 1828) <PHOTO> called
particular attention to the value of parasitic insects with publication of a
large volume on the parasitoids of forest insects in Germany. He did not believe that parasitic control
could be augmented by humans. Agustino Bassi (1834)
first demonstrated that a microorganism, Beauvaria
bassiana, caused an animal
disease, namely the muscardine
disease of silkworms. Kollär <PHOTO> (1837) writing an article for farmers, foresters
and gardeners, pointed out the importance of entomophagous insects in
nature's economy; studied parasitoid biologies and was the first to report
the existence of egg parasitoids. Boisgiraud (1843)
reported that he used the predaceous carabid beetle, Calasoma sycophanta,
to successfully control gypsy moth larvae on poplars growing near his home in
rural France. He also reported that
he had destroyed earwigs in his garden by introducing predaceous staphylinid
beetles. Biological Control in the Late 19th Century Beginning in 1850,
events associated with the westward expansion of agriculture in the United
States paved the way for the further development of the field of biological
control. During and following the
"Gold Rush" in California, agriculture expanded tremendously in
California especially. At first the
new and expanded plantings escaped the ravages of arthropod pests. Predictably, however, crops soon began to
suffer from destructive arthropod outbreaks.
Many of these pests were found to be of foreign origin, and were
observed to be far more destructive in the newly colonized areas than in
their native countries. Consequently,
the notion grew that perhaps these pests had escaped from some regulatory
factor or factors during their accidental introduction into America. Asa Fitch
<PHOTO> (1855) was the State Entomologist of New York who is recorded as the
first entomologist to seriously consider the transfer of beneficial insects
from one country to another for the control of an agricultural pest. Fitch suggested that the European
parasitoids of the wheat midge, Sitydiplosis
mesellana, be sent into the
eastern United States. Benjamin Walsh <PHOTO> supported Fitch's suggestion and in
1866 he became the first worker in the United States to suggest that insects
be employed in weed control. He
proposed that insects feeding on toad flax, Linaria vulgaris,
be imported from Europe to control invaded yellow toad flax plants. The first actual case of biological
control of weeds was, nevertheless, in Asia, where around 1865 the cochineal
insect Dactylopius ceylonicus was introduced from
southern India into Ceylon for prickly pear cactus control (Opuntia vulgaris).
Originally Dactylopius
had been imported to India from Argentina in 1795, in the mistaken belief
that it was the cochineal insect of commerce, D. cacti. Louis Pasteur
(1865-70)
<PHOTO> studied silkworm diseases and saved the
silk industry in France from ruin [not really biological control]. Charles Valentine Riley <PHOTO> (1870) has been named the father of modern
biological control. He shipped
parasitoids of the plum curculio from Kirkwood, Missouri to other parts of
that state. In 1873 he became the first
person to successfully transfer a predator from one country to another with
the shipment of the American predatory mite, Tyroglyphus phylloxerae
to France for use against the destructive grapevine phylloxera. The results were not particularly
successful, however. In 1883, Riley
directed the first successful intercontinental transfer of an insect
parasitoid, Apanteles glomeratus, from England to the
United States for control of the imported cabbageworm. He was Chief Entomologist of the U. S.
Department of Agriculture. In 1872,
11 years before the importation of A.
glomeratus, Riley began his
interest in the cottony-cushion scale, Icerya
purchasi, which was
considered the most important citrus pest in California. He correctly located its point of origin
in Australia. [Doutt's account of
this biological control program on p. 31-38 of the DeBach (1964) text is
particularly colorful. Read this,
paying particular attention to the following: a. the roles played by
Riley, Albert Koebele and D. W. Coquillet. b. note the species of
insects involved (the vedalia beetle, Rodolia
cardinalis, and the
dipterous parasitoid, Cryptochaetum
iceryae), their source,
numbers imported, and their activities relative to the cottony-cushion scale. c. note the method of
colonization, and be able to describe the spectacular results of these
introductions, which changed the status of the pest to an insect of no
economic importance in only four years time. The successful
biological control effort against the cottony-cushion scale spirited many
biological control attempts in many countries, resulting in over 200
biological control successes (see Chapter 24 of the DeBach (1964) text and
other hand-outs). The cottony-cushion
scale success admittedly harmed overall pest control in California for quite
some time because growers thought that the vedalia beetle would also control
other insect pests. Consequently,
they neglected other mechanical and chemical control methods.
George Compere (1899) became the first state employee
specifically hired for biological control work. He worked as a foreign collector until 1910, during which time
he sent many shipments of beneficial insects to California from many parts of
the world. Harold Compere <PHOTO>, his son, also devoted his entire
career to the search for and identification of natural enemies of scale
insects. Harry Scott
Smith (1913) <PHOTO> was
appointed superintendent of the State Insectary in Sacramento. In 1923, biological control work was
transferred to the Citrus Experiment Station and Graduate School of
Subtropical Agriculture of the University of California, Riverside. Biological control work at Riverside was first
conducted in the Division of Beneficial Insect Investigations, and was
changed to the Division of Biological Control with Smith as chairman in
1947. Personnel were stationed at
Albany and Riverside. Under Smith,
importation of Chrysolina
beetles from Australia for Klamath weed control marked the beginning of
biological weed control in California in 1944. Edward Steinhaus (1947) <PHOTO>
established the first laboratory and curriculum in insect pathology at the
University of California, Berkeley.
Later he transferred to the newly opened Irvine campus of the
University and attempted to further insect pathology there. His untimely death in 1968 precluded this
goal. The Division of
Biological Control became the Department of Biological Control at UC
Riverside and Berkeley in 1954. In
1969 Biological Control was dropped as a department, becoming a Division of
Biological Control within the Department of Entomology, against the wishes of
the entire biological control faculty, numbering over 24 academics at
Riverside and Berkeley at that time.
The Berkeley faculty created their own separate Division of Biological
Control with guaranteed privileges and minimum control by the Department of
Entomology. At Riverside the Division
of Biological Control gradually became dominated by chemical control oriented
faculty in the Department of Entomology.
In 1989 the Division was abolished, against the wishes of 85% of the
faculty in the Division. Ignorance
and pecuniary control among the ranks of University of California bureaucrats
is believed to be the principal cause.
Although the dissenting faculty in the Division each wrote a personal
plea to the then Chancellor Rosemary S. J. Schraer to discuss the matter, in
not one case was a reply received. Historical Summary Dr. Joop C. van
Lenteren (personal communication) has provided the following
summary of the history of biological control: Prerequisites for a
scientific approach to biological control were the general acceptance that
insects do not arise by spontaneous generation (F. Redi in 1668) <PHOTO>, the correct interpretation of
behavior and development of predators (circa 400 BC in China) parasitic
insects (van Leeuwenhoek in 1700) and pathogens, and evolution of the idea to
use natural enemies in the control of pests.
In Europe, R. Réaumur (in 1734) <PHOTO>, is thought to be the first to
propose this tactic: he advised the
release of lacewings in greenhouses for the control of aphids. Early farmers might
have already observed and appreciated the action of predators, as predation
is obvious and easy to understand.
Biological control was first applied before its definition when humans
began keeping cats to protect stored grain from rodents, which is actually
the earliest recorded history of biological control (Egyptian records date to
2,000 BC). The first biological
control project was that of Chinese citrus growers using Oecophylla smaragdina for the control of lepidopteran and
coleopteran pests in 324 BC. The
ants build nests in trees and such nests were collected and sold to
farmers. In order to aid the foraging
of ants, bamboo bridges were built between the citrus trees. DeBach (1974) observed this practice still
being used in North Burma in the 1950s which was in continued use in
China. All early efforts employed
general predators such as the mongoose, owls and other birds, toads, ants,
etc.
Linnaeus was among the first in modern times to suggest the use of predators
for pest control. By 1762 the first
successful importation of an organism from one country to another for
biological control took place in 1770 with the introduction of the mynah bird
from India to the island of Mauritius for control of the red locust Nomadacris septemfasciata. Insect parasitism
was not recognized until the turn of the 17th Century. The Italian U. Aldrovandi
(1602) first published an observation on insect parasitism. He observed the cocoons of Apanteles glomeratus being attached to larvae of Pieris brassicae. He
incorrectly thought that the cocoons were insect eggs, as he stated,
"Twice have I also observed the cabbage caterpillar laying yellow eggs
covered with delicate wool, and afterwards transforming itself into a
yellowish pupa, marked with green and black.
What appeared peculiar to me was that from these eggs emerged small
winged animalcules, so small that they could barely be seen..." Many other parasitoids
were drawn by the Dutch, Johannes Goedaert (1662) <PHOTO> in his book Metamorphosis et
Historia Naturalis Insectorum.
However, in the text he only once referred to parasites, "Out of one
caterpillar, which had pupated on June 12, emerged on the 30th the butterfly
species.... But out of another
caterpillar of the same species, which had pupated on July 13, emerged after
pupation 82 small flies, as the reader can see in the figure added. Thus from one caterpillar a butterfly
emerged and from the other 82 small flies." The British
physician Martin Lister suggested in letters published in
the 1670-71 issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, that some insects lay their eggs in the bodies of living caterpillars
and in 1685 he correctly interpreted Goedaert's observations, "The 82
flies that emerged from the pupa are the progeny of an ichneumon fly, which
had gotten into the caterpillar in a manner that is still not entirely clear
to me. In all likelihood they were
laid right there by the mother fly..."
Another 25 years is required before the cycle of parasitism was fully
analyzed and described. The Dutch
microscopist Antoni van Leeuwenhoek in a letter of 26
October 1700 to the Royal Society, published in their Philosophical
Transactions in 1701, fully unravelled insect parasitism and his original
text is used to illustrate this discovery.
In the spring of 1700 he observed that some of the berry trees in his
garden in Delft had more flowers than usual.
He also observed that the "black flies" on these trees were
more numerous than in other years. He
was afraid that the offspring of so many blackflies would completely
devastate his berry trees. After
studying the mouthparts of the "blackflies" he concluded that they
would not be able to eat the leaves, "These last flies that I caught
were all females, and had their eggs in them; from whence I more strongly
concluded that the black flies did the trees no harm; for if they had laid
their eggs on the trees, and that all their eggs had produced so many living
insects, there would not, I am positive, be one leaf or any fruit remaining
on the trees." Leeuwenhoek
strongly denied the theory of spontaneous generation, a hotly debated topic
during his time. He continued with,
"I shifted these flies into another glass tube, where I had before put
six green lice [aphids], which I had taken from the leaf of a
currant-tree... These flies, as soon
as ever they came near the said lice, brought the hinder part of their body,
which was pretty long, between all their feet, and stretched their body far
out, and their tail making a kind of semicircle with the rest of the body,
stood out beyond their head, and in this manner they insinuated their tail
into the bodies of the worms, and this the flies did in a short time to all
the worms they came near to; but that which was most remarkable in this
action was that in this conjunction they never touched the lice, either with
their feet or bodies, so that they often essa'd to approach the creatures, in
order to thrust in their tails into their bodies, and could not effect it;
nay, one would say they were so afraid of these lice as if they would have
devoured them; and as they entered the bodies of the lice they made a
trillende [shivering] motion of shaking with their tail, which came to be
done so that they might thrust it in further." "Now, as the
flies remained but two days alive without copulation, as ever I observed,
whereas the green lice lived seven or eight days, I though not otherwise but
that the flies by that insinuation of their tails into the bodies of those
lice, did withal convey their eggs in the same time, and that from those eggs
young worms should have been produced, which having received their
nourishment and increase from the bodies of the lice, should be changed again
into a fly, but the green lice died, and for the most part dried away. Not content with this observation I got
together again 25 dead lice, all of which in their bellies a worm, or else a
fly newly changed, for I saw through the skin of some of the lice, living
flies, which flies I took out alive from the bodies of some of those green
lice which I opened on purpose... Now
if we observe the wonderful formation of such a small creature, and how such
a fly is produced, and then consider that the worm which is changed into the
fly, and we imagine that such a thing will not happen, unless the worm that
comes out of the egg of the fly makes use of another creature for its food,
we must remain perfectly amazed." From this
description it can be concluded that what van Leeuwenhoek very exactly
described was the parasitization behavior of an aphid parasite. The illustration which was published with
the letter is of such good quality that the insect could easily be determined
to be Aphidius ribis Haliday, a parasite of
the aphid Cryptomyzus ribis (L.). Thereafter in the 18th Century, knowledge
of parasitoids rapidly increased.
Silkworm diseases were recognized as early as the 18th Century, although
diseases of bees were known to the Greeks and Romans. Many publications in the 16th, 17th and
18th Centuries dealt with diseases of silkworms, silk being a very important
industry at the time. Vallisnieri was
the first to mention the muscardine disease of silkworm. De Reamur (1726)
described and was the first to illustrate a fungus, Cordyceps, infecting a noctuid larva. The microbial naturel of these diseases
was not yet realized. From William
Kirby's <PHOTO> chapter on "Diseases of
Insects" (Vol. 4, 1826) of An Introduction to Entomology (Kirby &
Spence 1815) we learn that it was recognized that true fungi grew in the
bodies of insects as saprophytes and possibly as parasites. Agustino Bassi (1837) first experimentally
demonstrated that a microorganism, Beauveria
bassiana caused an animal
disease, namely the muscardine disease of silkworms. It was also Bassi who suggested in
publication in 1836 that microorganisms be used for insect pest control. Later in 1874, Louis Pasteur <PHOTO> suggested the use of microorganisms
against the grape phylloxera in France.
These suggestions did not result in practical application. Elie Metchnikoff tried to develop
biological control for the wheat cockchafer, Anisopilia austriaca,
a serious pest of cereal crops in the area of Odessa, Russia. In 1879 he published a paper on Metarrhizium anisopliae, and his experiments
led to the conclusion that the fungus, when mass produced and properly
introduced in the field, might result in effective control. Based on Metchnikoff's work, Metarrhizium was mass produced
in 1884 in the Ukraine, and the spores were tested in the field against a
curculionid, Cleonus punctiventris, in sugar beets. Biological weed
control did not start until after 1850.
The American Asa Fitch <PHOTO> was the first to suggest
biological control of weeds around 1855, when he observed that a European
weed in New York pastures had no American insects feeding on it. He suggested that importation of European
insects feeding on this weed might solve the problem. The first practical attempt dates from
1863, when Dactylopius
ceylonicus, was
distributed for cactus control in southern India after they had been observed
to decimate cultivated plantings of the prickly pear cactus, Opuntia
vulgaris, in northern
India (Goeden 1978). In 1865, the
first successful international importation for weed control took place, when
this same insect was transferred from India to Sri Lanka, where in a few
years widespread populations of the same cactus, O. vulgaris,
was effectively controlled. During the 19th Century taxonomy rapidly
developed and many biological studies of natural enemies were made. Practical ideas and tests about
application of biological control gradually advanced. Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles
Darwin, published Phytologia, a book on agriculture and gardening in
1800, in it stressing the role of natural enemies in reducing pests. Moreover, he suggested that aphids in
hothouses by controlled by artificial use of predaceous syrphid fly
larvae. Augmentation of ladybird
beetles for control of hop aphids in the field and aphids in greenhouses was
also suggested by Kirby & Spence (1815). By 1850 biological
control obtained full attention in the United States, where imported pests
were taking a large toll of both domestic imported crops. Entomologists, such as Asa Fitch, C. V.
Riley <PHOTO> and Benjamin D. Walsh <PHOTO>, suggested
the importation of natural enemies from their homeland. It was C. V. Riley who organized the first
intra-state parasitoid transport when he sent parasitoids of the plum curculio, Conotrachelus
nenuphar, to different
localities in Missouri [probably a wasted effort]. Riley was also the first to propose conservation of parasitoids
of the rascal leafcrumpler of fruit trees, Acrobasis indigenella, by collecting larvae in their cases in
mid-winter and then placing them away from the tree far enough that the
larvae could not reach the trees anymore, but the parasitoids emerging from
parasitized individuals in springtime could easily do so. Also, in 1873, Riley stimulated the first
international transfer of an arthropod predator by sending the predatory mite
Tyroglyphus
phylloxerae to France
for control of the grape phylloxera, Daktulosphaira vitifolii. It established but did not result in
effective control. The first
international shipment of a predatory insect took place in 1874, when aphid
predators, among which Coccinella
undecimpunctata, were
shipped from England to New Zealand and became established. The first international transfer of
parasitic insects was Trichogramma
from the United States to Canada in 1882.
The first intercontinental parasitoid shipment took place in 1883,
when Riley organized the shipment of Apanteles glomeratus from England to the
United States for control of cabbage white butterflies. It was just another six years before the
spectacular success with Rodolia
took place, again under the direction of Riley. Other texts and files in this
series may be viewed by CLICKING on the following: Secrets of Science <museum1.htm> History of Biological Control
<museum2.htm> Introduction and Scope of Biological Control <museum3.htm> National and International Organizations Active in Biological
Control <museum4.htm> Economic Gains and Analysis of Successes in Biological Control <museum5.htm> Trends and Future Possibilities in Biological Control <museum6.htm> Beneficial Insects <museum7.htm> Case Histories of Salient Biological Control Projects <detailed,htm> Guide to Identifying Predatory and Parasitic Insects <NEGUIDE.1>, <NEGUIDE.2>...
etc. Insect Natural Enemy Photos
<NE-2ba.PCX>, <NE-2bb.PCX>... <NE-247ba.PCX>... etc. Meal Worm Project <project.3.htm> Ladybird Beetles <ladybird.htm> Fruit Flies in California
<fruitfly.htm> Killer Bees <killer.htm> Monarch & Viceroy Butterflies <31aug95.mus.htm> Everywhere is Home <9feb98.mus.htm> Familiar Butterflies of the United States & Canada <butterfl.htm> References: Please refer to <biology.ref.htm>,
[ Additional references may be found at:
MELVYL Library ] Bassi, A. 1935. Del mal del segno, calcinaccio o
moscardino, mallatia che affigge i bachi da seta e sul modo di liberarne le
bigattaie anche le piu infestate.
Part I: Theoria. Orcesi, Lodi. p. 1-9, 1-67. Bodenheimer, F. S. 1931. Der Massenwechsel in der Tierwelt. Grundriss einer allgemeinen tierischen
Bevölkerungslehre. Arch. Zool. Ital.
(Napoli) 16: 98-111. Compere, G. 1902. Entomologist's Report. Introduction of Parasites. West. Austral. Dept. Agric. J. 6: 237-40. Compere, G. 1904. Black scale parasite (Scutellista cyanea). West Austral. Dept. Agric. J. 10: 94. Compere, G. 1921. Seasonal history of black scale and
relation to biological control.
Calif. Citrog. 6: 197. Darwin, E. 1800. Phytologia. Publ., London. Doutt, R. L. 1964. The historical Development of biological
control. In: P. DeBach
(ed.), Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Reinhold Publ. Corp., New York. 844 p. Fitch, Asa. 1954. Sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth reports
on the noxious, beneficial and other insects of the state of New York. Albany, New York. 259 p. Goedaert, J. 1662. Metamorphosis et Historia Naturalis
Insectorum. Jacques Fierens,
Middelburgh. Kirby, W. & W. Spence.
1815. An Introduction to
Entomology. Longman, Brown, Green
& Longmans, London. 285 p. Kollär, Vincent. 1837. In: London's Gardner's Magazine. 1840. [English translation]. Malthus, T. R. 1803. An Essay on the Principle of Population as
It Affects the Future Improvement of Society. J. Johnson, London, 2nd ed.
610 p. Pasteur, L. 1870 Etudes dur la maladie des vers a
soie. Gautherie-Villars, Paris,
I: 322 p.; II: 327 p. Ratzeburg, J. T. C.
1944a. Die Ichneumonen der
Forstinsekten in forstlicher und entomologischer Beziehung; ein Anhang zur Abbildung
und Beschreibung der Forstinsekten.
Theile, Berlin. 3 vol. Ratzeburg, J. T. C.
1944b. Die Ichneumonen der
Forstinsekten, Vol. I. Berlin. Réaumur, M. de. 1726. Remarques sur la plante appellée a la
Chine Hia Tsao Tom Tchom, ou plante ver.
Mem. Acad. Roy. Sci. (21 Aug 1726).
p. 302-5. Riley, C. V. 1893. Parasitic and predaceous insects in
applied entomology. Insect Life
6: 130-41. Riley, W. A. 1931. Erasmus Darwin and the biologic control of
insects. Science 73: 475-6. Smith, H. S. 1916. An attempt to redefine the host
relationships exhibited by entomophagous insects. J. Econ. Ent. 9:
477-86. Smith, H. S. 1919. On some phases of insect control by the
biological method. J. Econ. Ent.
12: 288-92. Smith, H. S. 1929. The utilization of entomophagous insects
in the control of citrus pests.
Trans. 4th Internatl. Congr. Ent. 2:
191-8. Steinhaus, E. A. 1946. Insect Microbiology. Comstock Publ. Co., Inc., Ithaca, New
York. 763 p. Steinhaus, E. A. 1949. Principles of Insect Pathology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. 757 p. van Leeuwenhoek, A.
1702. Letter in Nr. 266 of the
Philosophical Transaction 1700-1701, Vol. 22, p. 659-72. Smith & Walford, London. van Lenteren, J. C.
1983. Biological pest control: passing fashion or here to stay? Organorama (Netherlands) 20: 1-9. Walsh, B. D. 1866.
Practical Entomologist. June
1866. p. 101. |
