Skip to main content

EDITORIAL article

Front. Ecol. Evol., 10 August 2023
Sec. Population, Community, and Ecosystem Dynamics
This article is part of the Research Topic Integrating Models into Practice: The Role of Modelling in Biocontrol and Integrated Pest Management View all 4 articles

Editorial: Integrating models into practice: the role of modelling in biocontrol and integrated pest management

  • 1Department of Evolutionary and Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • 2Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • 3Department of Entomology, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil
  • 4School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

Motivation

Theoretical models have historically benefitted several applied fields, for example the use of matrix models in conservation management (Benton and Grant, 1999; Ezard et al., 2010; Hunter et al., 2010), the use of individual based models in fisheries (Baskett et al., 2005; Bastardie et al., 2010; van Kooten et al., 2010; Irigoien and de Roos, 2011; Persson et al., 2014), and the use of disease models in management of contagious diseases such as COVID, SARS and HIPV (Yusuf and Benyah, 2012; Rodrigues, 2016; Mokhtari et al., 2021). As such, applications of theoretical models in biocontrol can aid in implementing new control measures and highlight its economic value in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems. For example, they can contribute to cost-benefit analyses, highlight long-term efficacy of potential measures and predict areas of climactic compatibility for potential biocontrol agents (Furlong and Zalucki, 2017; Li et al., 2019; Janssen and van Rijn, 2021; Minuti et al., 2022). The formulation of models to describe the dynamics of pests and natural enemies in a biocontrol and IPM setting have a long history (Bernstein, 1985; Nachman, 1987; Bancroft and Margolies, 1999; Barlow et al., 1999; van Rijn et al., 2002; Janssen and van Rijn, 2021; Kotula et al., 2021; Cacho and Hester, 2022). However, IPM models have largely been predator-prey population models (e.g., van Rijn et al., 2002; Janssen and van Rijn, 2021) and so the full potential and benefit of existing models has rarely been realised (but see Li et al., 2019). Moreover, once created, models are often not utilized by researchers in determining effective biocontrol or IPM in a field setting (Barratt et al., 2018) and this gap between theoreticians and researchers has remained largely unchanged. Another challenge to bridging this gap is making mathematical arguments more verbal and explaining counterintuitive results. Attempts have been made to construct simplified models that would avoid some of the concerns raised, with some studies showing simplified models to be successful (Moerkens et al., 2021).

Given this, we identify two challenges. First, improve the collaboration and engagement between theoretical ecologists and applied researchers and stakeholders that actively promote IPM adoption. Second, when these groups are engaged, there is a need to demonstrate the potential contribution of theory to effective application and adoption within the context of an IPM program. As such, this Research Topic contains a set of theoretical and perspective contributions that aim to highlight the use of novel modelling approaches that can contribute to addressing these challenges.

Novel modelling approaches

Being poikilotherms, the behaviour and life-histories of arthropod pests and their natural enemies and their interactions are strongly affected by temperature. Climate change may therefore result in changes in predation of pests and predation among natural enemies (intraguild predation). In their contribution, Laubmeier et al. study this, using a model with allometric scaling and temperature dependence based on body size. They based their model on the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi and their predators, consisting of several species of spiders and ground beetles in barley fields in Sweden. Their model includes growth and decline of aphids, but of their much slower population growth rate, the authors only model decreases in predator densities due to lack of food or intraguild predation. The model predicts optimal predator communities for aphid control, which consists primarily of Lycosid spiders but often include ground beetles. This is not only because this combination of predators attack aphids over a larger temperature range, but also because intraguild predation is reduced since the predators are active at different temperature ranges. The authors recommend that farmers should preserve resident spider populations and promote larger species of ground beetles, which are active at lower temperatures. This could be done by releasing them through reduced tilling or the installation of beetle banks.

Adoption of conservation biological control strategies in agriculture has been compromised by the failure of researchers to consider the economic implications of this technology (Johnson et al., 2021). Parry reports the development of a spatially explicit bioeconomic simulation model to demonstrate that conservation of appropriate non-crop vegetation can have better long-term outcomes for reducing yield loss than pesticide-based regimes in intensively cropped landscapes. Currently, most decisions that determine pest management practice are based on cost and ease of adoption, risk aversion and evidence of short-term economic or yield gains (e.g., Lagerkvist et al., 2012; Gong et al., 2016). Although the longer-term detrimental environmental and economic impacts of excessive pesticide use are often considered, farmers face numerous barriers to the behavioural changes required to reduce reliance on these chemicals (Andersson and Isgren, 2021) and legislation can be required to break these down. Consequently, studies such as this are key to achieving wider adoption of conservation biological control in agriculture as they can incentivise abandonment of counterproductive practices such as reliance on pesticides and the destruction of non-crop habitat in agricultural landscapes.

The perspective piece by Wyckhuys et al. highlights how the use of key natural laboratories (i.e., islands and altitudinal ranges of mountains) have yet to be adopted in the field of biological control research (but see Guzmán et al., 2016). The authors utilise existing published datasets to determine how biological control outcomes are impacted by island size and altitudinal range. Several components such as species’ functional traits and anthropogenic forces, in addition to island size explain biological control outcomes. So too with altitudinal range, successful biological control is species- and context- dependent with changing altitude. Wyckhuys et al. emphasise that field-level data from these under-utilised natural laboratories are required to parametrise mechanistically based simulation models to highlight the impact of biocontrol under global climate change.

Future considerations

Successful biocontrol requires close collaboration and information sharing with stakeholders (Barratt et al., 2018; van Lenteren et al., 2018). Regardless of the modelling approach, implemented iterative improvements to biological control and integrated pest management (IPM) programs can only be made if follow-up assessments are conducted to identify impacts and model effectiveness (Seastedt, 2015). Importantly, assessments must include quantitative indications of the effectiveness of biocontrol or IPM measures which have been sorely lacking in the field (Clewley et al., 2012). This would not only provide a useful indicator for the end user but also allow researchers to build long term, useable data sets that can be used to improve their models. In turn, additional discussions can be had with stakeholders regarding improved/adjusted models, potentially benefiting the stakeholder in the long term. As for the economic implications of biocontrol, the application of models and ultimately the costs involved will differ when considering greenhouse or open field systems, as the challenges and obstacles faced by growers differ between these systems (Tracy, 2014). Currently there are fewer models for open field systems than for greenhouses, hindering efficient assessment of economic implications of biocontrol in open field systems. The question then arises, how can future economy-based models be utilised to identify the difference, and scale, in economic implications between the two systems? Finally, pest control is the strategic application of interventions to modify the population dynamics of the target pest, and agricultural systems are ideally suited to test basic population-dynamical theory. The rich tradition of mathematical models inspired by pests and natural enemies (e.g., Murdoch et al., 1985; May and Hassell, 1988) shows that biocontrol has found its way into theoretical population biology decades ago. It is high time that the reverse path is shaped into a highway, to do so requires the adoption and effective application of theoretical insights by end users and stakeholders who drive the use of biocontrol measures.

Author contributions

JD and AJ wrote the first draft of the article. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

Dutch Research Council (NWO), Applied and Engineering Sciences (TTW) grants (Nr. 16454 and Nr. 16706) awarded to AJ supported JD.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the authors who submitted to the Research Topic and to the reviewers and editors for their valuable input and time.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Andersson E., Isgren E. (2021). Gambling in the garden: Pesticide use and risk exposure in Ugandan smallholder farming. J. Rural Stud. 82, 76–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bancroft J. S., Margolies D. C. (1999). An individual-based model of an acarine tritrophic system: lima bean, Phaseolus lunatus L., twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae), and Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Ecol. Model. 123, 161–181. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(99)00131-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barlow V. M., Godfrey L. D., Norris R. F. (1999). Population dynamics of Lygus hesPerus(Heteroptera: Miridae) on selected weeds in comparison with Alfalfa. J. Economic Entomol 92, 846–852. doi: 10.1093/jee/92.4.846

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barratt B. I. P., Moran V. C., Bigler F., van Lenteren J. C. (2018). The status of biological control and recommendations for improving uptake for the future. BioControl 63, 155–167. doi: 10.1007/s10526-017-9831-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baskett M. L., Levin S. A., Gaines S. D., Dushoff J. (2005). Marine reserve design and the evolution of size at maturation in harvested fish. Ecol. Appl. 15, 882–901. doi: 10.1890/04-0723

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bastardie F., Nielsen J. R., Andersen B. S., Eigaard O. R. (2010). Effects of fishing effort allocation scenarios on energy efficiency and profitability: An individual-based model applied to Danish fisheries. Fish Res. 106, 501–516. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2010.09.025

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benton T. G., Grant A. (1999). Elasticity analysis as an important tool in evolutionary and population ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 467–471. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01724-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bernstein C. (1985). A Simulation Model for an Acarine Predator-Prey System (Phytoseiulus persimilis-tetranychus urticae). J. Anim. Ecol. 54, 375–389. doi: 10.2307/4485

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cacho O. J., Hester S. M. (2022). Modelling biocontrol of invasive insects: An application to European Wasp (Vespula germanica) in Australia. Ecol. Model. 467, 109939. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.109939

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Clewley G. D., Eschen R., Shaw R. H., Wright D. J. (2012). The effectiveness of classical biological control of invasive plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1287–1295. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02209.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ezard T. H. G., Bullock J. M., Dalgleish H. J., Millon A., Pelletier F., Ozgul A., et al. (2010). Matrix models for a changeable world: the importance of transient dynamics in population management. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 515–523. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01801.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Furlong M. J., Zalucki M. P. (2017). Climate change and biological control: the consequences of increasing temperatures on host–parasitoid interactions. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 20, 39–44. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2017.03.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gong Y., Baylis K., Kozak R., Bull G. (2016). Farmers’ risk preferences and pesticide use decisions: evidence from field experiments in China. Agric. Economics 47, 411–421. doi: 10.1111/agec.12240

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guzmán C., Aguilar-Fenollosa E., Sahún R. M., Boyero J. R., Vela J. M., Wong E., et al. (2016). Temperature-specific competition in predatory mites: Implications for biological pest control in a changing climate. Agricul Ecosyst. Environ. 216, 89–97. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.024

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hunter C. M., Caswell H., Runge M. C., Regehr E. V., Amstrup S. C., Stirling I. (2010). Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis. Ecology 91, 2883–2897. doi: 10.1890/09-1641.1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Irigoien X., de Roos A. (2011). The role of intraguild predation in the population dynamics of small pelagic fish. Mar. Biol. 158, 1683–1690. doi: 10.1007/s00227-011-1699-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Janssen A., van Rijn P. C. J. (2021). Pesticides do not significantly reduce arthropod pest densities in the presence of natural enemies. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2010–2024. doi: 10.1111/ele.13819

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Johnson A. C., Liu J., Reynolds O., Furlong M. J., Mo J., Rizvi S., et al. (2021). Conservation biological control research is strongly uneven across trophic levels and economic measures. Pest Manage. Sci. 77, 2165–2169. doi: 10.1002/ps.6162

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kotula H. J., Peralta G., Frost C. M., Todd J. H., Tylianakis J. M. (2021). Predicting direct and indirect non-target impacts of biocontrol agents using machine-learning approaches. PloS One 16, e0252448. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252448

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lagerkvist C. J., Ngigi M., Okello J. J., Karanja N. (2012). Means-End Chain approach to understanding farmers’ motivations for pesticide use in leafy vegetables: The case of kale in peri-urban Nairobi, Kenya. Crop Prot. 39, 72–80. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2012.03.018

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li Z., Furlong M. J., Yonow T., Kriticos D. J., Bao H., Yin F., et al. (2019). Management and population dynamics of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella): planting regimes, crop hygiene, biological control and timing of interventions. Bull. Entomol Res. 109, 257–265. doi: 10.1017/S0007485318000500

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

May R. M., Hassell M. P. (1988). Population dynamics and biological control. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 318, 129–169.

Google Scholar

Minuti G., Stiers I., Coetzee J. A. (2022). Climatic suitability and compatibility of the invasive Iris pseudacorus L. (Iridaceae) in the Southern Hemisphere: Considerations for biocontrol. Biol. Control 169, 104886. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2022.104886

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Moerkens R., Janssen D., Brenard N., Reybroeck E., del Mar Tellez M., Rodríguez E., et al. (2021). Simplified modelling enhances biocontrol decision making in tomato greenhouses for three important pest species. J. Pest Sci. 94, 285–295. doi: 10.1007/s10340-020-01256-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mokhtari A., Mineo C., Kriseman J., Kremer P., Neal L., Larson J. (2021). A multi-method approach to modeling COVID-19 disease dynamics in the United States. Sci. Rep. 11, 12426. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-92000-w

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Murdoch W. W., Chesson J., Chesson P. L. (1985). Biological control in theory and practice. Am. Nat. 125, 344–366. doi: 10.1086/284347

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nachman G. (1987). Systems analysis of acarine predator-prey interactions. I. A stochastic simulation model of spatial processes. J. Anim. Ecol. 56, 247–265. doi: 10.2307/4813

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Persson L., Van Leeuwen A., De Roos A. M. (2014). The ecological foundation for ecosystem-based management of fisheries: mechanistic linkages between the individual-, population-, and community-level dynamics. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71, 2268–2280. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fst231

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rodrigues H. S. (2016). Application of SIR epidemiological model: new trends. Int. J. Appl. Mathematics Inf. 10, 92–97.

Google Scholar

Seastedt T. R. (2015). Biological control of invasive plant species: a reassessment for the Anthropocene. New Phytol. 205, 490–502. doi: 10.1111/nph.13065

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tracy E. F. (2014). The promise of biological control for sustainable agriculture: a stakeholder-based analysis. J. Sci Policy Governance 5, 1–13.

Google Scholar

van Kooten T., Andersson J., Byström P., Persson L., de Roos A. M. (2010). Size at hatching determines population dynamics and response to harvesting in cannibalistic fish. Can. J. Fish Aquat Sci. 67, 401–416. doi: 10.1139/F09-157

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

van Lenteren J. C., Bolckmans K., Köhl J., Ravensberg W. J., Urbaneja A. (2018). Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: plenty of new opportunities. BioControl 63, 39–59. doi: 10.1007/s10526-017-9801-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

van Rijn P. C. J., van Houten Y. M., Sabelis M. W. (2002). How plants benefit from providing food to predators even when it is also edible to herbivores. Ecology 83, 2664–2679. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2664:HPBFPF]2.0.CO;2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yusuf T. T., Benyah F. (2012). Optimal strategy for controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS disease: a case study of South Africa. J. Biol. Dynamics 6, 475–494. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2011.628700

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: stakeholders, end users, climate change, bioeconomic, natural laboratories, allometric scaling

Citation: Deere JA, Janssen A, Furlong MJ and Bonsall MB (2023) Editorial: Integrating models into practice: the role of modelling in biocontrol and integrated pest management. Front. Ecol. Evol. 11:1243260. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1243260

Received: 20 June 2023; Accepted: 31 July 2023;
Published: 10 August 2023.

Edited and Reviewed by:

Dennis Murray, Trent University, Canada

Copyright © 2023 Deere, Janssen, Furlong and Bonsall. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jacques A. Deere, j.a.deere@uva.nl

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.