Search

CABI is a not-for-profit international organization with the mission of improving people’s lives worldwide by solving problems in agriculture and the environment, while engendering trust and facilitating science. As an organisation CABI is both a provider and a user of biological control agents and regularly acting as an intermediary between provider and user countries. As a way of building trust between both sides, access and benefit sharing (ABS) policy and ABS best practices developed around the principles of the Nagoya protocol should be publicly accessible. CABI aims to facilitate compliance with national legislation on ABS through its best practices for the countries in which we work and those that we provide genetic resources. CABI adopted the position to share benefits whether the provider country is party to the Nagoya Protocol or not. We use a case study on the biological control of the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari)) to illustrate the implementation of ABS best practices for the overlap between biological control and ABS. In respect to Digital Sequence Information (DSI) associated with genetic resources CABI contributes to the ongoing global debate and evaluates how this may impact biocontrol research and delivery. The current view is that publishing sequence data is sharing descriptive information and thus delivers benefit-sharing from its generation. However, if DSI is used in a product placed on the market, there is justification for benefit sharing.

The third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources was further developed when the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing came into effect in 2014. Interpretation of how this agreement is being implemented is wide-ranging and there are implications for biological control. A survey of biological control workers indicated that while some countries have facilitated access to biological control genetic resources, requirements in other countries have impeded biological control implementation. There was consensus that benefits to provider countries should be in the form of supporting local research communities. There was also agreement that the free use and exchange of biological control genetic resources has provided benefits to the global community, including to both providers and recipients of the agents. It is recommended that consideration of the free use and exchange principal should be a key element of Access and Benefit Sharing measures for the future.

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) was implemented to further develop the third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. Interpretation of this agreement is wide-ranging and there is concern that if ABS measures are poorly implemented biological control and the resultant public good will be greatly impeded. The ethos of multilateral use and exchange of genetic resources used in classical biological control will be particularly affected. In the spirit of the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, we propose a simple practical solution in the form of an international agreement on the use and exchange of classical biological control genetic resources.

The foremost document that comprehensively reports on biological control introductions against weeds—‘Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds’—has been updated and now includes all deliberate releases made through 2012. It includes data on 1555 intentional releases of 468 biological control agent species used against 175 species of target weeds in 48 plant families, in 90 countries. For 55 (31.4%) of the target weed species, only one biocontrol agent was introduced. The largest number of agent species (44) was introduced for the biological control of Lantana camara (Verbenaceae). Three insect orders (Coleoptera, Lepidoptera and Diptera) comprised about 80% of all biocontrol agent species released and releases made. Of the 468 biocontrol agent species introduced, 332 (70.9%) established in at least one instance. Of the 313 species, for which impact could be categorized, 172 (55.0%) caused medium, variable or heavy levels of damage (impacts). Of all releases made through 2012, 982 (63.2%) led to establishment. Forty-two releases were judged too early post-release to categorize impact, leaving 940 releases for which impact analyses were conducted. Similar to agent species, approximately half of the established releases (503 or 53.5%) caused medium, variable or heavy levels of damage on the target weeds, and almost a quarter of releases (225 or 23.9%) caused heavy impact. Across all countries and regions, 65.7% of the weeds targeted for biological control experienced some level of control. These data indicate the value of this practice, on its own, or as a supplement to other methods, in the management of invasive plants.

Despite their importance as invasive species, there has been a hesitation to target grasses in classical biocontrol. This historic bias appears to be changing with multiple active research and release programs. Similarly, biocontrol workers appear to avoid targeting species with native congeners. These biases appear inappropriate as the ecological and entomological literature provide abundant evidence for sub-genus specificity for many herbivores, including those attacking grasses. The biocontrol program targeting Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud (Poaceae) provides an informative example with endemic subspecies in North America and many sub-genus specific herbivores, including potential European control agents. Grasses and target weeds with congeneric native species require rigorous host range testing, similar to all other targets in current weed biological control programs. Furthermore, it appears prudent to ask petition reviewers and regulatory agencies to abandon their focus on results of no-choice studies and to distinguish between trivial feeding and demographic impacts.

In weed biological control programs, pre-release host-specificity testing relies traditionally on no-choice and choice feeding, oviposition, and development tests. Rarely have they included detailed examination of behavioral responses to olfactory and visual cues of biological control candidates, although a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying host recognition may explain potential discrepancies between choice and no-choice tests, and/or between tests conducted in the lab versus field conditions. We investigated how the seed-feeding weevil, Mogulones borraginis, distinguishes its host plant, Cynoglossum officinale, from three native confamilial non-target species in North America. In behavioral bioassays, M. borraginis responded to olfactory and visual cues individually and, to an even greater extent, to both plant cue modalities when offered simultaneously. In tests with the combined cues, M. borraginis was attracted to C. officinale but responded with indifference or was repelled by non-target plants. In electrophysiological experiments, we identified that M. borraginis responded to ten volatile compounds and four wavelengths of lights from inflorescences of C. officinale. We propose that studies of responses to multimodal plant cues can advance our understanding of how biocontrol candidate species discriminate among host plants and closely related non-target species, thereby increasing the accuracy of environmental safety assessments pre-release.