Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based molecular markers have been developed to detect the presence of primary parasitoids in cereal aphids and used to estimate primary parasitism rates. However, the presence of secondary parasitoids (hyperparasitoids) may lead to underestimates of primary parasitism rates based on PCR markers. This is because even though they kill the primary parasitoid, it's DNA can still be amplified, leading to an erroneous interpretation of a positive result. Another issue with secondary parasitoids is that adults are extremely difficult to identify using morphological characters. Therefore, we developed species-specific molecular markers to detect hyperparasitoids. A 16S ribosomal RNA mitochondrial gene fragment was amplified by PCR and sequenced from two secondary parasitoid species, (Curtis) (Hymenoptera: Megaspilidae) and (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Charipidae), four geographic isolates of the primary parasitoid, (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), and six aphid species common to cereal crops. Species-specific PCR primers were designed for each insect on the basis of these 16S rRNA gene sequences. Amplification of template DNA, followed by agarose gel electrophoresis, successfully distinguished and from all four isolates of and all six cereal aphid species in this laboratory test.

The western flower thrips (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) causes bronzing to strawberry fruit. Management of insecticide-resistant strains relies on the integration of predators with carefully timed use of the few insecticides available. Effective management requires better understanding of economic injury levels (EILs) and the factors that affect them. The densities of and the predatory mite (Oudemans) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) were manipulated in field experiments. All stages of flower and fruit were susceptible to thrips damage, but larvae caused nearly twice as much damage as adults per individual. The EIL was about four adult thrips per flower in the absence of predators, but increased to over eight at densities of typical of good establishment in crops. The EIL could be increased by about 0.7 adult thrips per flower for every per flower. The results were supported by measurements of EILs in commercial crops.

Plant pathogenic fungi are responsible for enormous crop losses worldwide. Overcoming this problem is challenging as these fungi can be highly resistant to approved chemical fungicides. There is thus a need to develop and introduce fundamentally new plant and crop protection strategies for sustainable agricultural production. Highly stable extracellular antifungal proteins (AFPs) and their rationally designed peptide derivatives (PDs) constitute feasible options to meet this challenge. In the present study, their potential for topical application to protect plants and crops as combinatorial biofungicides is supported by the investigation of two () AFPs (NFAP and NFAP2) and their γ-core PDs. Previously, the biofungicidal potential of NFAP, its rationally designed γ-core PD (γ-opt), and NFAP2 was reported. Susceptibility tests in the present study extended the in vitro antifungal spectrum of NFAP2 and its γ-core PD (γ-opt) to , , and spp. Besides, in vitro additive or indifferent interactions, and synergism were observed when NFAP or NFAP2 was applied in combination with γ-opt. Except for γ-opt, the investigated proteins and peptides did not show any toxicity to tomato plant leaves. The application of NFAP in combination with γ-opt effectively inhibited conidial germination, biofilm formation, and hyphal extension of the necrotrophic mold on tomato plant leaves. However, the same combination only partially impeded the -mediated decay of tomato fruits, but mitigated the symptoms. Our results highlight the feasibility of using the combination of AFP and PD as biofungicide for the fungal infection control in plants and crops.

Chemical insecticides are the mainstay of contemporary control of human disease vectors. However, the spread of insecticide resistance and the emergence of new disease threats are creating an urgent need for alternative tools. This perspective paper explores whether biological control might be able to make a greater contribution to vector control in the future, and highlights some of the challenges in taking a technology from initial concept through to operational use. The aim is to stimulate a dialogue within biocontrol and vector control communities, in order to make sure that biological control tools can realize their full potential.

The USA has been actively involved in classical biological control projects against invasive insect pests and weeds since 1888. Classical (importation) biological control relies upon natural enemies associated through coevolution with their target species at their geographic origin to also provide long-term, self-sustaining management where the pest/weed has become invasive. Biological control agents are a form of genetic resources and fall under the purview of the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya Protocol (NP), which entered into force in 2014 to address equitable sharing of benefits arising from utilization of genetic resources. Safe and effective classical biological control agents have historically been shared among countries experiencing problems with invasive species. However, a feature of the Nagoya Protocol is that countries are expected to develop processes governing access to their genetic resources to ensure that the benefits are shared equitably-a concept referred to as "access and benefit sharing" (ABS). Although the USA is not party to the CBD nor the NP, US biological control programs are affected by these international agreements. Surveying, collecting, exporting and importing of natural enemies may be covered by new ABS regulatory processes. Challenges of ABS have arisen as various countries enact new regulations (or not) governing access to genetic resources, and the processes for gaining access and sharing the benefits from these resources have become increasingly complex. In the absence of an overarching national US policy, individual government agencies and institutions follow their own internal procedures. Biological control practitioners in the USA have been encouraged in recent years to observe best practices developed by the biological community for insect and weed biological control.