Biopesticides: Where We Stand?2 Jitendra Mishra, Sakshi Tewari, Sachin Singh, and Naveen Kumar Arora Abstract Chemical pesticides are well known for their effective role in disease man- agement because not only they act on a broad host range but production technology is also less expensive. However, the devastating part is their huge negative impact on the environment including the living beings of the planet. In spite of this, in the absence of suitable alternative, the use of synthetic pesticides has dominated around the globe. By the advent of greener approach of developing and using biopesticides, the situation is gradually changing but in fact can move far more swiftly in this direction which will be sustainable and eco-friendly. Although biopesticides are slowly replacing the chemical pesticides, a complete global look at the scenario indicates that the former and particularly the industries based on them are still in an insecure position in comparison to the chemicals which rule the agriculture. We can say that the biopesticides, although show a great promise, have not come up to the desired level so as to displace the dominance of chemicals. In this chapter, the global scenario of biopesti- cides is discussed emphasizing upon the current demand, use, constraints, and remedies. getting hampered day by day (Elumalai and Introduction Rengasamy 2012). When farmers see their agri- cultural crops declining in yield and production, Two-thirds of today’s world population depends they often expect a dramatic, magical treatment upon agriculture for livelihood, but nowadays, to make them lush, green, and healthy again, so growth and production of agricultural crops are that the productivity increases. As a result, they start using chemical pesticides, disregarding their future effects. The extensive use of these syn- J. Mishra • S. Tewari • S. Singh • N.K. Arora (*) thetic organic chemicals in the past decades has Department of Environmental Microbiology, BBA University, Lucknow 226025, Uttar Pradesh, India led to a number of long-term environmental e-mail:
[email protected] problems (Arora et al. 2012). Keeping all these N.K. Arora (ed.), Plant Microbes Symbiosis: Applied Facets, 37 DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2068-8_2, © Springer India 2015 38 J. Mishra et al. facts in mind, a very big challenge in the new paradoxically both hinder and favor the field’s millennium is to produce more and more food growth. from shrinking per capita arable land, keeping The aim of the review is to highlight the the environment safe and innocuous. present global scenario of biopesticides, includ- As agricultural production intensified over the ing its market, availability, and usefulness. past few decades, producers became more and Besides this, the compilation also addresses the more dependent on agrochemicals. The conven- possible constraints and dilemmas associated tional chemical pesticides have although with biopesticides throughout the globe and the enhanced the food production, but have also direction to what should be explored in the future adversely affected the environment and nontarget to uplift the stature. Biopesticides offer an envi- organisms. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides ronmentally sustainable approach to increase are continuously accumulating in the environ- crop production and health, contributing substan- ment, harming the ecosystem, causing pollution, tially in making the twenty-first century the age and inflicting diseases at alarming levels of biotechnology hence every effort should be (Gerhardson 2002; Arora et al. 2010). The heavy made to enhance their use and popularity. use of pesticides has already caused grave dam- age to health, ecosystems, and groundwater. Many of the pesticides currently being used have Shift of Wheel from Pesticides the tendency to survive in plants for a long time. to Biopesticides They also enter the food chain and are found in meat and dairy products and remain as residue in It is well known that there have been some dis- the soil and ecosystem for long durations. coveries in the past which not only have changed Therefore, it is very urgent to identify alterna- the life of man but also had major influence on tives to chemical pesticides for plant protection the globe, and a very well-known chemical without sacrificing the productivity and profit- pesticide para-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane ability of agriculture. Due to the side effects of (DDT) was one of them (West and Campbell chemical pesticides, sustainable crop production 1946). After World War II, its discovery was con- through eco-friendly management is essentially sidered as important as that of penicillin (Felix required in the present scenario. 1958). In one way when penicillin was saving the Biopesticides offer powerful tools to create a life of millions from life-threatening bacterial new generation of sustainable agriculture prod- infections, DDT was protecting crops from a ucts. They are the most likely alternatives to variety of pests. Although for a few years the some of the most problematic chemical pesti- glory of DDT was extolled by everyone, but soon cides currently in use. Biopesticides offer solu- the whole picture started to change. For the first tions to concerns such as pest resistance, time, Rachel Carson, a marine biologist and con- traditional chemical pesticides, and public con- servationist, stated in her book Silent Spring that cern about side effects of pesticides on the sur- we are paying much more than what we are get- rounding environment and ultimately on human ting to get rid of mosquitoes (Carson 1962). health. The overriding challenge for the biopesti- Finally in the USA, DDT was banned in 1972 cide industry is to live up to the promises and (Griswold 2012). There are myriads of incidences expectations of the end users or the market and dealing with DDT poisoning that are already public as whole. There are unanswered questions known and some are needed to be further explored and unexamined assumptions about these bio- (Hill and Robinson 1945; Dresdend 1948; Keane logical and eco-friendly alternatives. Challenges 1972; Tschirley 1973; Longnecker et al. 1997; to biopesticides stem from questions about their Conis et al. 2010; Qiu 2013). DDT was not the efficacy and safety, public and grower confusion only culprit; other categories of synthetic pesti- about the spectrum of biopesticide products in cides such as organophosphates (OP), carba- the market, and current market conditions that mates, and pyrethroids were also launched, and 2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 39 by 1980, their impact on pest control and envi- 2003). Albeit the synthetic pesticides have ronment was also well recognized (Aktar et al. showed devastating effect on the ecosystems, in 2009). the absence of an alternative, it was impossible OP are advanced over organochlorines being to diminish their utility and effects (Wu and nonpersistent in environment and do not cause Chen 2004; Aktar et al. 2009). Meanwhile, a bioaccumulation in the food chain; however, they phrase by Roger Ascham “Necessitie, the inuen- are much more acutely toxic to humans and other tour of all goodnesse” proved to be true for some mammals than organochlorines, and their expo- workers in the field of biological control. Pioneer sure by inhalation, swallowing, or absorption workers such as A. Bassi in Italy, V. Auduoin through the skin can lead to immediate health in France, J. Le Conte in the USA, and problems (Baird and Cann 2008). Mostly people E. Metchnikoff in Russia proposed that antago- residing in agricultural areas, farmworkers, and nistic microbes might be useful in controlling small children are more frequently exposed to crop pests and may be alternatives to synthetic hazards of organophosphates (Landrigan et al. pesticides (Le Conte 1874; Steinhaus 1949, 1999; Eskenazi et al. 1999; Fenske et al. 2000; 1957, 1975; McCoy et al. 1988). Later, these McCauley et al. 2001; Quandt et al. 2004; pioneer discoveries and further researches Eskenazi et al. 2008). Acute toxicity of organo- proved to be milestones in development of phosphates and carbamates is a severe problem in microbe-based pesticides (Schönbeck and Dehne developing countries, and ignorance about their 1986; Sundheim and Tronsmo 1988). hazards and the lack of information have led to In the eighteenth century and even in the many deaths among agricultural workers beginning of the nineteenth century, the focus of (Konradsen et al. 2003). A high proportion of biological control was to use animals such as pesticide poisonings and deaths occur in develop- birds and entomophagous insects; microbes were ing countries, and the main victims are farming not even properly known at that time. The discov- workers especially those having insufficient ery of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) showed a wider knowledge of pesticide hazards (Pimentel and aspect of microbe-based biological control Greiner 1996). Intensive use of synthetic pesti- (Aronson et al. 1986; Martin and Traverse 1989; cides created more harsh ecological conditions Siegel and Shadduck 1990; Marrone 1994; Joung that resulted in reduced soil fauna and habitat and Coˆte’ 2000). Microbial pest control was a loss of micro- and macroflora (Edwards and very new concept, and its selective action on pest Thompson 1973; Tripathi and Sharma 2005; attracted the concentration of researchers and Frampton et al. 2006; Bezchlebová et al. 2007). industrialists equally, and soon the first commer- Recent studies showed that the increased use of cial Bt product, Thuricide, was registered in the pesticides is responsible for the vanishing popu- USA in 1961 (USEPA 1998). Since then, differ- lation of bees and several other useful insects ent subspecies, varieties, and strains of Bt have involved in pollination of flowers of agricultur- been identified that are effective against a variety ally important crops (Gill et al. 2012). In a simi- of insects (Gonzales et al. 1982; Carlton 1988). lar study, pesticide exposure raised question on In a span of a very few years, Bt has covered up global decline of frog population (Brühl et al. to 90 % of the whole biopesticide market 2013). Even several species of birds have become (Chapple et al. 2000; Chattopadhyay et al. 2004; extinct or are on the verge of it because of the Romeis et al. 2006), and several Bt strains are pesticides. It can also be concluded that the nega- now registered as biopesticides throughout the tive impact of pesticides is much more than what world (Glare and O’Callaghan 2000). In 1965, is visible by the aid of the present technology. the first fungal product “Boverin” was developed By 2001, over 100 nations in Stockholm in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Convention agreed to sign an international treaty (USSR). In Boverin, Beauveria bassiana was to phase out completely persistent organic pol- used to control the Colorado potato beetle and the lutants (“POPs”), including DDT (Downie codling moth (De Faria and Wright 2007). In IBMA classifies biocontrol agents into forms including live organisms. Microbial ingredients can be either the spores or the organ- In very general terms. and These include biofungicides (Trichoderma. causing disease. Of the total cides are distinguished from conventional biopesticide market for all crop types. dead organ- four groups: (1) macrobials. and bioinsecticides (Bt) (Gupta separates biopesticides into three major classes and Dikshit 2010). Biopesticides have emerged as alternatives to Microbial Pesticides chemical pesticides. minerals. materials such as animals. 1 protozoan. 15 fungi. . or various other rally occurring chemicals. plant-incorporated protec. the Microbial pesticides are also known as BCAs.40 J. biopesticides are pesticides derived from natural which are pathogenic for the pest of interest. but in reality to date. based biopesticides. Heliothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) biocontrol agents. and spores. finally. At a global predator biopesticides. This review focuses on microbe- registered and served as better alternatives to syn. By 2008. Among all the that are being used presently. other natural products (26 %) although several new biopesticides have been (Guillon 2003). (33 %). they still lack far behind the chemicals and the desired levels (Clemson 2007). there is an inconsistency in understanding ticides. They suppress pests either by producing toxic Biochemical pesticides are chemicals either metabolites specific to the pest. biochemical. bioherbicides isms that destroy agricultural pests. The active ingredient of a microbial pes- Concept of Biopesticides ticide is typically the microorganism. 1 yeast. 1973. Pseudomonas. isms through competition. tants. bacteria. microbial biopesticides are living organisms. there the term biopesticide as aforementioned opera. The most commonly used Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). plants. The USEPA is not followed in the entire world and registered microbial biopesticides included 35 that is why International Biocontrol bacterial products. 8 plant- International Organization for Biological Control incorporated protectants. In the last few years. (IOBC 2008) promote to use the term biocontrol and 6 viruses (Steinwand 2008). and “other” biopes- level. 6 nonviable (genet- Manufacturer’s Association (IBMA) and the ically engineered) microbial pesticides. Biopesticides also include living organ. fungi. algae. followed by macrobials (Szewczyk et al. Microbial pesticides come based on the type of active ingredient used. from naturally occurring or genetically altered namely. Mishra et al. and lower or no toxicity in comparison to con- ventional chemical pesticides (MacGregor 2006). Bacillus). about 10 %. and microbial pesticides (USEPA 2008). 2009). The EPA (Phytophthora). bacterial pesticides both by their structure (source) and biopesticides claim about 74 %. and we also know their importance and benefits. 8 %. modes of action (Clemson 2007). (3) isms. and the next subsection pres- natural products. and (4) semiochemicals (insect ents various forms of microbe-based pesticides behavior-modifying agents). and. 2011). were approximately 73 microbial active ingredi- tive definition of the term biopesticide given by ents that were registered by the USEPA. control pests) (O’Brien et al. bacteria. according to the US isms themselves. 5 %. viruses. 3 % (Thakore 2006). (2) microbials. or protozoans. Biochemical pesti. viral biopesticides. Microbial agents (BCAs) instead of biopesticide (Guillon biopesticides may be delivered to crops in many 2003). goals have not been attained and chemicals still They offer the advantages of higher selectivity rule throughout the globe. thetic pesticides. fungal biopesti- mode of action (mechanism by which they kill or cides. the most important products was first declared as a viral biopesticide are microbials (41 %). extracted from natural sources or synthesized to preventing establishment of other microorgan- have the same structure and function as the natu. As an insecticide. 2004. They are known to enhance cides. Certain strains of Pseudomonas brinjal. specific to individual species of moths and Indeed. Therefore. To be effective. licheniformis. during sporulation. 2005. etc. 2010). dews). tomato The members of the genus Bacillus are often damping off. pseudomonads are or Cry proteins. Due to their catabolic versatility and excellent sions containing proteins known as δ endotoxins root-colonizing capability. B. Some examples are the suppression of (O’Brien et al. they are used as major threats for crop and plant production. Its principal characteristic is the USA (Stewart et al. the et al. 2011). form of microbial pesticides that function in Plant pathogenic fungi and oomycetes are multiple ways. In insects. of crystalline inclu. fluorescence. and Kumar 2006). Due to their high specificity and safety in plant pathogens including damping off and soft the environment. plant pathogens that cause damping off and soft accounting for approximately 90 % of the biopes. Pertot for fungal growth (Schallmey et al. and sustainable alternatives to chemical pesticides for the control Bacterial biopesticides are the most common of insect pests (Roy et al. aureofaciens are being used against a range of efits. biocontrol of pathogens in agriculture (Ganeshan thuringiensis-based bioinsecticides. 2004. tomato. 2009). B. and blue molds) (Cazorla et al. and are considered to be among the var. which have insecticidal also being investigated extensively for the use in properties. Wei array of butterflies and moths. thuringiensis and Cry rots (Kloepper et al. the bacterial biopesticide colonizes on against diseases elicited by oomycetes and fungal the plant and crowds out the pathogenic species pathogens. various Bacillus species such as B. Bt has been QST 2808. bacteria disrupt the 2005). B. Since its discovery in 1901. thuringiensis diseases. for commercial purposes in the Kalita 2011). gae. being used for designing biopesticides that teins have been successfully transferred into include P.1996). syrin- different crop plants including cotton. 2007. and wheat take-all). Apart from this B. kurstaki kill the caterpillar stage of a wide most prolific PGPRs (Hoffland et al. P. 2008. subtilis contact with the target pest and may be required have been marketed as biofungicides (Fravel to be ingested. reduce severity of many Microbial pesticides containing B. and postharvest diseases (such as green. diseases. cules. some of which are potentially inhibitory gray. and B. Haas and Defago . These Bacillus-based products have been digestive system by producing endotoxins that developed especially for the control of fungal are often specific to the particular insect pest. of B. several commercial products based on butterflies or species of beetles. rots (Kloepper et al. over one hundred B. P. flies. and mos. biopesti. pumilus 2004). To date. forestry. and biofungicides have been developed. namely. pumilus. 2007. safe. subtilis QST GB03 are used for widely used to control insect pests important in designing biopesticides. A high number of reports have described When used to control pathogenic bacteria or the beneficial effects of several Bacillus species fungus. amyloliquefa- quitoes. Ballad®Plus agriculture. they are generally esting opportunity for agricultural biotechnology. subtilis are being used against a range of species and strains of B. Certain strains most widely used microbial pesticides are sub. that lead to significant economic ben.1996. foliar diseases considered as microbial factories for the produc. plant growth and yield.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 41 Bacterial Biopesticides proteins are efficient. and medicine (Mazid and and Kodiak®. Haas and Defago ticide market in the USA (Chattopadhyay et al. B. The et al. synthesis. Generally. although they can be used to con. Kumar 2012). Arrebola et al. etc. Several species of Pseudomonas are genes that code for the insecticidal crystal pro. root diseases (such as avocado root rot. Berg 2009). insecticides. 2004). they must come into ciens. (such as cucurbit and strawberry powdery mil- tion of vast array of biologically active mole. the control of fungal diseases by trol the growth of plant pathogenic bacteria and Bacillus-based biopesticides represents an inter- fungi. thuringiensis (Bt). aeruginosa. In addition. there many of the bacterial and all of the viral biopes- were three end products containing ESC-10 and ticides is that they do not need to be eaten to be 2 end products containing ESC-11 in the USA effective. 1998. cides such as Bloomtime Biological™3. and Contans®WG (in the USA) proved to be very promising against soil-borne that are proving to be boon in the field conditions plant parasitic fungi (Khandelwal et al. Khalil et al. Rhizoctonia. 1997). Fusarium. Anand and Reddy 2009). Trichoderma is one of the Agrobacterium radiobacter are also used to common fungal biocontrol agents being used control pests such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens. However. resulting in severe cide is effectively being used against late blight plant yield losses (Khandelwal et al. The mode of and Kalita 2011). that often require a narrow range of conditions cent pseudomonads in biological control of including moist soil and cool temperatures to fungal plant pathogens has been illustrated proliferate. The cell suspensions of Fungal Biopesticides pseudomonads are immobilized on certain carriers and are prepared as formulations for The fungal pathogens play a major role in the easy application. Mona. 2013. Virulent cells of hazardous to human and environment and also bacterial antagonist P. which is an antago- Nakkeeran et al. nist of Rhizoctonia. gens include T. Pythium. 2000. of fungal biopesticides in comparison with bution) in 1995.42 J. 2013). nacearum (Bora and Deka 2007. nematodes. tents of the cells of the target fungus and multi- Certain other bacterial strains like that of plies its own spores. it is available commercially under Intensified use of fungicides has resulted in diverse brand names such as Krishi bio rahat. are acclaimed as effective. Pythium. and disease man. (Dominguesa et al. Phytophthora spp. and Ceratobasidium. worldwide for suitable management of various Other PGPRs like Pantoea agglomerans strain foliar. other soil-borne pathogens (Harman 2005). of potato. Streptomyces lydicus WYEC 108. An attractive role of fluores. At-Eze. Several different commercially available identified to act against an array of important biopesticides in the USA that are developed soil-borne plant pathogens causing serious dis- from Pseudomonas and effective against fungal eases of crops (Bailey and Gilligan 2004). biopesticides. Fusarium. 2012). commercialization. Berg 2009). Tewari and Arora 2013). Rhizoctonia (Dunne et al. and also used nowadays for designing new biopesti. and secretes enzymes that degrade the cell walls agement (Arora et al. phytopathogens are Spot-Less. 2005. they are living organisms (Bull et al. Coniothyrium minitans strain CON/M/91-08 are Macrophomina. lants developed from fluorescent pseudomonads Trichoderma is a fungal antagonist that grows can serve multifaceted functions of plant growth into the main tissue of a disease-causing fungus promotion. fluorescens are taken to in the buildup of resistance in the pathogens. Sclerotinia. specific strain Muscodor albus QST 20799 is a . P. and Bio-Save 11LP (Vargas 1999. Bio. 2008. and Macrophomina. these biocontrol agents are 2001). Trichoderma viride has Actinovate®SP. action is varied and depends on both the pesti- P. Alternaria. Mishra et al. syringae strains ESC-10 and ESC-11 were cidal fungus and the target pest. and bioinocu. bioremediation. and Bioformulation. 2005. Fusarium. In India. 2012). harzianum. of late. field and horticultural crops. accumulation of toxic compounds potentially Krishi bio nidan. prepare a biopesticide formulation that is Fungal biopesticides can be used to control effective against phytopathogen Ralstonia sola. fluorescens biopesti. Biocontrol agents like Trichoderma against Aspergillus.and soil-borne plant pathogens like E325. Sclerotium. Chakravarty bacteria. A (Chunxue et al. nullifying the ill effects of chemicals. 2010). and cheap. Therefore. Fungal biopesticides used against plant patho- Save 10LP. Pythium. at the end of April 2000. and weeds. eco-friendly. One advantage initially registered (licensed for sale and distri. insects and plant diseases including other fungi. etc. Khare and of the other fungus and then consumes the con- Arora 2011. Gupta et al. development of diseases on many important and field use. storage. Patent protection the years (Szewczyk et al. the host whitefly. 2011). vesicatoria. thus pesticides (O’Brien et al. and they have been shown to have no negative impacts on plants. and millions of hectares have been ticides are currently used under commercial trade treated with registered baculovirus products over names and sold in the markets.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 43 naturally occurring fungus originally isolated patents and established commercial platforms for from the bark of a cinnamon tree in Honduras. is that in some cases. or nontarget insects Viral Biopesticides (D’Amico 2007). Gröner 1986. mealybugs. over 24 baculovirus species have Myers 2003. A large number of phage pes. 2009. b. which inhibit and kill certain campestris pv. no concept of phage therapy has existed for over adverse effects have ever been attributed to bacu- 90 years. bacterial spot of tomatoes and peppers. Fungi have the unique ability to Ignoffo 1975). The market share of baculoviruses is 6 % of attacks bacteria that cause plant disease. The of use and testing against nontarget organisms. England et al. borne and postharvest diseases. Once in the USA as Mycotrol ES ® (Mycotech. Baculoviruses can also cause sudden and severe outbreaks within the host pop- Like bacteria and fungi. Within a few days. Despite many years the commercialization of phage pesticides. albus strain is reported to of the USA. thrips. infectious virus particles are lib- pests. Each virus only attacks cotton in the USA (Noma and Strickler 2000). in order to meet registration requirements (green and brown mirids) (Sosa-Goméz and (reviewed in Burges et al. infecting as an alternative to the antibiotics and chemical only one or a few closely related species. particular species of insects. and multiple companies have acquired loviruses (McWilliam 2007). 1980a. and the viral DNA proceeds to are registered against sucking pests such as infect digestive cells. Marrone 2007). 2004. When ingested by making them ideal for the control of sucking the host insect. fish. greenhouses. Another major advantage of baculoviruses cially bacteria in the form of bacteriophages. has developed a range of produce a number of volatiles. leafhoppers. Schofield et al. for the treatment of bacteria and other organisms that cause soil. bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin and Baculovirus is the main virus that is commer- Metarhizium anisopliae (Metchnikoff) Sorokin cially used for designing phage pesticides. B. 2011). using them (Gill et al. Products con. Studies also show that B. birds. Hewson et al. used as a pesticide. Baculoviruses develop in the attack insects by penetrating through the cuticle nuclei of the host insect cells. and warehouses (USEPA 2008). . aphids. a major pest of alfalfa and their high host specificity. virus that infects bacterial cell walls. mainly alcohols. which is the causative agent taining QST 20799 can be used in fields. and intellectual property are important factors in 2010. larvae are unable to digest food and so weaken and weevils. Raymond et al. and esters. have been tested extensively to assess their safety ula (L) (green vegetable bug) and Creontiades sp. A leading company When hydrated. and P. bassiana is and die (Thakore 2006). it can be all microbial pesticides (Quinlan and Gill 2006. Baculoviruses are par- virulent against Lygus hesperus Knight ticularly attractive for use as biopesticides due to (Hemiptera: Miridae). 2012. been reported to be registered for use in insect pest 2005. Omnilytics. 2012). Moscardi et al. B. Kabaluk et al. syringae pv. offering minimal off-target impacts (Cory and As of 2010. this M. they can replace and serve Apart from it. These products disintegrates. 2008). tomato. Moscardi 1998). If the virus 2010). viral biopesticides play a ulation for complete control of the disease (Sylvar significant role in antagonizing pathogens espe. A bacteriophage is a management throughout the world (Kabaluk et al. 2007). baculoviruses that infect sucking pests including Nezara virid. viruses are host specific. bassiana is currently registered in the erated internally and become active. the virus’s protein overcoat quickly Naturalis L® (Troy Biosciences). 2009). phage products for the control of Xanthomonas acids. Butte) and larval gut. of bacterial speck on tomatoes (Frampton et al. Since are naturally occurring entomopathogenic fungi the start of their commercial use. mammals. popilliae) in 1948 for the control of the Japanese cially those from Bt (Lisansky 1997). Its firm position in biopes. and almost 50 % of this is consumed by Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division America particularly in the USA and Canada (under the Pesticide Programs) was established (Guerra et al.44 J.67 % ($50. 0. pesticide has to being sold in the USA.1) espe.000 for use in agricul- ics. and ready-to-use the first registered microbial pesticide was pre- dusts and granules. 2. and control measures adopted by using North America synthetic chemicals alone have remained formi- dable as the data suggests that approximately 5.6 North America leads in market share of biopesti- billion pounds of pesticide are used worldwide cides and covers 44 % of it. Mishra et al. 2010). In this Biopesticides: Global Scenario section. In Canada alone. Among them. Numerous universi- Table 2. These products are commer. pressure on growers to adopt biopesticides. and fungi. 2006. for use in forestry. pass stringent regulations before its marketing. Business Consultants 2010). was first registered for control of citrus rust mites.1 depicts a comprehensive list of com.7 % ($500. concentrates. Latin America (9 %).4 environment (Alavanja 2009). Oceania (11 %). Production beetle (Schneider 2006). Till 2003. and microbial products were reported to be sold.4 million). A large number of crop pests cause about 40 % reduction in the world’s crop yield (Oerke et al. bacterial prod. ties across Canada are actively engaged in the mercially available biopesticides in the markets research and development of biopesticides rang- around the globe. In the UK. and of this. with to crops and is considered environment friendly. $500.1 % ($300. only 5 and the Federal Insecticide. and are responsible for the unbalancing of our end-user sales of pesticides were valued at $1. microbial pesticides tion of biopesticides showed lesser or no toxicity represented about 0. for which approval was granted to Abbott ticide industry is indicated by the fact that more Laboratories in 1981 (McCoy 1996). than 53 % of the world biopesticide market is EPA is the sole agency responsible for encourag- occupied by about 200 Bt-based products (CABI ing development and use of biopesticides. (2011).400 biopesticide and 4. compared to only 60 com.2).000) for nematodes (CPL products were being sold (Marrone 2007). parable products in the EU. 2001).5 % ($7. Ali et al. Whereas applica. ture). Whereas a commer- of Bt always remained on priority in biopesticide cially unsuccessful entomopathogenic fungus industry. 44 %. wettable powders. . term mutagenicity assays to ensure that pesticide 2008). 2008). 2. the largest market shares in can be used with a reasonable certainty. approximately 1. Application and development trend of biopes. assessing carcinogenic risks or short- France and the Netherlands (Chandler et al. 88 % of microbials represented by Bt ($6 million these are not globally as dominating as synthet. 1994). Data on microbial biopesti. pared using Bacillus popilliae (Paenibacillus ucts are more frequently used (Fig. Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does this job along compared to 10 in Germany and 15 each in with EPA. In the USA. and currently it is the main bacterium (Hirsutella thompsonii)-based product Mycar being used in agricultural pest control (Brar et al. in 1994 in the USA with the goal of reducing cide agents from Agriculture and Agri-Food risks associated with pesticide use in agricultural Canada (Kabaluk and Gazdik 2005) and the and nonagricultural settings and advocates adop- USEPA indicate that more than 200 products are tion of biopesticides. In the USA. 6.67 % ticides has been reviewed by Leng et al.000) for fungi. and lowest for Africa (3 %) (Fig. In the USA.000) for viruses. we discuss the continent-wise scenario of biopesticides. weeds.000) for other bacteria. Worldwide. 0. Fungicide. followed by Europe with 20 %. ing from botanical to microbial pesticides for cially successful and widely available as liquid control of insects. and it biopesticide belonged to North America with will not harm human health or the environment. billion in 2010. Asia Such stringency in regulation created a positive (13 %). ($50. harzianum (gamsii) ATCC080 Bioten Remedier T. syringae pv.1 Commercially available biopesticides in the global market Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets The USA Bactericides A. licheniformis SB3086 EcoGuard Fungal diseases Bacillus mycoides isolate J BacJ Cercospora B. lydicus WYEC108 Actinovate Fungi causing damping off. albus QST 20799 Arabesque Postharvest diseases Pseudozyma flocculosa PF-A22 UL Sporodex Powdery mildew Trichoderma asperellum ICC 012 and Tenet Soil-borne diseases T. pumilus GB 34 GB34 Seedling diseases – Pythium and Rhizoctonia B. subtilis subsp. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Gliocladium catenulatum J1446 Prestop Seed-borne and soil-borne diseases M. minitans CON/M/91–08 Contans Sclerotinia minor. radiobacter k84 Galltrol – A Crown gall disease P. harzianum Rifai T-22 PlantShield Seed and foliar diseases RootShield T-22 Planter box T.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 45 Table 2. stem. subtilis GB03 Companion Fusarium. Pythium. harzianum T-39 Trichodex Soil and foliar diseases (continued) . amyloliquefaciens Taegro Fusarium and Rhizoctonia wilt diseases FZB24 P. Rhizoctonia Kodiak B. aureofaciens Tx-1 Spot-Less Turf fungal diseases Pseudomonas chlororaphis 63–28 At-Eze Soil and seed-borne fungi P. AgriPhage Bacterial spot Vesicatoria Fungicides B. agglomerans E325 Bloomtime Fire blight Bacteriophage of P. agglomerans C9-1 BlightBan C9-1 Fire blight P. stem and Actino-Iron crown rots Ampelomyces quisqualis M10 PowderyGon Powdery mildew Aspergillus flavus AF36 Aspergillus flavus AF36 Aspergillus flavus producing aflatoxin A. downy mildew. flavus NRRL 21882 Afla-guard Aspergillus flavus producing aflatoxin C. and Biofungicide crown rots Mycostop Mix S. AgriPhage Bacterial speck Tomato Bacteriophage of X. harzianum ATCC 20476 Binab Wound healing T. subtilis MBI 600 Histick N/T Damping off Pro-Mix with Biofungicide B. syringae ESC 10 Bio-Save 10LP Postharvest diseases P. pumilus QST 2808 Sonata Powdery mildew. syringae ESC 11 Bio-Save 11LP Postharvest diseases Streptomyces griseoviridis K61 Mycostop Fungi causing damping off. campestris pv. and Ballad Plus rusts B. thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Gnatrol Mosquito. AgriPhage Tomato leaf spot tomato Candida oleophila strain O NEXY Postharvest fruit molds Fungicides/bactericides B. subtilis QST713 Serenade Foliar fungal and bacterial diseases Herbicides Bacillus cereus BP01 MepPlus Plant growth regulator Alternaria destruens 059 Smolder Herbicide – dodder Chondrostereum purpureum PFC 2139 Chontrol Paste Herbicide – stump sprout inhibitor Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki Thuricide Forestry Lepidopteran larvae Wilbur-Ellis BT 320 Dust Dipel Deliver Biobit HP Foray Javelin WG Green Light Hi-Yield Worm Spray Ferti-Lome Bonide Britz BT Worm Whipper Security Dipel Dust B. popilliae Milky Spore Powder Japanese beetle grubs Bacillus sphaericus Serotype H5a5b VectoLex Mosquito larvae strain 2362 ATCC1170 B.sp. Mishra et al. thuringiensis subsp.1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets Trichoderma polysporum ATCC 20475 Binab T Soil and foliar diseases Ulocladium oudemansii U3 BOTRY-Zen Botrytis and Sclerotinia Verticillium albo-atrum WC S850 DutchTrig Dutch elm disease Bacteriophage of P. kurstaki Condor Lepidopteran larvae EG2348 B. aizawai NB200 Florbac Moth larvae B. thuringiensis subsp. thuringiensis subsp. thuringiensis subsp. LockDown Herbicide – northern Jointvetch aeschynomene ATCC 202358 Puccinia thlaspeos woad (dyer’s woad Woad Warrior Herbicide – Dyer’s woad rust) Insecticides B. thuringiensis subsp. flies EG2215 Aquabac B. aizawai M-Trak Colorado potato beetle delta-endotoxin in killed P. syringae pv. thuringiensis subsp. fluorescens B. tenebrionis Novodor Colorado potato beetle (continued) . israelensis BMP Mosquito and blackflies B.46 J. Table 2. aizawai GC-91 Agree WG Plutella B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki BMP BMP123 Lepidopteran larvae 123 B. Cerall Pyrenophora teres. root rot. tobacco.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 47 Table 2. P. Tilletia caries. seed rot. postharvest diseases Phlebiopsis gigantea (several strains) Rotstop Conifer root rots P. chlororaphis Cedomon. stem end rot. bassiana ATCC 74040 Naturalis L Various insects B. Pseudomonas sp. damping off. Phytophthora.1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets B. S. foliar diseases. Prestop mix Damping off. soil-borne damping off. bassiana HF23 balEnce Housefly M. bassiana 447 Baits Motel Stay-awhile Ants B. seed rot (continued) . minor G. zea NPV (previously Heliothis zea GemStar Cotton bollworm. storage diseases. stem rot. gummy stem blight. oleophila strain O Postharvest disease C. graminea. root rot. catenulatum J1446 Prestop. Rhizoctonia. thuringiensis subsp. crown rot. budworm NPV) Indian meal moth GV (Plodia FruitGuard Indian meal moth interpunctella GV) Mamestra configurata NPV (107308) Virosoft Bertha armyworm Spodoptera exigua NPV Virus Spod-X Beet armyworm Saccharomyces cerevisiae Bull Run Fly attractant Nematicides Bacillus firmus I-1582 BioNem Nematodes Pasteuria usgae Econem Nematodes Myrothecium verrucaria DiTera Nematodes Paecilomyces lilacinus 251 MeloCon WG Nematodes Virucides Zucchini yellow mosaic virus – weak AgroGuard-Z Zucchini yellow mosaic strain Europe Aureobasidium pullulans Blossom Protect Fire blight. wilt. stem rot. gray mold. griseoviridis K61 Mycostop Fusarium wilt. bassiana GHA Mycotrol ES Various insects Mycotrol O Botanigard 22WP BotaniGard ES B. seed damping off. kurstaki Lepinox WDG Lepidopteran larvae EG7826 B. minitans CON/M-91–05 Contans WG Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. wilt. quisqualis AQ10 AQ10 Leaf disease C. Septoria nodorum. Fusarium spp. anisopliae F52 Tick-Ex Ticks and grubs Paecilomyces fumosoroseus PFR-97 Whitefly and thrips Apopka 97 Nosema locustae Nolo-Bait Grasshopper and crickets Semaspore Bait Anagrapha falcifera NPV CLV-LC Lepidopteran larvae Cydia pomonella GV CYD-X Virus codling moth Gypsy moth NPV Gypchek Gypsy moth H. Botrytis gray mold. DSMZ 13134 Proradix Root rots S. early root rot A. pruning wound infection (formerly T. Didymella. Rhizoctonia) T. Monilia laxa. Rhizoctonia) Trichoderma atroviride IMI 206040 Binab T Pellets Botrytis cinerea. harzianum) Phytophthora. thrip Lecanicillium muscarium (Ve6) Mycotal. fumosoroseus Apopka 97 Preferal WG Greenhouse whiteflies (Trialeurodes vaporariorum) P. Rhizoctonia. Insecticides B.48 J.. viride) (ICC080) Phytophthora. Vertalec Whiteflies. fairy ring. (T25) (TV1) (formerly T. SA 11. Pseudoperonospora cubensis. SA12. Pythium. Rhizopus stolonifer. whitefly. Botrytis. Mishra et al. tenebrionis Novodor Coleoptera pests NB 176 B.1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets P. Botrytis. Verticillium. harzianum Binab T Vector Fungal pathogens. harzianum Rifai T-39 (IMI 206039) Trichodex Botrytis cinerea. Phytophthora. israelensis VectoBac Sciarids AM65 B. aizawai GC-91 Turex Lepidoptera pests B. aphids. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki HD-1 Dipel WP Lepidoptera pests B. thuringiensis subsp. flocculosa PF-A22 UL Sporodex Powdery mildew Pythium oligandrum Polyversum Root rots Trichoderma asperellum (ICC012) Tenet Fungal infections (Pythium. Phytophthora. Botrytis spp. Colletotrichum spp. Heterobasidion V. bassiana ATCC 74040 Naturalis L Thrips. Chondrostereum. bassiana GHA Fungus Botanigard Whiteflies. mites B. thuringiensis subsp. thuringiensis subsp. Table 2. thuringiensis subsp. atroviride I-1237 Esquive Fungal infections (Pythium. Botrytis. fumosoroseus Fe9901 Nofly Whiteflies Adoxophyes orana BV-0001 GV Capex Summer fruit tortrix (Adoxophyes orana) Cydia pomonella GV BioTepp Codling moth (Cydia pomonella) Spodoptera exigua NPV Spod-X GH Spodoptera exigua (continued) . harzianum Rifai T-22 ITEM 108 or Trianum P Root diseases KRL-AG2 T. Plasmopara viticola. kurstaki BMP 123 Lepidoptera pests BMP 123 Prolong B. kurstaki ABTS Batik Lepidoptera pests 351. Rhizoctonia) Trichoderma gamsii (formerly T. and EG Delfin 2348 B. thrips. Fusarium. thuringiensis subsp. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum T. Remedier Fungal infections (Pythium. harzianum) Chondrostereum purpureum T. aphids (except the (former Verticillium lecanii) Chrysanthemum aphid: Macrosiphoniella sanborni) P. Botrytis. albo-atrum (WCS850) (formerly Dutch Trig Dutch elm disease Verticillium dahliae) Fungicides/bactericides B. Rootshield Fulvia fulva. PB 54. polysporum and T. subtilis QST 713 Serenade Fire blight. Gynaephora ruoergensis NPV.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 49 Table 2. Dendrolimus punctatus Conidobolus thromboides Trade name not available Aphids M. rice blast. locusts P. thuringiensis subsp. Mythimna separata Trade name not available Pieris rapae. fluorescens Trade name not available Bacterial wilt. anisopliae Cockroaches. lilacinus PL 251 BioAct WG Common plant parasitic nematodes Virucides Zucchini Yellow Mosaic Virus. Tuneup Fivestar BioMax DF (continued) . radiobacter Trade name not available Crown gall Bacillus polymyxa Trade name not available Crown gall Bacillus sphaericus Trade name not available Crown gall Fungicides B. rice false smut Trichoderma spp. Buzura suppressaria NPV. root rot. Laphygma exigua litura NPV. parasitic nematodes) B. armigera. tobacco black shank. lilacinus Trade name not available Nematodes Pochonia chlamydosporia Nematodes Dendrolimus cytoplasmic polyhedrosis Trade name not available Virus Caterpillars virus NPV. Trade name not available Virus Beet armyworm. viral. root rot Insecticides B. subtilis Trade name not available Bacterial wilt. grasshoppers B. bassiana Monochamus alternatus. Prodenia looper. Plutella xylostella GV. grasshoppers. Fungus downy mildew. gray mold Fungicides/bactericides P. israelensis Trade name not available Lepidopteran pests B. kurstaki Lepidopteran pests Pseudomonas alcaligenes Trade name not available Locusts. lepidoptera. weak Curbit Yellow mosaic virus strain Virus China Bactericides A. Plutella xylostella GV Japan Insecticides (bacterial. Laphygma exigua NPV. bacterial wilt B. Rhizoctonia cerealis. Lepidopteran larvae Dipol. Ectropis obliqua hypulina NPV. Mythimna separata NPV Periplaneta fuliginosa densovirus Trade name not available Cockroaches virus Pieris rapae GV. licheniformis Downy mildew. sheath blight/rice false smut. aizawa Trade name not available Lepidopteran pests B. thuringiensis subsp. thuringiensis subsp. Fusarium wilt B.1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets Nematicides P. cereus Trade name not available Bacterial wilt. H. thuringiensis kurstaki Toarowaa Esmark Guardjet. fungal. fluorescens ABTEC Pseudo Plant soil-borne diseases Biomonas Esvin Pseudo Sudo Phalada 104PF Sun Agro Monus Bio-cure-B A.1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets B. Kurstaki Bio-Dart Lepidopteran pests Biolep Halt Taciobio-Btk (continued) . whiteflies. Mishra et al. diamondback moth P. quisqualis Bio-Dewcon Powdery mildew T. thuringiensis japonensis BuiHunter Cockchafers and white grubs B. thuringiensis aizawai +kurstaki Bacilex Lepidopteran larvae B. Technar Lepidopteran pests B. fumosoroseus Preferd Whitefly. subtilis Soil-borne pathogens Insecticides B. harzianum Biozim Soil-borne pathogens Phalada 105 Sun Agro Derma H T. thuringiensis subsp. common cutworm. aphids Lecanicillum longisporum Vertalec Aphids Adoxophyes orana GV+Homona Hamaki-Tenteki Adoxophyes honmai and Homona magnanima GV magnanima Steinernema carpocapsae Bio Safe Weevils. viride Monitor. Table 2. black cutworm. israelensis Tacibio. thuringiensis aizawai Quark XenTari Florbac Sabrina Lepidopteran larvae B. thuringiensis subsp.50 J. peach fruit moth India Fungicide P. Trichoguard Soil-borne pathogens NIPROT Bioderma Biovidi Eswin Tricho Biohit Tricontrol Ecoderm Phalada 106TV Sun Agro Derma Defense SF Fungicides/bactericides B. bassiana BotaniGard Thrips. bassiana Myco-Jaal Coffee berry borer. Biosoft thrips. diamondback moth. aphids. coffee green bug. grubs Meta-Guard Biomet Biomagic Meta Biomet Sun Agro Meta Bio-Magic P. Verticillium mosquitoes. beetles. lilacinus Yorker Whitefly ABTEC Paceilomyces Paecil Pacihit ROM biomite Bio-Nematon Verticillium lecanii Verisoft Whitefly. anisopliae ABTEC Coleoptera and lepidoptera. termites.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 51 Table 2. fumosoroseus Nemato-Guard Whitefly Priority P. grasshoppers. ATEC Beauveria codling moth Larvo-Guard Biorin Biolarvex Biogrubex Biowonder Veera Phalada 101B Bioguard Bio-power M. whiteflies. homopteran ABTEC pests Verticillium Vert-Guard Bioline Biosappex Versitile Ecocil Phalada 107 V Biovert Rich ROM Verlac ROM Gurbkill Sun Agro Verti Bio-Catch (continued) .1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets B. leafhoppers. armigera NPV Helicide H. Trichoguard Soil-borne pathogens NIPROT Bioderma Biovidi Eswin Tricho Biohit Tricontrol Ecoderm Phalada 106TV Sun Agro Derma Defense SF Fungicides/bactericides B. quisqualis Bio-Dewcon Powdery mildew T. Kurstaki Bio-Dart Lepidopteran pests Biolep Halt Taciobio-Btk (continued) . thuringiensis subsp. harzianum Biozim Soil-borne pathogens Phalada 105 Sun Agro Derma H T. Mishra et al. subtilis Soil-borne pathogens Insecticides B. viride Monitor. fluorescens ABTEC Pseudo Plant soil-borne diseases Biomonas Esvin Pseudo Sudo Phalada 104PF Sun Agro Monus Bio-cure-B A.1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets H. litura Spodoterin Spodi-cide Biovirus-S Nematicides Verticillium chlamydosporium Nematodes Australia Fungicide P. Table 2. Technar Lepidopteran pests B. israelensis Tacibio. thuringiensis subsp.52 J. armigera Virin-H Helocide Biovirus-H Helicop Heligard Spodoptera litura NPV Spodocide S. aphids. beetles. termites.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 53 Table 2. coffee green bug. diamondback moth.1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets B. bassiana Myco-Jaal Coffee berry borer. fumosoroseus Nemato-Guard Whitefly Priority P. leafhoppers. grubs Meta-Guard Biomet Biomagic Meta Biomet Sun Agro Meta Bio-Magic P. lecanii Verisoft Whitefly. Biosoft thrips. whiteflies. grasshoppers. ATEC Beauveria codling moth Larvo-Guard Biorin Biolarvex Biogrubex Biowonder Veera Phalada 101B Bioguard Bio-power M. homopteran ABTEC pests Verticillium Vert-Guard Bioline Biosappex Versitile Ecocil Phalada 107 V Biovert Rich ROM Verlac ROM Gurbkill Sun Agro Verti Bio-Catch (continued) . lilacinus Yorker Whitefly ABTEC Paceilomyces Paecil Pacihit ROM biomite Bio-Nematon V. Verticillium mosquitoes. anisopliae ABTEC Coleoptera and lepidoptera. armigera Virin-H Helocide Biovirus-H Helicop Heligard S.1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets H. Granules Gray-backed cane grub (scarabs) M. armigera NPV Helicide H. litura Spodoterin Spodi-cide Biovirus-S Nematicides Verticillium chlamydosporium Nematodes Bactericides A. Table 2. thuringiensis subsp. flavoviride Chafer Guard Redheaded pasture cockchafer H. Costar. Delfin. thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Aquabac. radiobacter NoGall Crown gall disease Fungicides T. radiobacter Crown Gall Inoculant Crown gall Fungicides B. Mishra et al. aizawai Agree. Caterpillar. kurstaki Biocrystal. Full-Bac WDG M. Lepidoptera larvae DiPel. BTI. Mosquito larvae Vectobac B. acridum Green Guard Locusts and grasshoppers M. litura NPV Spodocide S. anisopliae BioCane. XenTari Lepidoptera larvae B. Bacchus. Insecticides B. anisopliae subsp. A. Vivus Africa Bactericides Products Targets A. subtilis 101 Shelter Root and leaf diseases B. harzianum Trichodex Botrytis spp. zea NPV Gemstar Helicoverpa spp. subtilis 102 Artemis Root and leaf diseases B. quisqualis AQ10 Bio-Dewcon Powdery mildew (continued) . subtilis QST 713 Serenade Botrytis spp. sphaericus VectoLex Mosquito larvae B. subtilis 246 Avogreen Root and leaf diseases B. Killer.54 J. Vivus Gold Vivus Max H. armigera NPV Heliocide Helicoverpa spp. Teknar. thuringiensis subsp. 1 (continued) Products common name or Category of biopesticide trade name Targets T. harzianum Eco-77 Root diseases Eco-T Promot Romulus Rootgard Trichoplus Trykocide T. lilacinus Bio-Nematon Nematodes P. (2010) 3% 10% Bacterial Fungal 27% Viral 60% Others e.1 Global biopesticide market based on types of microbes used .g. harzianum DB103 T-Gro Root diseases Fungicides/bactericides B. thuringiensis subspp. kurstaki H7 Florbac WG Lepidoptera larvae B. acridum IMI Green Muscle Locust 330 189 GV Trade name not available Lepidoptera larvae Pseudomonas resinovorans Agriphage Insect pest control bacteriophage Nematicides P. thuringiensis subsp. bassiana Bb Plus. harzianum 39 Trichodex Root diseases T. aizawai and Agree Lepidoptera larvae kurstaki B.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 55 Table 2. subtilis Defender Soil-borne fungi and bacteria Insecticides B. thuringiensis subsp. 2010) Fig. kurstaki DiPel Lepidoptera larvae Rokur Thuricide B. israelensis VectoBac Mosquito B. anisopliae subsp. 2. weevils. thuringiensis subsp. Sparticus Thrips. Nematode Types of biopesticide used world wide (Source: Kabaluk. lilacinus 251 PL Plus Nematodes Source: Kunimi (2007) and Kabaluk et al. whiteflies M. Bb weevil. and 48 semiochemicals are IMG/pdf/PLAN_ECOPHYTO_2018_eng.56 J. the use of pesticides by 2018 (agriculture. Overall progress of biopesticides in Fisheries in France launched the program the USA can be considered as satisfactory. (EC) 396/2005). being used as biopesticides (USEPA 2011). In this residue-controlling move- grams with conventional pesticides (Radcliffe ment the Ministry of Food. World wide biopesticide use and market share (%) (Source: Roettger and Reinhold 2003) Asia United States Europe 44% and Canada Japan 20% China Middle Taiwan 13% East Africa 11% Latin Hongkong. and if so in which foods or crops and at what lev- encers such as land-grant university extension els. The first Bt-based product stances passed the new stringent tests. (Thuricide) was approved in Europe in 1964. cost up to € 0. safety or deciding whether to approve regulated 4. In 2011. Agriculture. and et al.pan- whereas first registration for an entomopatho. and the European Food Safety In spite of the stark law on residue control.eppo. most of Tate and Lyle in the UK (Quinlan 1990). commonly known as IR-4.000 acres or protect consumers. that is why in the present time. 2009). followed by Italy and France mercial pesticides illegal.com/blog/biopesticides-the-next- genic fungus L.” in 2008. 102 microbi. but also that it should be risk free to humans and The largest individual European biopesticide mar. Europe implemented the Plant Protection Products Regulation (www. Mishra et al.fr/ als. The USDA IR-4 substances such as pesticides and food additives.htm). Presently there are 68 tions and Member States) in defining appropriate biopesticide active substances registered in . and according to that.2 Global biopesticide use and market Keeping in mind the importance of minor crops regulatory frameworks and making decisions to (defined as any crop grown on 300. These may involve adopting less). for a 50 % reduction in According to EPA data in the USA. biopesticides being among them (www. program has provided grant funding to key influ.int/ PPPRODUCTS/information/new_eu_regula- Europe tions. Europe the European consumers are demanding produc- also belongs to continents where the MRL tion of food that hasn’t been treated with conven- (Maximum Residue Level) regulations in food tional pesticides. Currently. Singapore America and Malaysia 9% 3% Brazil Australia and NA New Zealand Fig. EFSA provides independent scientific registration which may take at least 5 years and advice to support the risk managers (EU institu. detectable limit. to the environment. This resulted in farmers to produce crop hav- specialists to demonstrate with the end user the ing very less concentration of pesticide or with no performance of biopesticides in realistic pro. longisporum was given in 1981 to crop-of-cleantech-home-runs).5 million. as only 26 % of sub- (Business Wire 2010).pdf). 52 biochemicals.gouv. any crop protec- tion product validates not only that it is effective Europe ranks second in biopesticide production. “Ecophyto 2018. devel- Authority (EFSA) has an important role in this opment of new biopesticide faces hurdle of system. This made 74 % of all com- ket is Spain. 2. products have been strictly decided (Regulation Europe has set the standard for biopesticides use. gaeaventures. the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) or revising European legislation on food or feed initiated the Interregional Research Project No. 6 % in 2008 mainly because of the 2007) and later formulated products of Bt aiza- arrival of other BCAs (Business Wire 2010). (India) Limited. In India. biopesticides in food crops such as rice. maize. and in fungal-based time used to control cabbage armyworm. there were 327 biopesticides registered in et al. Mamestra brassicae. Japanese research in biocontrol field has resulted in the identification and character- Asia ization of several new insect pathogens. In the last few years. and it is producing biopesti. and formulation development. most of them being in the form pest eradication is also found (Subramaniam of unformulated dried cultures (Xu et al. spectabilis) in 1933 by Hidaka (1933). Kranthi et al. of Biotechnology are largely responsible for cation had posed a negative impact on sericul. bassiana was also and a steady rise in the nematode market (Business tried to control pine caterpillar (Dendrolimus Wire 2010). Evidence of using insects and birds for cides since 1960. the satisfactory. even less than 2 % of all insecticides economy depends heavily on agriculture. supporting the production and application of ture. and after 7 years. but the Asia is the largest continent in the world and sale of microbial-based products remained less known for its diverse biodiversity. minitans and Trichoderma. microbes exhibiting the committee concluded that Bt products would good biocontrol potential have been discovered . litura. In India. and 35 registered viral biopesti. 2002). 1992. products. and most of biopesticides are was established for studying the effects of Bt being supplied free of cost by the research agen- products on silkworm rearing in sericulture cies to farmers through extension services (Alam (Aizawa and Fujiyoshi 1973). and other pests of cotton (Armes 2008. Zhang 2002. the first Bt products has declined from an estimated 90 % in registered product was launched in 1981 (Kunimi 2000 to 50. thuringiensis-based thuringiensis Products 1984). China is one of the most populated coun. The wai. and Bt japonensis were also largest increases since 2005 were seen in non-Bt introduced (Ohba et al. the integrated pest management (IPM) program. 1952). Finally. including C. In 1972. delivery systems. in 1962 (Kunimi 1998). 270 bacterial biopesticides time commercial production of biocontrol agents are obtained from 11 microbial species (mostly was started by Bio-Control Research Bt). and 23 semiochemicals (EUPD were prevented from spraying Bt products on 2010). 1992). NPV was first bacteria. Using sold (Kunimi 2007). biocontrol concept was in practice and vegetables is increasing gradually. 14 of which are developed from Heliothis Protection Research Institute (PPRI) (Manjunath armigera NPV (ICAMA 2008). In Japan. et al. subtilis. Rice is the ever since neem was used as an alternative to main staple hence much of the biocontrol experi. In the last few years.000 ha evolved as an emergent need when chemical in 1972 which reached 27. Among these. in various other medically imported applica- tries in the world. 1987). microbial-based pesticides Biopesticide application was done in 800. Bt kurstaki. 1994). 11 not pose a threat to silkworm rearing if farmers biochemicals. 1992).2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 57 Europe that consist of 34 microbials. under contract with Plant cides.000. 22 registered fungal biopesticides from 6 Laboratories (BCRL). Yang 2007). tions. a division of Pest Control fungal species. S. the first China.000 ha in 2000 (Ye insecticides failed to control Helicoverpa armig- and Chen 2002. a study committee on Bt products biopesticides. There were also significant increase in viral sales Entomopathogenic fungus B. In Asia. registration process for Bt was a typical case The Ministry of Agriculture and the Department (Aizawa and Ishiwata 2001) as the earlier appli. notably B. The proportion of the European microbial mulberry fields (Study Committee on Bacillus pesticide market taken by B. The rise of biopesticides in India is Japan is one of the pioneer countries as far as being encouraged by the government as part of the use of biopesticides is considered. In India. Farmers have been using mentation and practical use was done on this neem not only for vegetable protection but also crop. Till era. chemical pesticides. entomopathogenic for large-scale biopesticide development nematodes. Ignacimuthu et al. thuringiensis Bt was the first biopesticide product to be subsp. and diamondback moth and beetle armyworm in agricultural universities. Mishra et al. cide is going on in Thailand. Milner et al. (Rabindra 2001. NPV. Koul Although the production is increasing. “Solbichae” (a Bt only. Hence. The promotion of biopesti. but GV proved to be effective against potato farmers are not very enthusiastic for biopesti. 1993). uct. 2010). But large-scale production initiated in 1970 and involved the use of entomo- poses certain difficulties. After the success of BioGreen.58 J. By 2006. and Beauveria species) had been control insect pests and plant diseases in Korea registered. been registered. fungi. But it dence of cotton pest. most of the products are being golf courses. and quality of the products are trials in comparison with their chemical counter- not up to the desired level because of which parts. Metarhizium-based products also came up and . harzianum. India is still facing problems associated zea. A vast variety of products have (Gupta and Dikshit 2010). limited success was observed in field with production. Vattanatangum 1989). 2001. chemical pesticides (Gupta 2006).584 MT in the same years (Shukla and Shukla nucleopolyhedrosis virus (NPV) of Helicoverpa 2012). whereas load of chemical Microbial control first began in the late 1960s with pesticides had declined from 56. Finally biocontrol research was mainly directed toward in 1969. 2007). microbial pest control was (Rabindra 2005). However. 2010). biopesticides consumption has increased in India as there was 219 metric tons (MT) of biopesti. tiveness against locust and grasshopper was of Active research on biopesticide started in 1980 to much interest and its oil-based formulation with produce products containing Bt. Ranga Rao et al. 34 biopesticides (that of Bt. but it took many years when the first produced at small-scale facilities for local use commercial biopesticide. fungal products of T. Fungal selective action (Rushtapakomchai 2003). and NPV (Rushtapakomchai 2003). kurstaki (Btk) is the most famous product. introduced and commercialized into the Thai and in 1987–1988 when there was increased inci- market in 1965 (Rushtapakomchai 2003). whereas viral biopesticides (Warburton et al. Most of the enough to fulfill the demand of the whole country. was registered in 2003 to control state agricultural departments.) and bacteria (especially Bt cial biopesticides is also a cause for concern and P. Fitt 1994. and tenebrio. but among them B. and by 2003 there Lomer 2001). subsp. 1999. todes to control pests in forestry. bacteria. IPM centers. By 2009. and duction. other nis). 2002). tuber moth (Phthorimaea operculella) (Reeda and cides in comparison to chemical pesticides Springetta 1971).114 MT to the GV of codling moth (Cydia pomonella) and 43. fluorescens). only 12 Chinese cabbage (Jeong et al. BioGreen was first registered and were six major biopesticides in the market from commercially produced Metarhizium-based prod- Bt (subspecies kurstaki. Trichoderma. Btk-based products accounted was largely neglected by farmers as they did not for a 2 % market share of all the insecticides know much about Bt due to its slow and highly (Powles and Rogers 1989. mostly by sugar mills and cooperatives. it is not et al. by many workers and are commercially exploited entomopathogenic fungi. and nema- technology is the main hurdle for industrial pro. Australia (Ibrahim et al. agriculture. aizawai). consist of NPV and granuloviruses (GV) In South Korea. Australia cide used in 1996–1997 which increased to 683 MT in 2000–2001. Bt kurstaki was introduced to control Metarhizium to control a wide range of insects lepidopterous larvae of cruciferous crops (Milner and Jenkins 1996) but especially its effec- (Prasetphol et al. 2003. and lesser developed pathogenic viruses. 2004). microbial pesticide products were registered to Pseudomonas. and fungi high persistence in soil made it very popular in (Jones et al. Initially. 1997. aizawai. products are from antagonistic fungi (especially whereas poor quality of some of the noncommer- Trichoderma spp. 1969. but 194 substances were listed as (Jeong et al. predominantly Bt-based products companies. America (Sinclair and Martha 2001). at starkly tell the market trends for biopesticides. all based $5 million for bacterial products (Guillon 2003). 2001). In Latin agriculture had also realized the requirement of America. annual biocontrol sales for the whole of Africa in and at that time only three commercial products 2003 were approximately $23 million. The biopesticide market is growing at more have showed potential in utilizing biocontrol than 20 % per year. commercial mycoinsecticides available in the of which $1. so as to eradicate crop diseases. including were available in the Brazilian market. Argentina and Brazil nies. 2010). despite broad interest in was first registered by Alves et al. especially at long time to control invasive alien plant species the local level production for indigenous use has (IAPs) (Olckers 1999). in 2002. their availability to growers has use of biopesticides has risen in Brazil. their own use to control cercopids in cane fields (Kabaluk et al. 2001). anisopliae has Consultants 2010). and by until recently been very restricted because of lim- 2010 approximately 3 million hectares of agri.4 million. the total pesticide (Habib and Andrade 1991).15 million (2 %) are accounted for by Brazilian market are registered by 19 for-profit BCA sales. Besides this. Studies of using viruses for control of uct was registered in 2000 by Agro Roca. and Bactospeine) In Kenya. (2008). The first virus-based prod. and the same time a number of unregistered BCA are there is a considerable discrepancy in both predi- also sold. there Biopesticide companies have invested billions of were only 26 BCAs registered that is far less in dollars to develop a variety of microbial products comparison to 1. According to estimation. bassiana for control. research institutes. 2010). Universities. Overall. ited demand. Application cover about 40 % of the market (CPL Business of fungal-based products of M. biological control has been used for a in organic culture in Latin America. for example. a proportion of Bt-based products biological control (Groote et al. and Cuba is also one of the leads in the increase possible in the next 5 years (Market and . and there may be a tremendous agents. In Argentina. It is impossible to mulations and mixtures) registered. In Africa. effective commercial use is not well documented ling Triatoma infestans and Musca domestica (Cherry 2004). devastating increased meaningfully by the involvement of effects of locusts and grasshoppers on African the local government and NGOs. Yet some reliable data sources are process involves high cost and length of time market survey websites and biopesticide compa- (Bettiol 2011). but their long-term fungal product based on B. 2004). However. technical and financial constraints. nonprofit organizations. Bateman 1997. on Btk (Dipel.352 chemical pesticides (for. the The use of Bt in Brazil started in the early 1990s. Approximately 40 sales were valued at approximately $57. More than 20 laboratories operated (Wabule et al. Hunter et al. Bt products proven to be effective in pest management (Lomer were first used in 1950 against Colias lesbia in and Prior 1992. Thuricide. alfalfa (Botto 1996). and Gwynn 2007). Latin America Africa There is a growing trend of using biopesticides In Africa. and the insect pests are also reported. the data are not very by sugar/ethanol mills produce M. as the registration biopesticides. The the use of BCA.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 59 showed remarkable response in biocontrol of crop pest management by biological means in Latin diseases (Milner 2000). cation of global sales and selecting category of son to registered products. anisopliae for well documented for Africa. cultural cropland were being treated annually and in-country regulatory frameworks (Cherry with microbial pesticides (Kabaluk et al. and their number is higher in compari. However. and cattle farms also produce various fun- gal microbial control agents. By 2011. rubber tree Global Market farms. In comparison.2 Worldwide biopesticide sales Estimated sales figures (in $US million) North Asia and Latin Africa and Biopesticide America Europe Australia America Middle East Total Total Bt (products based on 72. performing below par.90 3.19 6. Mishra et al.57 74. and uneven efficiency of biopesticides. A more detailed report by cides although offer a great promise are still not BCC Research (2012) expected biopesticides mar.7 billion in 2017.16 0.75 30. lack of awareness about benefits of biopesticides.79 B. and the overall market for the Production technology of biopesticide requires biopesticides had increased from $672 million in proper care and aid of sophisticated equipments 2005 to over $1 billion in 2010. Insufficient knowledge.48 Source: CPL Business Consultants (2010) Market 2013). lack of adequate machinery.2. and several other issues can lead to In the field of biocontrol. since Consultants (2010) is given in Table 2.64 18. As discussed again and again. at an annual aver.57 7. inappropriate handling and Biopesticide Resources improper distribution.47 23. and in fact it will ket to total $2.9 % (Industrial market. decline in synthetic. able to perform up to the mark. regions is however hindered due to well- vices are mentioned in Box 2.25 Viruses 5.4 7.08 Nematodes and other 9.60 J. Table 2.1 billion in 2012 which may exceed not be wrong to mention that these eco-friendly beyond $ 3.85 35. A summary of the databases and ser.50 0.85 5. Major digitalization of print media offered quick access constraints associated with biopesticide develop- to several resources dealing with the matter of ment and growth are discussed in this section.95 0. beginning from the production till the end or consistent.30 14. Kabi (1997) gave stress on tion of global biopesticide sales by CPL Business the production of quality biopesticides.13 18. The lack of Constraints with Biopesticides awareness.05 4. biopesti- Equipment News 2013). the results are sometimes not homogenous steps.80 0. with a compound products have not taken market by storm and are annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12 %. thuringiensis serotypes) Other bacteria 23. There are myriads of literature available free of cost in the World Wide Web (www). to ensure availability of quality products in the age growth rate (AAGR) of 9. they are important in rendering sustainability to farming systems.48 41. modern technology and lack of quality products and loss of market. there is a gradual use to maintain the microbial load and vigor. various databases and online services have been developed with the Agriculture market is witnessing an increase in motive to benefit farmers and researchers so as to demand for environment friendly. Although this e-service has been very popular in Lack of Awareness developed countries.07 396. and confidence in farmers and Possible Remedies is one of the chief reasons for the lagging of these eco-friendly pest control alternatives. and hence the users find themselves .28 201. at all the ticides.56 0. knowledge.1.48 132.94 6. utmost care is needed.67 8. There are Since biopesticide is a product generally with lots of ifs that farmers observe while using biopes- live organism(s).5 74. established chemical pesticide markets.14 Total 126.76 54.40 49.96 0. Growth in some criminately.0 27.22 Fungi 15. residue-free organic products. An estima. chemical provide ampule amount of information indis. importation laws for live inoculants. interest.78 77. the European Commission. University of Hertfordshire. OISAT info is a web-based informa. identification. BPIA is a nizes training program (details periodically standards committee that evaluates and rec- updated at website: http://www. public health.org IBAMA is the worldwide association of The International Organization for biocontrol-based industries producing Biological Control (IOBC) was established microorganisms. Before uploading data on the web- and ecologically sound way. Every report site. macroorganisms.html) to improve the skill of the com. classical biological control (Cock et al. and ornamental. and invertebrate developed by the Agriculture and Environ- biological control agents. BPDB retrieved informa- tion tool offering trainers. information in the form of illustrations. biopesticides in agriculture. consumer. its quality is assessed that involves cross or articles before publication undergoes a checking and peer review by experts. The main objective of IBMA is to asso- ciate the international organizations and Biopesticide Industry Alliance (BPIA) manufacturers that are involved in the founded in 2000 with the mission of development and use of biocontrol agents. .uk/aeru/ 2008). mercialization of biopesticides.ac.html). turf pany staff members for the better research.ch/ ommends quality and efficacy standards for news. registration databases dossiers. they are microbial and other target markets. with the aim of limiting the use of records of biocontrol agents ranging from hazardous pesticides and providing safer naturally derived substances to insect preda- alternatives to poor farmers (Carina Webber tors (website http://sitem. and com- agents to the interested parties and also orga. forestry.1: Biopesticide Resources peer review by experts working on related International Biocontrol Manufacturers fields then can be publically accessed at Association (IBMA) www. and other related data Chemical Pest Management in the for both the more traditional agricultural pes- Tropics (OISAT) was launched by the ticides (PPDB) and veterinary substances Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Germany (VSDB). WHO. projects. methods of pest and disease control and FAO. is a nies to share the knowledge and accordingly comprehensive relational database of basic improve their business performance. the UK. This database provides around 450 in 2003. bpdb/index. manuals. extension work. IBMA has 180 (ICSU). effective. even industry. photographs. increasing awareness of biopesticide and to IBMA also maintains the product quality of deliver full range of benefits of biopesti- the biocontrol agents and also forms and cides in pest management program. 2009). and natural pesticides for plant the International Council of Scientific Unions protection and public health. biocontrol agents. IBMA has four divisions. physicochemical.herts. This nonprofit organization is known members and participates in the activities of for its leadership in environmentally safe international organizations such as OECD. and research minimize pest damage in a safe.oisat. BPIA maintains the ethical professional rules. semio- in 1955 as a global organization affiliated to chemicals. the International Forum for establishing a quality standard in the field of Chemical Safety. is also involved in facilitating global accep- IBMA transfers the information for biocontrol tance. IBMA provides a ment Research Unit (AERU) based at the platform for the biocontrol products compa. and farmers a quick access to up-to-date such as scientific literature and databases.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 61 Box 2. tion at global level from various resources ers. etc. and glossary terms in order to company technical datasheets. successful development. ecotoxicological. toxicologi- Online Information Service for Non. semiochemicals. natural and biochemical The Bio-Pesticides Database (BPDB) was products.ibma. cal. 62 J. It also includes the clause that often represents the main hurdle in the successful biopesticides would be treated at par with chemi. to levels ineffective to providing rewards to the farmers who applied achieve the objective. Abiotic soil factors (e. and impor. established particularly in the rural areas so as to Research and development of biological pest train and teach the farmers to efficiently use the control methods must be given priority. etc. 1993). It is absolutely necessary to tions of chemicals on the current and future pros- create awareness. and also harmful effects of corporate houses. confused in adopting these greener alternatives. It is extremely important that a countries. textural type. lack of Microbial pest control products require more confidence. related to ethnic matters. benefits. The efforts of various government temperature. the world. cal pesticides in terms of support and promotion. chemical pesticides must be known and explained. among the end users (farmers). The National Farmer Policy (2007) in They can also act indirectly by affecting the activ- India has strongly recommended the promotion ity of the indigenous soil microflora. explanation. who stopped using biopesticides reported that it cate knowledge and learning in the farmers was mainly because the supply was extremely regarding the use. Guidance. of biopesticides for increasing agricultural pro. and Performance entrepreneurs dealing with the idea of promoting sustainable agriculture using biological products Lack of faith in the use of biopesticides was found (Amin 2013).g. Special schools should be practice and use them (Alam 2000). Ali 1998). The responsiveness could be achieved by introducing certain extension activities such Lack of Faith and Inconsistent Field as organizing teaching programs. . application. Hence. 2010). introduced biopesticide is maintained in the soil/ Objections to development and deployment of rhizosphere so as to combat the pests and patho- transgenic crops by farmers rest on several issues gens (Arora et al. Proper application of biopesticides ple in general and agriculturists in particular must is very important to achieve the optimum results. generally lack faith in the use of transgenic crop. In transgenic crops. use of microbes as biopesticides (Arora et al. Mishra et al. biopesticides. costs. and moni. These goals can be regarding the use. Many farmers interactive questionnaire sessions that will incul. it is essential that training and teaching most of the farmers are even not familiar with the should be given to the farmers in regard to the use term “biopesticide” and lack efficient skills to of transgenic crops. Farmers should also be trained for (Alam 2000). and peo. to be one of the major factors responsible for their toring should be done regularly by proceeding for lagging behind (Arora et al. pects of soil and yields. efficient introduction into The use of transgenic crops like Bt crops is soil during the growing season is a major techni- also not up to the mark especially in developing cal constraint. be educated about the handling and use of such Farmers need to be made aware of the implica- control measures. Farmers attention of farmers than chemical products. and moisture) exert their (direct) agencies to popularize the use of biopesticides effect on inoculant population dynamics by will definitely have impact in elevating current imposing stresses of various natures on the living status and application of biopesticides all over cells introduced in the fields (Evans et al. following introduction into biopesticides or promoted their use (Halim and soil. functional foreign minimum effective threshold population of the gene is incorporated by biotechnological tools. workshops.. achieved by the support of government and tance of biopesticides. and handling of unreliable and the performance very inconsistent biopesticides. market control. and some success has been the rapid decline in the size of encouraging activities can be introduced such as populations of active cells. pH. Furthermore. 2010). efficacy. 2010). Condition is worst in developing countries where Hence. A key factor involved in the lack of the methods of application in fields. maintenance of sufficient activity of inoculated duction and sustaining the health of farmers and populations over a prolonged period after release environment. associated risks. which most producers. when harvested from the medium. 2010). it is not biopesticide formulations with extended shelf surprising that their performance is poor. contaminated and have a low count of microor. Due to low bacterial count. in the fields to develop appropriate formulation Future research efforts in formulation technol- working efficiently under diverse in vivo condi. and uneven. storage of biopesticides requires special facilities and skills. The designed biopesticide should be tamination. tective materials. insensi- effective must be clearly mentioned on the pack. and farmers do not possess. and dry powder deprived. 1993). shopkeepers. Due to which the shelf life based. should be improvised along with sophisti. It is also important that precautions reliable. the presence or absence of contaminants. However. and Lesser Agribusiness ogy. Greaves 1993). Shelf life is a cessation High Budget of Production (end) of several factors like production technol.1996. Several workers reported bility of the biopesticide product are designing that the biopesticides being sold in the market are and optimizing perfect formulation technology. viable and stable biological products. the use of pro- constancy. pellets. employed for designing biopesti. and the rate of dehydration (Paul et al. Granules can protect the active agent from is low and inconsistent in performance resulting desiccation and also provide basic food for the in decline in the demand. and viability that can reduce inconsis. Arora product storability. life include granules. Decrease the agricultural industry. and replicable in its should be taken to avoid adulteration during pack- activity. dehydration phase is also the most sensitive part of the entire formula- Poor Quality and Shelf Life tion process. Screening of suitable . 2005). Amin 2013). Powder is easy to apply by suspending it in The inconsistent and seasonal nature of the water and also can cover a wide area of applica- existing demand requires efficient storage. resistant to environmental stresses. especially for nonspore-forming bacteria (Shah-Smith and Burns 1997). specific. Several commonly used et al. Production used. and mode and distance of transport. cides. carrier and packaging material used. The tion (Urquhart and Punja 1997. tive to contamination. it could be suggested that the main fac- serious problems that hindered biopesticides tors that have potential to affect economic feasi- takeover on the market. storage. used for long-term survival during storage. Poor quality and performance are also one of the Hence. In this tices and equipment. and application of biopesticides. agent. ogy should emphasize processes that will achieve tions (Retchelderfer 1984. All these levels are Hi-tech instrumentation required for producing desired to sustain the shelf life. Bacterial survival biopesticides under completely sterile conditions in the desired formulation is affected by several is not getting acceptance. Developed formulation in the water content in the biopesticides can be should be compatible with crop production prac. the type of drying technology tency in natural field conditions. The most Technical and chemical compatibility along with suggested solutions to the problem of survival innovative application methods is a prerequisite time are air-dried and lyophilized preparations of for the success of a new biopesticide product in biopesticides (Nakkeeran et al. the physiological state of the bacteria formulation can increase product stability. Extensive research should be conducted aging. Alam 2000. The host range and abiotic way. and thus become more ets and if possible explained to the farmers. indigenous.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 63 Building farmer’s faith and confidence by variables: the culture medium used for bacterial developing appropriate stress-tolerating cultivation. compatible with chemical pesticide applications (Bashan 1998). technology. the bacteria in the formulation remain inac- conditions under which the formulation is most tive. Extreme care should be taken throughout the cated quality control measures and monitoring designing process to minimize the chances of con- facilities. Good formulation can be reflected by the long ganisms (Singleton et al. and infrastructure development can also help. make it hard for farmers to decide the development. innovations) and minimizing risk factors. Regulatory Framework omy make it difficult for companies to invest in developing new biopesticide products and. A number of features of the agricultural econ. In general. it should be pointed that export and 2005) that confirm limited success and huge import of chemical pesticide is much easier (as expenditure (Stewart 2001. instrumentation facility initially required for the and accessing what others develop (Pray and biopesticide production are costly. Product protection by nies will only develop these products if there is a patenting and support by government in taxation long-term profit in doing so. pesticides and whether to renew the registration ness dealing with biopesticides requires huge of old ones. firms with larger produc. Most of the established companies Registration is not only expensive but also time- relinquished their wish to do business in micro. again. plants from the attack of phytopathogens through tion facilities are expected to invest more on net. material to capture or protect market shares by USEPA encourages development and use of . transportation/distribution. and less profit data and preparation of dossier for submission to (Leng et al. bringing down the costs. biological control (Arora et al. Hallett 2005. whether to approve or register new biological ket research firms that suggest that the agribusi. Large-scale screening of strains innovations) and also by cutting costs (process with biological activity is still required (compa. Another issue biopesticide industries were studied by various is regarding the import and export of biopesti- workers (Warrior 2000. applicability in promoting plant growth. storage. or use of suitable carrier materials (Arora et al. a national regulatory authority. and application. Benuzzi 2004. The main problem is bial pesticides but finally left the field due to huge that biopesticides contain active cells (live organ- losses in the agribusiness (CPL Business isms). consuming (Ehlers 2006). CPL no one doubts on its integrity) in comparison to Business Consultants 2007. and protecting 2001.3. high-risk factors. and most of the times registra- about adopting the new technology (Chandler tion is much more expensive than the production. Gelernter cides. 2011). 2010). Biopesticides designed ditions of these “living” inputs calls for enor. 2011). consis. 2012). the profit in biopesticide business governments can speed up the process of approv- could be made only by using novel techniques ing safer new pesticides and stopping use of risk- and tools. Droby et al. Agribusiness companies need to use ier ones. and microbe associations under stress. from consortia will have multiple and holistic mous caution at the stage of manufacture/culture. and compa. at the Registration of biopesticide is the main hurdle in same time. Some major countries and their certain innovative techniques and cheap raw registration details are provided in Table 2. contaminant-affected regions. This protecting plant health. using a these factors prove that the raw material and variety of procedures such as licensing. 2009). tency and long-term returns can reduce the cost and enhance the profits. High consortia with diverse activities can be useful in sensitivity to temperature and other external con. the use of biopesticides. Mishra et al. buying. and these live forms are treated like patho- Consultants 2006). By these efforts. pollutant. Nagarajan 2010. 2013). Commercial aspects of gens by the government agencies. et al. Registration requires collation of intake of money.64 J. All countries take advantage of technology. However. rable to more than 1:20. Advanced works to understand and access the market. The market’s potential in business decision of The assessment of risks is important because biopesticide industry is now being forecasted by it provides the basis for governments’ decisions leading global management consulting and mar.000 screened molecules Multifaceted bioformulations based on microbial for a new chemical product) (Bashan 1998). strengthening plant- involves investment in packaging. Henceforth. strains and research and development issues add offering new products that buyers want (product to the budget. and use of pesticides/biopesticide and agrochemicals in China or import to China Australia Registration of pesticides is governed by the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 and administered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). after scrutinizing their formulae and verifying claims with respect to their bio-efficacy and safety to human beings and animals South Korea Registration at first level is governed by the Agromaterials Management Division (AMD) and the Rural Development Administration (RDA). use. The governments can frame regulations at the global level by organizing meetings. and distribution of conventional chemical and biological pesticides. botanicals (or biochemicals or plant extracts). Biopesticides containing Bt as active . and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). but in ferent rules. uniform acts or laws that could be accepted glob- ally requires much less data to register a biopesti. who adjust the results and reports to the AMD and RDA. All ensure that pesticides use does not cause unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment Europe Here. (2) the Federal Food. so that there is a common policy regarding cide than to register a conventional pesticide the use of biopesticides. and semiochemicals (including pheromones) and regulated under the Council Directive 91/414/EEC. (2010) biopesticides. The committees provide the examination results to the PSED. import. If the organism has been genetically altered. It comprises eminent scientists of all disciplines/fields concerned. Once this dossier is deemed to contain sufficient information. risks are far lems related to registration.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 65 Table 2. Governments should There may be some chances of adverse health set up regulatory framework that could be accepted effects if biopesticides are not used according to globally. approval from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) is required prior to importation or release India Biopesticides fall under the Insecticide Act (1968). the RC grants registrations to the persons desiring to import or manufacture insecticides. The regulation can set up fewer risks than chemical pesticides. and regulations due to which prob. CIB is the Apex Advisory. Drug. the instructions mentioned on the product. ally. EPA gener. Since biopesticides tend to pose export do occur. Presently. the PSED holds two technical expert committees for product management and safety management. This directive provides a list of active substances authorized for incorporation in plant protection products and lays down the requirements for application dossiers for new active substances and new plant protection products China In 1997. Fungicide. (Kumar 2012). Central Insecticides Board (CIB) and the Registration Committee (RC) are two “high-powered” bodies under this Act. comparison to chemical pesticides. different countries have dif. workshops. and (3) the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. and lower.3 Biopesticide regulation structures in different countries Name of country/ continent Registration/governing bodies The USA The USEPA is the main authority to regulate the use. USEPAs do this primarily from three statutes: (1) the Federal Insecticide. marketing. and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended. The AMD have a dedicated council for agrochemical safety for the final decision and for reporting to the applicant’s dossier Source: Kabaluk et al. The Regulation on Pesticide Administration was introduced (revised in 2001 and 2004) to supervise and control manufacturing. The importation of a biological agent also requires authorization from the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) prior to introduction. the term “biopesticide” generally includes products with active substances based on microorganisms. Whereas. and then a new record is evaluated by Pesticide Safety Evaluation Division (PSED) and National Academy of Agricultural Science (NAAS). sale. Health and Ecological Risks and conferences regarding uplifting the status of biopesticides/bioformulation. care must be under. and B. tissue. In the USA. and Lu 1997. Recently. cides suggest that spore of entomopathogenic In all viral pathogens. and upsurge costs that risks (Green et al. and simplify the application of and other characteristics of the biopesticides is viral pesticides.2 billion pounds of pesti- cides used worldwide (USEPA 2011). Essential data niques are required so as to ease the production. or the consumer before it is only by the interactions between the baculovirus introduced into crop protection systems (Copping and the host cell at the molecular level but also by and Menn 2000). important and should be submitted to the respec- tive agencies of various countries. semi-permissive. ingredient are not reported to show any major organizations (Lapointe et al. EPA con- ducts rigorous reviews to ensure that pesticides All over the world.000 g ha−1 (Khater cell line culture for the proliferation and 2012). being a microbial agent or secondary particular baculovirus has proven to be challeng- metabolite. M. and Doekes et al. missive host cells. regarding the composition. 2009. In nonpermissive infections. The main adverse effects on human health. However. but in some cons of viral biopesticides are the culturing tech- cases. governments aspects of insect behavior and physiology (Miller should also set up defined standards and permis. or oped countries is almost 3. 1990. 2012). 2011). strain monitoring should be exten. M. Doubtful strains should be screened cells do not support viral replication. the baculoviruses. common biopesticides. toxicity. 2002). reported to affect survival of nontarget pests In semi-permissive. the registrants have to submit to EPA so as to Competition with Chemical Pesticides ensure that the pesticide is safe for use. 1999. The main problem associated with viral biopesti. anisopliae is also permissive. Studies on fungal biopesti. The accessibility and studies on mice confirmed as a robust fungal susceptibility of host cells to viral invasion and allergen from biopesticides of M. handling errors. Research and innovative tech- that it diminishes the health risks. Determining what factors influence taken to ensure that any newly introduced natural the level of permissiveness of an insect cell to a product. DNA replication. including the most fungi such as Trichoderma. it is necessary that before developing a lication events. Consumption of pesticides in some of the devel- cides is the requirement of live host. the environment (Kumar 2012). Bernstein et al. manufacture. anisopliae replication are classified into three categories: (Ward et al. and the pro- out. 1994. et al. degradation.66 J. Darbro and Thomas 2009). such as gene expression or viral biopesticide. anisopliae. Practically. occupational exposure confirmed health niques. and nonpermissive. reduce the cost. sively done. infections result in limited (Thungrabeab et al. the environment. should possess no threat to the opera. Ahmad et al. as adding such microbes may result in the cess does not yield infectious progeny (Lapointe loss of confidence. thuringiensis with. 2004). repli- bassiana may cause allergy to farmworkers (Iida cation is dependent upon the availability of per- et al. 2006). Cory and Hoover 2006. over 1 billion tons of pes- Problems Associated with Viral ticides are used in the USA every year. mega- needs ethical clearances from the government mos (chemical pesticide) in controlling thrips . According to USEPA. Thiem and sible limits in regard to using biopesticides so Cheng 2009). viral progeny resulting from defects in some rep- Thus. Apart from it. Mishra et al. 1995). 2012). production. and this is Biopesticides 22 % of the estimated 5. ing because baculovirus host range is affected not tor. Development of tissue culture labora. biopesticides are not as effec- cultivation. (2007) compared tory in an institute (that works on viruses) again the effectiveness of B. tive as chemicals. and one-third of the agricultural production is dependent on pesticides (Liu et al. ultimately hamper growth. chemical pesticides are used do not have adverse effects on human health or in very high amounts (Donaldson et al. and according to him unreasonable expec- Aktar et al. Despite the fact that presently biopesticides are In spite of all these limitations. Farmers certainly create a congenial and long-standing find themselves confused and less confident in effect which can lead to commercial success of selecting biopesticides over the synthetics. confidence for relevant for the field performance of the parasit- biopesticides can be developed. biopesticides being used everywhere in the world. Similar conditions. their position and harmful effects of chemical protectants will and situation still remains in dilemma. but still it is further with the ability to act in field conditions will be needed to be emphasized and explored (Gaind able to compete with the chemicals and gradually and Kaushik 2008). main reason why farmers choose chemical pesti. etc. difficulties in et al. Also countries like India are vastly dependent cides over biopesticides. consistency. Cuthbertson that the characteristics that affect overall quality et al. incen- Conclusion tives. and in their absence it is reported majorly on this sector. Though a lot of research is going enhance the market for them. 2009). 2003. done by developing strong policy and encourage- ment from governments to the industry as well as end user by means of liberal tax benefits. survival of ther detail that in the absence of chemical control microorganisms. 1999. have to be identified and must be quantifiable and tioned hurdles and constraints.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 67 (Thrips tabaci) on garlic (Allium sativum) and Developing countries have huge possibilities for found maximum yield using megamos treatment. This exploration could be overtake the market. US yields would host range. lesser quantity is expansive and labor is cheap in comparison to suffice to kill a vast quantity of pests which is the developed nations (Roettger and Reinhold 2003). . studies also confirmed chemical dependence for and confidence among the end users. and that is why a statement in their wider application (Chandler 2011). most of the chal- that global losses would have risen from present lenges faced for the upliftment of biopesticides levels of around 42 % to close to 70 % (Oerke are fundamental and cosmopolitan. economics. government regulations. Warren 1998. delivery systems. executive director of the IBMA. using biopesticides as the production can be less In case of chemical pesticides. and at the global level there is no pesticides has showed improvement in control of uniformity in processes and methods. Research on Biopesticide production also faces problem of combining microbial biopesticides with synthetic quality control. 1990). Knuston et al. performance in field and herbicides (Knutson et al. and can also result in gradual decrease in the use of inhibition of scientific exchange are the main chemicals leading to development of confidence hurdles in establishment of biocontrol. the efficacy of the microbial activity. of David Cary. among farmers for the biopesticides. This will only oid or predator. (1990) provided fur. inappropriate regulatory synergistic action of microbial biopesticides and guidelines. lack of documentation on the uptake chemical pesticides by IPM programs (Irigaray of microbial control strategies. Van Lantern (2003) starkly emphasized varieties (Khalique and Ahmed 2001. Webster et al. especially known that developed countries seem to be ahead among local farmers. Some workers are working on tations for performance. Koppenhöfer and Fuzy 2003). determining of weeds in wheat production. Gelernter the production of major crops around the globe (2007) has described the future of biocontrol in (Farah 1994. Creating awareness among the farmer community about the beneficial effects of BCAs Since inception of biopesticides. Asia. and avoiding injury to nontarget fall by 30 % and 5 % in the absence of fungicides organisms. By removing the previously men. IPM implementing local production schemes. 2005). the biopesticides (Swati and Adholeya 2008). These include et al. There have been several upon agriculture for not only feeding their popu- cases where chemical pesticides reduced losses lations but also for the economy which depends of many crops. it is also are gradually becoming popular. 1994). However. In this some pest species including pesticide-resistant regard. Quality products on biopesticide development. or $1. Berlin. the Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in ultimate requirement for biopesticides to develop south India. Zafar Y. Piracicaba. Anand S. Kurume. In: Alves SB. Curr Sci 95: the red poisonous chemicals from our platter and 90–94 of course the ecosystem as a whole. Aronson A. Tewari S. Vieira S. gal pathogens. In: Ohba M. Currently. Technical Paper No. This reformation will certainly iensis and related insect pathogens. Pest Sci 34:355–364 is to overcome the shortcomings which are asso. There is prediction that the world population will FEALQ. Fujiyoshi N (1973) Development of bacterial Arora NK. pp 69–110 exceed nine billion by 2050. Microbiol Rev 50:1–24 create similar acceptance as the synthetic pesti- Arora NK. Jadhav DR. Japan. Springer. Sarhad J Agric 23:1117–1120 pp 239–258 Aizawa K. Rev Environ Health 24:303–309 control market “that is only 3 %. Phytopathology 94:535–540 Development Centre. Nazir F (2008) Bacillus thuringi- of the $44 billion global crop protection business. Maheshwari DK (2001) Constraints. Akao T (eds) Proceedings of a centennial sympo. Sci 2:30–39 Armes NJ. The growth of biopesticides is indicative Alves SB. Bond GS. Ishiwata S (2001) His discovery of sottokin diminish the concept of direct and indirect PGPRs. pp 97–116 Arora NK. ensis and its application in agriculture.pdf). Berlin. and future strategies. Singh and Singh. 103. Arora NK. Afr J is growing 10 % a year” (Patrick and Kaskey Biotechnol 9:2022–2031 2012). Khan IA. J be made to meet the demand of 70–100 % more Biol Agric Healthc 3:2224–3208 food from the same land area without the exten. Paris Baird C. India. E. Dehradun. Maheshwari DK (2008) tions is required to elevate the stature of biopesti. Determination at global level is required to purpose bioinoculant using plant growth promoting strengthen these green alternatives and push off rhizobial and pseudomonad strains and their impact on productivity of Trifolium repense. universities. Inter J Agri files/2013/05/130112-HLP-TG7-Solutions-for. J Ferment Technol 51:363–365 plant-associated microbes and their mechanisms Aizawa K.68 J. Shah SIA. Controle microbiano de pragasna America Latina. and efforts have to Amin N (2013) Teaching of biopesticide development as a technoprenuership opportunity in plant protection. In: Environmental Alam G (2000) A study of biopesticides and biofertiliz. Maheshwari DK (2010) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: constraints in bioformula- tion. Reddy J (2009) Biocontrol potential of sive use of chemicals (http://unsdsn. pp 1–14 principal inhibitor in the biocontrol activity of Bacillus Aktar MW. Dunn P (1986) Bacillus thuring- ciated with them. Khare E. pp 411–449 sium commemorating Ishiwata’s discovery of Bacillus Arrebola E. Mishra et al. Singh S. Biaggioni LR (eds) producing food crop with lesser chemical use. King ABS (1992) sustainable-food production. A concerted effort of reference to rhizobial inoculants. New York ers in Haryana. and government organiza- Arora NK. Jacobs R. agrobiology: stress management. Nakamura O. W H Freeman and Company. Ali S. Khare E. cides and importantly without any adverse effect development and future of the inoculants with special on the environment. In: Maheshwari DK (ed) Bacteria in thetic pesticides against aphids in rapeseed crop. Ali MG.3 billion. Kumar V. pp 241–245 organizations (NGO). Inter Discip Toxicol 2:1–12 Bailey DJ. Sawdust as a superior carrier for production of multi- cides. J Appl Microbiol 108:386–395 ards. nongovernment Dubey RC (eds) Innovative approaches in microbiol- ogy. Mizuki fundamentals and advances. commercialization. Korsten L (2010) Iturin A is the thuringiensis. Cann M (2008) Pesticides. Hussain Z. Springer. 93. Ahmad M (2012) PGPR for protection of plant health under (2007) Comparison of a biopesticide with some syn. Lal N. Springer. Lopes RB. Tewari S. Bashan Y (1998) Inoculants of plant growth promoting IIED. Tamai MA (2008) Fungos entomopatogénicos usados no controle de pragasna of its importance in the sustainable agriculture by America Latina. provides a hope of betterment that the biological Alavanja MC (2009) Pesticides use and exposure extensive worldwide. In: Maheshwari DK (ed) Plant growth and health promot- References ing bacteria. Beckman W. research institutes. Naraian R. OECD take all. Maheshwari DK Ahmad S. UK bacteria use in agriculture. In: Arora NK (ed) Plant microbe symbiosis- tigations in Japan. India Gatekeeper Series No. Chowdhury A (2009) Impact of amyloliquefaciens PPCB004 against postharvest fun- pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and haz. Sengupta D. In: Maheshwari DK. Singh R (2013) Multifaceted insecticides in Japan. Biotech Adv 6:729–770 . saline conditions. Gilligan CA (2004) Modeling and analysis of Alam G (1994) Biotechnology and sustainable agriculture: disease induced host growth in the epidemiology of lessons from India.org/ Trichoderma sp against plant pathogens. (Bacillus thuringiensis) in 1901 and subsequent inves. chemistry. Romero D. p 42 Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphibians: an Cherry AC. Gwynnn RL (2007) Perspective on the devel- underestimated cause of global decline? Sci Rep opment of biocontrol in Africa. Clemson Burges HD. Menn JJ (2000) Biopesticides: a review of improved strains of Bacillus thuringiensis. Biol Control 8:81–88 Nat Res 1–10 Burges HD.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 69 Bateman RP (1997) Methods of application of microbial crop protection. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1573: 68:326–334 1987–1998 Bora LC. DC. Kalita MC (2011) Management of bacte- Biotechnol 84(1):11–18 rial wilt of brinjal by P. Memoires Entomol Soc Canada 171: Carson R (1962) The silent spring. IOBC. Hofman J (2007) Effects of toxaphene and use of biopesticides for integrated pest manage- on soil organisms. Tatchell GM. In: Zapater Bacterial insecticidal toxins. Charles Wurster and the fate of Carina Webber (ed) (2008) How to grow crops without an environmental pollutant. Alscher A (2013) Chatham. Bateman RP (2000) Theory disease enhancement in (Lycopersicon esculentum) by and practice of microbial insecticide application. Clemson extension. Trends Food Sci Technol Bettiol W (2011) Biopesticide use and research in Brazil. Downer RA. fluorescens based bioformula- Bernstein IL. New York and access and benefit sharing. Miller M. Greaves GWP (2011) The development. safety tests on insect viruses. Selgrade MK. Bezchlebová J. van Lenteren JC. management: an assessment of environmental and Environ Health Persp 107:575–582 regulatory sustainability. Biocontrol Sci Technol 3:1135 17:665–676 Bull CT. Tyagi VRD. London. pp 1–8 Cherry AJ (2004) Public-private partnerships for develop- Brar SK. Mason 25:341–348 PG. Sunjeong P. Brodeur J. Clemson University. Chandler D. Bhatnagar R (2004) Argentina: informe de la situación actual. Barratt BIP. 490–494 pp 5–37 Botto EN (1996) Control biológico de plagas en La Chattopadhyay A. Fact Sheet Agri citrus. home and garden informa- 329–340 tion center. Grant WP. Buenos 30:33–54 Aires. Lána J. 19:275–283 Outlooks Pest Manag 22:280–283 Chandler D. Pieper S. Lacey LA. Report biopesticides market in Europe & company index – prepared for the FAO genetic resources commission opportunities exist which could raise the total market by the IOBC global commission on biological control to $200 million by 2020. Bloemberg G (2007) Isolation and charac- BCAs. Kluwer. Dordrecht. ARPN J Agri Biol Sci 6(3):1–11 Bernstein DI. In: Hedin their action. p 40 DDT: Thomas Jukes. Indian J Agr Sci 77: in invertebrate pathology. Huber J (1980a) A review of Clemson HGIC (2007) Organic pesticides and biopesti- safety tests on baculoviruses. Croizier G. Parra JRP (2009) In: The use and exchange of bio- Business Wire (2010) Research and markets: the 2010 logical control agents for food and agriculture. Entomophaga Bigler F. Deka SN (2007) Wilt disease suppression and Chapple AC. Greaves J. Natural Resources Institute. pp 260–279 grasshoppers. Bern CABI (2010) The 2010 worldwide biopesticides: market Conis E. applications and efficacy. McSpadden Gardener BB (2010) syringae strains ESC-10 and ESC-11 survive in Biopesticide controls of plant diseases: resources and wounds on citrus and control green and blue molds of products for organic farmers in Ohio. Davidson G. IOBC/WPRS Bull 27(8):429–431 terization of antagonistic Bacillus subtilis strains from Berg G (2009) Plant-microbe interactions promoting the avocado rhizoplane displaying biocontrol activity. Haas F. endosulfan. In: application of Pseudomonas fluorescens based biopes. Doerfler DL. Huber J. Crit Rev Microbiol C (ed) El control biológico en América Latina. American Chemical Society. Davidson G. pesticide formulations for the control of locusts and Washington. Bernstein JA. Brühl CA. Pest Manag Sci P. plant growth and health: perspectives for controlled J App Microbiol 103:1950–1959 use of microorganisms in agriculture. Appl Microbiol Chakravarty G. tion. Project R7960. PAN Germany 125:337–342 Carlton B (1988) Development of genetically Copping LG. Cernohlávková J. Public Health Rep. Schmidt T. Tatchell Seligy VL (1999) Immune responses in farm workers GM (2008) Microbial biopesticides for integrated crop after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. MS. Kaya HA (eds) Field manual of techniques ticide (Biofor-Pf) in Assam. Houghton Mifflin. West Africa. Bolckmans K. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf ment. industry’s point of view on problems in developing Vicente A. Croizier G (1980b) Guidelines for Cock MJW. Sochová I. Menn J. Hollingworth R (eds) Biotechnology for 56:651–676 . Entomophaga 25: cides. Stack JP. Lugtenberg BJJ. Valéro JR (2006) Recent advances ment and implementation of entomopathogenic in downstream processes and formulations of Bacillus viruses as bioinsecticides for key lepidopteran pests in thuringiensis based biopesticide. Tierzieva S. 69–81 USA Benuzzi M (2004) What will be the future for BCAs? The Cazorla FM. Lummus Z. Bhatnagar NB. MJ (2010) Debating the health effects of summary. Coˆnsoli FL. Smilanick JL (1997) Pseudomonas Chunxue C. Bailey AS. Final Technical 41:323–342 Report. CPL Business Consultants. Garcia AP. regulation Kobeticová K. Process Biochem Ghana and Benin. Amy RM. Schnreihe dtsch Phytomed insect baculoviruses. Vincent ML. EPA-733-R-02-OOI. Cabralb JMS. time for a new paradigm? Postharvest Biol Technol Int J Microbiol 2012:326452 52:137–145 Fravel DR (2005) Commercialization and implementation Dunne C. 238. Enz Microb Technol Fitt GP (1994) Cotton pest management: part 3. IBRD/World Bank. Basic Clin Pharmacol guide to natural enemies in North America. Higgins P. pp 371–381 against POPs: combating toxic threats in the Arctic. Cory JS. Wallingford chemical constituents of Vigna radiata L. Fitt GP (2004) Implementation and impact of transgenic report no. Mycopathologia Eskenazi B. Scott-Fordsmand JJ. Larsen P. Bradman A. Biol Control 43:237–256 no.70 J. and cause of invertebrates in laboratory studies: a review and analy- death after acute D. http:// Toxicol 102:228–236 www. In: Downie D. Baelum J (2004) IgE Felix MI (1958) Men. Römbke J. Lu C. agroresources and technology. In: Maheshwari improved biocontrol of Pythium-mediated damping. Allen EH. Wright SP (2007) Mycoinsecticides and 25:1153–1160 mycoacaricides: a comprehensive list with worldwide Farah J (1994) Pesticide policies in developing countries: coverage and international classification of formula. Nina H. an 26:394–401 Australian perspective. seaweed manure and Bacillus sp. Thomas MB (2009) Spore persistence and database_act_subs_en. Kaushik BD (2008) Biofertilizers for sustain- proteolytic and phloroglucinol-producing bacteria for ability.nysaes. Grube A (1995) Pesticide’s indus.edu/ent/biocontrol/pathogen/ EUPD (2010) European union pesticides database.T. Dowling DN. Dobrowolski N (1993) Interaction of fungi used for mosquito control. Cape Town. Ann Rev Phytopathol 43:337–359 Powell J. on growth and bio- CPL Business Consultants.D.T. Thompson AR (1973) Pesticides and the insect–pathogen interactions. vol 1. Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollut. Hoover K (2006) Plant-mediated effects in Edwards CA. Jansch S.D. Walters KFA. Wallace C. Moate TF. Laura F.cornell. Holmes SB (2004) Business Consultants. of biocontrol. Soil Biol Biochem De Faria MR. CPL Business 18:313–319 Consultants. Environ Health entomopathogenic fungus Lecanicillium muscarium Perspect 107:409–419 on tomato and verbena foliage. J Expo Anal mycelial structure and cellulose production by Environ Epidemiol 10:662–671 Trichoderma reesei rut C-30. Proceedings third world cotton Downie D (2003) Global POPs policy: the 2001 research conference. Nature sis using species sensitivity distributions. Lisa GR. Washington. Trevors JT. DC Doekes G. vol 5. Wallingford Eskenazi B. sensitization to bacterial and fungal biopesticides in a New York cohort of Danish greenhouse workers: the BIOGART Fenske RA. Dana BB (2008) Pesticide toxicity D’Amico V (2007) Baculovirus in biological control: a and the developing brain.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/ Darbro JM. J Environ 162:1000–1001 Toxicol Chem 25:2480–2489 Droby S. http:// baculoviruses ec. Touchstone study. Kissel JC (2000) Strategies for Dominguesa FC. Sigsgaard T. Mol Cell Probes biopesticides market summary. South Africa. Myers JH (2003) The ecology and evolution of gischen Pflanzenschuz. Rengasamy R (2012) Synergistic effect of CPL Business Consultants (2006) Biopesticides 2007. Washington. South Africa. Agricultural Research Council – Institute for Industrial ants. Northing P (2005) The children to organophosphate pesticides and their susceptibility of immature of Bemisia tabaci to the potential adverse health effects. Moënne-Loccoz Y. Simcox NJ.htm likelihood of aeroallergenicity of entomopathogenic Evans J. In: Cotton production for the Protection Agency. Pretoria. J Biofertil CPL Business Consultants (2007) Biopesticides 2007. poisoning. Trends Ecol Evol soil fauna. Fenge T (eds) Northern lights Crops. Pitman AR. Am J Trop Med Hyg soil type and temperature on the survival of Rhizobium 80:992–997 leguminosarum bv Viciae. CPL England LS. DC new millennium. 159:23–29 Caroline J. Asa B. McGill-Queens University Press. Dubey RC (eds) Potential microorganisms off of sugar beet. Wilson C (2009) Frampton RA. a Biopestici 3:121–128 how to do it guide to biopesticides. McCarthy J. Castorina R (1999) Exposures of Cuthbertson AGS. Queiroza JA. Frampton GK. Mishra et al. MD Publication. Wisniewski M.europa. Ann Rev Entomol 39: Donaldson D. US Environmental Bt cottons in Australia. Kiely T. detection and persistence of extracellular CPL Business Consultants (2010) The 2010 worldwide DNA in forest litter microcosms. Montreal Van den Brink P (2006) Effects of pesticides on soil Dresdend D (1948) Site of action of D. molds and history. do they encourage excessive use? Discussion paper tion types. Loewenherz C. Kim H. DK. O’Gara F (1998) Combining Gaind S. 543–562 try sales and usage 1998–1999 market estimates. Residue Rev 45:1–79 21(5):278–286 Ehlers RU (2006) Einsatz der Biotechnologie im biolo- Cory JS. Fonsecab assessing children’s organophosphorus pesticide LP (2000) The influence of culture conditions on exposures in agricultural communities. Macarisin D. Fineran PC (2012) Advances Twenty years of postharvest biocontrol research: is it in bacteriophage-mediated control of plant pathogens. Am J Ind Med 46:404–407 J. Plant Pathol 47:299–307 for sustainable agriculture: a techno-commercial . Annual Rev Ecol Evol Syst Ges 8:17–31 34:239–272 Elumalai LK. Wallingford Extraction. approach for pest control. Spurgin PA (2001) Aerial treat- miological study. a potential bacterial antagonist to control plant Curr Sci 81:91–94 diseases. Müller D. 1985–86. J Plant Interact 1:123–134 Haas D. pp 143–147 kindins I–VII. Mycol Res 103: In: Granados RR. from the fungus Trichoderma harzia- Gupta PK (2006) Status of biopesticides-Indian scene. de Andrade CFS (1991) Controle microbi- British Crop Protection Council. Phytopathology Skeels M (1990) Public health implications of the 86:757–762 microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: an epide. Rodriguez OR. Agric Hum Values Ignoffo CM (1975) Evaluation of in vivo specificity of 18(4):413–428 insect viruses. Attignon S. Bull mental movement. Carlton ΒC (1982) Transfer of Appledore Island. trol. http://www. J Biopest 3:186–188 Yardley. Fuse G. Guerra PT. Oregon. pp 67–87 Antibiosis mediated necrotrophic effect of Ganeshan G. Hunter DM. agents in Europe. Scotland. Phytopathology 96:190–194 level traits in bees. Gitlin SA. Hallett SG (2005) Where are the bioherbicides? Weed Sci Expert Opin Ther Pat 17:1341–1350 53:404–415 Gill RJ.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 mination of oil formulated conidia of the insect patho- Gröner A (1986) Specificity and safety of baculoviruses. vol 2. Sabour PM (2007) Bacteriophages and Nations. Chichester terrestrial. Ali MM (1998) Training and professional devel- wether for the future? J Invertebr Path 95:161–167 opment. van Pelt JA (1996) Comparison cation. Nature 491:105–108 Hewson I. Tachikawa E (1994) Fungal International symposium on biopesticides for develop. pp 177–202 control of agrochemicals. Lomer C (2001) Ignacimuthu S. Tanaka H. Hakulinen J. Metarhizium anisopliae. Sanekata M. CATIE.T. China (in Chinese) Gbongboui C. CRC Press. De’fago G (2005) Biological control of soil- Gelernter WD (2005) Biological control products in a borne pathogens by fluorescent pseudomonads. Practical application for insect ICAMA (2008) Pesticide manual. Reinhold M (eds) Kanai M. Harman GE (2005) Overview of mechanisms and uses of ticide exposure severely affects individual and colony Trichoderma spp. Maheshwari DK (2001) Ltd. Beckett A. Wong LJG. West Afton Ave. Janarthanan S (eds) (2001) Assessing the feasibility of biological control of Microbials in insect pest management. Amerc Soc Microbiol. ecology and safety.D. Ρroc Hidaka Y (1933) Utilization of natural enemies for Natl Acad Sci 79:6951–6955 control of the pine caterpillar. and marine habitats of Gonzalez JΜ Jr. Chortoicetes ter- Health 80(7):848–852 minifera (Orthoptera: Acrididae) with Metarhizium Griswold E (2012) How ‘silent spring’ ignited the environ. cereus. Science locusts and grasshoppers in West Africa: incorporat. thuringiensis and B. pathogenic Pseudomonas species. O’Callaghan M (2000) Bacillus thuringiensis: Nucleopolyhedrovirus detection and distribution in biology. Sofranko AJ (eds) Gerhardson B (2002) Biological substitutes for pesticides. Pseudomonas GRC2 against two fungal pathogens. metabolites XVI structures of new peptaibols. Rudewicz PJ. Enoki A. pp 219–225 of systemic resistance induced by avirulent and non- Green M. UK. Raine NE (2012) Combined pes. Clark SJ (1999) The ger- movement. Informe pp 293–300 Agropecuário 15:21–26 Gelernter WD (2007) Microbial control in Asia: a bell. gen. Hollyer T. Enfield. Fujita T. Butt TM. ano de insetos com o uso de bactérias. anisopliae (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes). Publishers. In: Roettger U. Kumar MA (2006) Pseudomonas fluores. Douro-Kpindou O-K. Hampshire. Heumann M. num. Wiley. In: Summers M. In: Swanson BE. Glasgow. Halim H. J Jpn Forest Soc 15: Greaves MP (1993) Formulation of microbial herbicides 1221–1231 to improve performance in the field. In: Proceedings of the BCPC Rev Microbiol 3:307–319 international congress. Improving agricultural extension: a reference manual. Ciencia UANL 4:143–152 pp 52–57 Guillon ML (2003) Regulation of biological control Iida A. PA . cens. produción y commercialization en México. The Habib MEM. Chem Pharm Bull 42:1070–1075 Toxicol Int 13:65–73 Industrial Equipment News (2013) Biopesticides Gupta S.com/2012/09/23/ Entomol Res 91:93–99 magazine/how-silent-spring-ignited-the-environmental Ibrahim L. Nat changing landscape.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 71 perspective. Falcon LA. vol 1. Bryant R. Bentz RP. Microbial Ecol Bacillus thuringiensis plasmids coding for δ-endotoxin 62:48–57 among strains of B. In: Proceedings of Hill KR. poisoning. p 188 ing the farmers’ perspective. Doud DF (2011) Glare TR. New Delhi. Brown JM. 648. Amer J Public ment of the Australian plague locust. the institute for the control. Roldán HM (2001) Bioinseticidas: Vail PV (eds) Baculoviruses for insect pest con- Su empleo. IK International Publishing House Pvt Gupta CP. Washington. freshwater. Ouambama Z. Ministry of agriculture. Br 8th EWRS symposium quantitative approaches in Med J 2:845–847 weed and herbicide research and their practical appli. DC. Rome phage-derived products as antibacterial therapeutics. Turrialba. Foster LR. Brown ΒJ. Kang SC. Engler R. Federici BA (eds) The biology of 901–907 baculoviruses. Braunschweig.nytimes. Dikshit AK (2010) Biopesticides: an ecofriendly market to reach $1 billion in 2010. Robinson G (1945) Fatal D. Trends Biotechnol 20:338–343 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Gill JJ. Germany. Sokolow R. Hoffland E. Gulf of Maine. Groote HD. Dubey RC. tricho- ing countries. Sen A. Boca Raton. Milner RJ. Marwaha SS. Wanjari RR. René P. Ronald JH. Zhao M (2011) between Bacillus thuringiensis (Berliner) and Applications and development trends in biopesticides. Joung KC. In: Hunter-Fujita HR. British crop protection council. Sci Total Environ 2:141–163 biology and its relevance for the registration of Khalil IAIM. IOBC Global Koul O. Campus Books International. Appanna V. Makhijani K. Kranthi S. Jadavpur University. nea (Coleoptera Scarabaeidae). Mishra et al. Wolff MS (1999) Pesticides and ment. Ali S. New Delhi. J Econ Entomol bial pesticides in representative jurisdictions world. Berkowitz GS. Pakistan Lisansky S (1997) Microbial biopesticides. Baculovirus-based products for insect pest population Tharcisse B. IOBC (2008) International organization for biological Knutson RD.php??s1=pub&page=micro management. Kunimi Y (1998) Japan. chickpea Afr J Biotechnol 10:19864–19873 pod borer. Rick DP. Hutchinson G. Arora NK (2011) Dual activity of pyocyanin Lomer C (2001) Assessing the feasibility of biological from Pseudomonas aeruginosa –antibiotic against control of locusts and grasshoppers in West Africa: phytopathogen and signal molecule for biofilm devel. Ryu CM. J Biofert Biopest 3:1–3 cides for agricultural crops in OECD countries. Farnham. Am Assoc Adv Sci 22:11–22 Khalique D. Markowitz SB. J Invertebr Pathol 95:181–186 in representative jurisdictions worldwide. Marco-Mancebon V. Agric Hum opment by rhizobia. Crook NF (eds) Insect viruses and pest gc. Hoekb CDC. Pharmacologia 3:641–656 and grasshoppers. Knutson Irigaray FJSC. Romero H. and prevention. health effects of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroeth- Phytopathology 94:1259–1266 ane) and PCBS (polychlorinated biphenyls) and an . In: Agriculture and Agri. UK. Reilly PJA. Chapman and Hall. In: Evans HF J Biol Sci 4:1120–1123 (ed) Microbial insecticides. Kathy AD. Arora JK (2003) Jones KA. http://www. of microorganisms. ronmental safety. ical control of Asiatic garden beetle Maladera casta- Stephanie GW (eds) The use and regulation of micro. Claudio L. pp 3–10 characterization and biomass production of Liu CJ. Europe. Liu YJ (2002) The pollution of pesti- Trichoderma viride using various agro products. Entwistle Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. In: Kabaluk. In: Soloneski S (ed) Integrated pest manage- Sharon LIL. Penson JB. 68. 10LP and Bio-Save 11LP (Pseudomonas syringae) for Intech. pp 269–279 Kabaluk JT. incorporating the farmers’ perspective. Adv Appl Sci Res 3:3950–3955 Stud Agric 18:295–297 Khare E. Proceedings No. Global. Mark SG. Datta S. Zhang S (2004) Induced systemic Longnecker MP. Syst Sci Compr biocontrol agent. Calcutta Lapointe R. Godbold JH. Siwoo L. Ian KM. In: Proceedings of National Conference on inner-city children: exposures. Gore Kabi MC (1997) Impact of biofertilizer on rural develop. Eddleston M (2003) Reducing acute poison- effects on the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus ing in developing countries-options for restricting the urticae. Lucie G.ca/env/pest/index_-e. Zhang Z. Naruka R. pp 386–388 pp 343–370 Kranthi KR. bassiana and its compatibility with triflumuron: Singh S. Jeger MJ (1993) Future perspectives in.A cides in soils and its bioremediation. 29 Kumar S (2012) Biopesticides: a need for food and envi- Kabaluk T. 449–460 Technical Bulletin No. Dhaliwal GS. Evans HF. Perez-Moreno I and Associates. Wiley.Food Canada. Biol Le Conte JL (1874) Hints for the promotion of economic Control 64:315–322 entomology. Daisley H. Lucier G (1997) The human resistance and promotion of plant by Bacillus spp.agr. Biol Control 26:168–173 availability of pesticides. Matte TD. Rogan WJ. Sharma G. Men WJ. Russell D (2002) Insecticide resistance in five major tal impacts of the microbial insecticide Bacillus insect pests of cotton in India. Kelvin L. Chichester. impact of biotechnology and modern horticulture in Environ Health Perspect 107:431–437 rural development. risks. Goette lMS. Fuzy AM (2003) Biological and chem- Korea. In: Jones DG (ed) Exploitation management. Coˆte’ JC (2000) A review of the environmen. In: Koul O. Gazdik K (2005) Directory of microbial pesti. advances in our knowledge of Baculovirus: molecular geous benefit: risk ratio. pp 481–522 management of potato diseases in storage. control. Thumbi D. Chandra S (2012) Isolation. Kumar R. Novel or necessity? Khandelwal M. Crop Prot 21: thuringiensis. Svircev AM. London. JT. p 99 Brenner BL. Arora JK (eds) Biopesticides and pest countries of the tropics. Exploitation of microorganisms in the developing Marwaha SS. IOBC Landrigan PJ. Taylor CR. Ahmed K (2001) Synergistic interaction Leng P. Sang GL. Smith EG (1990) control. Mehta J. Westby A. IOBC Newsletter 84:5–7 Economic impacts of reduced chemical use. Lucarotti CJ (2012) Recent Keane WT (1972) Eliminate DDT? Quest for an advanta. Can J Microbiol 57:708–713 Value 18:413–428 Khater HF (2012) Prospects of botanical biopesticides in Lomer CJ. Toxicology 192:249–261 Jeong JK. 96:1076–1082 wide. Lambda-cyhalothrin (Pyrethroid) against. Woo SG (eds) Kunimi Y (2007) Current status and prospects on micro- (2010) The use and regulation of microbial pesticides bial control in Japan. AC. Kithsiri EJ (2013) Efficacy of Bio-Save ment and pest control – current and future tactics. Prior C (eds) (1992) Biological control of locusts insect pest management. Jadhav DR. College Station (2003) The entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria Konradsen F. Wetmur JG. Guangtang P. vol 1. Helicoverpa armigera (Huebner). PF. Wallingford Kloepper JW. CAB International. Dhaliwal GS.72 J. Hyeong JJ (2010) South Koppenhöfer AM. Antonet MS. India of India. Kritpitayaavuth M Milner RJ. Pichtel P (eds) Microbes and MacGregor JT (2006) Genetic toxicity assessment of microbial technology. Franjevic S. Traverse RS (1989) Worldwide abundance production and crop protection: estimated losses in and distribution of Bacillus thuringiensis isolates. Caesalpinia decapetala in India. Buranarerk A. Intern Assoc Environ Mutagen Soc 1–17 Nakkeeran S. Aust J Biotechnol 3:223–228 mycoinsecticide of the future. Int J Sci Adv japonensis with a high larvicidal activity specific for Technol 1:169–178 scarabaeid beetles. Nagaraj DN (1992) A Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria formulations report on the survey for natural enemies of the and its scope in commercialization for the manage- Mauritius thorn. FAO. Fages J. (1992) A unique isolate of Bacillus thuringiensis serovar ticides in insect pest management. In: IgnoVo CM. Suzuki N. Pareilleux A (1993) McCoy CW. Pimentel D. Lasarev M.pdf Wallingford Oerke EC. Diallo DB (eds) of Agriculture. their biology.-Ag. microbial pesticides: needs and recommended pp 415–445 approaches. Lu A (1997) The molecular basis of baculovi. Wiley. Kaskey J (2012) Biopesticide: killer bugs McCoy CW (1996) Pathogens of eriophyoid mites. Lett App Microbiol 14:54–57 McCauley L. Sabelis MW. CAB reviews: advancing green chemistry. Boucias DG (1988) Survival of alginate-entrapped cells of Azospirillum Entomogenous fungi. Kalita JC (2011) A review on the use of biopes. Department plague locust. pp 217–235 economic costs of pesticide use. Amsterdam Appl Environ Microbiol 55:2437–2442 Ohba M. Phillips J. In: for hire. major food and cash crops. Methods of assessing the incidence of Armillaria root ruses. Peveling R. Jenkins K (1996) Metarhizium: a versatile control – a review. Areekul P. pp 481–490 Paul E. de Castro Batista ME.com/articles/2012-07-19/ pests: eriophyoid mites. Prodorutti D (2008) McWilliam A (2007) Environmental impact of baculovi. technical bulletin no. Basel. De Luca F. Springer. Gobbin D. In: Siddiqui ZA (ed) Unpublished Report of Bio-Control Research PGPR: biocontrol and biofertilization. de Souza Lobo M. In: Miller LK (ed) The baculoviruses. Weber A (1994) Crop Martin PAW.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 73 overview of organochlorines in public health. CAB International. Environ Entmol 29:394–402 517–526 O’Brien KP. nutri. Goma G. Ministry of Agriculture Government 2017). Asano S. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol pesticides part A. industry in India? Ag Bio Forum 13:297–307 . Greiner A (1996) Environmental and socio- Plenum Press. and-Sus. New York. Kumar N. In: Krall S. Nagarajan L (2010) Price controls and biotech- pp 177–183 nology innovation: are state government policies Moscardi F. Biocon Sci Technol 4: oviposition.-the-Role-of-Biopesticides. Bloomberg Business Week. veterinary science. Laboratories. pp 151–236 Pertot I. Jones J (2009) Green chemistry Marrone PG (2007) Barriers to adoption of biological and sustainable agriculture: the role of biopesticides. Crop Prot 27:1061–1070 rus host range.R7299_FTR_anx3. vol 5.10. http://www. natural enemies biopesticides-killer-bugs-for-hire and control. Entomogenous protozoa and fungi. Beltran M.org/wp-content/uploads/Green-Chem- tion and natural resources 2(51). http://www. Samson RA. Pray CE. Sato R. pp 257–296 Market and Market (2013) Report code: CH 1266 Global National farmers Policy (2007) Department of Agriculture biopesticides market – trends and forecasts (2012– and Cooperation. Lindquist EE.fao. vol 6. Bangalore. Dehne HW. Mandava NB lipoferum during dehydration and storage in relation (eds) Handbook of natural pesticides. Birkhäuser. Elsevier. Amsterdam. JB. Prof Pest Manag 1:32–36 Prasetphol S. Dilantha Fernando WG. http://advancinggre- perspectives in agriculture. Strickler K (2000) Effects of Beauveria bassiana thuringiensis in integrated pest management systems: on Lygus Hesperus (Hemiptera: Miridae) feeding and an industrial perspective. Chichester 21:47N–50N Powles RJ. lwahana H. India Dordrecht. Boca Raton. Schnbeck F. Italy. Ahmad F. Zaki A (2005) Manjunath TM. Environ Entomology. Microbial to water properties. Annu cides – present state and future perspectives. African an evolving model for participatory research. reducing research and innovation by the Ag biotech Moscardi LM. In: Pimentel D (ed) Milner RJ (2000) Current status of Metarhizium as a Techniques for reducing pesticides: environmental mycoinsecticide in Australia. Biocontrol News Inf and economic benefits. New York. Blanc P. Prior C (1997) (1969) Life history of orange dog butterfly and its Development of a mycoinsecticide for the Australian microbial control. Rogers PL (1989) Bacillus toxin for insect Milner RJ. 40:34–39 CRC Press. control agents and biological pesticides. ment of pests and diseases. Memoir No 1 Health Perspect 109:449–455 Patrick W. Szewczyk B (2011) Baculovirus pesti. Hori H Mazid S. Elsevier. Hooper GHS. India Marrone PG (1994) Present and future use of Bacillus Noma T. Baker GL. enchemistry. Bangkok New strategies in locust control.pdf diversity and spatial–temporal pattern in northern Miller LK. In: Rev Public Health 18:211–244 Ahmad I. Sticker D Olckers T (1999) Introduction: biological control of (2001) The Oregon migrant farmworkers community: weeds in South Africa (1990–1998). Springer. Bruin J (eds) World crop businessweek.org/ rot across viticultural areas and the pathogen’s genetic docs/eims/upload/agrotech/2003/R7299_FTR_anx3. Beauveria bassianain. Rupela OP. In: Quinlan RJ (1990) Registration requirements and safety REBECA workshop on current risk assessment and considerations for microbial pest control agents in the regulation practice. Shadduck JA (1990) Clearance of Bacillus Radcliffe EB.. India Reeda EM. Washington. Nat Biotechnol 24:63–71 fantasy? Australasian Plant Pathol 30:127–131 . Camann DE. Cambridge University Press. Sinclair M. Costa Rica communication). Reinhold M (eds) (2003) International University Press. Hartley SE. Hails RS (2005) The research to farmers’ fields: proceedings of an interna- role of food plant and pathogen-induced behavior in tional workshop on managing legume nitrogen fixa- the persistence of a nucleopolyhedrovirus. J Invert tion in the cropping system of Asia. Annu ES (ed) Proceedings of VI international symposium on Rev Microbiol 11:165–182 biological control of weeds. Moktan B. Thompson JA (1996) present status and future prospects. Retchelderfer K (1984) Factors affecting the economic fea. Van den Heuvel J (eds) Microbiology of Rajasekaran B (eds) Microbial control of crop pests. developing countries. DC expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biologi. Turrialba. Columbus symposium on biopesticides for developing countries. Burns RG (1997) Shelf-life of a biocon- Rabindra RJ (2005) Current status of production and use trol Pseudomonas putida applied to sugar beet seeds of microbial pesticides in India and the way forward. Ramanujam B (ed) 7:65–74 Microbial biopesticide formulations and application. tactics. Washington. Piezodorus guildinii. the use of Bacillus species for industrial production. Environ Health Perspect Schneider W (2006) US EPA Regulation of biopesticides. Yau AY. Sathiah N. Appl Environ Microbiol biopesticides. Wechter WP. In: Laird M. 112:382–387 microbial and biochemical pesticide regulation. Business Communication 2:115–120 Company Research. CATIE. CPL Business 78:3592–3598 Consultants. Gelechiidae)). Boca Raton. Moscardi F (1998) Laboratory and field of a granulosis virus for the control of the potato moth studies on the infection of stink bugs. Kennedy JS. Stewart A (2001) Commercial biocontrol – reality or cal control. Oxfam Americas. Shukla R. LLC. overview volume. pp 1–12 Siegel JP. Food Contr 18:1555–1564 Qiu J (2013) Organic pollutants poison the roof of the Rushtapakomchai W (2003) Use and production of world: accumulation of DDT in Himalayas exceeds biopesticides in Thailand. Fokkema NJ.55. Jackson DS (2004) Schallmey M. Turrialba. Meissle M. Hoppin JA. Arcury TA. In: Roettger U. Rubio I. J Econ Entomol 83:347–355 gies and case studies. C. p 26 Schönbeck F. IFPRI distribution paper Bacillus cereus isolates from legume-based Indian fer- 118. Brazil J Invertebr Pathol Report code: CHM029D. p 135–144 Steinhaus EA (1975) Disease in a minor chord. In: Extending nitrogen fixation Raymond B. Tamil Nadu Agriculture University. Ohio State Roettger U. Cory JS. (PhthorimaeaOperculella (Zell. Dehne HW (1986) Use of microbial metab- Rabindra RJ (2001) Emerging trends in microbial control olites inducing resistance against plant pathogens. In: Rabindra RJ. In: Delfoss Steinhaus EA (1957) Microbial diseases of insects. Carr TJ. Hutchison WD. DC mented foods. Hussaini SS. strate. Biocontrol Sci Technol In: Rabindra RJ. Wallingford. and Euschistus heros (Hemiptera: Bull Ent Res 61:223–233 Pentatomidae) with Metarhizium anisopliae and BCC Research (2012) Global markets for biopesticides. Rao P. Ward OP (2004) Developments in Agricultural and residential pesticides in wipe sam. Coimbatore. Ranga Rao GV. McGraw Hill Co. Bull CT. Gill A (2006) The world market for microbial rial blight of crucifers. Westwater LA. the Phyllosphere. Boonkerd N. Pray CE. ples from farmworker family residences in North Can J Microbiol 50:1–17 Carolina and Virginia. Cambridge University Press. US Environmental Protection Romeis J. Salzau. USA Steinhaus EA (1949) Principles of insect pathology. Reinhold M that seen in Arctic.) (Lep. Molineux IJ (2012) Development of an engineered cides. IJMRR 2:91–99 logical control. Sarkar PK (2007) Characteristics of private agribusiness in India. In: of crop pests. Steinwand B (2008) Biopesticide ombudsman (personal CATIE. Reddy Boston YVR (2007) Role of biopesticides in crop protection: Singleton PW. pp 363–377 pp 110–127 Shah-Smith DA.74 J. Ind J Plant Prot Technical and market constraints limiting legume 35:1–9 inoculant use in Asia. CRC Press. Germany European economic community. cides: a product for agricultural. UK. Rameshwar Rao V. israelensis Integrated pest management: concepts. from mammals. Shukla R (2012) Market potential for biopesti- Technical document No. Cancelado RE (eds) (2009) sphaericus and Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. ICRISAT Asia Patho 88:49–57 Centre. Singh A. Davidson EW (eds) Safety of microbial insecti. Agr Can Bull. Nature News (eds) International symposium on biopesticides for Quandt SA. pp 11–18 bioluminescent reporter phage for detection of bacte- Quinlan RJ. Project directorate of bio. IFPRI. Mishra et al. Lacey Schofield DA. Nagarajan L (2012) Innovation and research by Roy A. Springetta BP (1971) Large-scale field testing Sosa-Gomez DR. Nezara viridula. pp 126–130 Doran AM. using commercial coating. New York sibility of the biological control of weeds. Bigler F (2006) Transgenic crops Agency. Snively BM. Martha T (2001) Going against the grain: agri- New York cultural crisis and transformation. the synthetic insec- Biomed Environ Sci 18:169–175 ticide. In: Maheshwari board/Kenya agricultural research institute/depart- DK. Sihler W. Chapman & Hall. USA. Phytopathology 86:221–224 ticides on aerobic capacity and survival of soil fauna. to chemical protection of plants. Ostrinia furnacalis. effects. entomopathogenic fungi from Thailand against Crop Prot 18:83–89 Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) and Thrips Wei G. CABI control or suppression of Pseudomonas syringae pv. Subramaniam VK (1952) Control of the fluted scale in Golf Course Manag 67:1–4 peninsular India. Bacillus thuringiensis products in Thailand. Chen JF (2002) Biological control. Blaeser P. Garg KL (eds) Entomol 23:131–139 Biocontrol of plant diseases. Ngaruiya PN. Isr J logical control. In: Proceedings of the pest control products tive paradigms for commercialization. J Immunotoxicol 6(1):62–73 tions. J Jilin Agric Sci Bacillus thuringiensis. Fujian United States. (2009) Differential allergy responses to Metarhizium Moscardi ML. InTech. Beauveria bassiana in maize whorl against USEPA (1998) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED). Sengonca C (2006) Effect of the economic benefits of alternative pesticide usage temperature and host plant on the efficacy of different scenarios: wheat production in the United Kingdom.epa. Copeland LB Szewczyk B. J Hubei Agri Coll 22:472–475 . mice. Sci Technol Rev 25:56–60 USEPA (2011) Pesticide news story: EPA releases report Ye ZC. compared in a mouse model. relation to environmental Wu C. In: Stoytcheva M (ed) Pesticides – formula. Copeland LB. anisopliae fungal component extracts in BALB/c ticides. London Tschirley FH (1973) Pesticides. Tronsmo A (1988) Hyperparasites in bio. Grzywacz D (2002) A survey ca/content/13636 of the supply. on cucumber (1987) An investigation of culturing the fungus leaves. UK Actinidiae. Lobo de Souza M. Du CX. Chung YJ. Rabalski L. Moscardi F (2011) Baculovirus biopes. IK Publishing House Pvt Ltd. USA Education Press. http://www. production and use of microbial Szewczyk B. University of Greenwich. Dubey RC (eds) Potential microorganisms for ment for international development crop protection sustainable agriculture: a techno-commercial perspec. Krol E. Yang HW (2007) Advances in bio-control of plant diseases gov/pesticides/biopesticides/whatarebiopesticides. Wang WX. Campbell GA (1946) DDT. Arora NK (2013) Transactions amongst micro. pp 328–331 Van Lantern JC (2003) Need for quality control for mass Zhang GZ (2002) Research and development of biopesti- produced biological control.htm and pests in China.2 Biopesticides: Where We Stand? 75 Stewart A. Ind J Entomol 16:391–394 Vattanatangum A (1989) Diamondback moth control with Sundheim L. Bowles RG. Natural M (2009) Baculovirus biopesticides – a safe alternative Resources Institute. Springer. J Toxicol 1–13 fundamentals and advances. West TW. Kloepper JW. CRC Press Boca Wabule MN. Weed Thakore Y (2006) The biopesticide market for global agri. Williams NT (1999) Estimating Thungrabeab M.5772/13219 Ward MWD. Kimmins FK. International. Sharma M (2005) Effects of habitats and pes. programme workshop. J Plant Dis Protect 113:181–187 growth by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria under Tripathi G. Doerfler DL Tewari S. Batista de Castro ML. fate. a potential biological Xu QF. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao Urquhart EJ. Technol 12:752–760 cultural use. Cheng X-H (2009) Baculovirus host-range. J Biopesticides Chatham. (2011) Allergic responses induced by a fungal biopes- organisms and plant in the composite rhizosphere ticide Metarhizium anisopliae and house dust mite are habitat. Haykal-Coates N. Adholeya A (2008) Biological control: alterna. Chung YJ. Punja ZK (1997) Epiphytic growth and sur. New Delhi Limited. vol 1. Lobo de Souza pesticides in Thailand. field conditions. NRI Report 2723. In: Van Lantern JC (ed) cides in China. Hill R. p 100 2:209–216 Ward MDW. Silverside PJ Raton. Ketunuti U. pp 53–70 (ed) (2004) Registration for biocontrol agents in Swati S. Chinese ency- containing latest estimates of pesticide use in the clopedia of academic research: 20th century. Aylesford. In: Mukerji KG. Ind Biotechnol 2:192–208 Warrior P (2000) Living systems as natural crop- Thiem S. Bio Prot Res Centre. Zun SL. Chen X (2004) Impact of pesticides on biodiversity quality. JAMA 224:1157–1166 in agricultural areas. protection agents. 15(2):341–344 vival of Tilletiopsu pallescens. Can J Bot 75:892–901 pathogen. corn borer. Pest Manag Sci 56:681–687 Virol Sin 24:436–457 Webster JPG. Natural Resources International tive. UK Sylvar Technologies (2008) Research. Stark C (2011) Desktop evaluation on Quality control and production of biological control commercially available microbial-based products for agents theory and testing procedures. Kenya. In: Arora NK (ed) Plant microbe symbiosis. resistance to cucumber diseases and increased plant oratory. Warburton H.sylvar. Tuzun S (1996) Induced systemic tabaci Lindeman (Thysanoptera:Thripidae) in the lab. pp 1–26 Vargas JM (1999) Biological control: a work in progress. Xu BS control agent of Sphaerotheca jilznea. Song YL. doi:10. India Warren GF (1998) Spectacular increases in crop yields in pp 411–449 the United States in the twentieth century. USA 4:25–27 USEPA (2008) What are biopesticides? http://www.