11.14 Conclusion
There have been growing interests in sustainable and organic agriculture in developing countries because of the availability of natural inputs, human resources and
agro-climatic conditions. Disadvantages of the use of chemical insecticides and
demand for organics pushed biopesticides forefront in pest management. Microbes
provide certain distinct advantages over other control agents and methods. The
major advantage of exploiting microorganisms for pest control is their environmental safety primarily due to the host specificity of these pathogens. Microorganisms
have natural capability of causing disease at epizootic levels due to their persistence
in soil and efficient transmission. Many insect pathogens are compatible with other
control methods including chemical insecticides and parasitoids. The cost of development and registration of microbial insecticides are much lesser than chemical
insecticides. The self-perpetuating nature of most of the pathogens in both space and
time are major advantages of biopesticides. There is a long-term regulation of a pest
population in nature by beneficial organisms to keep pest populations below the
threshold level. Though biopesticides possess several benefits, it is not well
popularized due to lack of awareness among the farmers. It is necessary to convince
farmers and government agencies to adopt biopesticides as a prime component
of IPM.
References
Altemimi A, Lakhssassi N, Baharlouei A, Watson D, Lightfoot D (2017) Phytochemicals: extraction, isolation, and identification of bioactive compounds from plant extracts. Plants (Basel) 6
(4):42. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants6040042
Aronson AI, Shai Y (2001) Why Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal toxins are so effective: unique
features of their mode of action. FEMS Microbiol Lett 195(1):1–8
Bastiaans L, Paolini R, Baumann DT (2008) Focus on ecological weed management: what is
hindering adoption? Weed Res 48(6):481–491
Betz FS, Hammond BG, Fuchs RL (2000) Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensisprotected plants to control insect pests. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 32(2):156–173
Bhattacharyya A, Duraisamy P, Govindarajan M, Buhroo AA, Prasad R (2016) Nanobiofungicides: emerging trend in insect pest control. In: Prasad R (ed) Advances and
applications through fungal nanobiotechnology. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland,
pp 307–319
Boyetchko S, Pedersen E, Punja Z, Reddy M (1999) Formulations of biopesticides. In: Hall FR,
Menn JJ (eds) Biopesticides: use and delivery. Methods in biotechnology, vol 5. Humana Press,
Totowa, pp 487–508
Bravo A, Gill SS, Soberon M (2007) Mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry and Cyt toxins
and their potential for insect control. Toxicon 49(4):423–435
Chandler D, Bailey AS, Tatchell GM, Davidson G, Greaves J, Grant WP (2011) The development,
regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philos T R Soc B Biol Sci
366(1573):1987–1998
Cory JS (2000) Assessing the risks of releasing genetically modified virus insecticides: progress to
date. Crop Prot 19(8-10):779–785
264
M. Rajamani and A. Negi
There have been growing interests in sustainable and organic agriculture in developing countries because of the availability of natural inputs, human resources and
agro-climatic conditions. Disadvantages of the use of chemical insecticides and
demand for organics pushed biopesticides forefront in pest management. Microbes
provide certain distinct advantages over other control agents and methods. The
major advantage of exploiting microorganisms for pest control is their environmental safety primarily due to the host specificity of these pathogens. Microorganisms
have natural capability of causing disease at epizootic levels due to their persistence
in soil and efficient transmission. Many insect pathogens are compatible with other
control methods including chemical insecticides and parasitoids. The cost of development and registration of microbial insecticides are much lesser than chemical
insecticides. The self-perpetuating nature of most of the pathogens in both space and
time are major advantages of biopesticides. There is a long-term regulation of a pest
population in nature by beneficial organisms to keep pest populations below the
threshold level. Though biopesticides possess several benefits, it is not well
popularized due to lack of awareness among the farmers. It is necessary to convince
farmers and government agencies to adopt biopesticides as a prime component
of IPM.
References
Altemimi A, Lakhssassi N, Baharlouei A, Watson D, Lightfoot D (2017) Phytochemicals: extraction, isolation, and identification of bioactive compounds from plant extracts. Plants (Basel) 6
(4):42. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants6040042
Aronson AI, Shai Y (2001) Why Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal toxins are so effective: unique
features of their mode of action. FEMS Microbiol Lett 195(1):1–8
Bastiaans L, Paolini R, Baumann DT (2008) Focus on ecological weed management: what is
hindering adoption? Weed Res 48(6):481–491
Betz FS, Hammond BG, Fuchs RL (2000) Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensisprotected plants to control insect pests. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 32(2):156–173
Bhattacharyya A, Duraisamy P, Govindarajan M, Buhroo AA, Prasad R (2016) Nanobiofungicides: emerging trend in insect pest control. In: Prasad R (ed) Advances and
applications through fungal nanobiotechnology. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland,
pp 307–319
Boyetchko S, Pedersen E, Punja Z, Reddy M (1999) Formulations of biopesticides. In: Hall FR,
Menn JJ (eds) Biopesticides: use and delivery. Methods in biotechnology, vol 5. Humana Press,
Totowa, pp 487–508
Bravo A, Gill SS, Soberon M (2007) Mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry and Cyt toxins
and their potential for insect control. Toxicon 49(4):423–435
Chandler D, Bailey AS, Tatchell GM, Davidson G, Greaves J, Grant WP (2011) The development,
regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philos T R Soc B Biol Sci
366(1573):1987–1998
Cory JS (2000) Assessing the risks of releasing genetically modified virus insecticides: progress to
date. Crop Prot 19(8-10):779–785
264
M. Rajamani and A. Negi