Tools that could be used to subvert the insect diapause response offer potential for insect pest management as well as for the experimental manipulation of insects and the facilitation of mass rearing procedures. In some cases, it is desirable to break diapause on demand and in other cases, it may be attractive to exploit diapause for long-term storage of biocontrol agents or valuable experimental lines. This review highlights some of the diapause disruptors reported in the literature, as well as chemical and physical manipulations that can be used to extend diapause or even induce diapause in an insect not programmed for diapause. The insect hormones are quite effective agents for breaking diapause and in some cases for extending the duration of diapause, but a collection of other chemical agents can also act as potent diapause disruptors, e.g. organic solvents, weak acids and bases, carbon dioxide, imidazole compounds, LSD, deuterium oxide, DMSO, ouabain, cholera toxin, cyclic GMP, heavy metals, and hydrogen peroxide. Physical manipulations such as artificial light at night, anoxia, shaking and heat shock are also known diapause disruptors. Some of these documented manipulations prevent diapause, others terminate diapause immediately, others alter the duration of diapause, and a few compounds can induce a diapause-like state in insects that are not programmed for diapause. The diversity of tools noted in the literature offers promise for the development of new tools or manipulations that possibly could be used to disrupt diapause or manage diapause in controlled laboratory experiments and in mass-rearing facilities.

Signed in 2009, the plant protection Commission Regulation EC No 1107/2009 created a new category of active substances, the low-risk substances, with specific status defined in Article 22. The initial and specific criteria, not suitable for microorganisms and natural substances, were modified in 2018, and the first low-risk substance, allocating Part D of Regulation EC No 540/2011, was granted in the same year. Since then, thirty-three low-risk substances have been granted with this specific status through approvals and renewals, while a larger list of potential low-risk substances from already-approved active substances was published. This list is only exploited during renewals, and this process would take another five years to complete. After four years of the implementation of this status, the number of such substances is still low, but is intended to increase slowly. Two more low-risk substances are already pending in 2021, which will bring the number of low-risk substances to thirty-five, while the initial list of potential low-risk substances (only renewals) included fifty-seven substances.

Species that belong to the Aphidius eadyi group have been used as biocontrol agents against Acyrthosiphon pisum worldwide. However, despite their extensive use, there are still gaps in our knowledge about their taxonomy and distribution. In this study, we employed an integrative taxonomic approach by combining genetic analyses (mtDNA COI barcoding) with standard morphological analyses and geometric morphometrics of forewing shape. We identified three species within the A. eadyi species group, viz., A. smithi, A. eadyi and A. banksae. Genetic separation of all three species was confirmed, with mean genetic distances between species ranging from 5 to 7.4%. The following morphological characters were determined as the most important for separating species of the A. eadyi group: number and shape of costulae on the anterolateral part of the petiole, shape of the central areola on the propodeum, and shape and venation of the forewings. The differences in wing shape of all three species were statistically significant, but with some overlapping. We identified A. banksae as a widely distributed pea aphid parasitoid, whose known range covers most of the western Palaearctic (from the UK to Israel). Aphidius banksae is diagnosed and redescribed.

Rhizobacteria are being evaluated for promotion of plant growth and for biological control of weeds, insects, diseases, and nematodes. Although considerable efforts have been allocated to this approach to biological control, commercial success remains elusive yet intriguing. In this review, the root biology of downy brome and winter wheat is described as an initial model of the information needed for other plant hosts. A limited review of rhizobacteria in disease management is presented to demonstrate the potential and some limitations with rhizobacteria as biocontrol agents. Several techniques are described to improve the survival of a rhizobacterium to suppress downy brome. To achieve success with rhizobacteria in pest management, more information is needed on the root biology of the host plants and the ecology of the rhizobacteria.

Biological control is defined broadly as the “use of natural or modified organisms, genes, or gene products” to reduce the effects of pests and diseases. Physical control is the use of tillage, open-field burning, heat-treatment (pasteurization), and other physical methods, usually to eliminate pests or separate them from the crop. Chemical control is the use of synthetic chemical pesticides to eliminate pests or reduce their effects. The many approaches to biological control can be categorized conceptionally into 1) regulation of the pest population (the classical approach), 2) exclusionary systems of protection (a living barrier of microorganisms on the plant or animal that deters infection or pest attack), and 3) systems of self-defense (resistance and immunization). The agents of biological control include the pest- or disease-agent itself (sterile males or avirulent strains of pathogens), antagonists or natural enemies, or the plant or animal managed or manipulated (immunized) to defend itself. The methods range from 1) conserving and making maximum use of indigenous (resident) biological control through cultural practices, 2) making one-time or occasional introductions of genes or natural enemies that are more or less self-sustaining and 3) making repeated introductions of a biocontrol agent (e.g. a microbial pesticide). Biological, physical, and chemical treatments and pest controls can be integrated into holistic plant-health care also known as integrated crop and pest management. Eight principles of plant health care are offered: 1) know the production limits of the agroecosystem; 2) rotate the crops; 3) maintain soil organic matter; 4) use clean planting material; 5) plant well-adapted, pest-resistant cultivars; 6) minimize environmental and nutritional stresses; 7) maximize the effects of beneficial organisms; and 8) protect with pesticides as necessary.

Biological control of arthropod pests has a long history of useful practical application. Parasites, predators, and pathogens have been employed in many cases to control pest arthropods in an efficient, cost-effective, and permanent manner. The traditional tactics used in biological control (classical, augmentation, and conservation) remain vital and valuable tools in the biological control of pests for agricultural crops, range lands, forests, and glasshouses. New technologies offer promise. One emerging technique involves the genetic improvement of natural enemies of arthropods through selection, hybridization, or recombinant DNA technology.