IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v8y2018i1p13-d126579.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Current Status and Recent Developments in Biopesticide Use

Author

Listed:
  • Christos A. Damalas

    (Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of Thrace, GR-682 00 Orestiada, Greece)

  • Spyridon D. Koutroubas

    (Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of Thrace, GR-682 00 Orestiada, Greece)

Abstract

Biopesticides have attracted attention in pest management in recent decades, and have long been promoted as prospective alternatives to synthetic pesticides. Biopesticides have also attracted great interest in the international research community, with a significant increase in the number of publications devoted to the subject. Recently, new substances, like strains of the fungus Talaromyces flavus SAY-Y-94-01, extracts of the plant Clitoria ternatea (butterfly pea), products of the fungus Trichoderma harzianum , products of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis strain Xd3 (Btt-Xd3), the alkaloid compound oxymatrine, fermentation products of the bacterium Lactobacillus casei strain LPT-111, stilbenes accumulated in grape canes, and olive mill wastes, have been reported in the literature as promising compounds for use as biopesticides, but more field research is required to assess the effects on specific pest problems under diverse cropping systems. Nevertheless, biopesticides have not yet reached the desired level of use, whereby they could displace the dominance of chemical pesticides, given that the commercialization of new products in the market is lagging behind. Currently, biopesticides comprise a small share of the total crop protection market globally, with a value of about $3 billion worldwide, accounting for just 5% of the total crop protection market. Fewer biopesticide-active substances are registered in the European Union (EU) than in the United States, India, Brazil, or China, due to long and complex registration processes in the EU, which follow the model for the registration of conventional pesticides. Nanoformulations and microencapsulation technologies can improve the stability and residual action of biopesticide products, and this could increase their field use. Regulations that promote registration of low-risk compounds with the provision of incentives could also facilitate commercialization and availability of biopesticides in the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Christos A. Damalas & Spyridon D. Koutroubas, 2018. "Current Status and Recent Developments in Biopesticide Use," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-6, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:8:y:2018:i:1:p:13-:d:126579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/8/1/13/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/8/1/13/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jolanta Kowalska & Joanna Krzymińska & Kinga Matysiak & Magdalena Jakubowska, 2022. "Screening for Antagonistic Yeasts to Manage Alternaria spp. in Organic Farming," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Paulina Książek-Trela & Ewa Szpyrka, 2022. "The effect of natural and biological pesticides on the degradation of synthetic pesticides," Plant Protection Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 58(4), pages 273-291.
    3. Brassard, P. & Godbout, S. & Hamelin, L., 2021. "Framework for consequential life cycle assessment of pyrolysis biorefineries: A case study for the conversion of primary forestry residues," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    4. Jing Li & Ruiyin He, 2021. "Relationships among socioeconomic factors, rice planting method and pesticide use," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7358-7372, May.
    5. Nilanjan Chakraborty & Rusha Mitra & Somrhita Pal & Retwika Ganguly & Krishnendu Acharya & Tatiana Minkina & Anik Sarkar & Chetan Keswani, 2023. "Biopesticide Consumption in India: Insights into the Current Trends," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Kang, Shijia & Frick, Fabian & Ait Sidhoum, Amer & Sauer, Johannes & Zheng, Shaofeng, 2023. "Does food quality certification improve eco-efficiency? Empirical evidence from Chinese vegetable production," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    7. Korinna Varga & Judit Fehér & Bence Trugly & Dóra Drexler & Florian Leiber & Vincenzo Verrastro & Jakob Magid & Caroline Chylinski & Spiridoula Athanasiadou & Barbara Thuerig & Anna László & Márta Lad, 2022. "The State of Play of Copper, Mineral Oil, External Nutrient Input, Anthelmintics, Antibiotics and Vitamin Usage and Available Reduction Strategies in Organic Farming across Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-36, March.
    8. Yuying Liu & Ruiling Shi & Yiting Peng & Wei Wang & Xinhong Fu, 2022. "Impacts of Technology Training Provided by Agricultural Cooperatives on Farmers’ Adoption of Biopesticides in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Lana Dunan & Tara Malanga & Philippe Bearez & Sylvain Benhamou & Lucie S. Monticelli & Nicolas Desneux & Thomas Michel & Anne-Violette Lavoir, 2021. "Biopesticide Evaluation from Lab to Greenhouse Scale of Essential Oils Used against Macrosiphum euphorbiae," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    10. Davide Palermo & Giulia Giunti & Francesca Laudani & Vincenzo Palmeri & Orlando Campolo, 2021. "Essential Oil-Based Nano-Biopesticides: Formulation and Bioactivity against the Confused Flour Beetle Tribolium confusum," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-13, August.
    11. Geraldin M. W. Lengai & Alex M. Fulano & James W. Muthomi, 2022. "Improving Access to Export Market for Fresh Vegetables through Reduction of Phytosanitary and Pesticide Residue Constraints," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:8:y:2018:i:1:p:13-:d:126579. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.