"Natural" Pest Control Can Have Unforeseen Consequences

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Organisms introduced to control agricultural pests may end up permanently altering indigenous ecosystems, new research reveals. The results, announced today in the journal Science, suggest that the long-term effects of natural alternatives to chemical pesticides need to be carefully considered.

Jane Memmott and M. Laurie Henneman of the University of Bristol studied the effects of parasitic wasps and flies (parasitoids) brought in to protect against agricultural pests on native leaf-feeding caterpillars, which were not the intended targets. To assess these nontarget effects, the researchers mapped the web of interactions among numerous species of plants, butterflies and moths, and parasitoids in the Alakai Swamp, an isolated wilderness preserve on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. They found that parasitic wasps¿which kill their prey by laying eggs inside the victim¿s body¿had invaded roughly 10 percent of the 2,112 caterpillars collected during a two-year period. More than 80 percent of these wasps were biocontrol agents originally introduced in lowland agricultural fields; only 3 percent of the parasitic insects were native to the region.

The new research hints at the ability of an introduced species to take on a commanding role in an isolated ecosystem. Since 1901, parasitic wasps and flies have been released at least 122 times in Hawaii. "Some of the biocontrol agents released in early biocontrol programs have left the agricultural habitats in which they were released, and turned to attacking native species," Memmott says. "However, no agents released post-1945 were found in the web, suggesting that biocontrol may be much safer today than in the past."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The food web approach can only provide a snapshot in time, the scientists say, and it is impossible to understand the complexities of a system with only two years of study. And, although it is encouraging that later biocontrol agents were not implicated in the study, "there is little doubt," the authors conclude, "that the community structure has been altered considerably from its original state.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe