Talk:Biological pest control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

wrong order - balance[edit]

This article leads off with issues/problems with Biological pest control. It should start with more of a useful description of the topic for people who want to know about the subject before the soapbox is mounted. Yes there are problems however the use of biological controls is generally more environmentally concious than chemical control methods. 198.103.184.76 (talk)strider22 —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Ladybug[edit]

people keep mentioning ladybugs as a bio control agent, however i have heard that ladybugs are rarely used as a weevil is a lot more efficient. is lady bug the best organism to be talking about then?--Hypo Mix 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Convergent ladybeetles (Hippodamia convergens) are the most commonly available insect sold in garden centers and nurseries in the US. I am not familiar with a weevil being used or a weevil that is more efficient in any type of bio control. Most weevils are plant feeders unless you are referring to a type of assassin bug which have very general appearing mouth parts, such as the minute pirate bug (Orius spp.)Bugguyak 11:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
might be an Australian thing... just so long as they are commonly used in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypo Mix (talkcontribs) 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Many weevils are used in the biological control of weeds. I don't know of any that feed on insects or compete with ladybugs for prey.botanybob 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
i think i got the weevils part wrong, but i remember a lecturer saying something about an insect being more effective than lady bugs and therefore ladybugs being not commonly used, but it might be an Australian bug in which case it wouldnt be sold in the US (unsigned)
I've heard of ladybugs being used to control aphids (and have done so), but never weeds.71.84.247.116 (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

Most of this article (including pictures, formatting and references) is directly lifted from an Answers.com article on the subject. Answers.com article Dr. Root 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked on this reference and it appears that the search engine at Answers.com was simply referencing the wikipedia article on the subject, thus it is a copy of the wikipedia article rather than the other way around.--botanybob 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC) bffdbfdbfgdzfgvcdmjcghmgchmch

adverse effects?[edit]

What about the adverse effects of introducing species/ diseases as biological control? I think a section on this would be useful.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.154.228 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Definitely need something on cane toads--58.6.95.17 (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Could be expanded though. Hope this helps. Bugguyak (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the external link to the Cane Toads page so it now points to the intended page instead the ever-popular 404 66.216.234.115 (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC) This stuff i plagirized — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.3.33 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

garden[edit]

"It has a tapering segmented grey/black body with orange/yellow markings nettles in the garden and by leaving hollow stems and some plant debris over-winter so that they can hibernate over winter."???

"seek out and Parasitize slugs": small P.

expand context for this subject[edit]

Biological control is used and studied in a much wider context than organic gardening. For example, it has become the standard method of pest control on several commercial greenhouse crops such as tomatoes. It is also the subject of a large body of research work in applied entomology. As someone who works and has done research in this field, I found it odd that the introduction to this article is actually about organic gardening. It seems to me that the introduction should be about biological control in general, and its use in organic (or non-organic gardening for that matter) should be given as an example.

I agree that this article needs to be expanded in order to be accurate. There is no mention of the types of biocontrol, such as conservation, augmentation, and classical biological control.--Bugguyak 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC
What stood out to me, was the small amount of information on the use of biological control to control invasive species by introducing a predator from the invasive species' original environment. I don't know much about the subject, but UC riverside has a wealth of information on it. http://www.biocontrol.ucr.edu/index.html 71.84.247.116 (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Microbial biocontrol section needed[edit]

There is one mention of the fungus Trichoderma on the page. Should also be linked to Entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), and others. Nemetona 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See biopesticide Roy Bateman (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

History and development of biological control section needed[edit]

It may also be useful to have some background information on the history of and development of biological control. This will help establish the scientific basis of this field. Some mention should be made of Paul DeBach's work and his colleague's and students. He was very influential in developing the field based on good scientific and technological foundations. For a brief summary of his work see Paul DeBach Trebot 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Plants section comments[edit]

I do not believe that this section is well tied to the topic of biological control. Initial bullets are good, but the list of pest-repellant and deterrant plants goes beyond the topic. The effectiveness of this approach is highly questionable and methods are poorly documented. I would like to remove the table from this section and focus on the use of plants to provide food and habitat for beneficial organisms. Any other thoughts? --botanybob 21:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I support this. Bugguyak 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

reference[edit]

I think there is a mistake on references. The article of Collier et al. 2003 is more an article of T. Collier et R. Van Steenwyk -2004- A critical evaluation of augmentative biological control. Biological Control (31): 245-256 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.169.113 (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed "Other fungi ... evoke stress response of the plant facilitating further plant defence reactions.[citation needed]" - agree citation needed Roy Bateman (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


Pleasantly surprised to see our website listed as a reference in Wikipedia! But we have formally changed our name and web address. Can you please update our link (formerly FDR Project) to: http://www.frogsafe.org.au/cane_toads/ In particular, our page on the attempted biological control project against the cane toad is: http://www.frogsafe.org.au/cane_toads/toad_virus.shtml Thanks. Deborah Pergolotti, President, Frog Safe, Inc. Frogsafe (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Extra predators and moulds to include[edit]

Please include :

  • Phytoseiulus persimilis (against spider mites)
  • Amblyseius californicus (against spider mites)
  • Amblyseius cucumeris (against spider mites) Spider mites and their natural enemies
  • Typhlodromips swirskii (aginst spider mites, thrips, and white fly)
  • Feltiella acarisuga (against spider mites)
  • Stethorus punctillum (against spider mites)
  • Macrolophus caluginosus (against spider mites)
  • Encarsia formosa (against white fly)
  • Eretmocerus spp. (against white fly)White flies and their natural enemies

as natural predators and

  • Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (known by the trade name PreFeRal) against white fly

as a mould

  • Metarhizium anisopliae; this mould is used in the battle against the north african locusts with much success (under the LUBILOSA-project)

into the article. perhaps it is already best to put on seperate page. Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease[edit]

I am looking for some reviews for the article rabbit haemorrhagic disease. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisakauth (talkcontribs) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for putting in some hard work. By the way, you can sign with four tildes. OptimistBen (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Copper oxide chloride[edit]

Copper oxide chloride also seems to be used frequenly as a (semi?)-biological pest control agent. Please include

Biological control is typically defined as the control of pest populations by use of living organisms or viruses. A chemical treatment wouldn't fall under the category of biological control since there isn't an organism involved. Kingofaces42 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Booklet[edit]

Information from following booklet may be translated by google translate and included: http://www.west-vlaanderen.be/upload/povlt/site-2007/PDF/publicaties/vijand/VGW-2007.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.60.196 (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Octopamine physiological effect in humans[edit]

Octopamine is considered an exciting target for new insecticides primarily because for many years it was thought to be absent in vertebrates. This leads most researchers to jump to the conclusion that it is not effective in vertebrates. However, this does not necessarily have to be the case. Several review papers discuss octopamine's watershed dichotomy between vertebrates and invertebrates.

Octopamine in invertebrates and vertebrates. A review. JC David, JF Coulon - Prog Neurobiol, 1985 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Prog Neurobiol. 1985;24(2):141-85

TYRAMINE AND OCTOPAMINE: Ruling Behavior and Metabolism T Roeder - Annual Review of Entomology, 2005 - Annual Reviews

The possible role of octopamine as a synaptic transmitter: a review. TP Hicks - Can J Physiol Pharmacol, 1977 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But whatever the findings, the dichotomy remains due to size differences between terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.216.69 (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Example[edit]

Here's an example, wasps used in Thailand to protect agriculture: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/world/asia/19thai.html

Dhollm (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Create category of cities using biological control?[edit]

It seems to me it would be interesting to create a category to list cities that do regular annual municipal pest control, both biological and chemical. Whitehorse applies biological mosquito control as one of their stated municipal programs on their city website, alongside water and sewage and emergency services. It is well described/presented, so I linked that program to this page. A category for all such cities I think would be very interesting. Thoughts?--Tallard (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Links[edit]

as off-shoots from the Conservation section; here are following useful extra article; they can perhaps be added in the see also or external links section:

KVDP (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Natural vs artificial bio pest control[edit]

I added this link:

See also here.

I think we need to mention that simply "doing nothing" in certain areas of the farmland (ie if it's land with trees ((rain)forest) ) can also provide bio pest control. This seems to me to be much more cost-effective than providing bio pest control using some artificial way. KVDP (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the 'Conservation' section that's already in the article implicitly covers this, though the info could perhaps be expanded. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree; that method still asks for some input of the farmer. I think we need to add a new subsection (1.4 Leaving zones of land as is). I added this info at the see also section which can then be moved there:
  • Permaculture zone 5: leaving an environment as is also sparks the creation of natural predators for areas that are under cultivation

KVDP (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Needs topic split[edit]

Tries to cover too large a topic. Topic wanders focuses mostly on bugs - though i got here searching for weed control. It names weed control then says nothing about it - waste of time looking.

No good or specific advice is given except the obvious: get rid of it somehow, by one of the plainly obvious methods. Did NOT mention the most obvious: manually.

THE WORSE: SUGGESTS GOVERNMENT IS THE PRIMARY PROVIDER OF PEST AND WEED CONTROL.

Hiding rant

That's the most jackass thing i've ever heard. and btw importation of species by gov has as often caused DEVISTATION and cost as it has improvement. what a facist.

One name drop product is given but not competetors, also that is wrong to do in article as well.

GOVERNMENT

a government monopoly INTENTIONALLY PLANTED the weeds i'm LEARNING to get rid of - it's well known in my area they did. GOVERNMENT

AFTER i asked the "agent" not to plant anything and he offered an explanation it was not weed.

Bugs, some pests that eat plants

Often local authorities keep track of certain pests and have a plan ready. Though there may be other remedies.

Weeds, De-thatching

Weeds have weak roots and thus pull easier than grass. Thus if dethatched and corrections are made (sun, seeding, soil) the grass should win with thatching.

See heavy duty rake: Rake (tool) and lawn devices about dethatching.

Lawn chemicals work by the same principle, they constrict root systems to a point in which weaker roots do less well. Some chemicals are safe for the environment others not so much, none are safe around small children. If you have a soar throat: stop.

Lawncare experts use both chemicals and de-thatching, and of course farming and planning as said above. 72.219.202.186 (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I formatted your comments into one section to make them easier to reply to. Remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. It's also not a how-to manual, so you'll need to consult professional or university content for help with your weed problem.
Otherwise though, I do agree that the article is unwieldy, but it's needs a major rework before any splitting would even be considered. It does read from the perspective of controlling insects with bio-control, which is very much an undue weight issue since we aren't getting as much on plants or other pest organisms where bio-control is used. Ironically, I'm an entomologist that specializes in biological control, but I would like to take some of the main textbooks on the topic and rework the general content and summarize things better in the future to cover both the pests and biological control agents better and more concisely (probably later this fall). Something for the to-do list, but I'll be keeping an eye on this page. Otherwise, governments actually do tend to be the biggest user of bio-control (at least in classical/importation), and mechanical removing of weeds is not biological control (you need another organism controlling the pest), so those aren't particularly issues here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biological pest control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Biological pest control/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 13:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. The queue seems to be experiencing a few hiccups at the moment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


  • I'll review this over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    All issues fixed
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    All issues fixed
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig's tool flags a quote: no other issues that I can find.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No issues
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images appropriately licensed
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Caption issues addressed
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    All my concerns have been addressed, I'll pass this shortly.

Specific comments[edit]

History[edit]

  • "later defined by P. DeBach and K. S. Hagen" mentioning what this definition was would be helpful, I think.
Not so much a one-liner as DeBach's life's work with many papers (new ref) and the title of the cited book.
  • " imported cabbage white butterfly" I've always been under the impression that pest species which humans accidentally transported across geographic barriers were referred to as invasives or exotics; am I wrong about this? In any case, I think the accidental/otherwise nature of this should be clarified.
Invasive it is.
  • "and severity of its outbreaks" should it be "and severity of its population outbreaks"?
It seems to read correctly, the biological meaning of outbreak coinciding with the popular sense of a large increase in (negative) effect, like a disease outbreak. I don't think the word "population" would really help here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay.
  • The history section is very thoroughly written. The examples you've provided, though, apart from the Chinese one, are all from the West. I wonder if there are any other examples; not necessarily from the last 100 years; of biological control from other regions?
Quite a challenge! As you say, the Chinese one certainly isn't Western. I've moved the prickly pear story (Australia) into History, and added details and dates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Types[edit]

  • "keep pace with the spatial and temporal disruption of the habitat." I'm not certain what is meant here. Do you mean the challenges of a new habitat?
Changes in space and time.
But why do these become relevant only in a new habitat?
  • Not a huge fan of the phrase "and relies on understanding of the situation." because I find it difficult to think of situations where understanding is irrelevant. Could we be more specific, or just remove that?
Depends on the precise details of the interactions of the pest and the control agent.
Okay, that would be better.
Done.
  • In the examples given in the augmentation section, I think it might be helpful to reiterate once that the releases are of critters already in those particular systems; otherwise, a lay reader might lose the difference between that and importation.
Done.
  • link or explain "entomopathogenic"
Done.
  • "led to an economic advantage of 7.5%" Not certain what this means precisely, and not certain that it's necessary, because the rest of the article is about the biology rather than the economics, and you've covered that with yield and pesticide.
Removed.
  • The second paragraphs of "Conservation" talks about "beneficial insects" a lot, but does not make it clear precisely what these insects do (an example might be good) or, more importantly, why these habitat manipulations favor "good" insects, but not "bad" ones.
Done. They don't favour one type of insect, but they do encourage more of a balance of species so a "bad" one isn't the only one in town.

Agents[edit]

  • The "predators" subsection lists a lot of examples, but I'm wondering if you could include a more generic statement in the opening paragraph to structure it; something like "taxa used in biological control are generally insectivorous species" or something to that effect. Else we're going from "predators" (and let's be honest, when most folks hear that word, they think "big cat") to aphids and the like.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "4-1000million female parasitoids per week." I think there's a typo (or is it just a missing space?) in here; but also those numbers seem pretty high, so I'm wondering if you could give numbers for the other type of production, too, which is supposed to be even faster.
Removed, that error had been in the article for years. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there any difference in the method of production that could be mentioned here?
I added a little more information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember that there was an interesting aftermath to the rabbit situation; didn't the virus evolve to be less deadly? Though this might be something to mention with side effects.
Added information on rabbits becoming immune. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Other methods[edit]

  • Wondering why the "indirect control" section is not a part of "competition" above.
Done, and put the Combined use section just after it too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Images[edit]

  • Most images and captions are fine. The first two images, though, I think the caption could use more detail: "Syrphus hoverfly larva (above) are used as biological controls for aphids (aphid larva below)" (or something like that: if you can work in "feeding", all the better. Same suggestion for the next image.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

  • Reference 6 needs a page number
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a couple of primary sources that I think are not fantastic, but probably okay given the nature of the information. I trust that there isn't any controversy over the matters for which the Australian government is used as a source?
Don't think so; these are quiet technical official sources, detached from primary research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 16 needs more detail
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 28 needs a page number
New source found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 32 needs a page number
Link goes direct to correct page but I can't find what the page number is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be 8–12 in digital currency, if that has any value. I noted it so in article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 41 needs a page number
New source found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 51 is a bare url (which leads to a journal article which is fine as a source; just needs cleanup)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 55 needs a page number
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Who is gambusia.net managed by? Is it a reliable source? (Ref 76)
Yes, Peter Unmack is or was a scientist at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, and the article cites 32 journal papers or monographs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Same question as above about "tropical forages" (ref 62}
Yes, it's "a collaborative effort between CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries (Qld), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)." Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Some broken syntax in ref 65
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 77 needs a page number
Replaced text and ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

  • There's several instances where you use "parasitoid" for a specific taxon rather than a category; in those instances, I'd say it would be more helpful to say "parasitoid wasp" or whatever.
Done.
  • I think the comment about internationalizing the article applies in general, too. I completely understand that we are limited by our source material, which, given the state of current science, is going to be heavily tilted toward the global north; but it's something to keep in mind, so that if examples from the tropics/third world countries come up, they can be included, especially if this article is to go beyond GA.
Let's not worry about going further for now (it'd be a complex topic to do that with). If I see balancing examples I'll add them.
Okay; just keep an eye out.
  • Also, I feel that this article needs some information of what situations biological control is used in. Your examples are largely agricultural, which makes sense; but my understanding is that they have also been used to eradicate other pests; is that correct? In any case, I'm thinking a paragraph or so might be helpful. One somewhat bold idea I had was to integrate the "side-effects", "grower education" (which is a slightly odd stand-alone, in any case) and the stuff suggested above into a "uses and obstacles" section with two subsections about side-effects and education.
Encarsia has been mainly horticultural, in greenhouses as the article says; the prickly pear problem was basically one of invasion of land; others are mainly about pests of agricultural crops. Amenable to changes, do you want to attempt the change you suggest and I can tweak it if need be?
If we wanted to expand the topic beyongd the agricultural field, there is the cal in the warehouse to keep rodents under control, the peregrine on the urban building to keep pigeons away from ledges, and probably more, but I think they are beyond the scope of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I've redone the section levels, but I don't know the source material enough to write a summary paragraph. I don't think anything complicated is necessary: something along the lines of "biological pest control is frequently used in agriculture, including against insect herbivores, mites, and fungal infections (or something like that). It is also occasionally used in land management, such as in (insert example) and in horticulture (example). Obstacles to its use include possible side effects, and a lack of knowledge among growers." Does this seem plausible? It would be inserted at the top of the "obstacles" section, which would be retitled. Vanamonde (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
How's that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Content-wise, that's fine. Just wondering if "disadvantages" is an appropriate title when the section includes information about a lack of knowledge among farmers, which is certainly not a disadvantage. How about "difficulties?" Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The trouble with being co-nominee for an article nominated for GA is that one is unaware when a review is taken up. I know now ! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Well spotted! One of Wikipedia's many creaky mechanisms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That's everything from me; thanks for the prompt responses, and for a well-written piece on a complex topic. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for a thoughtful review as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks Vanamonde. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biological pest control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Additions[edit]

The article is receiving additions from several students at the moment. These are individually quite well organised and cited, but there are obvious questions of balance and lack of top-level planning – among other things, the changes are not being reflected in the lead, and placement seems to be random from the point of view of the subject as a whole. While I sympathize with the general idea of making Wikipedia an educational tool, the lack of co-ordination at article level is an issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biological pest control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)