Frequently Asked Questions:

Are biological controls better than chemical controls?

This is a tricky question. I love the idea of biological controls, particularly if they are naturally occurring organisms. Encouraging Purple Martins is a great way to help control mosquitoes, another mosquito control, is the elimination of pond weeds and algae, the fish will take care of a lot of them if they can sense them, bats are great for lowering the population of corn ear worms and other pests. There are more examples than space to write about them. These are natural enemies of local pests.

The potential problems arise when using one non native to control another non native. The research done before such an introduction is amazing. Most non natives introduced to control others are tested and well thought out before release. Control mechanisms are put into place, such as sterilization to prevent breeding and cross breeding. Genetic codes are sometimes put in place to assure that life spans are predetermined in case of a problem. In one test I participated in, a fly which kills mole crickets was introduced, and a call mechanism, a sound that the flies were drawn to, could be used to recall them.

Having said this, I still am a little edgy when it comes to this practice. If environmental changes occur, such as weather shifts, or introduction of other species which were not figured into the equation, each effecting the other in a sort of biological ripple effect, could conceivably cause a problem. In many cases, chemicals, with predicable, known effects may be preferable.

Environmental and IPM Directory

Real Estate Solutions   

Other Important Pages