**6. Conservation and enhancement of natural enemy assemblages**

Conservation of predators in the field can be accomplished by reducing both chemical and physical disturbance of the habitat. Natural enemy densities and diversities are significantly higher in orchards and fields where no pesticides have been sprayed (Yardim and Edwards 1998; Marc et al. 1999; Holland et al. 2000; Amalin et al. 2001). Restricting insecticide treatment to crucial periods in the pest life cycle or limiting spraying to midday when many wandering natural enemies are inactive and in sheltered locations can help conserve spider numbers (Riechert & Lockley 1984). Natural enemies can recolonize if the interval between chemical applications is long enough, but several applications per season can destroy natural enemy communities. Some pesticides are also retained in the natural enemies and can be detrimental to those spiders that ingest their webs daily (Marc et al. 1999).

Besides pesticides, other human practices that can disrupt natural enemy populations are mowing, plowing, harvesting, and crop rotation (Nyffeler et al 1994; Marc et al. 1999). Soil disturbance by plowing destroys overwintering sites and can kill any agent already present in the soil (Marshall & Rypstra 1999; Maloney et al. 2003). The movement of farm equipment through a crop field damages spider webs and may destroy web attach‐ ment sites (Young & Edwards 1990). Consequently, density and diversity of natural ene‐ mies are higher in organic fields than in conventional ones. For example, in cereal fields, Lycosidae made up only 2% of the community in conventional fields, but 11% in organic fields. Most lycosids were found in field edges (Marc et al. 1999). Clearly, human input is harmful to natural enemies, and the best spider conservation strategy may be non-in‐ tervention (Young & Edwards 1990; Maloney et al. 2003).

Traditional biological control efforts have focused on using specialist predators to control pest outbreaks, which Riechert & Lockley (1984) liken to "putting out fires rather than preventing their conception". Encouraging natural enemy populations may have the ef‐ fect of keeping pest levels low and not letting them get out of control. Spiders may be potential the helpful biocontrol agents because they are relatively long lived and are re‐ sistant to starvation and desiccation. Additionally, spiders become active as soon as con‐ ditions are favourable and are among the first predators able to limit pests. The risks associated with using natural enemies to control pests are minimal. Since diverse species of natural enemies are naturally present in an agricultural system (thus avoiding the problems associated with introductions) and predaceous at all stages of their develop‐ ment, they fill many niches, attacking many pest species at one time (Agnew & Smith 1989; Marc et al. 1999). Because they are sensitive to disturbance, natural enemies may best be used in perennial agroecosystems, such as orchards, that suffer the least disrup‐ tion and human intervention (Riechert & Lockley 1984; Marc et al. 1999). Natural enemies do have the potential to be highly effective pest management agents, but the overall level of control is specific to each combination of crop and management style (Maloney et al. 2003).

stages in the field. Hence presampling is suggested to know the stage of the parasitoid, be it

Side Effects of Insecticides on Natural Enemies and Possibility of Their Integration in Plant Protection Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54199

27

In the case of predatory insects, mites and spiders, certain degree of selectivity is nevertheless appararent, as adult insects show, no or relatively low sensitivity as in the case of earwigs, crickets, true bugs, beetles, lacewings and wasps. This can be explained by the fact that growthdisrupting compounds affect the first line juvenile instars of insects. The fecundity of neemtreated adult, predaceous parasitic insects and the fertility of their eggs are also not or only slightly affected by neem, in contrast to some phytophagous species. In some cases the predation efficiency may be reduced Nymphal/larval instars of beneficial insects are sensitive to neem products. When topically treated, reduction in food ingestion, delayed growth, difficulties in moulting, teretological and morphogenetic defects, reduced activity and increased mortality are normally observed in the laboratory. But, far less drastic or even no effects are observed under semi-field or field conditions. This is partly due to the fast break‐

A desirable biological control agent is a predator that not only reduces pest densities, but also stabilizes them at low levels, while maintaining stable populations itself (Pedigo 2001). Stability in predator-prey systems is achieved by density-dependent responses of the predator to the prey. As prey populations increase, predation pressure should increase, and predation pressure should lessen as prey population decrease. Usually, the greater the importance of a given prey in the diet of a predator, the lower the population size the predator effectively controls. Density-dependent control is thereby affected by the functional response and the

The reproductive response of spiders is less studied. Some spiders, especially web-weavers, do show an increase in fecundity with increasing amounts of prey ingested. Such spiders include *Neriene radiate* (Linyphiidae), *Mecynogea lemniscata*, *Metepiera labyrinthea* (Araneidae) and *Agelenopsis aperta* (Agelenidae) (Riechert & Lockley 1984). The extent to which this increase in fecundity can permit tracking of prey populations is limited by long generation times compared to those of pest insect species. Spiders are usually univoltine while generation times

Competition, intraguild predation, and cannibalism can limit the aggregation response of spiders. Spiders are usually territorial and will compete for space and prey at high spi‐ der densities, limiting the number of spiders that can coexist in the same area. The result may be migration from a patch of high prey densities and, therefore, less pest control (Marc et al 1999; Marshall & Rypstra 1999). Intraguild predation predation upon mem‐ bers of the same trophic level is a major factor limiting aggregation and spiders' pest

The evidence to date suggests that insecticides derived from the neem tree are unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage and these products appear to be safer than synthetic neurotoxins. However, pesticides derived from neem are poisons and thus should be treated as such. Certain organisms are particularly sensitive to neem and this should be taken into consideration when contemplating their use (Maloney et al. 2003). Currently the development

numerical response of the predator (Riechert & Lockley 1984; Morin 1999).

for many insect pests are a few weeks (Maloney et al. 2003).

control abilities (Fagan et al. 1998; Wise & Chen 1999).

internal or external, for timing the application of neem products.

down of the active principles underfield conditions.

### **7. Conclusions**

Neem products are now widely acclaimed as broad-spectrum pesticides. Schmutterer & Singh (1995) listed 417 insect species as sensitive to neem. In the present era of biocontrol, safety concerns predominate the agro-ecosystem besides pest control. Since neem products are now on large-scale use, their safety to natural enemies has also become a debatable issue. In the case of microbial agents, NPV and Bt are the most successful commercial products. Neem products either pure, crude or commercial so far did not show any adverse effects when combined with NPV or Bt. Though combining neem products with antifeedant property and microbials with stomach poison activity is disputed, the vast volume of research work carried out reveals that the antifeedant principles of neem do not influence in any way the activity of the microbials inside the insect gut. The growth disrupting principles of neem were found to add to the activity inside the insect system along with microbial principles leading to quicker mortality to give a cumulative effect.

In the case of parasitoids, certain guiding principles are suggested in accordance with multiarray activities of neem products in insects. Parasitoids are also susceptible, when they come in direct contact with neem products. In such circumstances blanket application of neem products without understanding the behaviour of the parasitoid may adversely affect the beneficial capacity of the parasitoid. For example, the inundative release of the egg parasitoid *T. chilonis*, should be resorted 3-4 days before/ after neem products application. The external larval parasitoids are no exception to the ill effects if they are in direct contact with neem products. To avoid this, for inundative releases, application of neem products may be followed by the release of the parasitoids and spraying may be avoided if the parasitoids are in larval stages in the field. Hence presampling is suggested to know the stage of the parasitoid, be it internal or external, for timing the application of neem products.

Traditional biological control efforts have focused on using specialist predators to control pest outbreaks, which Riechert & Lockley (1984) liken to "putting out fires rather than preventing their conception". Encouraging natural enemy populations may have the ef‐ fect of keeping pest levels low and not letting them get out of control. Spiders may be potential the helpful biocontrol agents because they are relatively long lived and are re‐ sistant to starvation and desiccation. Additionally, spiders become active as soon as con‐ ditions are favourable and are among the first predators able to limit pests. The risks associated with using natural enemies to control pests are minimal. Since diverse species of natural enemies are naturally present in an agricultural system (thus avoiding the problems associated with introductions) and predaceous at all stages of their develop‐ ment, they fill many niches, attacking many pest species at one time (Agnew & Smith 1989; Marc et al. 1999). Because they are sensitive to disturbance, natural enemies may best be used in perennial agroecosystems, such as orchards, that suffer the least disrup‐ tion and human intervention (Riechert & Lockley 1984; Marc et al. 1999). Natural enemies do have the potential to be highly effective pest management agents, but the overall level of control is specific to each combination of crop and management style (Maloney et al.

26 Insecticides - Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies

Neem products are now widely acclaimed as broad-spectrum pesticides. Schmutterer & Singh (1995) listed 417 insect species as sensitive to neem. In the present era of biocontrol, safety concerns predominate the agro-ecosystem besides pest control. Since neem products are now on large-scale use, their safety to natural enemies has also become a debatable issue. In the case of microbial agents, NPV and Bt are the most successful commercial products. Neem products either pure, crude or commercial so far did not show any adverse effects when combined with NPV or Bt. Though combining neem products with antifeedant property and microbials with stomach poison activity is disputed, the vast volume of research work carried out reveals that the antifeedant principles of neem do not influence in any way the activity of the microbials inside the insect gut. The growth disrupting principles of neem were found to add to the activity inside the insect system along with microbial principles leading to quicker

In the case of parasitoids, certain guiding principles are suggested in accordance with multiarray activities of neem products in insects. Parasitoids are also susceptible, when they come in direct contact with neem products. In such circumstances blanket application of neem products without understanding the behaviour of the parasitoid may adversely affect the beneficial capacity of the parasitoid. For example, the inundative release of the egg parasitoid *T. chilonis*, should be resorted 3-4 days before/ after neem products application. The external larval parasitoids are no exception to the ill effects if they are in direct contact with neem products. To avoid this, for inundative releases, application of neem products may be followed by the release of the parasitoids and spraying may be avoided if the parasitoids are in larval

2003).

**7. Conclusions**

mortality to give a cumulative effect.

In the case of predatory insects, mites and spiders, certain degree of selectivity is nevertheless appararent, as adult insects show, no or relatively low sensitivity as in the case of earwigs, crickets, true bugs, beetles, lacewings and wasps. This can be explained by the fact that growthdisrupting compounds affect the first line juvenile instars of insects. The fecundity of neemtreated adult, predaceous parasitic insects and the fertility of their eggs are also not or only slightly affected by neem, in contrast to some phytophagous species. In some cases the predation efficiency may be reduced Nymphal/larval instars of beneficial insects are sensitive to neem products. When topically treated, reduction in food ingestion, delayed growth, difficulties in moulting, teretological and morphogenetic defects, reduced activity and increased mortality are normally observed in the laboratory. But, far less drastic or even no effects are observed under semi-field or field conditions. This is partly due to the fast break‐ down of the active principles underfield conditions.

A desirable biological control agent is a predator that not only reduces pest densities, but also stabilizes them at low levels, while maintaining stable populations itself (Pedigo 2001). Stability in predator-prey systems is achieved by density-dependent responses of the predator to the prey. As prey populations increase, predation pressure should increase, and predation pressure should lessen as prey population decrease. Usually, the greater the importance of a given prey in the diet of a predator, the lower the population size the predator effectively controls. Density-dependent control is thereby affected by the functional response and the numerical response of the predator (Riechert & Lockley 1984; Morin 1999).

The reproductive response of spiders is less studied. Some spiders, especially web-weavers, do show an increase in fecundity with increasing amounts of prey ingested. Such spiders include *Neriene radiate* (Linyphiidae), *Mecynogea lemniscata*, *Metepiera labyrinthea* (Araneidae) and *Agelenopsis aperta* (Agelenidae) (Riechert & Lockley 1984). The extent to which this increase in fecundity can permit tracking of prey populations is limited by long generation times compared to those of pest insect species. Spiders are usually univoltine while generation times for many insect pests are a few weeks (Maloney et al. 2003).

Competition, intraguild predation, and cannibalism can limit the aggregation response of spiders. Spiders are usually territorial and will compete for space and prey at high spi‐ der densities, limiting the number of spiders that can coexist in the same area. The result may be migration from a patch of high prey densities and, therefore, less pest control (Marc et al 1999; Marshall & Rypstra 1999). Intraguild predation predation upon mem‐ bers of the same trophic level is a major factor limiting aggregation and spiders' pest control abilities (Fagan et al. 1998; Wise & Chen 1999).

The evidence to date suggests that insecticides derived from the neem tree are unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage and these products appear to be safer than synthetic neurotoxins. However, pesticides derived from neem are poisons and thus should be treated as such. Certain organisms are particularly sensitive to neem and this should be taken into consideration when contemplating their use (Maloney et al. 2003). Currently the development of new means for plant protection has different motivations. Three major groups are apparent: synthetic chemicals, genetically modified products and biological products. The present scenario of regulatory situation in different countries is not very clear and comprehensively laid down; therefore, NeemAzal has been taken as a specific example. An extract "NeemAzal" obtained from seed kernels of the Neem tree *Azadirachta indica* A. Juss and its formulation contains about 54 per cent azadirachtins. NeemAzal-T/S is a formulation of NeemAzal containing 1 percent w/w of azadirachtin A.

results showed that both chemical insecticides (Karate and Biskaya) caused more mortality to wheat insects and their side effects were harmful to the natural enemies. On the other hand, neem treatments caused adequate mortality of insects and were safer to the natural

Side Effects of Insecticides on Natural Enemies and Possibility of Their Integration in Plant Protection Strategies

**Aphids/ Net**

**Cereal leaf beetle/ Net**

**Frit fly/ Net**

**Click beetle/ Net**

**0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5**

> **0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4**

**Fig. 3 Mean population ± SE of some insects infested winter wheat 2012 by sweep net method after 2nd spray with different treatments. Different letters indicate significant differences.**

**Figure 5.** Mean of population ± SE of some wheat insects treated with different treatments and surveyed by sweep

Figure 5. Mean of population ± SE of some wheat insects treated with different treatments and surveyed by sweep net in winter wheat 2012.

**A**

**A**

**BC <sup>B</sup>**

**Treatments Control Neem II Neem III Karaate I Karate II Biskaya**

**Cereal leaf beetles** 

**D D**

**<sup>C</sup> CD**

**C**

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54199

29

**Click beetle** 

**AB**

**AB**

**A**

**BC**

**Treatments Control Neem II Neem III Karaate I Karate II Biskaya**

**C**

**Trteatments Control Neem II Neem III Karaate I Karate II Biskaya**

**0,5 Frit fly** 

**A**

**Treatments Control Neem II Neem III Karaate I Karate II Biskaya**

**AB**

**<sup>100</sup> Aphids** 

**AB <sup>A</sup>**

**B**

**<sup>B</sup> <sup>B</sup> <sup>B</sup> <sup>B</sup>**

**B**

**AB**

**AB**

**Thrips**

**D**

**C**

**B B**

**Bugs**

**AB**

**Cicadas**

**Leaf feeder** 

**AB**

**B**

enemies (Figs. 5 & 6).

**A**

**A**

**B**

**AB**

**<sup>A</sup> <sup>A</sup>**

**A**

**A**

Different letters indicate significant differences.

**B**

**Thrips / Net**

**0**

**Bugs/ Net**

**Cicadas/ Net**

**0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5**

**Hymenopteran leaf feeder/ Net**

**0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5**

**20**

**40**

**60**

**80**

**Treatments Control Neem II Neem III Karate I Karate II Biskaya**

**A**

**C**

**Treatments Control Neem II Neem III Karaate I Karate II Biskaya**

**A**

**C**

**Treatments Control Neem II Neem III Karaate I Karate II Biskaya**

**Treatments Control Neem II Neem III Karaate I Karate II Biskaya**

net in winter wheat 2012. Different letters indicate significant differences.

**C C**

The factors that influence effects of either neem products or pesticides on natural enemies (insects, mites & spiders) are type of solvent, soil type, moisture, percent organic matter, temperature, and time of day of spraying. Further, the microhabitat, hunting style, prey preference, and behavior of biocontrol agent also influence their response to pesticide appli‐ cation (Schweer 1988; Volkmar & Wetzel 1993; Krause et al. 1993; Marc et al. 1999). Wisniewska & Prokopy (1997) reported that if pesticides were only used early in the growing season, natural enemy populations increased. Presumably, spiders have a chance to recolonize the field if pesticide use ceases after early June. Spatial limitation of pesticides (such as only applying the pesticides to certain plants or certain plots) also results in higher natural enemy numbers, since they can move out of the treated areas and return when the chemicals dissipate (Riechert & Lockley 1984; Dinter 1986, 1995; Maloney et al. 2003). Comparative studies have been carried out on various beneficial organisms such predatory spiders and mites, providing important data on the impact of pesticides on agro-ecosystems (Sterk et al. 1999; Holland et al. 2000; Amalin et al. 2001; Olszak & Sekrecka 2008).

After the treatment with NeemAzal-T/S larvae suffer feeding and moulting inhibition and mortality; adults show feeding inhibition, infertility and to a lesser degree, the mortality. This specific mode of action is called "insectistatic". These studies with NeemAzal definitely imply that this and several other developments in neem-bsed pesticides have convinced registration authorities not only in Europe and Asia but in USA and Canada as well and Neem has been in‐ cluded among reduced-risk pesticides. That is why main opportunities are seen as arising from the discovery of new leads from high-throughput screening of plant extracts. It is hoped that international harmonized approach will come into force with a uniform set of rules to encour‐ age the development of plant-based products for rational and sustainable agriculture. Of course, the lead from neem-based products now already exists and should be followed global‐ ly in order to develop safe and standardized products. NP virus and Bt are highly compatible with neem products. Parasitoids/predators, pre-sampling and timing of application are neces‐ sary to avoid the ill effects of neem products, if any, on them. It is obvious that next years will look forward to IPM that will include natural enemies vis-à-vis other biopesticides synchroniz‐ ing with ecological and behavioural aspects of pests (Landis et al. 2000).

El-Wakeil et al. (2012 unpublished data) studied effects of some insecticides on wheat insect pests (thrips, aphids,creal leaf beetle, click beetles, cicadas, bugs leafhopper and frit fly) and the associated natural enemies (dance flies, coccinellids, hover flies, lacewings, Staphylindis, predatory spider and wasp parasitoids) in winter wheat 2012 in central Germany. The se‐ quential sampling plans (direct count, sweep net, sticky traps and water traps) were used and described in this research to provide an integrated method for less wheat insects. The results showed that both chemical insecticides (Karate and Biskaya) caused more mortality to wheat insects and their side effects were harmful to the natural enemies. On the other hand, neem treatments caused adequate mortality of insects and were safer to the natural enemies (Figs. 5 & 6).

of new means for plant protection has different motivations. Three major groups are apparent: synthetic chemicals, genetically modified products and biological products. The present scenario of regulatory situation in different countries is not very clear and comprehensively laid down; therefore, NeemAzal has been taken as a specific example. An extract "NeemAzal" obtained from seed kernels of the Neem tree *Azadirachta indica* A. Juss and its formulation contains about 54 per cent azadirachtins. NeemAzal-T/S is a formulation of NeemAzal

The factors that influence effects of either neem products or pesticides on natural enemies (insects, mites & spiders) are type of solvent, soil type, moisture, percent organic matter, temperature, and time of day of spraying. Further, the microhabitat, hunting style, prey preference, and behavior of biocontrol agent also influence their response to pesticide appli‐ cation (Schweer 1988; Volkmar & Wetzel 1993; Krause et al. 1993; Marc et al. 1999). Wisniewska & Prokopy (1997) reported that if pesticides were only used early in the growing season, natural enemy populations increased. Presumably, spiders have a chance to recolonize the field if pesticide use ceases after early June. Spatial limitation of pesticides (such as only applying the pesticides to certain plants or certain plots) also results in higher natural enemy numbers, since they can move out of the treated areas and return when the chemicals dissipate (Riechert & Lockley 1984; Dinter 1986, 1995; Maloney et al. 2003). Comparative studies have been carried out on various beneficial organisms such predatory spiders and mites, providing important data on the impact of pesticides on agro-ecosystems (Sterk et al. 1999; Holland et

After the treatment with NeemAzal-T/S larvae suffer feeding and moulting inhibition and mortality; adults show feeding inhibition, infertility and to a lesser degree, the mortality. This specific mode of action is called "insectistatic". These studies with NeemAzal definitely imply that this and several other developments in neem-bsed pesticides have convinced registration authorities not only in Europe and Asia but in USA and Canada as well and Neem has been in‐ cluded among reduced-risk pesticides. That is why main opportunities are seen as arising from the discovery of new leads from high-throughput screening of plant extracts. It is hoped that international harmonized approach will come into force with a uniform set of rules to encour‐ age the development of plant-based products for rational and sustainable agriculture. Of course, the lead from neem-based products now already exists and should be followed global‐ ly in order to develop safe and standardized products. NP virus and Bt are highly compatible with neem products. Parasitoids/predators, pre-sampling and timing of application are neces‐ sary to avoid the ill effects of neem products, if any, on them. It is obvious that next years will look forward to IPM that will include natural enemies vis-à-vis other biopesticides synchroniz‐

El-Wakeil et al. (2012 unpublished data) studied effects of some insecticides on wheat insect pests (thrips, aphids,creal leaf beetle, click beetles, cicadas, bugs leafhopper and frit fly) and the associated natural enemies (dance flies, coccinellids, hover flies, lacewings, Staphylindis, predatory spider and wasp parasitoids) in winter wheat 2012 in central Germany. The se‐ quential sampling plans (direct count, sweep net, sticky traps and water traps) were used and described in this research to provide an integrated method for less wheat insects. The

containing 1 percent w/w of azadirachtin A.

28 Insecticides - Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies

al. 2000; Amalin et al. 2001; Olszak & Sekrecka 2008).

ing with ecological and behavioural aspects of pests (Landis et al. 2000).

**Figure 5.** Mean of population ± SE of some wheat insects treated with different treatments and surveyed by sweep net in winter wheat 2012. Different letters indicate significant differences.

Different letters indicate significant differences.

Figure 5. Mean of population ± SE of some wheat insects treated with different treatments and surveyed by sweep net in winter wheat 2012.

**Fig. 3 Mean population ± SE of some insects infested winter wheat 2012 by sweep net method after 2nd spray with different treatments. Different letters indicate significant differences.**

**with different treatments in winter wheat 2012. Different letters indicate significant differences. Figure 6.** Mean of population ± SE of some natural enemies treated with different treatments and surveyed by sweep net in winter wheat 2012. Different letters indicate significant differences.

**Fig. 4 Mean of population ± SE of some natural enemies surveyed by sweep net after 2nd spray** 

Figure 6. Mean of population ± SE of some natural enemies treated with different treatments and surveyed by sweep net in winter wheat 2012. Different letters indicate significant differences. Agricultural sustainability requires a focus on the long run, on intergenerational equity. It must be capable of meeting the needs of the present while leaving equal or better opportunities for the future. It must be ecologically sound and socially responsible as well as economically viable. It must also include, as much as possible, the element of local or regional production, and aim for a reasonable level of regional food security. It encourages a shortening of the distance between producers and consumers, to the Agricultural sustainability requires a focus on the long run, on intergenerational equity. It must be capable of meeting the needs of the present while leaving equal or better opportunities for the future. It must be ecologically sound and socially responsible as well as economically viable. It must also include, as much as possible, the element of local or regional production, and aim for a reasonable level of regional food security. It encourages a shortening of the distance between producers and consumers, to the benefit of both. In a local economy consumers have influence over the kind and quality of their food; they contribute to the

prosperity, health, and beauty of their homeland (Buchholz & Kreuels (2009); Shoeb 2010; Cabral et al. 2011).

benefit of both. In a local economy consumers have influence over the kind and quality of their food; they contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the local landscape. It gives everybody in the local community a direct, long-term interest in the

preservation and enhancement of the local landscape. It gives everybody in the local com‐ munity a direct, long-term interest in the prosperity, health, and beauty of their homeland

Side Effects of Insecticides on Natural Enemies and Possibility of Their Integration in Plant Protection Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54199

31

Organic farming falls under this broader classification of "sustainable agriculture." It is commonly thought of as farming without chemicals, and that is usually the case, but it is much more than that. Organic farmers try to farm holistically - that is, they design production systems that capitalize on the positive synergies among crops, soils, seeds, and animals, in such away that each element of the system promotes the productivity and health of other elements. The rapid growth of organic and sustainable agriculture in Canada is occurring with almost no support from the federal government, whose policies are almost entirely devoted to encouragement of industrial agriculture (El-Wakeil 2003). Other countries are heading in the opposite direction. The cornerstone of Egypt as well Germany's new agricultural policies

and Christa Volkmar2

(Buchholz & Kreuels (2009); Shoeb 2010; Cabral et al. 2011).

Nabil El-Wakeil1,2, Nawal Gaafar1,2, Ahmed Sallam3

tem. *Environ Entomol* 18:30–42.

*Tehran University*, Tehran, Iran.

\*Address all correspondence to: nabil.el-wakeil@landw.uni-halle.de

1 Pests & Plant Protection Dept. National Research Centre, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt

3 Plant Protection Dept. Faculty of Agriculture, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt

in lime orchards in South Florida. *Environ Entomol* 30:1021–1027.

2 Institute of Agric. & Nutritional Sciences, Martin Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg,

[1] Agnew CW & Smith JW (1989) Ecology of spiders (Araneae) in a peanut agroecosys‐

[2] Amalin DM, Peňa JE, McSorley R, Browning HW & Crane JH (2001) Comparison of different sampling methods and effect of pesticide application on spider populations

[3] Amirmaafi M (2000) An investigation on the host-parasitoid system between *Trissol‐ cus grandis* Thomson (Hym., Scelionidae) and *E. integriceps* eggs. *Ph.D. dissertation.*

will be sustainability.

**Author details**

Germany

**References**

preservation and enhancement of the local landscape. It gives everybody in the local com‐ munity a direct, long-term interest in the prosperity, health, and beauty of their homeland (Buchholz & Kreuels (2009); Shoeb 2010; Cabral et al. 2011).

Organic farming falls under this broader classification of "sustainable agriculture." It is commonly thought of as farming without chemicals, and that is usually the case, but it is much more than that. Organic farmers try to farm holistically - that is, they design production systems that capitalize on the positive synergies among crops, soils, seeds, and animals, in such away that each element of the system promotes the productivity and health of other elements. The rapid growth of organic and sustainable agriculture in Canada is occurring with almost no support from the federal government, whose policies are almost entirely devoted to encouragement of industrial agriculture (El-Wakeil 2003). Other countries are heading in the opposite direction. The cornerstone of Egypt as well Germany's new agricultural policies will be sustainability.
