This is a general area of interest that stems from the diverse applied ecology work we’ve been involved with over the years. We have done research on numerous aspects of biocontrol and IPM in many systems. A common challenge (not just to our work but across the biocontrol discipline in general) is to translate research findings so that they actually have an impact in the field. Accordingly, one of our ongoing interests is to better understand the factors that influence the adoption of novel control tools. One recent example concerns the general idea of late life acting insecticides for malaria control (see above). This novel idea, which is the antithesis of the current fast-acting insecticide paradigm, has been described by some as a “a really outside-the-box kind of idea” and “the first time we’ve ever used evolution properly at all in terms of any kind of tropical disease control”. Others remain much more skeptical and have argued that end-users are unlikely to accept the approach because it doesn’t cause instant mortality and nobody wants a live mosquito. But is this true? This issue was explored recently by some of our collaborators at Penn State (Rachel Smith) as part of a survey exploring adoption of malaria control technologies in rural Mozambique. The study revealed that in fact, around 70% of villagers expressed no concerns about mosquitoes per se but rather, recognized that the priority for any new intervention was to protect from malaria. This finding mirrors other studies showing perception of malaria risk to be a predictor of technology adoption. It provides an interesting example of how anecdote or preconception could hinder innovation.

Some representative papers exploring issues of biocontrol evaluation and adoption:

• Griffiths, G.J.K., Holland, J.M., Bailey, A. & Thomas, M.B. (2008). The efficacy and economics of shelter habitats for conservation biological control. Biological Control 45: 200-209.
• Thomas, M.B. & Reid, A.M. (2007). Are exotic natural enemies an effective means for controlling invasive plants? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22: 447-453.
• Klass, J.I., Blanford, S. & Thomas, M.B. (2007). Use of a geographic information system to explore spatial variation in pathogen virulence and the implications for biological control of locusts and grasshoppers. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 9: 201-208.
• Stevens, C.J., Fraser, I., Mitchely, J.M. & Thomas, M.B. (2007). Making ecological science policy-relevant: issues of scale and disciplinary integration. Landscape Ecology 22: 799-809.
• Thomas, M.B. & Read, A.F. (2007). Can fungal biopesticides control malaria? Nature Reviews Microbiology 5: 377-383.
• Knols, B. & Thomas, M.B. (2006). Fungal entomopathogens for adult mosquito control – a look at the prospects. Outlooks on Pest Management 17: 257-260.
• Thomas, M.B., Blanford, S., Jenkins, N.E., Killeen, G.F., Knols, B.G.J., Read, A.F., Schlote, E-J., Takken, W. (2005). Benefits and risks in malaria control. Science 310: 50.
• Thomas, M.B. & Kooyman, C. (2004). Locust Biopesticides: a Tale of Two Continents. Biocontrol News and Information 25: 47N-51N.
• Thomas, M.B. (1999). Ecological approaches and the development of ‘truly integrated’ pest management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 5944-5951.