[01] Muhammad Sarwar, Nuclear Institute for Agriculture & Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan.

This paper analyses and focuses on new classes of biorational insecticides to examine the specificity to harmful pests, selectivity to beneficial insects and their suitability to fit well into integrated pest management (IPM) programs. There is a great effort to reduce the risk of human exposure to pesticides and special demand for safer and more selective insecticides for natural enemies and non-target organisms. Of these efforts and demands, biorational pesticides are insecticides derived from natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria and certain minerals, and are subjected to registration regulations. The recognized categories of biorational pesticides may be synthetic or natural compounds of microbial, plant protectant and biochemical (pheromones, hormones, natural growth regulators and enzymes) origins. Most biorational pesticides are nerve poisons acting at specific target sites in the insect's nervous system. Some insecticides act similarly to the old nerve poisons that result knock-down, rapid intoxication, lack of coordination, paralysis and death, and have higher affinity to insect receptors than to mammalian. The other insecticides affect specific systems, such as the molting processes, metamorphosis and the insect endocrinology system. Biorational pesticides are third-generation pesticides that are environmentally sound and closely resemble or are identical to chemicals produced in nature. The examples of biorational pesticides are the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki), neonicotinoids, avermectins, phenlpyrazoles, spinosyns, pyrroles, oxadiazines and various groups of insect growth regulators including methoprene that is a synthetic chemical. Most of the biorational insecticides show effectiveness against different strains of resistant species, with no evidence of cross-resistance; hence these can play an important role in integrated resistance management (IRM) strategies. Most of the newer biorational insecticides are preferable to the conventional insecticides because of their specificity to target pests, effectiveness at low rates, selectivity to beneficial insects and their non-persistent characteristics in the environment. However, insect control using integrated pest management means by use of several techniques to reduce the favorable environmental factors that promote to the pests and their ability to thrive are ideal options.

Biorational Insecticide, Reduced Risk Insecticide, Low Risk Insecticide, Newer Insecticide

[01] Ahmad, N., Sarwar, M., Khan, G. Z., Tofique, M. and Salam, A. 2011. Efficacy of Some Plant Products and Synthetic Chemicals to Manage the Outbreak of Mealy Bug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus) in Cotton. Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 3 (1): 16-21. [02] Canyonb, D., Younesc, M. W. F., Abdel-Wahaba, H. and Mansoura, A. H. 2005. A review of botanical phytochemicals with mosquitocidal potential. Environ. Int., 3: 1149-1166. [03] Casida, J. E. and Quistad, G. B. 1998. Golden age of insecticide research: Past, present, or future. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 43: 1-16. [04] Denholm, I., Horowitz, A. R., Cahill, M. and Ishaaya, I. 1998. Management of resistance to novel insecticides. In: Ishaaya I, Degheele D (eds). Insecticides with novel modes of action: Mechanisms and application. Springer, Berlin, p. 260-282. [05] Hara, A. H. 2000. Finding alternative ways to control alien pests - Part 2: New insecticides introduced to fight old pests. Hawaii Landscape, 4 (1): 5. [06] Horowitz, A. R. and Isaaca, I. 2004. Biorational Insecticides– Mechanisms, Selectivity and Importance in Pest Management Programs. In: Insect Pest Management- Field and Protected Crops (A. R. Horowitz and Isaaca, I. eds.), p. 1-28. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. [07] Horowitz, A. R., Peter, C. E. and Isaac, I. ‎2009. Biorational Pest Control– An Overview. Springer Science and Business Media. [08] Khan, M. H., Sarwar, M., Farid, A. and Syed, F. 2010. Compatibility of pyrethroid and different concentrations of neem seed extract on parasitoid Trichogramma chilonis (Ishii) (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) under laboratory conditions. The Nucleus, 47 (4): 327-331. [09] Khanal, S. N. 2009. Environmental impact assessment system in Nepal - An overview of policy, legal instruments and process. Kathmandu Univ. J. Sci. Enginnering Tech., 5: 160-170. [10] Lacey, L. A., Frutos, R., Kaya, H. K. and Vail, P. 2001. Insect Pathogens as Biological Control Agents: Do They Have a Future. Biological Control, 21: 230-248. [11] Rajput, A. A., Sarwar, M., Bux, M. and Tofique, M. 2003. Evaluation of synthetic and some plant origin insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 6 (5): 496-499. [12] Sarwar, M. 2012. Competency of Natural and Synthetic Chemicals in Controlling Gram Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Chickpea Crop. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2 (4): 132-135. [13] Sarwar, M. 2013. Management of Spider Mite Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval) (Tetranychidae) Infestation in Cotton by Releasing the Predatory Mite Neoseiulus pseudolongispinosus (Xin, Liang and Ke) (Phytoseiidae). Biological Control, 65 (1): 37-42. [14] Sarwar, M. 2014. Influence of host plant species on the development, fecundity and population density of pest Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) and predator Neoseiulus pseudolongispinosus (Xin, Liang and Ke) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 42 (1): 10-20. [15] Sarwar, M. 2015 a. The Dangers of Pesticides Associated with Public Health and Preventing of the Risks. International Journal of Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, 1 (2): 130-136. [16] Sarwar, M. 2015 b. Commonly Available Commercial Insecticide Formulations and Their Applications in the Field. International Journal of Materials Chemistry and Physics, 1 (2): 116-123. [17] Sarwar, M. 2015 c. The Killer Chemicals for Control of Agriculture Insect Pests: The Botanical Insecticides. International Journal of Chemical and Biomolecular Science, 1 (3): 123-128. [18] Sarwar, M., Xuenong, X. and Kongming, W. 2012. Suitability of webworm Loxostege sticticalis L. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) eggs for consumption by immature and adults of the predatory mite Neoseiulus pseudolongispinosus (Xin, Liang and Ke) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 10 (3): 786-793. [19] White, J. and Johnson, D. 2012. Vendors of Microbial and Botanical Insecticides and Insect Monitoring Devices. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service. S- 225 Agricultural Science Center North, Lexington, KY. ENTFACT- 124. [20] White, J. A. and Johnson, D. 2010. Vendors of Beneficial Organisms in North America. University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service. S - 225 Agricultural Science Center North, Lexington, KY. ENTFACT- 125. [21] Workman, P. J., Martin, N. A. and Zydenbos, S. M. 2002. Towards integrated pest management of Thrips tabaci in onions. New Zealand Plant Prot., 55: 188-192. [22] Zalom, F. G., Lanini, W. T., Miyao, G. and Davis, R. M. 2001. A continuum of integrated pest management practices in processing tomatoes. Acta Hort., 542: 55-62.