have failed in achieving our goal would indeed be the final irony. Yet this, it seems, is our
situation. The truth, seldom mentioned but there for anyone to see, is that nature is not so
easily molded and that the insects are finding ways to circumvent our chemical attacks on
them.
‘The insect world is nature’s most astonishing phenomenon,’ said the Dutch biologist C. J.
Briejèr. ‘Nothing is impossible to it; the most improbable things commonly occur there. One
who penetrates deeply into its mysteries is continually breathless with wonder. He knows that
anything can happen, and that the completely impossible often does.’ The ‘impossible’ is now
happening on two broad fronts. By a process of genetic selection, the insects are developing
strains resistant to chemicals. This will be discussed in the following chapter. But the broader
problem, which we shall look at now, is the fact that our chemical attack is weakening the
defenses inherent in the environment itself, defenses designed to keep the various species in
check. Each time we breach these defenses a horde of insects pours through.
From all over the world come reports that make it clear we are in a serious predicament. At the
end of a decade or more of intensive chemical control, entomologists were finding that
problems they had considered solved a few years earlier had returned to plague them. And new
problems had arisen as insects once present only in insignificant numbers had increased to the
status of serious pests. By their very nature chemical controls are self-defeating, for they have
been devised and applied without taking into account the complex biological systems against
which they have been blindly hurled. The chemicals may have been pretested against a few
individual species, but not against living communities. In some quarters nowadays it is
fashionable to dismiss the balance of nature as a state of affairs that prevailed in an earlier,
simpler world—a state that has now been so thoroughly upset that we might as well forget it.
Some find this a convenient assumption, but as a chart for a course of action it is highly
dangerous. The balance of nature is not the same today as in Pleistocene times, but it is still
there: a complex, precise, and highly integrated system of relationships between living things
which cannot safely be ignored any more than the law of gravity can be defied with impunity by
a man perched on the edge of a cliff. The balance of nature is not a status quo; it is fluid, ever
shifting, in a constant state of adjustment. Man, too, is part of this balance. Sometimes the
balance is in his favor; sometimes—and all too often through his own activities—it is shifted to
his disadvantage.
Two critically important facts have been overlooked in designing the modern insect control
programs. The first is that the really effective control of insects is that applied by nature, not by
man. Populations are kept in check by something the ecologists call the resistance of the
environment, and this has been so since the first life was created. The amount of food
available, conditions of weather and climate, the presence of competing or predatory species,
all are critically important. ‘The greatest single factor in preventing insects from overwhelming
the rest of the world is the internecine warfare which they carry out among themselves,’ said
the entomologist Robert Metcalf. Yet most of the chemicals now used kill all insects, our friends
and enemies alike.
The second neglected fact is the truly explosive power of a species to reproduce once the
resistance of the environment has been weakened. The fecundity of many forms of life is
almost beyond our power to imagine, though now and then we have suggestive glimpses. I
remember from student days the miracle that could be wrought in a jar containing a simple
mixture of hay and water merely by adding to it a few drops of material from a mature culture
of protozoa. Within a few days the jar would contain a whole galaxy of whirling, darting life—
uncountable trillions of the slipper animalcule, Paramecium, each small as a dust grain, all
multiplying without restraint in their temporary Eden of favorable temperatures, abundant
food, absence of enemies. Or I think of shore rocks white with barnacles as far as the eye can
see, or of the spectacle of passing through an immense school of jellyfish, mile after mile, with
seemingly no end to the pulsing, ghostly forms scarcely more substantial than the water itself.
We see the miracle of nature’s control at work when the cod move through winter seas to their
spawning grounds, where each female deposits several millions of eggs. The sea does not
become a solid mass of cod as it would surely do if all the progeny of all the cod were to
survive. The checks that exist in nature are such that out of the millions of young produced by
each pair only enough, on the average, survive to adulthood to replace the parent fish.
Biologists used to entertain themselves by speculating as to what would happen if, through
some unthinkable catastrophe, the natural restraints were thrown off and all the progeny of a
single individual survived. Thus Thomas Huxley a century ago calculated that a single female
aphis (which has the curious power of reproducing without mating) could produce progeny in a
single year’s time whose total weight would equal that of the inhabitants of the Chinese empire
of his day. Fortunately for us such an extreme situation is only theoretical, but the dire results
of upsetting nature’s own arrangements are well known to students of animal populations. The
stockman’s zeal for eliminating the coyote has resulted in plagues of field mice, which the
coyote formerly controlled. The oft repeated story of the Kaibab deer in Arizona is another case
in point. At one time the deer population was in equilibrium with its environment. A number of
predators—wolves, pumas, and coyotes—prevented the deer from outrunning their food
supply. Then a campaign was begun to ‘conserve’ the deer by killing off their enemies. Once the
predators were gone, the deer increased prodigiously and soon there was not enough food for
them. The browse line on the trees went higher and higher as they sought food, and in time
many more deer were dying of starvation than had formerly been killed by predators. The
whole environment, moreover, was damaged by their desperate efforts to find food.
The predatory insects of field and forests play the same role as the wolves and coyotes of the
Kaibab. Kill them off and the population of the prey insect surges upward. No one knows how
many species of insects inhabit the earth because so many are yet to be identified. But more
than 700,000 have already been described. This means that in terms of the number of species,
70 to 80 per cent of the earth’s creatures are insects. The vast majority of these insects are held
in check by natural forces, without any intervention by man. If this were not so, it is doubtful
that any conceivable volume of chemicals —or any other methods—could possibly keep down
their populations. The trouble is that we are seldom aware of the protection afforded by
natural enemies until it fails. Most of us walk unseeing through the world, unaware alike of its
beauties, its wonders, and the strange and sometimes terrible intensity of the lives that are
being lived about us. So it is that the activities of the insect predators and parasites are known
to few.
Perhaps we may have noticed an oddly shaped insect of ferocious mien on a bush in the garden
and been dimly aware that the praying mantis lives at the expense of other insects. But we see
with understanding eye only if we have walked in the garden at night and here and there with a
flashlight have glimpsed the mantis stealthily creeping upon her prey. Then we sense
something of the drama of the hunter and the hunted. Then we begin to feel something of that
relentlessly pressing force by which nature controls her own. The predators—insects that kill
and consume other insects—are of many kinds. Some are quick and with the speed of swallows
snatch their prey from the air. Others plod methodically along a stem, plucking off and
devouring sedentary insects like the aphids. The yellowjackets capture soft-bodied insects and
feed the juices to their young. Muddauber wasps build columned nests of mud under the caves
of houses and stock them with insects on which their young will feed. The horseguard wasp
hovers above herds of grazing cattle, destroying the blood-sucking flies that torment them. The
loudly buzzing syrphid fly, often mistaken for a bee, lays its eggs on leaves of aphis-infested
plants; the hatching larvae then consume immense numbers of aphids. Ladybugs or lady
beetles are among the most effective destroyers of aphids, scale insects, and other plant-eating
insects. Literally hundreds of aphids are consumed by a single ladybug to stoke the little fires of
energy which she requires to produce even a single batch of eggs.
Even more extraordinary in their habits are the parasitic insects. These do not kill their hosts
outright. Instead, by a variety of adaptations they utilize their victims for the nurture of their
own young. They may deposit their eggs within the larvae or eggs of their prey, so that their
own developing young may find food by consuming the host. Some attach their eggs to a
caterpillar by means of a sticky solution; on hatching, the larval parasite bores through the skin
of the host. Others, led by an instinct that simulates foresight, merely lay their eggs on a leaf so
that a browsing caterpillar will eat them inadvertently.
Everywhere, in field and hedgerow and garden and forest, the insect predators and parasites
are at work. Here, above a pond, the dragonflies dart and the sun strikes fire from their wings.
So their ancestors sped through swamps where huge reptiles lived. Now, as in those ancient
times, the sharp-eyed capture mosquitoes in the air, scooping them in with basket-shaped legs.
In the waters below, their young, the dragonfly nymphs, or naiads, prey on the aquatic stages
of mosquitoes and other insects. Or there, almost invisible against a leaf, is the lacewing, with
green gauze wings and golden eyes, shy and secretive, descendant of an ancient race that lived
in Permian times. The adult lacewing feeds mostly on plant nectars and the honeydew of
aphids, and in time she lays her eggs, each on the end of a long stalk which she fastens to a leaf.
From these emerge her children—strange, bristled larvae called aphis lions, which live by
preying on aphids, scales, or mites, which they capture and suck dry of fluid. Each may consume
several hundred aphids before the ceaseless turning of the cycle of its life brings the time when
it will spin a white silken cocoon in which to pass the pupa stage.
And there are many wasps, and flies as well, whose very existence depends on the destruction
of the eggs or larvae of other insects through parasitism. Some of the egg parasites are
exceedingly minute wasps, yet by their numbers and their great activity they hold down the
abundance of many crop-destroying species. All these small creatures are working—working in
sun and rain, during the hours of darkness, even when winter’s grip has damped down the fires
of life to mere embers. Then this vital force is merely smoldering, awaiting the time to flare
again into activity when spring awakens the insect world. Meanwhile, under the white blanket
of snow, below the frosthardened soil, in crevices in the bark of trees, and in sheltered caves,
the parasites and the predators have found ways to tide themselves over the season of cold.
The eggs of the mantis are secure in little cases of thin parchment attached to the branch of a
shrub by the mother who lived her life span with the summer that is gone.
The female Polistes wasp, taking shelter in a forgotten corner of some attic, carries in her body
the fertilized eggs, the heritage on which the whole future of her colony depends. She, the lone
survivor, will start a small paper nest in the spring, lay a few eggs in its cells, and carefully rear a
small force of workers. With their help she will then enlarge the nest and develop the colony.
Then the workers, foraging ceaselessly through the hot days of summer, will destroy countless
caterpillars. Thus, through the circumstances of their lives, and the nature of our own wants, all
these have been our allies in keeping the balance of nature tilted in our favor. Yet we have
turned our artillery against our friends. The terrible danger is that we have grossly
underestimated their value in keeping at bay a dark tide of enemies that, without their help,
can overrun us.
The prospect of a general and permanent lowering of environmental resistance becomes grimly
and increasingly real with each passing year as the number, variety, and destructiveness of
insecticides grows. With the passage of time we may expect progressively more serious
outbreaks of insects, both disease-carrying and crop-destroying species, in excess of anything
we have ever known. ‘Yes, but isn’t this all theoretical?’ you may ask. ‘Surely it won’t really
happen—not in my lifetime, anyway.’ But it is happening, here and now. Scientific journals had
already recorded some 50 species involved in violent dislocations of nature’s balance by 1958.
More examples are being found every year. A recent review of the subject contained references
to 215 papers reporting or discussing unfavorable upsets in the balance of insect populations
caused by pesticides.
Sometimes the result of chemical spraying has been a tremendous upsurge of the very insect
the spraying was intended to control, as when blackflies in Ontario became 17 times more
abundant after spraying than they had been before. Or when in England an enormous outbreak
of the cabbage aphid—an outbreak that had no parallel on record—followed spraying with one
of the organic phosphorus chemicals. At other times spraying, while reasonably effective
against the target insect, has let loose a whole Pandora’s box of destructive pests that had
never previously been abundant enough to cause trouble. The spider mite, for example, has
become practically a worldwide pest as DDT and other insecticides have killed off its enemies.
The spider mite is not an insect. It is a barely visible eight-legged creature belonging to the
group that includes spiders, scorpions, and ticks. It has mouth parts adapted for piercing and
sucking, and a prodigious appetite for the chlorophyll that makes the world green. It inserts
these minute and stiletto-sharp mouth parts into the outer cells of leaves and evergreen
needles and extracts the chlorophyll. A mild infestation gives trees and shrubbery a mottled or
salt-and-pepper appearance; with a heavy mite population, foliage turns yellow and falls.
This is what happened in some of the western national forests a few years ago, when in 1956
the United States Forest Service sprayed some 885,000 acres of forested lands with DDT. The
intention was to control the spruce budworm, but the following summer it was discovered that
a problem worse than the budworm damage had been created. In surveying the forests from
the air, vast blighted areas could be seen where the magnificent Douglas firs were turning
brown and dropping their needles. In the Helena National Forest and on the western slopes of
the Big Belt Mountains, then in other areas of Montana and down into Idaho the forests looked
as though they had been scorched. It was evident that this summer of 1957 had brought the
most extensive and spectacular infestation of spider mites in history. Almost all of the sprayed
area was affected. Nowhere else was the damage evident. Searching for precedents, the
foresters could remember other scourges of spider mites, though less dramatic than this one.
There had been similar trouble along the Madison River in Yellowstone Park in 1929, in
Colorado 20 years later, and then in New Mexico in 1956. Each of these outbreaks had followed
forest spraying with insecticides. (The 1929 spraying, occurring before the DDT era, employed
lead arsenate.)
Why does the spider mite appear to thrive on insecticides? Besides the obvious fact that it is
relatively insensitive to them, there seem to be two other reasons. In nature it is kept in check
by various predators such as ladybugs, a gall midge, predaceous mites and several pirate bugs,
all of them extremely sensitive to insecticides. The third reason has to do with population
pressure within the spider mite colonies. An undisturbed colony of mites is a densely settled
community, huddled under a protective webbing for concealment from its enemies. When
sprayed, the colonies disperse as the mites, irritated though not killed by the chemicals, scatter
out in search of places where they will not be disturbed. In so doing they find a far greater
abundance of space and food than was available in the former colonies. Their enemies are now
dead so there is no need for the mites to spend their energy in secreting protective webbing.
Instead, they pour all their energies into producing more mites. It is not uncommon for their
egg production to be increased threefold—all through the beneficent effect of insecticides.
In the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, a famous apple-growing region, hordes of a small insect
called the red-banded leaf roller arose to plague the growers as soon as DDT began to replace
arsenate of lead. Its depredations had never before been important; soon its toll rose to 50 per
cent of the crop and it achieved the status of the most destructive pest of apples, not only in
this region but throughout much of the East and Midwest, as the use of DDT increased. The
situation abounds in ironies. In the apple orchards of Nova Scotia in the late 1940s the worst
infestations of the codling moth (cause of ‘wormy apples’) were in the orchards regularly
sprayed. In unsprayed orchards the moths were not abundant enough to cause real trouble.
Diligence in spraying had a similarly unsatisfactory reward in the eastern Sudan, where cotton
growers had a bitter experience with DDT. Some 60,000 acres of cotton were being grown
under irrigation in the Gash Delta. Early trials of DDT having given apparently good results,
spraying was intensified. It was then that trouble began. One of the most destructive enemies
of cotton is the bollworm. But the more cotton was sprayed, the more bollworms appeared.
The unsprayed cotton suffered less damage to fruits and later to mature bolls than the sprayed,
and in twice-sprayed fields the yield of seed cotton dropped significantly. Although some of the
leaf-feeding insects were eliminated, any benefit that might thus have been gained was more
than offset by bollworm damage. In the end the growers were faced with the unpleasant truth
that their cotton yield would have been greater had they saved themselves the trouble and
expense of spraying.
In the Belgian Congo and Uganda the results of heavy applications of DDT against an insect pest
of the coffee bush were almost ‘catastrophic’. The pest itself was found to be almost
completely unaffected by the DDT, while its predator was extremely sensitive. In America,
farmers have repeatedly traded one insect enemy for a worse one as spraying upsets the
population dynamics of the insect world. Two of the mass-spraying programs recently carried
out have had precisely this effect. One was the fire ant eradication program in the South; the
other was the spraying for the Japanese beetle in the Midwest. (See Chapters 10 and 7.)
When a wholesale application of heptachlor was made to the farmlands in Louisiana in 1957,
the result was the unleashing of one of the worst enemies of the sugarcane crop—the
sugarcane borer. Soon after the heptachlor treatment, damage by borers increased sharply.
The chemical aimed at the fire ant had killed off the enemies of the borer. The crop was so
severely damaged that farmers sought to bring suit against the state for negligence in not
warning them that this might happen. The same bitter lesson was learned by Illinois farmers.
After the devastating bath of dieldrin recently administered to the farmlands in eastern Illinois
for the control of the Japanese beetle, farmers discovered that corn borers had increased
enormously in the treated area. In fact, corn grown in fields within this area contained almost
twice as many of the destructive larvae of this insect as did the corn grown outside. The
farmers may not yet be aware of the biological basis of what has happened, but they need no
scientists to tell them they have made a poor bargain. In trying to get rid of one insect, they
have brought on a scourge of a much more destructive one. According to Department of
Agriculture estimates, total damage by the Japanese beetle in the United States adds up to
about 10 million dollars a year, while damage by the corn borer runs to about 85 million.
It is worth noting that natural forces had been heavily relied on for control of the corn borer.
Within two years after this insect was accidentally introduced from Europe in 1917, the United
States Government had mounted one of its most intensive programs for locating and importing
parasites of an insect pest. Since that time 24 species of parasites of the corn borer have been
brought in from Europe and the Orient at considerable expense. Of these, 5 are recognized as
being of distinct value in control. Needless to say, the results of all this work are now
jeopardized as the enemies of the corn borer are killed off by the sprays.
If this seems absurd, consider the situation in the citrus groves of California, where the world’s
most famous and successful experiment in biological control was carried out in the 1880s. In
1872 a scale insect that feeds on the sap of citrus trees appeared in California and within the
next 25 years developed into a pest so destructive that the fruit crop in many orchards was a
complete loss. The young citrus industry was threatened with destruction. Many farmers gave
up and pulled out their trees. Then a parasite of the scale insect was imported from Australia, a
small lady beetle called the vedalia. Within only two years after the first shipment of the
beetles, the scale was under complete control throughout the citrus-growing sections of
California. From that time on one could search for days among the orange groves without
finding a single scale insect.
Then in the 1940s the citrus growers began to experiment with glamorous new chemicals
against other insects. With the advent of DDT and the even more toxic chemicals to follow, the
populations of the vedalia in many sections of California were wiped out. Its importation had
cost the government a mere $5000. Its activities had saved the fruit growers several millions of
dollars a year, but in a moment of heedlessness the benefit was canceled out. Infestations of
the scale insect quickly reappeared and damage exceeded anything that had been seen for fifty
years. ‘This possibly marked the end of an era,’ said Dr. Paul DeBach of the Citrus Experiment
Station in Riverside. Now control of the scale has become enormously complicated. The vedalia
can be maintained only by repeated releases and by the most careful attention to spray
schedules, to minimize their contact with insecticides. And regardless of what the citrus
growers do, they are more or less at the mercy of the owners of adjacent acreages, for severe
damage has been done by insecticidal drift. . . .
All these examples concern insects that attack agricultural crops. What of those that carry
disease? There have already been warnings. On Nissan Island in the South Pacific, for example,
spraying had been carried on intensively during the Second World War, but was stopped when
hostilities came to an end. Soon swarms of a malaria-carrying mosquito reinvaded the island.
All of its predators had been killed off and there had not been time for new populations to
become established. The way was therefore clear for a tremendous population explosion.
Marshall Laird, who has described this incident, compares chemical control to a treadmill; once
we have set foot on it we are unable to stop for fear of the consequences.
In some parts of the world disease can be linked with spraying in quite a different way. For
some reason, snail-like mollusks seem to be almost immune to the effects of insecticides. This
has been observed many times. In the general holocaust that followed the spraying of salt
marshes in eastern Florida (pages 115-116), aquatic snails alone survived. The scene as
described was a macabre picture—something that might have been created by a surrealist
brush. The snails moved among the bodies of the dead fishes and the moribund crabs,
devouring the victims of the death rain of poison. But why is this important? It is important
because many aquatic snails serve as hosts of dangerous parasitic worms that spend part of
their life cycle in a mollusk, part in a human being. Examples are the blood flukes, or
schistosoma, that cause serious disease in man when they enter the body by way of drinking
water or through the skin when people are bathing in infested waters. The flukes are released
into the water by the host snails. Such diseases are especially prevalent in parts of Asia and
Africa. Where they occur, insect control measures that favor a vast increase of snails are likely
to be followed by grave consequences.
And of course man is not alone in being subject to snail-borne disease. Liver disease in cattle,
sheep, goats, deer, elk, rabbits, and various other warm-blooded animals may be caused by
liver flukes that spend part of their life cycles in fresh-water snails. Livers infested with these
worms are unfit for use as human food and are routinely condemned. Such rejections cost
American cattlemen about 31⁄2 million dollars annually. Anything that acts to increase the
number of snails can obviously make this problem an even more serious one. . . .
Over the past decade these problems have cast long shadows, but we have been slow to
recognize them. Most of those best fitted to develop natural controls and assist in putting them
into effect have been too busy laboring in the more exciting vineyards of chemical control. It
was reported in 1960 that only 2 per cent of all the economic entomologists in the country
were then working in the field of biological controls. A substantial number of the remaining 98
per cent were engaged in research on chemical insecticides.
Why should this be? The major chemical companies are pouring money into the universities to
support research on insecticides. This creates attractive fellowships for graduate students and
attractive staff positions. Biological-control studies, on the other hand, are never so endowed—
for the simple reason that they do not promise anyone the fortunes that are to be made in the
chemical industry. These are left to state and federal agencies, where the salaries paid are far
less. This situation also explains the otherwise mystifying fact that certain outstanding
entomologists are among the leading advocates of chemical control. Inquiry into the
background of some of these men reveals that their entire research program is supported by
the chemical industry. Their professional prestige, sometimes their very jobs depend on the
perpetuation of chemical methods. Can we then expect them to bite the hand that literally
feeds them? But knowing their bias, how much credence can we give to their protests that
insecticides are harmless? Amid the general acclaim for chemicals as the principal method of
insect control, minority reports have occasionally been filed by those few entomologists who
have not lost sight of the fact that they are neither chemists nor engineers, but biologists.
F. H. Jacob in England has declared that ‘the activities of many so-called economic
entomologists would make it appear that they operate in the belief that salvation lies at the
end of a spray nozzle...that when they have created problems of resurgence or resistance or
mammalian toxicity, the chemist will be ready with another pill. That view is not held
here...Ultimately only the biologist will provide the answers to the basic problems of pest
control.’ ‘Economic entomologists must realize,’ wrote A. D. Pickett of Nova Scotia, ‘that they
are dealing with living things...their work must be more than simply insecticide testing or a
quest for highly destructive chemicals.’ Dr. Pickett himself was a pioneer in the field of working
out sane methods of insect control that take full advantage of the predatory and parasitic
species. The method which he and his associates evolved is today a shining model but one too
little emulated. Only in the integrated control programs developed by some California
entomologists do we find anything comparable in this country.
Dr. Pickett began his work some thirty-five years ago in the apple orchards of the Annapolis
Valley in Nova Scotia, once one of the most concentrated fruit-growing areas in Canada. At that
time it was believed that insecticides—then inorganic chemicals—would solve the problems of
insect control, that the only task was to induce fruit growers to follow the recommended
methods. But the rosy picture failed to materialize. Somehow the insects persisted. New
chemicals were added, better spraying equipment was devised, and the zeal for spraying
increased, but the insect problem did not get any better. Then DDT promised to ‘obliterate the
nightmare’ of codling moth outbreaks. What actually resulted from its use was an
unprecedented scourge of mites. ‘We move from crisis to crisis, merely trading one problem for
another,’ said Dr. Pickett.
At this point, however, Dr. Pickett and his associates struck out on a new road instead of going
along with other entomologists who continued to pursue the will-o’-the-wisp of the ever more
toxic chemical. Recognizing that they had a strong ally in nature, they devised a program that
makes maximum use of natural controls and minimum use of insecticides. Whenever
insecticides are applied only minimum dosages are used—barely enough to control the pest
without avoidable harm to beneficial species. Proper timing also enters in. Thus, if nicotine
sulphate is applied before rather than after the apple blossoms turn pink one of the important
predators is spared, probably because it is still in the egg stage.
Dr. Pickett uses special care to select chemicals that will do as little harm as possible to insect
parasites and predators. ‘When we reach the point of using DDT, parathion, chlordane, and
other new insecticides as routine control measures in the same way we have used the inorganic
chemicals in the past, entomologists interested in biological control may as well throw in the
sponge,’ he says. Instead of these highly toxic, broad-spectrum insecticides, he places chief
reliance on ryania (derived from ground stems of a tropical plant), nicotine sulphate, and lead
arsenate. In certain situations very weak concentrations of DDT or malathion are used (1 or 2
ounces per 100 gallons in contrast to the usual 1 or 2 pounds per 100 gallons). Although these
two are the least toxic of the modern insecticides, Dr. Pickett hopes by further research to
replace them with safer and more selective materials.
How well has this program worked? Nova Scotia orchardists who are following Dr. Pickett’s
modified spray program are producing as high a proportion of first-grade fruit as are those who
are using intensive chemical applications. They are also getting as good production. They are
getting these results, moreover, at a substantially lower cost. The outlay for insecticides in Nova
Scotia apple orchards is only from 10 to 20 per cent of the amount spent in most other apple-
growing areas. More important than even these excellent results is the fact that the modified
program worked out by these Nova Scotian entomologists is not doing violence to nature’s
balance. It is well on the way to realizing the philosophy stated by the Canadian entomologist
G. C. Ullyett a decade ago: ‘We must change our philosophy, abandon our attitude of human
superiority and admit that in many cases in natural environments we find ways and means of
limiting populations of organisms in a more economical way than we can do it ourselves.’
No comments:
Post a Comment