The insect glue, produced from edible oils, was inspired by plants such as sundews that use the strategy to capture their prey. A key advantage of physical pesticides over toxic pesticides is that pests are highly unlikely to evolve resistance, as this would require them to develop much larger and stronger bodies, while bigger beneficial insects, like bees, are not trapped by the drops.

The drops were tested on the western flower thrip, which are known to attack more than 500 species of vegetable, fruit and ornamental crops. More than 60% of the thrips were captured within the two days of the test, and the drops remained sticky for weeks.

Work on the sticky pesticide is continuing, but Dr Thomas Kodger at Wageningen University & Research, in the Netherlands, who is part of the self defence project doing the work, said: “We hope it will have not nearly as disastrous side-effects on the local environment or on accidental poisonings of humans. And the alternatives are much worse, which are potential starvation due to crop loss or the overuse of chemical pesticides, which are a known hazard.”

Link to the study

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 68 points 2 years ago (4 children)

A key advantage of physical pesticides over toxic pesticides is that pests are highly unlikely to evolve resistance, as this would require them to develop much larger and stronger bodies.

Goddammit, stop playing with fire, scientists!!

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    In the Jurassic period there were giant insects like dragonflies with 4ft wingspan. Turns out THIS is how we get to Jurassic park

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Carboniferous period. Jurassic was about 100m years later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 62 points 2 years ago

    All jokes aside, this is another great example of a trend towards bio-inspired engineering.

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    There are plenty of ways we shorten a specific phrase that renders it general but still understand it as the specific version.

    The word “chemicals” is rarely misunderstood when used this way. Colloquially, many/most people mean “harmful chemicals” when they say it.

    Is there room for misunderstanding? Yes. Is that a problem? Not any bigger than most problems with using spoken/written language to communicate.

    You don’t come off as wise when you point this inaccuracy out, and It doesn’t invalidate the whole article.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    You are correct, but having spent 7 years of my life learning general chemistry, biochemistry, and organic chemistry.... I will fight with my last breath that chemicals exist.

    To play devils advocate, lets say we "agree" that "no chemicals" means no harmful chemicals.... now we have given corporations the weasel defense to say anything has "no chemicals" because they will define away any measure of harm.

    Pointing out the incorrectness of the article doesn't mean it has no merit, but now the critical reader must be extra cautious because the author has demonstrated very poor domain knowledge, and their conclusions are suspect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    You don't serve the greater good by misusing words. A new sticky substance as an alternative to chemicals? If you want to educate people through your reporting, then you try to make it accurate and choose words carefully.

    It doesn't invalidate the whole article, fair enough. But it does make a "wise" person question what else they got wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I've watched chunks of society freak out over everything from basic food ingredients to vaccines because they contained polysyllabic words that people decried as "chemicals".

    And I've spent my whole damn life listening to people abuse the word "theory" until the the Christofascists and neo-nazis managed to become mainstream.

    People abuse technical words with a purpose. Don't play apologetics for them because you believe their understanding of words is more nuanced than they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 24 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    The sticky drops will biodegrade but the team is investigating how long this takes.

    They probably should have waited to write such a glowing article until after we find this out.

    Because I'm thinking people aren't going to be all that into trying to pull apart grapes that have been glued together.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    "Without chemicals"

    Okay, no need to take this seriously.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is good news but I love that our current standard is at "not nearly as disastrous side-effects"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    This is a really, really, bad idea.

    The issue is that sticky traps are non-specific. Any insect the size of a trip can be trapped. Then when predators are attracted to all the free food, they are potentially stuck or damaged as well.

    Thrips are also one of the easiest species to control using predatory species.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    How many oil plants to you have to mill up in order to have enough oil to coat a plant?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children)

    97% of all insects are beneficials, meaning they are completely harmless or predate on the insects that eat your crops.

    But sure, kill them all because bugs ewww.

    Edit: Apparently this isn't so obvious to people. Ok, let me explain:

    No pesticide can be precisely targeted. You will always capture or kill more insects that are beneficial than are not. In the article it mentions that the sticky spray doesn't capture bigger insects like bees. That's certainly progress over other types of physical traps, but not all insects are very big. Key beneficials like lady bugs, green lacewings, various spiders, pirate bugs, etc are very small. They will be trapped by this spray. If it traps a thrip, it will trap those bugs (and the study abstract says this - "small anthropods"). This isn't mentioned in the article but I can speak to this from personal experience farming. I've tried various options and the results are always the same - you may get rid of some thrips (and boy do I have thrips) but you also wipe out the insects that will eat the thrips and you end up in a kind of arms race. The more beneficials you kill the more pesticides you need.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Ecologist here ... you're absolutely right. We can have less efficient agriculture that doesn't require indiscriminate killing of species.

    Not surprised you got downvoted here, the literal grass-touching prevalence on this site is extremely low.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We can have less efficient agriculture that doesn’t require indiscriminate killing of species.

    Thank you!

    One of the big lies of modern industrialized agriculture is that we have a production problem. We don't! We have a "profit problem" in the sense that industrialized food producers demand ever greater profits which means they have to continually find ways to get people to eat more "value", in volume and/or value-added processes.

    In reality we have a distribution problem that is caused by industrialization and centralization. The real solution is decentralization and diversification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    🫰🏻🫰🏻Yes! We don't need to all eat the same things everywhere. I don't need avocados shipped in from Chile. Local foods is a great way to increase efficiency as well, there is less loss from transportation. But it does mean that you can't eat the same things everywhere you go. If we want to live in a sustainable way, there are big policy changes that need to happen, but those policy changes would lead to changes in our everyday lifestyle. The party's over, we see the results happening right before our eyes and being able to eat the same McDonald's cheeseburger in every country is not worth the cost of mass extinction.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    "boy do I have thrips" triggered a funny memory.

    When I worked in Ag. Research we had a big international field day. People from 50+ countries visiting in. I got the wonderful job of doing presentations in the field all day long. This was in late summer on a bad thrip year.

    Well, one of the office goons decided that they would order all the staff polo shirts for the three day event. We were all supposed to wear the same color on the specified day.

    They ordered in a light blue, yellow, and green polos. The first day was to be light blue. I "accidentally" wore the green one instead and had a few very irate office goons on my back first off that morning. Strangely enough all of the experienced outdoor staff "accidently" wore the green shirt as well.

    For those that don't know, thrips are highly attracted to light blue and they bite. I laughed my ass off most of the day.

    The following two days everyone wore green. Except for the one determined office goon who wore the yellow shirt. In a field full of honeybee hives...

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›