LAUSR

Simple Summary Controlling invertebrate pests in crop fields using chemicals has been the main management strategy within the Australian grains industry for decades. However, chemical use can have unintended effects on natural enemies, which can play a key role in suppressing and controlling pest outbreaks within crops. We undertook a literature review of studies that have conducted chemical toxicity testing against arthropod natural enemies relevant to the Australian grains industry to examine trends and highlight research gaps and priorities. Most toxicity trials have been conducted in the laboratory, with few at larger, and hence, industry-relevant scales. Researchers have used a variety of methods when conducting toxicity testing, making it difficult to compare within and across different species of natural enemies. Furthermore, we found many gaps in testing, leading to unknown toxicity effects for several key natural enemies, some of which are economically important predators and parasitoids. Through our review, we make several key recommendations for future areas of research that could arm farmers and their advisors with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions when it comes to controlling crop pests. Abstract Continued prophylactic chemical control to reduce pest populations in Australian grain farming systems has limited the effectiveness of biological control via natural enemies in crops within an integrated pest management (IPM) framework. While a variety of data is available to infer potential non-target effects of chemicals on arthropod natural enemies, much of it may be irrelevant or difficult to access. Here, we synthesise the literature relevant to Australian grain crops and highlight current knowledge gaps for potential future investment. A range of testing methodologies have been utilised, often deviating from standardised International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) protocols. Consistent with findings from over 30 years ago, research has continued to occur predominantly at laboratory scales and on natural enemy families that are easily reared or commercially available. There is a paucity of data for many generalist predators, in particular for spiders, hoverflies, and rove and carabid beetles. Furthermore, very few studies have tested the effects of seed treatments on natural enemies, presenting a significant gap given the widespread global use of neonicotinoid seed treatments. There is a need to validate results obtained under laboratory conditions at industry-relevant scales and also prioritise testing on several key natural enemy species we have identified, which should assist with the adoption of IPM practices and decrease the reliance on broad-spectrum chemicals.