Biological control, or biocontrol, is the exploitation of living agents (incl. viruses) to combat pestilential organisms (incl. pathogens, pests, and weeds) for diverse purposes to provide human benefits. Thus, during the last century the practices and concepts involved have evolved in separate streams associated with distinct scientific and taxonomic disciplines. In parallel developments, there have been increasing references to biological control in industrial contexts and legislation, resulting in conceptual and terminological disintegration. The aim of this paper is to provide a global conceptual and terminological platform that facilitates future development of the field. We review use of previously suggested terms in key fields (e.g., phytopathology, entomology, and weed science), eliminate redundant terminology, identify three principles that should underpin the concept, and then present a new framework for biological control, rooted in seminal publications. The three principles establish that (1) only living agents can mediate biological control, (2) biological control always targets a pest, directly or indirectly, and (3) all biocontrol methods can be classified in four main categories depending on whether resident agents are utilized, with or without targeted human intervention (conservation biological control and natural biological control, respectively) or agents are added for permanent or temporary establishment (classical biological control and augmentative biological control, respectively). Correct identification of what is, and is not, biological control can help efforts to understand and optimize biological pest control for human and environmental benefits. The new conceptual framework may contribute to more uniform and appropriate regulatory approaches to biological control, and more efficient authorization and application of biocontrol products.

Volatile organic compounds are important mediators of mutualistic interactions between plants and their physical and biological surroundings. Volatiles rapidly indicate competition or potential threat before these can take place, and they regulate and coordinate adaptation responses in neighbouring plants, fine‐tuning them to match the exact stress encountered. Ecological specificity and context‐dependency of plant–plant communication mediated by volatiles represent important factors that determine plant performance in specific environments. In this review, we synthesise the recent progress made in understanding the role of plant volatiles as mediators of plant interactions at the individual and community levels, highlighting the complexity of the plant receiver response to diverse volatile cues and signals and addressing how specific responses shape plant growth and survival. Finally, we outline the knowledge gaps and provide directions for future research. The complex dialogue between the emitter and receiver based on either volatile cues or signals determines the outcome of information exchange, which shapes the communication pattern between individuals at the community level and determines their ecological implications at other trophic levels.

Patterns of biomass allocation between different plant organs have often been used to explain the response of plants to variations in resource availability. This paper reports how aerial allelopathy (plant–plant communication) affects biomass allocation, that is the trade‐off between root, stem and leaves, and also relative growth rate (RGR, increase in biomass per unit biomass per unit of time, mg g^–1 d^–1) and its components. Based on previous experiments, communication between two barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars (Alva and Kara) was used for the present study. Kara exposed to volatiles from Alva allocated significantly more biomass to roots compared with Kara exposed to volatiles from Kara or to clean air. There was no significant difference between plants of Kara exposed to volatiles from Kara and those exposed to clean air. Changes in total dry weight (TDW), RGR and unit leaf rate (ULR, increase in biomass per unit time and leaf area, kg m^–2 d^–1) were not significantly affected by plant–plant communication. However, there was a significant increase in specific leaf area (SLA, leaf area per leaf dry weight, m² kg^–1) in Kara when exposed to volatiles from Alva. The results show that aerial plant–plant communication does not affect total biomass production but does significantly affect biomass allocation in individual plants. There may be differences in the volatile profiles of Kara and Alva that induce increased biomass allocation to roots in the Kara plants exposed to volatiles from Alva.

One of the most important challenges for individual plants is coexistence with their neighbors. To compensate for their sessile lifestyle, plants developed complex and sophisticated chemical systems of communication among each other. Site-specific biotic and abiotic factors constantly alter the physiological activity of plants, which causes them to release various secondary metabolites in their environments. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the most common cues that reflect a plant’s current physiological status. In this sense, the identity of its immediate neighbors may have the greatest impact for a plant, as they share the same available resources. Plants constantly monitor and respond to these cues with great sensitivity and discrimination, resulting in specific changes in their growth pattern and adjusting their physiology, morphology, and phenotype accordingly. Those typical competition responses in receivers may increase their fitness as they can be elicited even before the competition takes place. Plant–plant interactions are dynamic and complex as they can include many different and important surrounding cues. A major challenge for all individual plants is detecting and actively responding only to “true” cues that point to real upcoming threat. Such selective responses to highly specific cues embedded in volatile bouquets are of great ecological importance in understanding plant–plant interactions. We have reviewed recent research on the role of VOCs in complex plant–plant interactions in plant-cross kingdom and highlighted their influence on organisms at higher trophic levels.

Changes in plant volatile emission can be induced by exposure to volatiles from neighbouring insect-attacked plants. However, plants are also exposed to volatiles from unattacked neighbours, and the consequences of this have not been explored. We investigated whether volatile exchange between undamaged plants affects volatile emission and plant-insect interaction. Consistently greater quantities of two terpenoids were found in the headspace of potato previously exposed to volatiles from undamaged onion plants identified by mass spectrometry. Using live plants and synthetic blends mimicking exposed and unexposed potato, we tested the olfactory response of winged aphids, Myzus persicae. The altered potato volatile profile deterred aphids in laboratory experiments. Further, we show that growing potato together with onion in the field reduces the abundance of winged, host-seeking aphids. Our study broadens the ecological significance of the phenomenon; volatiles carry not only information on whether or not neighbouring plants are under attack, but also information on the emitter plants themselves. In this way responding plants could obtain information on whether the neighbouring plant is a competitive threat and can accordingly adjust their growth towards it. We interpret this as a response in the process of adaptation towards neighbouring plants. Furthermore, these physiological changes in the responding plants have significant ecological impact, as behaviour of aphids was affected. Since herbivore host plants are potentially under constant exposure to these volatiles, our study has major implications for the understanding of how mechanisms within plant communities affect insects. This knowledge could be used to improve plant protection and increase scientific understanding of communication between plants and its impact on other organisms.