Environmental Impacts of Arthropod Biological Control

Jennings, David E.; Duan, Jian J.; Follett, Peter A.

doi:10.1002/9781119255574.ch5

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 142 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The conservation or introduction of natural enemies of pests or their augmentation by inundative releases are the main biological control practices (Bales et al, 2008). However, with the exception of conservation biological control, these practices can generate drastic changes in receiving ecosystems through the introduction of non-native species or populations (Louda et al, 2003, Jennings et al, 2017. The native assemblages that develop in the target agro-ecosystems or even in the landscapes that contain them (natural or semi-natural areas surrounding or nested within agroecosystems) may be affected by invasion phenomena by non-native species or other phenomena associated with massive releases of exogenous populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No deleterious effect of inundative releases of biological agents on native arthropod assemblages in poultry farms: A mesocosm experiment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Augmentative biological control relies on the inundative release of natural enemies of pests that are usually mass-reared in the laboratory. This practice substantially reduces the environmental impact of pest control in agriculture by reducing the use of insecticides. However, there are many reasons to expect more or less deleterious effects on biodiversity: if the enemy is not specific to the pest, the release of large populations of predators can directly affect native assemblages through the predation process itself and/or through competition with their native counterparts. In addition, mass-reared populations of enemies generally come from gene pools that are different from native populations and may, through the effects of hybridization, alter their population dynamics. On the other hand, during mass rearing, populations of natural enemies to be released are subject to different selection pressures from those in the field and may be less adapted than native populations to farm ecosystems. These effects are generally very difficult to assess in agro-ecosystems themselves due to the multiplicity of factors. In order to assess the effects of inundative releases of generalist predatory mites on native assemblages that colonize poultry houses from the surrounding environment, we conducted an experiment over several generations of mites using mesocosms mimicking a piece of a henhouse (mite-proof units, each housing one hen). No deleterious effects on native populations of Androlaelaps casalis and Cheyletus spp. have been detected from the mass introduction of marketed populations of A. casalis and C. eruditus. The mass introduction of marketed predatory mites against D. gallinae appears to be compatible with the conservation of native arthropod assemblages. The mass-reared populations of A. casalis and C. eruditus did not establish their populations under conditions which otherwise allowed their native counterparts (same taxa) to do so.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No deleterious effect of inundative releases of biological agents on native arthropod assemblages in poultry farms: A mesocosm experiment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Field surveys and pre-release non-target testing with regard to host specificity revealed how L. japonica exhibits a wider host range compared to G. brasiliensis , leading to exclusion of the former as a candidate agent for CBC [ 51 , 57 ]. Even though a particular emphasis is now placed on host specificity assessments to avoid the introduction of generalist natural enemies [ 77 ], laboratory experiments may be limited in their predictive ability [ 78 ], due to the confined experimental set-up [ 79 ] or because of the existence of strains with a narrow/wide host range according to the area of origin [ 56 , 57 ]. As for other animal species, parasitoid wasps need to cope with the ecological context in which they are found [ 62 , 73 , 80 ], which provides alternative resources to sustain natural enemies during the season, facilitating biocontrol of target pests [ 81 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First Report of Leptopilina japonica in Europe

Puppato

Grassi

Pedrazzoli

et al. 2020

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura; Diptera: Drosophilidae) is a key pest of sweet cherry and small fruits worldwide. Biological control remains unutilized in the framework of D. suzukii management. Nonetheless, natural enemies may play an important role in regulating this pest. We report for the first time the presence of Leptopilina japonica Novković and Kimura (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) in Europe. Two specimens emerged from ripened fruits and one was collected after direct observation on a cherry tree in June 2019. They showed the distinctive morphological traits already described and shared more than 99% sequence similarity with specimens of L. japonica collected in Asia. This first finding was confirmed by a wider survey carried out in 2020; L. japonica emerged from cherry fruit samples collected in five other sites across the Trentino region, suggesting that L. japonica has already colonized a wide area. Detection of this Asian species is relevant to the future direction in managing D. suzukii, both in Europe and North America. In fact, L. japonica showed similarity with Ganaspis brasiliensis (Ihering) (Hymenoptera: Figitidae), the most promising candidate for the classical biological control, in terms of developmental time, egg maturation, host age preference and lifetime fecundity.

show abstract

“…El control biológico de conservación, que implica el despliegue de varios métodos para conservar y mejorar los herbívoros, parasitoides y/o depredadores nativos naturales, tiene impactos negativos mínimos en el medio ambiente y los servicios ecológicos. Por el contrario, el control biológico clásico, que implica la introducción y el establecimiento de enemigos naturales no nativos especializados, a veces puede llevar a consecuencias ecológicas inesperadas en el ecosistema meta (Jennings et al 2017).…”

Section: Conclusión Del Capítulounclassified