Indirect ecological effects in biological control: the challenge and the opportunity.

Waage, J. K.; Wajnberg, Éric; Scott, J. K.; Quimby, P. C.

doi:10.1079/9780851994536.0001

Cited by 29 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in a study spanning ten years and 16 sites in South Africa, Hoffman & Moran (1998) show how increasing the number of complementary control-organism species enhances control of a South American perennial legume Sesbania punicea using weevils representing three different guilds. While biological control can prove to be of inestimable social and economic value, we are just beginning to appreciate the environmental costs and benefits (Follett & Duan, 2000;Waage, 2001). The processes of biological control systems involve an interplay among disturbance, colonization, and local interactions; understanding these processes is providing answers to perplexing questions including why we have pests in the first place, and what we need to do to mitigate pest problems (McEvoy & Coombs, 1999).…”

Section: Biological Control Systems As Model Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insect‐plant interactions on a planet of weeds

McEvoy

2002

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two conflicting views confront ecologists and evolutionary biologists on the degree of symmetry in interactions between plants and phytophagous insects. The symmetrical view holds that insects and plants have strong effects on one another's evolutionary and ecological dynamics. Thus, herbivores are regarded as a major influence on plant distribution and abundance in contemporary ecosystems, and coevolution is commonly invoked to explain adaptive radiation in plants and insects, host specialization in insects, as well as much of the morphological and chemical variety observed in plants. The asymmetrical view acknowledges that plants have major effects on insects, but claims that insects seldom impose significant effects on plants. Proponents of the asymmetric view tend to ignore or discount insect-plant interactions in communities and ecosystems altered by human impacts. If we recognize the scope and scale of human impacts, and ways in which these impacts change insect-plant interactions, then our views about symmetry or asymmetry in insect-plant interactions will change. To understand, predict, and manage insect herbivory we need to study it in all its manifestations. In particular, the study of interactions involving alien species is both an urgent priority for environmental management and potentially a source of ecological insights on the role of herbivores in plant population and community dynamics. A complete theory of insect/host plant interactions must explain and predict interactions both within and beyond the native range. Such a theory might guide efforts to deal with environmental problems stemming from rapid rates of extinction and homogenization of the world's biota.

show abstract

Section: Biological Control Systems As Model Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insect‐plant interactions on a planet of weeds

McEvoy

2002

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At Site # 2, there were 81 marked E. robusta plants in 2000; that number increased to 101 plants in 2001. By 2007 plants remained, including 26 of the original plants.…”

Section: Interpretive Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rhinocyllus conicus, a biological control agent for musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.) has been found to attack a wide variety of native thistles, some endangered (Gassmann and Louda 2001). Increased concern has stimulated a call for greater risk assessment of new biological control agents, more thorough study of the target species prior to release, and postrelease tracking of host range under field conditions (Waage 2001). This has lead to a complex screening process, very large test plant lists, rejection of potential biological control of weeds agents for relatively minor nontarget feeding, and a long, drawn-out permitting process in the United States.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeding Impacts of a Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Biological Control Agent on a Native Plant, Euphorbia robusta

Baker¹,

Webber²

2008

Invasive plant sci. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biological control agent Aphthona nigriscutis Foudras (Chrysomelidae) established in Fremont County, WY since 1992 on leafy spurge was released into a mixed stand a native plant Euphorbia robusta Engelm. During host range testing, E. robusta was a likely host for A. nigriscutis under laboratory conditions. In 1999, A. nigriscutis was observed feeding on both E. esula and 31 of 36 E. robusta plants present on about 2 ha (5 ac) where the visually estimated E. esula canopy cover was 50%. By August 2001, E. esula cover had declined to less than 5% and E. robusta plants had increased to 450 plants with 26 (5.8%) showing feeding damage. In 2006 Euphorbia esula ground cover was 2% and of 598 E. robusta plants originally marked, 391 could be located and four of these had damage consistent with A. nigriscutis feeding. For the 8-yr period, E. esula ground cover was inversely correlated to E. robusta density and positively correlated to A. nigriscutis feeding damage on E. robusta. This study shows that while also acceptable to A. nigriscutis in the field, feeding on E. robusta declined with declining densities of the target weed while E. robusta population densities increased. It seems that some risk in this regard is acceptable in light of the damage from the target weed and the generally high level of selectivity provided by biological control agents.

show abstract

“…(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), possui ampla distribuição no continente americano, podendo utilizar espécies de plantas de oito famílias botânicas como hospedeiras, incluindo o algodoeiro (YÉPEZ et al, 1990), além de culturas de importância econômica como fumo, tomate, girassol e soja (McCAFFERY, 1998;BLANCO et al, 2006). O entendimento das interações no agroecossistema desponta como estratégia fundamental no manejo de pragas pela possibilidade de diminuir o uso de inseticidas sintéticos, com menor impacto sobre organismos não-alvo (GHINI; BETTIOL, 2000;WAAGE, 2001;MOSCARDI et al, 2008). Isso permite o manejo sustentável de culturas pelo uso de agentes naturais de controle em liberações inundativas, após o estudo do ecossistema e das potencialidades de Acta Scientiarum.…”

Section: Introdução Introdução Introdução Introduçãounclassified