2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10526-017-9859-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The importance of cryptic species and subspecific populations in classic biological control of weeds: a North American perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Given the protracted problems facing weed biocontrol in the USA and Hawaii, especially, it is not surprising that the emphasis in this Special Issue is provided by authors from the USA writing on risk assessments, conflicts of interest and regulations, and on the considerable complications of dealing with agenthost-fidelity for taxa at sub-specific levels (Bean and Dudley 2018;Casagrande et al 2018;Smith et al 2018), and on innovations to expand host-specificity procedures, to help make them more definitive (Park et al 2018;Blossey et al 2018). Two papers in this Special Issue have wide applicability: Schaffner et al (2018) review and assess the use of open-field testing in risk assessments, and Blossey et al (2018) argue that the use of long-term, plant demographic data should be an essential practical and conceptual component in debates on host-specificity, risk assessments, and in the evaluation of weed biological control in management programs.…”
Section: Perceptions Of Risk In Weed Biological Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the protracted problems facing weed biocontrol in the USA and Hawaii, especially, it is not surprising that the emphasis in this Special Issue is provided by authors from the USA writing on risk assessments, conflicts of interest and regulations, and on the considerable complications of dealing with agenthost-fidelity for taxa at sub-specific levels (Bean and Dudley 2018;Casagrande et al 2018;Smith et al 2018), and on innovations to expand host-specificity procedures, to help make them more definitive (Park et al 2018;Blossey et al 2018). Two papers in this Special Issue have wide applicability: Schaffner et al (2018) review and assess the use of open-field testing in risk assessments, and Blossey et al (2018) argue that the use of long-term, plant demographic data should be an essential practical and conceptual component in debates on host-specificity, risk assessments, and in the evaluation of weed biological control in management programs.…”
Section: Perceptions Of Risk In Weed Biological Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A program of classical biological control was initiated for the integrated management of common sowthistle (McCarren and Scott 2008, 2017. This program clearly relies on the correct identification of the target plant to search for specialist natural enemies to manage focal taxa (Goeden and Ricker 1985;O'Hanlon et al 2000;McFadyen 2003;Smith et al 2010Smith et al , 2018.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, the specificity relationship between the host plant and its natural enemies might be very tight, e.g. for pathogens and Eriophyidae spider mites, which is a crucial element in the science of weed biocontrol (McFadyen 2003;Smith et al 2010Smith et al , 2018. Misidentification of the target weed and selection of unadapted agents can cause incomplete control or failure of the establishment of the control agent in invasive range (Goeden and Ricker 1985;O'Hanlon et al 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cryptic species are more abundant than was originally thought (Bickford et al, 2007). The consequences of this abundance of cryptic species to the practice of weed biological control has recently been reviewed by Smith et al (2018). The positive implications are that more species are available as potential biological control agents, as many species that were thought to be polyphagous could be cryptic species complexes with restricted host ranges (Smith et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The consequences of this abundance of cryptic species to the practice of weed biological control has recently been reviewed by Smith et al (2018). The positive implications are that more species are available as potential biological control agents, as many species that were thought to be polyphagous could be cryptic species complexes with restricted host ranges (Smith et al, 2018). There is, however, a potential danger in that cryptic species with broader host ranges could be introduced accidentally if biological control practitioners are not aware of their existence (Paynter et al, 2008;Paterson et al, 2016), which could result in unanticipated damage to non-target plants, with serious consequences to the science and practice of biological control.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%