Invasiveness of some biological control insects and adequacy of their ecological risk assessment and regulation

Conservation Biology

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 73-82

  Louda, S M ^a   Arnett, A E ^a,b   Rand, T A ^a   Russell, F L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

^b UNITY COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; INSECT; NATURAL ENEMY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

CIRSIUM; COLEOPTERA; CURCULIONIDAE; HEXAPODA; INSECTA; LARINUS PLANUS; RHINOCYLLUS CONICUS;

EID: 0037329526     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02020.x     Document Type: Review

References (89)

1. Arnett, A. E., and S. M. Louda. 2002. Re-test of Rhinocyllus conicus host specificity, and the prediction of ecological risk in biological control. Biological Conservation 106:251-257.
2. Blossey, B. 1995. Host specificity screening of insect biological weed control agents as part of an environmental risk assessment. Pages 84-89 in H. M. T. Hokkanen and J. M. Lynch, editors. Biological control: benefits and risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
3. Blossey, B., D. Schroeder, S. D. Hight, and R. A. Malecki. 1994. Host specificity and environmental impact of the weevil Hylobius transversovittatus, a biological control agent of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Science 42:128-133.
4. Boettner, G. H., J. S. Elkinton, and C. J. Boettner. 2000. Effects of a biological control introduction on three nontarget native species of saturniid moths. Conservation Biology 14:1798-1806.
5. Boldt, P. E. 1997. Response of a Rhinocyllus researcher. Biocontrol News and Information 18:100N.
6. Callaway, R. M., T. H. DeLuca, and W. M. Belliveau. 1999. Biological-control herbivores may increase competitive ability of the noxious weed Centaurea maculosa. Ecology 80:1196-1201.
7. Dodd, A. P. 1940. The biological campaign against prickly pear. Commonwealth Prickly Pear Board, Brisbane, Australia.
8. Dunn, P. H. 1976. Distribution of Carduus nutans, C. acanthoides, C. pycnocephalus, and C. crispus, in the United States. Weed Science 24:518-524.
9. Elkinton, J. S., J. P. Buonaccorsi, T. S. Bellows, and R. G. Van Driesche. 1992. Marginal attack rate, k-values and density dependence in the analysis of contemporaneous mortality factors. Researches in Population Ecology 34:29-44.
10. Ewel, J. J., et al. 1999. Deliberate introductions of species: research needs. BioScience 49:619-630.
11. Fowler, S. V., H. M. Harman, J. Memmott, Q. Paynter, R. Shaw, A. W. Sheppard, and P. Syrett. 1996. Comparing the population dynamics of broom, Cytisus scoparius, as a native plant in the United Kingdom and France and as an invasive alien weed in Australia and New Zealand. Pages 19-26 in V. C. Moran and J. H. Hoffmann, editors. Proceedings of the ninth international symposium on the biological control of weeds. University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
12. Fowler, S. V., J. Memmott, Q. E. Paynter, A. W. Sheppard, and P. Syrett. 2001. The scope and value of extensive ecological studies in the broom biological control programme. Pages 229-248 in E. Wajnberg, J. K. Scott, and P. C. Quimby, editors. Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, CABI International, Wailingford, Oxon, United Kingdom.
13. Gassmann, A., and S. M. Louda. 2001. Rhinocyllus conicus: initial evaluation and subsequent ecological impacts in North America. Pages 147-183 in E. Wajnberg, J. K. Scott, and P. C. Quimby, editors. Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, CABI International, Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom.
14. Goeden, R. D., and D. W. Ricker. 1987. Phytophagous insect faunas of native Cirsium thistles, C. mohavense, C. neomexicanum, and C. nidulum, in the Mojave Desert of southern California. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 80:161-175.
15. Gordon, D. R. 1997. Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecological Applications 8:975-989.
16. Gordon, D. R., and K. P. Thomas. 1997. Florida's invasion by nonindigenous plants: history, screening, and regulation. Pages 21-37 in D. Simberloff, D. C. Schmitz, and T. C. Brown, editors. Strangers in paradise: impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
17. Greathead, D.J. 1995. Benefits and risks of classical biological control. Pages 53-63 in H. M. T. Hokkanen and J. M. Lynch, editors. Biological control: benefits and risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
18. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. Sage Books, Denver, CO.
19. Harris, P. 2002. Host specificity in weed biocontrol. Lethbridge Research Centre, Canada. Available from http//res2.agr.gc.ca/Lethbridge/weedbio/hostspec.htm (accessed June 2002).
20. Harris, P., and P. McEvoy. 1985. The predictability of insect host plant utilization from feeding tests and suggested improvements for screening weed biological control agents. Pages 125-131 in Proceedings of the eighth international symposium on the biological control of weeds. Commonwealth Scientific, Industrial, and Research Organization, Melbourne, Australia.
21. Henneman, M. L., and J. Memmott. 2001. Infiltration of a Hawaiian community by introduced biological control agents. Science 293:1314-1316.
22. Herr, J. C. 2000. Evaluating non-target effects: the thistle story. Pages 12-17 in M. S. Hoddle, editor. Proceedings of the California conference on biological control II. University of California, Riverside.
23. Hopper, K. R. 2001. Research needs concerning non-target impacts of biological control introductions. Pages 39-56 in E. Wajnberg., J. K. Scott, and P. C. Quimbey, editors. Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, Oxon, United Kingdom.
24. Howarth, F. G. 1990. Hawaiian terrestrial arthropods: an overview. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 30:4-26.
25. Huffaker, C. B., and C. E. Kennett. 1959. A ten-year study of vegetational changes associated with biological control of Klamath weed. Journal of Range Management 12:69-82.
26. Johnson, D. M., and P. D. Stiling. 1998. Distribution and dispersal of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), an exotic Opuntia-feeding moth, in Florida. Florida Entomologist 81:12-22.
27. Kok, L. T., and W. W. Surles. 1975. Successful biocontrol of Musk thistle by an introduced weevil, Rhinocyllus conicus. Environmental Entomology 4:1025-1027.
28. Lamp, W. O., and M. K. McCarty. 1981. Biology and ecology of Platte thistle (Cirsium canescens). Weed Science 29:686-692.
29. Lamp, W. O., and M. K. McCarty. 1982. Predispersal seed predation of a native thistle, Cirsium canescens. Environmental Entomology 11:847-851.
30. Louda, S. M. 1994. Experimental evidence for insect impact on populations of short-lived, perennial plants, and its application in restoration ecology. Pages 118-138 in M. L. Bowles and C. J. Whelan, editors. Restoration of endangered species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
31. Louda, S. M. 1998. Population growth of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on two species of native thistles in prairie. Environmental Entomology 27:834-841.
32. Louda, S. M. 1999a. Ecology of interactions needed in biological control practice and policy. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 29:8-11.
33. Louda, S. M. 1999b. Negative ecological effects of the musk thistle biocontrol agent, Rhinocyllus conicus Fröl. Pages 215-243 in P. A. Follet and J. J. Duan, editors. Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
34. Louda, S. M. 2000. Rhinocyllus conicus: insights to improve predictability and minimize risk of biological control of weeds. Pages 187-193 in N. R. Spencer, editor. Proceedings of the tenth international symposium on the biological control of weeds. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bozeman, Montana.
35. Louda, S. M., and A. E. Arnett. 2000. Predicting non-target ecological effects of biological control agents: evidence from Rhinocyllus conicus. Pages 551-567 in N. R. Spencer, editor. Proceedings of the tenth international symposium on the biological control of weeds. Agricultural Research Service, Department of Agriculture, Bozeman, Montana.
36. Louda, S. M., and C. W. O'Brien. 2002. Unexpected ecological effects of distributing the exotic weevil Larinus planus (F.) for the biological control of Canada thistle. Conservation Biology 16:717-727.
37. Louda, S. M., and M. A. Potvin. 1995. Effect of inflorescence-feeding insects in the demography and lifetime fitness of a native plant. Ecology 76:229-245.
38. Louda, S. M., and T. A. Rand. 2002. Native thistles: expendable or integral to ecosystem resistance to invasion? In S. A. Levin and P. Kareiva, editors. The importance of species: perspectives on expendability and triage. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, in press.
39. Louda, S. M., M. A. Potvin, and S. K. Collinge. 1990. Predispersal seed predation, postdispersal seed predation and competition in the recruitment of seedlings of a native thistle in sandhills prairie. American Midland Naturalist 124:105-113.
40. Louda, S. M., D. Kendall, J. Connor, and D. Simberloff. 1997. Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277:1088-1090.
41. Louda, S. M., D. Simberloff, G. Boettner, J. Connor, D. Kendall, and A. E. Arnett. 1998. Insights from data on the nontarget effects of the flower-head weevil. Biocontrol News and Information 19:70N-71N.
42. Louda, S. M., R. W. Pemberton, M. T. Johnson, and P. A. Follett. 2003. Non-target effects: the Achilles' heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Annual Review of Entomology 48, in press.
43. MacFadyen, R. E. 1998. Biological control of weeds. Annual Review of Entomology 43:369-393.
44. Malecki, R., and B. Blossey. 1994. Insect biological weed control: an important and underutilized management tool for maintaining native plant communities threatened by exotic plant introductions. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 54:400-404.
45. Marohasy, J. 1998. The design and interpretation of host-specificity tests for weed biological control with particular reference to insect behavior. Biocontrol News and Information 19:13N-20N.
46. McClay, A. S. 1990. The potential of Larinus planus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), an accidentally-introduced insect in North America, for biological control of Cirsium arvense. Pages 173-179 in E. S. Delfosse, editor. Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on the biological control of weeds. Instituto Sperimentale per la Patologia Vegetale, Rome.
47. McEvoy, P. B. 1996. Host specificity and biological pest control. BioScience 46:401-405.
48. McEvoy, P. B., and E. M. Coombs. 1999. A parsimonious approach to biological control of plant invaders. Ecological Applications 9:387-401.
49. McEvoy, P. B., C. Cox, and E. Coombs. 1991. Successful biological control of ragwort, Senecio jacobaea, by introduced insects in Oregon. Ecological Applications 1:430-442.
50. Murdoch, W. W. 1990. The relevance of pest-enemy models to biological control. Pages 1-24 in M. Mackauer, L. E. Ehler, and J. Roland, editors. Critical issues in biological control. Intercept, Andover United Kingdom.
51. Murdoch, W. W., and C. J. Briggs. 1996. Theory for biological control: recent developments. Ecology 77:2001-2013.
52. Murdoch, W. W., J. Chesson, and P. L. Chesson. 1985. Biological control in theory and practice. The American Naturalist 125:344-366.
53. Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the Unite States. OTA-F-565. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
54. Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Biologically based technologies for pest control. OTA-ENV-636. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
55. Paine, R. T. 1992. Food web analysis through field measurement of per capita interaction strength. Nature (London) 355:73-75.
56. Pearson, D. E., K. S. McKelvey, and L. F. Ruggiero. 2000. Non-target effects of an introduced biological control agent on deer mouse ecology. Oecologia 122:121-128.
57. Pemberton, R. W. 1986. Native plant considerations in the biological control of leafy spurge. Pages 365-390 in E. S. Delfosse, editor. Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on biological control of weeds. Agriculture Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia.
58. Pemberton, R. W. 2000. Predictable risk to native plants in weed biological control. Oecologia (Berlin):489-494.
59. Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-64.
60. Rees, N. E. 1977. Impact of Rhinocyllus conicus on thistles in southwestern Montana. Environmental Entomology 6:839-842.
61. Schaffner, U. 2001. Host range testing of insects for biological weed control: how can it be better interpreted? BioScience 51:951-959.
62. Schoener, T. W. 1993. On the relative importance of direct versus indirect effects in ecological communities. Pages 365-411 in H. Kawanabe, J. E. Cohen and K. Iwasaki, editors. Mutualism and community organization: behavioral, theoretical, and food-web approaches. Oxford University Press, New York.
63. Second, D., and P. Kareiva. 1996. Perils and pitfalls in the host specificity paradigm. BioScience 46:448-453.
64. Shea, K., and D. Kelly. 1998. Estimating biocontrol agent impact with matrix models: Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Ecological Applications 8:824-832.
65. Shepherd, R. C. H. 1990. Problems which arise with host-specificity testing of insects. Pages 85-92 in E. S. Delfosse, editor. Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on the biological control of weeds. Insituto Sperimentale per la Patologia vegetale, Rome.
66. Sheppard, A. W., and T. Woodburn. 1996. Population regulation in insects used to control thistles: can this predict effectiveness? Pages 277-290 in R. B. Floyd, A. W. Sheppard and P. J. De Barro, editors. Frontiers of population ecology. Commonwealth Scientific, Industrial, and Research Organization, Melbourne.
67. Simberloff, D. 1981. Community effects of introduced species. Pages 53-81 in T. H. Nitecki, editor. Biotic crises in ecological and evolutionary time. Academic Press, New York.
68. Simberloff, D. 1992. Conservation of pristine habitats and unintended effects of biological control. Pages 103-117 in W. C. Kauffman and J. E. Nechols, editors. Selection criteria and ecological consequences of importing natural enemies. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland.
69. Simberloff, D., and P. Stiling. 1996. How risky is biological control? Ecology 77:1965-1974.
70. Singer, M. C., C. D. Thomas, and C. Parmesan. 1993. Rapid human-induced evolution of insect-host associations. Nature (London) 366:681-683.
71. Singer, M. C., C. D. Thomas, H. L. Billington, and C. Parmesan. 1994. Correlates of speed of evolution of host preference in a set of twelve populations of the butterfly Euphydryas editha. Eco-Science 1:107-114.
72. Stiling, P., and D. Simberloff. 1999. The frequency and strength of non-target effects of invertebrate biological control agents of plant pests and weeds. Pages 31-43 in P. A. Follett and J. J. Duan, editors. Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
73. Strong, D. R. 1997. Fear no weevil? Science 277:1058-1059.
74. Strong, D. R., and R. W. Pemberton. 2000. Biological control of invading species: risk and reform. Science 288:1969-1970.
75. Strong, D. R., and R. W. Pemberton. 2001. Food webs, risks of alien enemies and reform of biological control. Pages 229-248 in E. Wajnberg, J. K. Scott and P. C. Quimby, editors. Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, CABI International, Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom.
76. Thomas, C. D., D. Ng, M. C. Singer, J. L. B. Mallet, C. Parmesan, and H. L. Billington. 1987. Incorporation of a European weed into the diet of a North American herbivore. Evolution 41:892-901.
77. Thomas, M. B., and A. J. Willis. 1998. Biocontrol: risky but necessary? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13:325-329.
78. Turner, C. E., R. W. Pemberton, and S. S. Rosenthal. 1987. Host utilization of native Cirsium thistles (Asteraceae) by the introduced weevil Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in California. Environmental Entomology 16:111-115.
79. Van Driesche, R., and T. S. Bellows. 1996. Biological control. Chapman & Hall, New York.
80. Van Driesche, R. G., J. S. Elkinton, and T. S. Bellows. 1994. Potential use of life tables to evaluate the impact of parasitism on population growth of Phyllonorycter crataegella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). Pages 37-51 in C. Maeir, editor. Integrated management of tentiform leafminers, Phyllonorycter ssp. (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), in North America apple orchards. Thomas Say Publications in Entomology, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland.
81. Vitousek, P. M., C. M. D'Antonio, L. L. Loope, and R. Westbrooks. 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. American Scientist 84:468-478.
82. Wheeler, A. G., and D. R. Whitehead. 1985. Larinus planus (F.) in North America (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Cleoninae) and comments on biological control of Canada thistle. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 87:751-758.
83. Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.
84. Williamson, M. editor. 1996. Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, London.
85. Williamson, M., and A. Fitter. 1996. The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661-1666.
86. Wootton, J. T. 1994. The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25:443-466.
87. Zimmermann, H. G., V. C. Moran, and J. H. Hoffman. 1986. Insect herbivores as determinants of the present distribution and abundance of invasive cacti in South Africa. Pages 269-274 in I. A. W. Macdonald, F. J. Kruger, and A. A. Ferrar, editors. Ecology and management of biological invasions in southern Africa. Oxford University Press, Cape Town.
88. Zwölfer, H., and P. Harris. 1984. Biology and host specificity of Rhinocyllus conicus (Froel.) (Col., Curculionidae), a successful agent for biocontrol of the thistle, Carduus nutans L. Zeitschrift der Angewandte Entomologie 97:36-62.
89. Zwölfer, H., K. E. Frick, and L. A. Andres. 1971. A study of the host plant relationships of European members of the genus Larinus (Col.: Curculionidae). Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control Technical Bulletin 14:97-143.