Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:29:26.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED “NEW” APPROACH FOR SELECTING AGENTS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WEEDS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R.D. Goeden  and
L.T. Kok
R.D. Goeden
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Control, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CaliforniaUSA 92521
L.T. Kok
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA 24061
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The “new approach” to selecting biological control agents, as proposed by Hokkanen and Pimentel in 1984, through the use of new exploiter–victim associations is inappropriate for the biological control of weeds because of certain misconceptions in their method. Examples of biological control of weeds cited in their analysis were biased towards cactaceous insects, and cacti are not representative of target weeds. Several of their “new” associations were inaccurate. These inaccuracies are discussed and additional examples are provided to refute the proposed method. Contrary to the recommendation of Hokkanen and Pimentel, new exploiter-victim associations offer limited opportunities for biological control of non-cactaceous weeds with insects, and should not be used as the preferred method in selecting biotic agents for the biological control of weeds.

Résumé

La “nouvelle approche” proposée pour la sélection d’auxiliaires de lutte biologique par Hokkanen et Pimentel, et basée sur l’utilisation de couples exploiteur/victime nouveaux, n’est pas appropriée en malherbologie dû à certaines erreurs de conception de la méthode. Les exemples de lutte biologique contre des mauvaises herbes cités dans l’analyse des auteurs sont biaises en faveur des insectes cacticicoles, alors que les cactus ne sont pas des mauvaises herbes cibles typiques. Certains des “nouveaux” couples étaient erronnés. On discute des inexactitudes et on fournit des exemples qui réfutent l’approche proposée. Contrairement à ce que proposent Hokkanen et Pimentel, les nouveaux couples exploiteur/victime offrent peu d’opportunités d’utilisation en lutte biologique à l’aide d’insectes contre des mauvaises herbes non cactées, et ne devraient pas être préférés lors de la sélection d’agents de lutte biologique en malherbologie.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 118 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 51 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andres, L.A., and Goeden, R.D.. 1971. The biological control of weeds by introduced natural enemies. pp. 143–164 in Huffaker, C.B. (Ed.), Biological Control. Plenum Press, NY. 511 pp.Google Scholar
Andres, L.A., and Kok, L.T.. 1981. Stutus and prospects for biological control of weeds in the U.S.A. pp. 27–33 in Coulson, J.R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Joint American-Soviet Conference on Use of Beneficial Organisms in the Control of Crop Pests. Entomological Society of America. 62 pp.Google Scholar
Annecke, D.P., and Moran, V.C.. 1978. Critical reviews of biological pest control in South Africa. 2. The prickly pear, Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller. J. ent. Soc. S. Africa 39: 111–116.Google Scholar
Bennett, F.D. 1971. Some recent successes in the field of biological control in the West Indies. Rev. Peru Ent. 14: 369–373.Google Scholar
Clausen, C.P. (Ed.). 1978. Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handbk. 480. Washington, DC. 545 pp.Google Scholar
Cullen, J.M. 1974. Seasonal and regional variation in the success of organisms imported to combat skeleton weed Chondrilla juncea L. in Australia. pp. 111–117 in Wapshere, A.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Montpellier, France, 1973. 140 pp.Google Scholar
Goeden, R.D. 1978. Part II. Biological control of weeds. pp. 357–413 in Clausen, C.P. (Ed.), Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handbk. 480. Washington, DC. 545 pp.Google Scholar
Goeden, R.D., Andres, L.A., Freeman, T.E., Harris, P., Pienkowski, R.L., and Walker, C.R.. 1974. Present status of projects on the biological control of weeds with insects and plant pathogens in the United States and Canada. Weed Sci. 22: 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeden, R.D., Fleschner, C.A., and Ricker, D.W.. 1967. Biological control of prickly pear cacti on Santa Cruz Island, California. Hilgardia 38: 579–606.Google Scholar
Goeden, R.D., and Ricker, D.W.. 1981. Santa Cruz Island—revisited. Sequential photography records the causation, rates of progress, and lasting benefits of successful biological control. pp. 355–365 in DelFosse, E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on the Biological Control of Weeds, Brisbane, 1980. 649 pp.Google Scholar
Goeden, R.D., and Ricker, D.W.. 1982. Poison hemlock, Conium maculatum, in southern California—an alien weed attacked by few insects. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 75: 173–176.Google Scholar
Goeden, R.D., Ricker, D.W., and Hawkins, B.A.. 1985. Ethological and genetic differences among three biotypes of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) introduced into North America for the biological control of asteraceous thistles. In DelFosse, E.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Vancouver B.C., 1984. (In press.)Google Scholar
Harris, P. 1973. The selection of effective agents for the biological control of weeds. Can. Ent. 105: 1495–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. 1975. General approach to biocontrol of weeds in Canada. Phytoprotection 56: 135–141.Google Scholar
Hokkanen, H., and Pimentel, D.. 1984. New approach for selecting biological control agents. Can. Ent. 116: 1109–1121.Google Scholar
Julien, M.H. (Ed.). 1982. Biological Control of Weeds: A World Catalogue of Agents and Their Target Weeds. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Slough. 108 pp.Google Scholar
Laing, J.E., and Hamai, J.. 1976. Biological control of insect pests and weeds by imported parasites, predators, and pathogens. pp. 685–743 in Huffaker, C.B., and Messenger, P.S. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press, NY. 788 pp.Google Scholar
Maw, M.G. (Ed.). 1984. Biological Control of Weeds (1984). Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Regina, Saskatchewan. 45 pp.Google Scholar
Moran, V.C. 1980. Interactions between phytophagous insects and their Opuntia hosts. Ecol. Ent. 5: 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, V.C., and Zimmerman, H.G.. 1984. The biological control of cactus weeds: achievements and prospects. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Control, Biocontrol News Info. 5: 297–320.Google Scholar
Room, P.M., Harley, K.L.S., Forno, I.W., and Sands, D.P.A.. 1981. Successful biological control of the floating weed salvinia. Nature 294: 78–80.Google Scholar
Schroeder, D., and Goeden, R.D.. 1986. The search for arthropod natural enemies of introduced weeds for biological control: in theory and practice. Protect. Ecol. (Submitted.)Google Scholar
Simmonds, F.J., and Bennett, F.D.. 1966. Biological control of Opuntia spp. by Cactoblastis cactorum in the Leeward Islands (West Indies). Entomophaga 11: 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, D.R. 1979. Biogeographic dynamics of insect–host plant communities. A. Rev. Ent. 24: 89–119.Google Scholar
Strong, D.R., Lawton, J.H., and SirSouthwood, R.. 1984. Insects on Plants. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA. 313 pp.Google Scholar
Winder, J.A., and Harley, K.L.S.. 1983. The phytophagous insects on lantana in Brazil and their potential for biological control in Australia. Trop. Pest Manag. 29: 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwölfer, H., Ghani, M.A., and Rao, V.P.. 1976. Foreign exploration and importation of natural enemies. pp. 189–207 in Huffaker, C.B., and Messenger, P.S. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press, NY. 788 pp.Google Scholar