Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:20:32.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing Parasites and Predators to Control Native Pests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

David Pimentel
David Pimentel
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Considerable evidence substantiates the idea that native pests can be controlled by parasites and predators of allied species and genera. In a survey of 66 pest species, which were successfully controlled by biological means and for which the habitats of all species could be verified, it was found that 39% were controlled by an introduced parasite or predator of an allied species or genus. Although relatively few attempts have been made to control native and imported pests with parasites and predators of species allied to the pest species, the proportion of successes is surprisingly high. Employing these species has certain advantages, especially in the control of imported pests, because no ecological homeostasis has evolved and the association between the parasite and host (predator and prey included) is new.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 95 , Issue 8 , August 1963 , pp. 785 - 792
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1963

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

Allee, W. C., Emerson, A. E., Park, O., Park, T., and Schmidt, K. P.. 1949. Principles of Animal Ecology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Banks, C. S. 1906. The principal insects attacking the coconut palm. Philippine J. Sci. 1: 143–238.Google Scholar
Beardsley, J. W. 1955. Fluted scales and their biological control in United States administered Micronesia. Proc. Hawaii. Ent. Soc. 15: 391–399.Google Scholar
Biliotti, E. 1958. Les parasites et prédateurs de Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff. (Lepidoptera). Entomophaga 3: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, H. E. 1953. List of sugar-cane insects. Commonwealth Inst. Ent., London. 101 p.Google Scholar
Breakey, E. P. 1951. Natural control of the orange tortrix in western Washington. J. Econ. Ent. 44: 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, A. C. 1949. Introduction to parasitology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Clark, A. F. 1936. Biological control of forest insect pests. N. Z. J. Sci. Tech. 18: 585–588.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1952. Parasites and predators. U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1952: 380–388.Google Scholar
DeBach, P., Fleshner, C. A., and Dietrick, E. J.. 1949. Population studies of the long tailed mealy bug and its natural enemies on citrus trees in southern California. 1947. J. Econ. Ent. 42: 777–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, A. P. 1940. The biological campaign against prickly-pear. Brisbane: Comm. Prickly Pear Board.Google Scholar
Douglas, G. W. 1958. Myxomatosis in Victoria. J. Dept. Agr. (Victoria) 56: 779–790.Google Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1950. The parasite complex of Furcaspis oceanica Lindinger. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 43: 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F., Marshall, I. D., and Woodroofe, G. M.. 1953. Studies on the epidemiology of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits. I. Recovery of Australian wild rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) myxomatosis under field conditions. J. Hygiene 51: 225–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flanders, S. E. 1942. Biological observations on the citricola scale and its parasites. J. Econ. Ent. 35: 830–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleshner, C. A. 1958. Natural enemies of tetranychid mites on citrus and avocado in Southern California. 10th Int. Congr. Ent. 4: 627–631.Google Scholar
Gressit, J. L. 1954. Insects of Micronesia. B. P. Bishop Museum. Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Hawley, I. M. 1952. Milky diseases of beetles. U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1952: 394–400.Google Scholar
Jepson, W. F., and Moutia, L. A.. 1939 The progress of applied entomology in Mauritius during the years 1933 to 1938, with reference to insects of sugar cane. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Tech. 6: 377–382.Google Scholar
Lange, W. H. 1950. The biology of the Mariana coconut beetle, Brontispa mariana Spaeth on Saipan, and the introduction of parasites from Malaya and Java for its control. Proc. Hawaii. Ent. Soc. 14: 143–162.Google Scholar
Lange, W. H. 1953. Observations on the life history of the Mariana coconut beetle, Brontispa mariana Spaeth, and the introduction of parasites for its control. Seventh Pac. Sci. Congr., Proc. Roy. Soc. N. Z. 4: 249–255.Google Scholar
Lejeune, R. R., and Hildahl, V.. 1954. A survey of parasites of the larch sawfly (Pristiphora erichsonii (Hartig)) in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Canad. Ent. 86: 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J. 1953. A decade of pest control in British Columbia orchards. Proc. Ent. Soc. B.C., 49: 7–11.Google Scholar
Michelbacher, A. E., and Hitchcock, S.. 1956. Calico scale on walnuts. Calif. Agr. 10, 9: 6.Google Scholar
Moutia, L. A., and Mamet, R.. 1946. A review of 25 years of economic entomology in the Island of Mauritius. Bull. Ent. Res. 36: 439–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, B. A. 1953. Biological control of insects and plants in Fiji. Seventh Pac. Sci. Congr., Proc. Roy. Soc. N.Z., 4: 278–293.Google Scholar
Pemberton, C. E. 1937. Biological control in Hawaii. Hawaii Sugar Pl. Assoc. Rpt. 1936: 20–27.Google Scholar
Pemberton, C. E. 1948. Contributions of the entomologists to Hawaii's welfare. Hawaii Pl. Rec. 45: 107–119.Google Scholar
Pemberton, C. E. 1953. Biological control of insects in Hawaii. Seventh Pac. Sci. Congr., Proc. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 4: 220–223.Google Scholar
Pemberton, C. E. 1954. Invertebrate consultants committee for the pacific, report for 1949-1954. Pacific Sci. Board. Nat. Acad. Sci. and Nat. Res. Coun., Washington, D.C.56 p.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. D. 1955. Biological control of the European corn borer in Guam. J. Econ. Ent. 48: 683–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1961. Animal population regulation by the genetic feed-back mechanism. Amer. Nat. 95: 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1961. Species diversity and insect population outbreaks. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 54: 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D., Nagel, W. P., and Madden, J. L.. 1963. Space-time structure of the environment and the survival of parasite-host systems. Amer. Nat. (in press).Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. 1944. Bionomics and control of the nigra scale, Saissetia nigra. Hilgardia 16: 225–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. 1961. The number of species of insect associated with various trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 30: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetman, H. L. 1958. The principles of biological control. Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. H. C. 1935. The campaign against Aspidiotus destructor Sign. in Fiji. Bull. Ent. Res. 26: 1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T. H. C. 1937. The biological control of an insect in Fiji. Imp. Inst. Ent., London.Google Scholar
Tothill, J. D., Taylor, T. H. C., and Paine, R. W.. 1930. The coconut moth in Fiji, a history of its control by means of parasites. Imp. Bur. Ent., London.Google Scholar
Turnbull, A. L., and Chant, D. A.. 1961. The practice and theory of biological control of insects in Canada. Canad. J. Zool. 39: 697–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vesey-Fitzgerald, D. 1953. Review of biological control of coccids on coconut palms in the Seychelles. Bull. Ent. Res. 44: 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, E. H., and Adams, J. A.. 1945. Progress in Jap beetle control by milky disease. Farm Res. 11: 14–15.Google Scholar
Wolcott, G. N. 1951. The present status of economic entomology in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico Agr. Exp. Stat. Bull. 99: 1–21.Google Scholar
Yasumatsu, K., and Tachikawa, T. 1949. Investigations on the hymenopterous parasites of Ceroplastes rubens Maskell in Japan. J. Fac. Agr. Kyushu Univ. 9 No. 2: 99–120.Google Scholar
[In Rev. Appl. Ent. (1952) 40: 299].Google Scholar