Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:37:37.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE STATUS OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE WEED HYPERICUM PERFORATUM IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

P. Harris ,
D. Peschken  and
J. Milroy
P. Harris
Affiliation:
Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Belleville, Ontario
D. Peschken
Affiliation:
Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Belleville, Ontario
J. Milroy
Affiliation:
British Columbia Forest Service, Nelson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biological control attempts against the weed Hypericum perforatum L. in the interior of British Columbia are summarized. Three of the insects introduced, Zeuxidiplosis giardi Kieff., Agrilus hyperici (Cr.), and Chrysolina varians (Schall.), did not survive, and reasons for their failure are discussed. Two beetles, C. hyperici (Forst.) and C. quadrigemina (Suff.), are established and their population build-up in several areas is followed over a period of 15 years. The beetles reach their optimum effectiveness in different moisture zones but neither species is effective at the arid end of the H. perforatum range. A moth, Anaitis plagiata L., was released in this zone in 1967.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 101 , Issue 1 , January 1969 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1969

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

Boughner, C. C., Longley, R. W., and Thomas, M. K.. 1956. Climatic summaries for selected meteorological stations in Canada. Vol. 3 — Frost data. Can. Dept. Transport, Met. Div., Toronto.Google Scholar
Clark, L. R. 1953. The ecology of Chrysomela gemellata Rossi and C. hyperici Forst. and their effect on St. John's Wort in the Bright District, Victoria. Aust. J. Zool. 1: 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, L. R., and Clark, N.. 1952. A study of the effect of Chrysomela hyperici Forst. on St. John's Wort in Mannus Valley, N.S.W. Aust. J. agric. Res. 3: 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1951. The time factor in biological control. J. econ. Ent. 44: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. J., and Krauss, N. L. H.. 1966. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii. XI Proc. Hawaii ent. Soc. 19: 201–207.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J., and Krauss, N. L. H.. 1967. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii. XII Proc. Hawaii ent. Soc. 20: 375–380.Google Scholar
Embree, D. G. 1965. The population dynamics of the winter moth in Nova Scotia 1954–1962. Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. 1962. Effect of temperature on fecundity and survival of Chrysolina quadrigemina (Suffr.) and C. hyperici (Forst.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Can. Ent. 94: 774–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. 1967. Suitability of Anaitis plagiata (Geometridae) for biocontrol of Hypericum perforatum in dry grassland of British Columbia. Can. Ent. 99: 1304–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, J. K. 1964. Projects in biological control of weeds, pp. 650–670. In Biological control of insect pests and weeds, ed. by Chapman, P. DeBach, and Hall, .Google Scholar
Holloway, J. K., and Huffaker, C. B.. 1951. The role of Chrysolina gemellata in the biological control of Klamath weed. J. econ. Ent. 44: 244–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, J. K., and Huffaker, C. B.. 1953. Establishment of a root borer and a gall fly for control of Klamath weed. J. econ. Ent. 46: 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoy, J. M. 1964. Present and future prospect for biological control of weeds. N.Z. Sci. Rev. 22: 17–19.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. 1957. Fundamentals of biological control of weeds. Hilgardia 27: 101–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. 1967. A comparison of the status of biological control of St. Johns Wort in California and Australia. Mushi 39: 51–73.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Kennett, C. E.. 1952. Ecological tests on Chrysolina gemellata (Rossi.) and C. hyperici Forst. in the biological control of Klamath weed. J. econ. Ent. 45: 1061–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S. 1962 a. Insects associated with Hypericum L. 1. Host plant and Coleoptera. Opusc. ent. 27: 128–146.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 1962 b. Insects associated with Hypericum L. 2. Lepidopter a, Diptera, Hymenoptera, Homoptera and general remarks. Opusc. ent. 27: 175–192.Google Scholar
Kanervo, V. 1939. Übersicht Über die Generationszahl einiger Chrysomeliden (Col.) in Finnland sowie einige andere allgemeine biologische Beobachtungen. Suom. hyönt. Aikak. 5: 140–164.Google Scholar
Kerr, D. P. 1950. Regional climatology of southern British Columbia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Kirk, D. W. 1951. Moisture regions in the east Kootenay lowlands of British Columbia. Scient. Agric. 31: 15–24.Google Scholar
Panin, S. 1944. Les Chrysomela de la Roumanie (Gen. Chrysomela (L.)). Bull. Sect. scient. Acad. roum. 26: 601–625.Google Scholar
Pulliainen, E., and Nederström, A.. 1966. Studies on the orientation of Chrysomela varians Schall. (Col.: Chrysomelidae). 2. Light reactions. Suom. hyönt. Aikak. 32: 58–68.Google Scholar
Schoonhoven, L. M. 1968. Chemosensory bases of host plant selection. A. Rev. Ent. 13: 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. M. 1958. Biological control of Klamath weed. Hypericum perforatum in British Columbia. Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Ent., Vol. 4, pp. 561–565.Google Scholar
Thornthwaite, C. W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogrl Rev. 38: 55–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, A. L., and Chant, D. A.. 1961. The practice and theory of biological control of insects in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 39: 697–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. 1943. The entomological control of St. John's Wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) with particular reference to the insect enemies of the weed in Southern France. Bull. Coun. scient. ind. Res., Melb. 169: 5–87.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. 1960. A review of the biological control of insects and weeds in Australia and Australian New Guinea. Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control, No. 1.Google Scholar