Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems

Van Drieschea, V, Carruthersb, R.I., Centerc, T., Hoddled, V., Hough-Goldsteine, J., Morinf, L., Smith, L., Wagnerg, V., Blosseyh, B., Brancatini, V., Casagrande, R., Causton, C.E., Coetzee, J.A., Cuda, J., Ding, J., Fowler, S.V., Frank, J.H., Fuester, R., Goolsby, J., Grodowitz, M., Heard, T.A., Hill, M.P., Hoffmann, J.H., Huber, J., Julien, M., Kairo, M.T.K., Kenis, M., Mason, P., Medal, J., Messing, R., Miller, R., Moore, A., Neuenschwander, P., Newman, R., Norambuena, H., Palmer, W.A., Pemberton, R., Perez Panduro, A., Pratt, P.D., Rayamajhi, M., Salom, S., Sands, D., Schooler, S., Schwarzländer, M., Sheppard, A., Shaw, R., Tipping, P.W. and van Klinken, R.D. (2010) Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biological Control, Volume 54 Supp. 1: S2-S33. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.03.003

Author Van Drieschea, V
Carruthersb, R.I.
Centerc, T.
Hoddled, V.
Hough-Goldsteine, J.
Morinf, L.
Smith, L.
Wagnerg, V.
Blosseyh, B.
Brancatini, V.
Casagrande, R.
Causton, C.E.
Coetzee, J.A.
Cuda, J.
Ding, J.
Fowler, S.V.
Frank, J.H.
Fuester, R.
Goolsby, J.
Grodowitz, M.
Heard, T.A.
Hill, M.P.
Hoffmann, J.H.
Huber, J.
Julien, M.
Kairo, M.T.K.
Kenis, M.
Mason, P.
Medal, J.
Messing, R.
Miller, R.
Moore, A.
Neuenschwander, P.
Newman, R.
Norambuena, H.
Palmer, W.A.
Pemberton, R.
Perez Panduro, A.
Pratt, P.D.
Rayamajhi, M.
Salom, S.
Sands, D.
Schooler, S.
Schwarzländer, M.
Sheppard, A.
Shaw, R.
Tipping, P.W.
van Klinken, R.D.
Title Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems
Journal name Biological Control   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1049-9644
Publication date 2010-08-11
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.03.003
Volume Volume 54
Issue Supp. 1
Start page S2
End page S33
Total pages 32
Place of publication United States
Publisher Elsevier
Language eng
Abstract Of the 70 cases of classical biological control for the protection of nature found in our review, there were fewer projects against insect targets (21) than against invasive plants (49), in part, because many insect biological control projects were carried out against agricultural pests, while nearly all projects against plants targeted invasive plants in natural ecosystems. Of 21 insect projects, 81% (17) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 48% (10) protected products harvested from natural systems, and 5% (1) preserved ecosystem services, with many projects contributing to more than one goal. In contrast, of the 49 projects against invasive plants, 98% (48) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 47% (23) protected products, and 25% (12) preserved ecosystem services, again with many projects contributing to several goals. We classified projects into complete control (pest generally no longer important), partial control (control in some areas but not others), and " in progress," for projects in development for which outcomes do not yet exist. For insects, of the 21 projects discussed, 62% (13) achieved complete control of the target pest, 19% (4) provided partial control, and 43% (9) are still in progress. By comparison, of the 49 invasive plant projects considered, 27% (13) achieved complete control, while 33% (16) provided partial control, and 49% (24) are still in progress. For both categories of pests, some projects' success ratings were scored twice when results varied by region. We found approximately twice as many projects directed against invasive plants than insects and that protection of biodiversity was the most frequent benefit of both insect and plant projects. Ecosystem service protection was provided in the fewest cases by either insect or plant biological control agents, but was more likely to be provided by projects directed against invasive plants, likely because of the strong effects plants exert on landscapes. Rates of complete success appeared to be higher for insect than plant targets (62% vs 27%), perhaps because most often herbivores gradually weaken, rather than outright kill, their hosts, which is not the case for natural enemies directed against pest insects. For both insect and plant biological control, nearly half of all projects reviewed were listed as currently in progress, suggesting that the use of biological control for the protection of wildlands is currently very active. © 2010 Elsevier Inc.
Keyword Biological control
Ecological restoration
Ecosystem function
Insect pests
Invasive plants
Invasive species
Natural ecosystems
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ
Additional Notes Available online 12 March, 2010. Issue titles Classical Biological Control for the Protection of Natural Ecosystems

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Non HERDC
School of Biological Sciences Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 53 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 65 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 10 Feb 2011, 16:31:20 EST by Ms Veronica Brancatini on behalf of Research Management Office