Insect Pest Management and Ecological Research

Walter, Gimme H.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511525612

Cited by 84 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 534 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Palmer, unpublished data). The results support the notion that host plant surveys in the native range should not focus exclusively on the target plant species (Walter, 2003;Sheppard et al, 2006a). The extent to which non-target plant species are surveyed remains problematic.…”

Section: A Compressa In Mexicosupporting

confidence: 70%

Relative host plant species use by the lantana biological control agent Aconophora compressa (Membracidae) across its native and introduced ranges

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple host plant use Non-target effects Polyphagy Primary host plant Secondary host plant Weed biological control a b s t r a c t Aconophora compressa Walker (Hemiptera: Membracidae) was released in 1995 against the weed lantana in Australia, and is now found on multiple host plant species. The intensity and regularity at which A. compressa uses different host species was quantified in its introduced Australian range and also its native Mexican range. In Australia, host plants fell into three statistically defined categories, as indicated by the relative rates and intensities at which they were used in the field. Fiddlewood (Citharexylum spinosum L.: Verbenaceae) was used much more regularly and at higher densities than any other host sampled, and alone made up the first group. The second group, lantana (Lantana camara L.: Verbenaceae; pink variety) and geisha girl (Duranta erecta L.: Verbenaceae), were used less regularly and at much lower densities than fiddlewood. The third group, Sheena's gold (another variety of D. erecta), jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia D. Don: Bignoniaceae) and myoporum (Myoporum acuminatum R. Br.: Myoporaceae), were used infrequently and at even lower densities. In Mexico, the insect was found at relatively low densities on all hosts relative to those in Australia. Densities were highest on L. urticifolia, D. erecta and Tecoma stans (L.) Juss. ex Kunth (Bignoniaceae), which were used at similar rates to one another. It was found also on a few other verbenaceous and non-verbenaceous host species but at even lower densities. The relative rate at which Citharexylum spp. and L. urticifolia were used could not be assessed in Mexico because A. compressa was found on only one plant of each species in areas where these host species co-occurred. The low rate at which A. compressa occurred on fiddlewood in Mexico is likely to be an artefact of the short-term nature of the surveys or differences in the suites of Citharexylum and Lantana species available there. These results provide further incentive to insist on structured and quantified surveys of non-target host use in the native range of potential biological control agents prior to host testing studies in quarantine.Crown

show abstract

Section: A Compressa In Mexicosupporting

confidence: 70%

Relative host plant species use by the lantana biological control agent Aconophora compressa (Membracidae) across its native and introduced ranges

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As an ideal, IPM represents an almost aspirational goal for pest management (Walter 2003) but poorly defines how to undertake research and execute sustainable management plans for pest insects. As our case studies illustrate, results are mixed and whether or not these management plans are sustainable in the longer term under the conflicting stresses and strains of the modern agricultural environment is debatable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The philosophy and historic origins of the approach are well documented (Perkins 1982;Walter 2003) and, as management systems have developed, various attempts to categorise developmental changes or phases leading to the accepted model have been made (e.g. Kogan 1998;Pedigo 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of IPM: whither or wither?

Zalucki

Adamson

Furlong

2009

Australian Journal of Entomology

161

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acronym IPM (integrated pest management) has been around for over 50 years and now not only supposedly guides research and extension in pest management but also markets pesticides, is claimed to be undertaken by many growers, and even resonates with public perceptions and politicians. Whether or not IPM programs are sustainable in the longer term under the conflicting stresses and strains of the modern agricultural environment is debatable. We analyse three case studies of IPM development in Australia: citrus IPM in central Queensland, Brassica IPM in southeast Queensland and Helicoverpa management in cotton in eastern Australia. Many management practices for these pests have changed over time. In the more stable citrus system classical biological control along with changed practices (reduced pesticide use) have effectively controlled imported scale insect pests. In Brassicas and cotton, IPM is predominantly of the sample and spray variety where, increasingly, less broad-spectrum insecticides are used and, in cotton, Helicoverpa management includes the deployment of transgenic plants. We question whether or not IPM principles are always consistent with market forces and whether or not the approach is universally applicable for all pest insects when implemented at the small (field or farm) scale. Farmers will adopt cost-effective approaches that minimise their financial risks. For Australia as a whole over the last 30 years insecticide input costs per hectare have increased faster than the price index, reflecting more costly insecticides, changes to the combinations of crops grown and an increase in the overall area of crops cultivated together with possible concomitant changes in pest abundance. Any pest crisis will ensure rapid changes in practice and adoption of technologies, in order to mitigate the short-term financial stresses caused. However, regression to former practices tends to follow (e.g. in Brassica crops). In most cases, we cannot objectively test if changed management practices are responsible for changes in pest abundance, as is often claimed, or if the latter is simply a consequence of the weather and/or related large-scale landscape features (e.g. area of host plants). We argue that for many systems the future of pest management practice will require a change to landscape or area-wide approaches. We suspect, given how entrenched the acronym has become, whatever the nature of the approach it will be called IPM.

show abstract

“…A new strategy was developed under the rubric 'integrated control', envisaging the employment of a range of different control measures, constrained by their compatibility and the requirement for minimizing noxious effects on the wider environment. Despite these difficulties, a biological, then ecological, orientation has underlain the development of crop protection over the last 50 years (Pimentel, 1995;Walter, 2003). This process has been marked by multiple and diverse interpretations of the concept of IPM (Kogan, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%