Scientific advances in the analysis of direct risks of weed biological control agents to nontarget plants

Sheppard, Andy; Klinken, Rieks D. van; Heard, Tim A.

doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.05.010

Cited by 164 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 week, a likely artifact of resource depletion or limitations of the no-choice environment and their impacts on behavior (Heard, 2000;Sheppard et al, 2005). Prior results demonstrated 50-100% survival of larvae of D. elongata from Crete and D. sublineata from Tunisia on athel (Lewis et al, 2003a;Milbrath and Deloach, 2006a,b), consistent with the 80-90% defoliation of both saltcedar and athel observed in the Kingsville no-choice tests.…”

Section: Oviposition In No-choice Testsmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…However, athel has not been evaluated as a host in the context of open-field releases of tamarisk beetles. Laboratory and field-cage based host preference results do not always accurately predict open field host range, due to the limitations of confined tests (Heard, 2000), and because climate, host quality, distances between hosts, predation and competition can influence field host ranges (Culliney, 2005;Sheppard et al, 2005). For example, the adventive leafhopper, Opsius stactogalus Fieber, can cause widespread damage to saltcedar foliage (Wiesenborn, 2003).…”

Section: Host Specificity Testing Of Saltcedar Beetlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open field host selection and behavior by tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda spp.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in biological control of exotic saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) and risks to non-target athel (T. aphylla) and native Frankenia spp.

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open field host selection and behavior by tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda spp.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in biological control of exotic saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) and risks to non-target athel (T. aphylla) and native Frankenia spp. Open field host selection and behavior by tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda spp.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in biological control of exotic saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) and risks to non-target athel (T. aphylla) and native Frankenia spp. , an evergreen tree used for shade and as a windbreak in the southwestern U.S. and México, and occasionally feed on native Frankenia spp. plants. The ability of tamarisk beetles to establish on these potential field hosts was investigated in the field. In no-choice tests in bagged branches, beetle species from Crete and Sfax, Tunisia produced 30-45% as many egg masses and 40-60% as many larvae on athel as on saltcedar. In uncaged choice tests in south Texas, adult, egg mass and larval densities were 10-fold higher on saltcedar than on adjacent athel trees after 2 weeks, and damage by the beetles was 2-to 10-fold greater on saltcedar. At a site near Big Spring, in west-central Texas, adults, egg masses and 1st and 2nd instar larvae were 2-to 8-fold more abundant on saltcedar than on athel planted within a mature saltcedar stand being defoliated by Crete beetles, and beetles were 200-fold or less abundant or not found at all on Frankenia. At a site near Lovelock, Nevada, damage by beetles of a species collected from Fukang, China was 12-78% higher on saltcedar than on athel planted among mature saltcedar trees undergoing defoliation. The results demonstrate that 50-90% reduced oviposition on athel and beetle dispersal patterns within resident saltcedar limit the ability of Diorhabda spp. to establish populations and have impact on athel in the field. Published by Elsevier Inc.

show abstract

Section: Oviposition In No-choice Testsmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Host Specificity Testing Of Saltcedar Beetlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open field host selection and behavior by tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda spp.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in biological control of exotic saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) and risks to non-target athel (T. aphylla) and native Frankenia spp.

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the realized host range in the fi eld is usually a subset of the fundamental range (van Klinken & Heard, 2000), this result requires further investigation under European fi eld conditions (e.g. Briese et al, 2002;Briese, 2005;Sheppard et al, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is partially due to currently common riskadverse "precautionary" approach towards the introduction of exotic species (Sheppard, 2003). The risk assessment in weed BC has historically mainly focussed on the direct risks for non-target plants (Müller-Schärer & Schaffner, 2008), inferred from protocolled experiments on host specifi city (Briese, 2004;Sheppard et al, 2005;Barratt et al, 2010). Nowadays, rigorous host-specifi city testing on tens of non-target species is often demanded, which alone can take up to ten years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An early suitability assessment of two exotic Ophraella species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) for biological control of invasive ragweed in Europe

Lommen¹,

Jolidon²,

Sun³

et al. 2017

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Biological control researchers must continue to develop and improve host-speciWcity testing protocols to improve the prediction of the ecological host range by physiological host-speciWcity testing (e.g., Briese, 2005;Delfosse, 2000;Sheppard et al, 2005), including using f 1 sterility and expert systems.…”

Section: Revenge Evectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk and ethics in biological control

Delfosse

2005

Biological Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All introduced natural enemies present a degree of risk to nontarget species. Since most biological control programs use relatively host-speciWc natural enemies, the risk to nontarget species is generally very low, particularly from biological control of weeds, which uses extensively tested and validated host-speciWcity testing procedures to predict risk. However, many of the published comments about risks of biological control are superWcial or misleading, often inappropriately lumping risk from all taxa of agents as "the risk of biological control," and ignore the potential beneWts, rather than dealing with species-by-species risk and beneWts. Particularly confounding accurate predictions is the common mixing of parameters of hazard and exposure in discussions of risk. In this paper, traditional risk analysis techniques are discussed and adapted for biological control. How people perceive risk is the key to understanding their attitude to risk. Some of the criticisms of biological control relating to inadequate post-release monitoring are valid and the ethical responsibilities of biological control scientists in this area are also discussed. Biological control scientists should address objectively the criticisms of biological control, continue to review and adjust current host-speciWcity testing procedures and make appropriate changes. This process will result in better science, ultimately delivering more focused programs, and altering the perception of risk from biological control agents by objective observers. Published by Elsevier Inc.

show abstract

Scientific advances in the analysis of direct risks of weed biological control agents to nontarget plants

Cited by 164 publications

References 27 publications

Open field host selection and behavior by tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda spp.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in biological control of exotic saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) and risks to non-target athel (T. aphylla) and native Frankenia spp.

Open field host selection and behavior by tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda spp.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in biological control of exotic saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) and risks to non-target athel (T. aphylla) and native Frankenia spp.

An early suitability assessment of two exotic Ophraella species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) for biological control of invasive ragweed in Europe

Risk and ethics in biological control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About