Variation, Fitness, and Adaptability of Natural Enemies

Messenger, P. S.; Wilson, Frank E.; Whitten, M. J.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-360350-0.50015-5

Cited by 38 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference between the results of the present study, where French M. aethiopoides was found to be an effective parasite of S. lepidus, and those of Sundaralingam (1986), where French M. aethiopoides totally rejected S. lepidus as a host, suggests that more than one biotype of M. aethiopoides occurs in France. The results provide support for the hypothesis that an important determinant of success in biological control is correct matching between populations of pests and biological control agents, involving careful assessments of intraspecific variation in pest and natural enemy species (e.g., Messenger et al 1976). …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Intraspecific variation in the ability ofMicroctonus aethiopoides(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to parasitiseSitona lepidus(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Phillips¹,

Cane²,

Mee³

et al. 2002

New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sitona discoideus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a pest of lucerne (Medicago sativa), is controlled in New Zealand by the introduced parasitoid Microctonus aethiopoides (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Unfortunately, a second Sitona species, S. lepidus (=flavescens), which has recently invaded New Zealand and has become a pest of white clover (Trifolium repens), is not parasitised by M. aethiopoides. Previous experiments have shown that New Zealand M. aethiopoides will attack S. lepidus, but its eggs appear to be killed by the host immune response. In contrast, M. aethiopoides has been observed to successfully parasitise S. lepidus in Europe. It is possible either A02010; that New Zealand S. lepidus has a more effective immune response to M. aethiopoides than European S. lepidus, or that New Zealand M. aethiopoides is less able to evade the S. lepidus immune system than European M. aethiopoides. An experiment was conducted to compare the suitability of French and New Zealand S. lepidus as hosts for French M. aethiopoides. This provided no evidence of S. lepidus intraspecific variation in host suitability for parasitism. Furthermore, amplification of inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) regions of M. aethiopoides DNA demonstrated clear genetic differences between French and New Zealand M. aethiopoides. It was concluded that intraspecific variation in the ability of M. aethiopoides to evade the immune response of S. lepidus is the reason for the low levels of parasitism observed in New Zealand compared with Europe. Development rate data for M. aethiopoides larvae and pupae are reported.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Intraspecific variation in the ability ofMicroctonus aethiopoides(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to parasitiseSitona lepidus(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Phillips¹,

Cane²,

Mee³

et al. 2002

New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…58). Another concern is that natural enemies imported for biological control constitute only a limited sample of the genetic variation present in the species, and may therefore lack the ability to adapt to their new environment (64,65).…”

Section: Perspectives and Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of Genetics of Biological-Control Introductions

Hopper¹,

Roush²,

Powell³

1993

Annu. Rev. Entomol.

306

217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Biological control in restora tion (of ecosystems) and recovery (of desirable popula tions) is primarily focused on the introduction of new natural enemies to suppress adventive pest popula tions (see below) that have adverse effects on an eco system or a population. Because ecosystem manage ment programs typically involve areas of substantial size and low per-unit economic worth, biological control demonstrably provides an energy-efficient, safe, longlasting, and cost-effective control option because natu ral enemies are self-replicating, self-regulating, and often self-dispersing (DeBach, 1964;DeBach and Rosen, 1991;Messenger et al, 1976;Van Driesche and Bellows, 1996).…”

Section: Goals Of Ecosystem Management and Biological Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Control as a Tool for Ecosystem Management

Headrick

Goeden

2001

Biological Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological control is proposed as a tool useful for ecosystem management and compatible with the goals of often competing interests regarding the restoration and maintenance of ecosystems. We summarize the effects of introduced species on ecosystems in three broad groups: insects, vertebrates, and weeds. We then discuss the role of biological control for each of these groups in the context of ecosystem management and realistic outcomes. Of the three groups, we show that biological control of weeds appears to have the best chance for success in ecosystem management. We pro vide two case studies to support our ideas and finally discuss future needs and trends including fiscal con siderations, cost/benefits associated with biological weed control, and potential funding sources.

show abstract

Variation, Fitness, and Adaptability of Natural Enemies

Cited by 38 publications

References 42 publications

Intraspecific variation in the ability ofMicroctonus aethiopoides(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to parasitiseSitona lepidus(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Intraspecific variation in the ability ofMicroctonus aethiopoides(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to parasitiseSitona lepidus(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Management of Genetics of Biological-Control Introductions

Biological Control as a Tool for Ecosystem Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About