Show simple item record

Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems

dc.contributor.authorVan Driesche, R.G.
dc.contributor.authorCarruthers, R I.
dc.contributor.authorCenter, T.
dc.contributor.authorHoddle, M.S.
dc.contributor.authorHough-Goldstein, J.
dc.contributor.authorMorin, L.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, L.
dc.contributor.authorWagner, D.L.
dc.contributor.authorBlossey, B.
dc.contributor.authorBrancatini, V.
dc.contributor.authorCasagrande, R.
dc.contributor.authorCauston, C.E.
dc.contributor.authorCoetzee, J.A.
dc.contributor.authorCuda, J.
dc.contributor.authorDing, J.
dc.contributor.authorFowler, S.V.
dc.contributor.authorFrank, J.H.
dc.contributor.authorFuester, R.
dc.contributor.authorGoolsby, J.
dc.contributor.authorGrodowitz, M.
dc.contributor.authorHeard, T.A.
dc.contributor.authorHill, M.P.
dc.contributor.authorHoffmann, J.H.
dc.contributor.authorHuber, J.
dc.contributor.authorJulien, M.
dc.contributor.authorKairo, M.T.K.
dc.contributor.authorKenis, M.
dc.contributor.authorMason, P.
dc.contributor.authorMedal, J.
dc.contributor.authorMessing, R.
dc.contributor.authorMiller, R.
dc.contributor.authorMoore, A.
dc.contributor.authorNeuenschwander, P.
dc.contributor.authorNewman, R.
dc.contributor.authorNorambuena, H.
dc.contributor.authorPalmer, W.A.
dc.contributor.authorPemberton, R.
dc.contributor.authorPerez-Panduro, A.
dc.contributor.authorPratt, P.D.
dc.contributor.authorRayamajhi, M.
dc.contributor.authorSalom, S.
dc.contributor.authorSands, D.
dc.contributor.authorSchooler, S.
dc.contributor.authorSchwarzländer, M.
dc.contributor.authorSheppard, A.
dc.contributor.authorShaw, R.
dc.contributor.authorTipping, P.W.
dc.contributor.authorvan Klinken, R.D.
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-22T13:04:27Z
dc.date.available2022-07-22T13:04:27Z
dc.date.issued2010-03-12
dc.identifier.citationVan Driesche, R.G., Carruthers, R.I., Center, T., Hoddle, M.S., Hough-Goldstein, J., Morin, L., ... & van Klinken, R.D. (2010). Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biological Control, 54, S2-S33.
dc.identifier.issn1049-9644
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12478/7570
dc.description.abstractOf 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.
dc.format.extentS2-S33
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectSpecies
dc.subjectEcosystems
dc.subjectPest Insects
dc.subjectPlants
dc.subjectEcology
dc.subjectBiological Control
dc.subjectEcological Restoration
dc.subjectInvasive Species
dc.titleClassical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems
dc.typeJournal Article
cg.contributor.crpRoots, Tubers and Bananas
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Massachusetts
cg.contributor.affiliationUnited States Department of Agriculture
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of California
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Delaware
cg.contributor.affiliationCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Connecticut
cg.contributor.affiliationCornell University
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Rhode Island
cg.contributor.affiliationFundación Charles Darwin, Ecuador
cg.contributor.affiliationRhodes University
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Florida
cg.contributor.affiliationChinese Academy of Sciences
cg.contributor.affiliationLandcare Research, New Zealand
cg.contributor.affiliationUS Army Engineer Research and Development Center
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Cape Town
cg.contributor.affiliationNatural Resources Canada
cg.contributor.affiliationFlorida A&M University
cg.contributor.affiliationCentre for Agriculture and Biosciences International
cg.contributor.affiliationAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Guam
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Institute of Tropical Agriculture
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Minnesota
cg.contributor.affiliationInstituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Chile
cg.contributor.affiliationBiosecurity Queensland, Australia
cg.contributor.affiliationColegio de Postgraduados, Mexico
cg.contributor.affiliationVirginia Tech, Blacksburg
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Idaho
cg.coverage.hubHeadquarters and Western Africa Hub
cg.researchthemePlant Production and Health
cg.identifier.bibtexciteidVan Driesche:2010
cg.isijournalISI Journal
cg.authorship.typesCGIAR and developing country institute
cg.iitasubjectPlant Ecology
cg.journalBiological Control
cg.notesPublished online: 12 Mar 2010
cg.accessibilitystatusLimited Access
cg.reviewstatusInternal Review
cg.usagerightslicenseCopyrighted; all rights reserved
cg.targetaudienceScientists
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.03.003
cg.iitaauthor.identifierPeter NEUENSCHWANDER: 0000-0003-0580-0376
cg.futureupdate.requiredNo


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Classical Biological Control.pdf
Size:
1.706Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Journal Article
View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record