Maximising the contribution of native‐range studies towards the identification and prioritisation of weed biocontrol agents

90 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Applying molecular-based approaches to classical biological control of weeds (2011, background): “…of diagnostic markers for the biological control of arthropods (Gariepy et al., 2007), the importance of molecular tools to native range studies (Goolsby et al., 2006), how to sample for plant genetic diversity (Ward and Jasieniuk, 2009), and how molecular tools help in the analysis of risk to…”
Classical biological control: exploiting enemy escape to manage plant invasions (2008, background): “differentiate among genotypes for both preference and performance, while others do not (Goolsby et al. 2006).”
Molecular evidence for a single genetic clone of invasive Arundo donax in the United States (2008, background): “A major criterion used to assess the suitability of an invasive weed for classical biological control is the potential to find natural enemies that are highly host specific and damaging to the species under consideration (Goolsby et al., 2006; Tracy and DeLoach, 1999).”
Phylogeographic consequences of different introduction histories of invasive Australian Acacia species and Paraserianthes lophantha (Fabaceae) in South Africa (2011, background): “Moreover, if interactions between plants and their herbivores/pathogens co-evolved, then subspecific information in an invasive plant would be essential for successful biological control (Goolsby et al., 2006a,b).”