Review Article A global review of risk-benefit-cost analysis for the introduction of classical biological control agents against weeds: a crisis in the making?

By A. Sheppard, R. Hill, R. Declerck-Floate, A. McClay, T. Olckers, P. Quimby, H. Zimmermann, R. Hill, A. Ltd. 2003

130 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/640d29f2b72f6a7ec0099b918199d9f5237a287b

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Scientific advances in the analysis of direct risks of weed biological control agents to nontarget plants (2005, background): “This process parallels the two stages of formal risk analysis; i.e., hazard identiWcation (stage a and b) and uncertainty analysis (stage c); (see Sheppard et al., 2003a) and so its consistent adoption would better align the testing to risk analysis.”
Predicting parasitoid accumulation on biological control agents of weeds (2010, background): “Concerns for environmental safety have triggered tighter regulation of biocontrol world-wide (Sheppard et al. 2003).”
Classical biological control: exploiting enemy escape to manage plant invasions (2008, background): “place that allow simultaneous consideration of both potential risks and benefits of classical biological control and other management options, including doing nothing, in the decision process (Sheppard et al. 2003).”
The role of pre-release efficacy assessment in selecting classical biological control agents for weeds—applying the Anna Karenina principle (2005, background): “…damaged by introduced biological control agents, and the role of host-specificity and other approaches to risk assessment have been extensively discussed in the biological control of weeds literature (e.g., Briese et al., 2002a; Evans, 2000; Louda et al., 2003; McEvoy, 1996; Sheppard et al., 2003).”
Top 20 environmental weeds for classical biological control in Europe: a review of opportunities, regulations and other barriers to adoption. (2006, background): “Classical biological control of weeds now adopts a precautionary approach using the most specific antagonistic invertebrates and microorganisms against selected targets and follows best-practice scientific risk analysis and regulatory approval prior to release (Sheppard et al., 2003).”
Benefits of Classical Biological Control for Managing Invasive Plants (2005, background): “…standards and regulatory apparatus currently in place, which govern the practice of biological weed control—at least in the developed world (e.g., Sheppard et al., 2003)—there have been no reported cases, in which introduced agents have had significant, negative impacts on nontarget plant…”
A scientific approach to agent selection (2006, background): “While host-specificity testing has received significant attention (Follett & Duan 1999; Withers et al. 1999; van Driesche et al. 2000; Wajnberg et al. 2001; Sheppard et al. 2003) other aspects have received far less consideration (McClay & Balciunas 2005).”
Risk and ethics in biological control (2005, background): “This is diYcult to counter, but scientists trained in biological control need to take the lead to discuss objectively the beneWts of biological control, as well as the risks, and the careful process that is followed (e.g., Lonsdale et al., 2001; Sheppard et al., 2003).”
Shifting paradigms in the history of classical biological control (2018, background): “…Australia incorporate a formal comparison between risk and benefits into their decisionmaking process as far as we are aware (Hunt et al. 2008; Hinz et al. 2014) although the Australian system was reportedly still primarily risk-based in the early 2000s (Sheppard et al. 2003; Harrison et al. 2005).”