Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems
By R. Driesche, R. Carruthers, M. Hoddle, J. Hough‐Goldstein, L. Morin, Lincoln Smith, D. Wagner, B. Blossey, V. Brancatini, R. Casagrande and 37 more. 2010
344 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Of 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, 59% (13) achieved complete control of the target pest, 18% (4) provided partial control, and 41% (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 47% (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 (59% 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.
Subfields: Environmental Chemistry, Insect Science, Plant Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a49dd5ce9a0d68e56a1c7dd18b49838af6803f0b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Insect Science
In Plant Science
Citations in the corpus
- How Safe Is Weed Biological Control? A Global Review of Direct Nontarget Attack (2019, background): “…that it can be a costeffective and sustainable control method for exotic invasive plants, with some spectacular successes in a variety of environments (Room et al. 1981; Bangsund et al. 1999; Culliney 2005; de Lange and van Wilgen 2010; Van Driesche et al. 2010; Clewley et al. 2012; Suckling 2013).”
- Benefits and risks of exotic biological control agents (2011, unknown): “Target species have been pests of forest and agriculture commodities for much of the history of biological control while invasive species causing problems in natural habitats have become targets only more recently (van Driesche et al. 2010).”
- Management of invasive plants through ecological resistance (2017, background): “While biological control rarely eliminates invasive plants, it may reduce their population size, productivity or fertility, thereby increasing biotic resistance of restored native plant communities (Van Driesche et al. 2010).”