Why Things Bite Back: Unintended Consequences of Biological Weed Control

By P. McEvoy, E. Coombs. 2000

134 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Insect Science, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ac8a36da969c9ef78456efe1263734f48646d9f3

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

1. S. Louda
2. P. Stiling
3. Carla M. D'Antonio
4. J. Denslow
5. M. Cock
6. B. Blossey
7. Janith Taylor
8. L. Skinner

In Plant Science

1. S. Louda
2. B. Blossey
3. Janith Taylor
4. L. Skinner
5. P. Stiling
6. G. Heimpel
7. M. Cock
8. J. Denslow

Citations in the corpus

• After biocontrol: assessing indirect effects of insect releases (2005, background): “…public, government, and scientiWc communities in the USA have become skeptical of biocontrol programs because of their potential to cause both direct and indirect nontarget impacts (e.g., Beardsley, 1997; Louda et al., 1997, 2003a,b, 2005; McEvoy and Coombs, 2000; SimberloV and Stiling, 1996).”
• Impact and management of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America (2001, methodology): “principle as applied to weed biocontrol (McEvoy and Coombs 2000) to guide our”
• The Double‐Edged Sword of Biological Control in Conservation and Restoration (2004, background): “…orchestrated . . . .” Usually, however, as many relatively specific biocontrol agents as can be identified are released in hopes that one will limit the targeted pest, without assessment of the likely outcome or even probability of unwanted interactions among agents (McEvoy & Coombs 1999, 2000).”
• Shifting paradigms in the history of classical biological control (2018, background): “This was a particularly provocative paper in that it openly questioned the ecological safety of biological control introductions in general, stating that agents should be considered ‘guilty until proven innocent’ (pg. 1970), a sentiment that was echoed by McEvoy and Coombs (2000).”
• Nontarget effects--the Achilles' heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. (2003, background): “These results support the theoretical arguments for choosing narrow specialists with high virulence against their target as biocontrol agents and rejecting those expected to have relatively minor impacts (84, 85).”
• Negative per capita effects of purple loosestrife and reed canary grass on plant diversity of wetland communities (2006, background): “Based on the consistency of these prior studies and personal field observations, we initially expected that reed canary grass would have a greater per capita negative effect on plant diversity than purple loosestrife (McEvoy & Coombs, 2000).”
• The role of pre-release efficacy assessment in selecting classical biological control agents for weeds—applying the Anna Karenina principle (2005, background): “…of classical biological control of weeds, the need for selecting effective agents is receiving new emphasis, and pre-release assessment of a candidate s potential impact is often urged (Cullen, 1995; Harris, 1991; Hopper, 2001; McEvoy and Coombs, 2000; Sheppard, 2003; Strong and Pemberton, 2001).”