Nontarget effects in the biocontrol of insects with insects, nematodes and microbial agents: the evidence.

By L. Lynch, M. Thomas. 2000

96 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cb919bc5332f7814751802222c5b5cbdbf593344

How researchers see this paper

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

1. G. Heimpel
2. J. C. Lenteren
3. A. Hajek
4. Urs Schaffner
5. Ulrich Kuhlmann
6. R. Messing
7. S. Louda
8. S. Wratten

Citations in the corpus

• Environmental risk assessment of exotic natural enemies used in inundative biological control (2003, background): “First, as necessary background to the novel work done in the course of the project, a review of the known non-target effects of biological control world-wide was conducted (Lynch and Thomas, 2000).”
• Nontarget effects--the Achilles' heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. (2003, background): “Since the 1888 introduction of the vedalia beetle against cottony-cushion scale in California, more than 5000 releases of insects for classical biological control have been documented (49, 79).”
• Exotic biological control agents: A solution or contribution to arthropod invasions? (2016, background): “…several measurable cases of displacements of native parasitoids, although no large-scale extinction has yet been reported (see cases of Lysiphlebus testaceipes, Cales noaki, Aphidius ervi, C. concinnata and others (Lynch and Thomas 2000; van Lenteren et al. 2006a; Parry 2008; Kenis et al. 2009).”
• Selection of non-target species for host specificity testing of entomophagous biological control agents. (2005, background): “Subsequently, a number of papers on non-target effects have been published within the last ten years (e.g., Follett et al. 2000a,b; Lockwood et al. 2001; Louda et al. 2003a; Lynch and Thomas 2000; Lynch et al. 2001; Simberloff and Stiling 1996; Stiling and Simberloff 2000;Thomas and Willis 1998).”
• Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems (2010, background): “…Invasive Weeds Research Unit, Albany, CA 94710, USA c Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, ARS, USDA, 3225 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, USA d Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA e Entomology & Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware, Newark,…”
• The need for effective marking and tracking techniques for monitoring the movements of insect predators and parasitoids (2004, background): “Several ‘classical’ biolological control introductions of exotic natural enemies are reported to have adversely affected nontarget, native species, either directly or indirectly (see reviews by Lynch and Thomas, 2000; Louda et al., 2003).”
• The Double‐Edged Sword of Biological Control in Conservation and Restoration (2004, background): “Based on quantitative criteria, only 20% of weed-control projects ( Williamson & Fitter 1996) and 3% of insect-control projects (Lynch & Thomas 2000) exhibit successful control.”