Invasiveness of Some Biological Control Insects and Adequacy of Their Ecological Risk Assessment and Regulation

By S. Louda, Amy E. Arnett, T. Rand, F. L. Russell. 2003

145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Insect Science, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e3dc58adbd6b10dfa8064c0d42a0ff54bdb46634

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. Urs Schaffner
2. P. Stiling
3. E. S. Delfosse
4. J. Hulcr
5. D. Adams
6. K. Klepzig
7. K. Prior
8. S. Louda

In Plant Science

1. Urs Schaffner
2. E. S. Delfosse
3. P. Stiling
4. S. Louda
5. D. Adams
6. Daniel Simberloff
7. J. Hulcr
8. K. Klepzig

Citations in the corpus

• The Double‐Edged Sword of Biological Control in Conservation and Restoration (2004, methodology): “The cases above, and others (Louda et al. 2003b), show that nontarget effects can be imposed by relative “specialists,” species whose diet is limited to a set of closely related hosts.”
• When does invasive species removal lead to ecological recovery? Implications for management success (2018, background): “For example, the management activity itself can have direct negative impacts, such as the effects of aerial spraying of pesticides, poison baits, or the release of biological control agents on non-target species (Courchamp et al. 2003; Louda et al. 2003).”
• Selection of non-target species for host specificity testing of entomophagous biological control agents. (2005, background): “Although regulations for biological control agents of weeds have been more strict than those of pests, risk assessments have not always been accurate enough to prevent ecological side effects on nontarget hosts ( Louda 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).”
• Risk and ethics in biological control (2005, background): “…biological control scientists have been surprised at the vehemence with which biological control has been challenged (Hamilton, 2000; Howarth, 1991; Louda et al., 1997, 2003; Miller and Aplet, 1993; Pearson and Callaway, 2003; SimberloV, 1992; SimberloV and Stiling, 1996; Stolzenburg, 1999;…”
• Risks of biological control for conservation purposes (2012, background): “The case of the weevil Rhinocyllus conicus is particularly well known (van Driesche et al. 2008).”
• 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).”
• EXOTIC WEED INVASION INCREASES THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF NATIVE PLANTS TO ATTACK BY A BIOCONTROL HERBIVORE (2004, background): “The danger associated with nontarget feeding by biological control agents is widely recognized (Turner et al. 1987, Louda et al. 2003b).”