Indirect interactions, community modules and biological control: a theoretical perspective.

By Robert D. Holt, Michael E. Hochberg, Eric Wajnberg, J. Scott, P. Quimby. 2001

156 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ef52d78c4b4311d6bd124367af083b8df6a49a51

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. T. Tscharntke
2. G. Heimpel
3. J. Tylianakis
4. Y. Clough
5. Michael J. Wingfield
6. Daniel Simberloff
7. D. Kleijn
8. T. Rand

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. T. Tscharntke
2. J. Tylianakis
3. R. Isaacs
4. D. Kleijn
5. R. Bommarco
6. B. Blaauw
7. T. Rand
8. Y. Clough

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. A. Sheppard
2. G. Heimpel
3. Jason P. Harmon
4. Daniel Simberloff

Citations in the corpus

• Evidence for the existence of a robust pattern of prey selection in food webs (2007, background): “Third, we uncover motifs which are frequently observed within food-web structure but to date have not been studied to the depth of others such as apparent competition and exploitative competition (Holt 1997; Holt & Hochberg 2001).”
• Shifting paradigms in the history of classical biological control (2018, background): “This was noted by Holt and Hochberg (2001) who used a theoretical approach to show that agents that establish at high levels without suppressing target populations can pose risks through enrichment effects.”
• Exotic biological control agents: A solution or contribution to arthropod invasions? (2016, background): “Importantly, both direct and indirect effects may be strongest during the transient phases post-introduction when populations can reach levels well above equilibrium densities, thus amplifying the strength of some interactions (Holt and Hochberg 2001), although temporarily.”
• Indirect effects between shared prey: Predictions for (2004, background): “If shared predation theory is to be applied to biological control, it must help predict when and how alternative prey affect predator–prey dynamics (e.g. Holt and Hochberg, 2001).”
• The role of pre-release efficacy assessment in selecting classical biological control agents for weeds—applying the Anna Karenina principle (2005, background): “Agents that become abundant without bringing about effective control of their targets are particularly likely to be associated with nontarget or indirect ecological effects (Holt and Hochberg, 2001).”
• Biological control of marine invasive species: cautionary tales and land-based lessons (2003, unknown): “Finally, non-target effects often involve indirect interactions which are not detected by conventional host specificity testing (see chapters in Follett and Duan 2000; Barratt et al. 2001; Holt and Hochberg 2001; Waage 2001).”
• Risks of biological control for conservation purposes (2012, background): “Holt and Hochberg (2001) listed the main indirect effects generated by chains of concatenated species-on-species interactions as they might arise in biocontrol and explored theoretical implications.”
• Biological invasion of European tomato crops by Tuta absoluta: ecology, geographic expansion and prospects for biological control (2010, background): “However, introducing exotic natural enemies carries unknown level of environmental risk (Wajnberg et al. 2001, van Lenteren et al. 2006) and benefits of such practice must be weighed against its environmental, economic or health risks.”
• Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale (2007, background): “Modeling studies suggest that ‘‘spillover’’ or ‘‘cross edge incursions’’ by generalist natural enemies from source habitats, where they receive resource subsidies, can substantially strengthen top-down control of prey species occurring within adjacent recipient habitats (Cantrell et al., 2001; Holt ”
• Wildflower plantings enhance the abundance of natural enemies and their services in adjacent blueberry fields (2015, background): “Creating a floral habitat that increases the carrying capacity of insect natural enemies may enhance the degree of predator spillover and their impact on pest insects within the adjacent crop field (Holt and Hochberg, 2001).”
• Nontarget effects--the Achilles' heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. (2003, result): “These outcomes are consistent with the recent theoretical prediction that “shared predation modules” present an indirect risk to nontarget species and their fauna, even at sites away from the area of control (57).”
• Scientific advances in the analysis of direct risks of weed biological control agents to nontarget plants (2005, background): “For example, rare nontargets with low population growth rates will suVer proportionally higher impacts from agents than target species with higher population growth rates for the same level of damage (Holt and Hochberg, 2000).”