Lessons From History: Predicting Successes and Risks of Intentional Introductions for Arthropod Biological Control

By D. N. Kimberling. Biological Invasions, 2004

98 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f116552bbb277c707d384bc01d0a5aa20cc7bbd4

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

Citations in the corpus

Rearing, release and settlement prospect in Italy of Torymus sinensis, the biological control agent of the chestnut gall wasp Dryocosmus kuriphilus (2008, background): “…in Japan (Moriya et al. 1989; Murakami et al. 2001) and more recently in the USA (Rieske 2007), a quick and concrete response was made, keeping in consideration the environmental risk associated with the introduction of an exotic natural enemy (van Lenteren et al. 2003; EPPO 1997; Kimberling 2004).”
A ‘Goldilocks’ hypothesis for dispersal of biological control agents (2011, background): “Kimberling (2004) also looked in vain for a correlation between dispersal rate (coded as ‘weak’, ‘moderate’ or ‘strong’) and success of biological control agents of arthropods.”
Reconstructing routes of invasion using genetic data: why, how and so what? (2010, background): “…phenotypic characters, such as wide dispersal, high growth rate, generalist vs. specialist trophic relationships, asexual reproduction, tolerance to environmental heterogeneity, high levels of competitiveness (e.g. Kimberling 2004; Kolar & Lodge 2002; Sakai et al. 2001; Vall-Ilosera & Sol 2009).”
Shifting paradigms in the history of classical biological control (2018, background): “(e.g. Beddington et al. 1978; Hall and Ehler 1979; Hall et al. 1980; Murdoch et al. 1985; Luck 1990; Stiling 1990, 1993; Greathead and Greathead 1992; Crawley 1989; Lane et al. 1999; Denoth et al. 2002; Kimberling 2004; Mills 2006; Stephens et al. 2013; Heimpel and Mills 2017).”