Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:58:09.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NEW APPROACH FOR SELECTING BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Heikki Hokkanen and
David Pimentel
Heikki Hokkanen
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Section of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
David Pimentel
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Section of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The success of introducing natural enemies for biological control was found to be about 75% higher employing new parasite–host (predator–prey) associations than those based on long-evolved associations between parasites and hosts. The lack of evolved interspecific balance in new species associations appears to explain the higher success rate. New exploiter–victim associations expand opportunities for the biological control of both introduced and native pests and should be used as the preferred method in selecting biological control agents.

Résumé

Le succès des introductions d'ennemis naturels en lutte biologique s'est révélé être environ 75% plus élevé avec des paires parasite-hôte (prédateur-proie) nouvellement associées plutôt que des paires évoluées d'associés. L'absence d'équilibre interspécifique évolué chez les paires d'espèces nouvellement associées semble expliquer ce succès plus élevé. Les nouvelles associations exploiteur-victime augmentent les possibilités de lutte biologique contre des nuisibles introduits ou indigènes et devraient être privilégiées lors de la sélection d'auxiliaires de lutte biologique.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 116 , Issue 8 , August 1984, pp. 1109 - 1121
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, C. D. 1972. Flowering Plants of Jamaica. University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica. 848 pp.Google Scholar
Alam, M. M., Bennett, F. D., and Carl, K. P.. 1971. Biological control of Diatraea saccharalis (F.) in Barbados by Apanteles flavipes Cam. and Lixophaga diatraeae T.T. Entomophaga 16: 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allee, W. C., Emerson, A. E., Park, O., Park, T., and Schmidt, K.. 1949. Principles of Animal Ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia. 837 pp.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1969. Distribution maps of pests, Series A, map 3 (revised). Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London.Google Scholar
Arrow, G. J. 1937. Coleopterorum catalogus, Vol. XXI, pars 156, Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae: 1–124. Berlin, W. Junk (Ed.).Google Scholar
Baker, E. C. S. 1926. The Fauna of British India. Birds - Vol. III. Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
Balachowsky, A. S. 1954. Les cochenilles palearctiques de la tribu des Diaspidini. Inst. Pasteur (Paris) Mem. Sci. 450 pp.Google Scholar
Bartlett, B. R. and van den Bosch, R.. 1964. Foreign exploration for beneficial organisms. pp. 283–304 in DeBach, P. (Ed.), Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Reinhold, N.Y.844 pp.Google Scholar
Beard, R. L. 1940. The biology of Anasa tristis De Geer with particular reference to the tachinid parasite, Trichopoda pennipes Fabr. Bull. Conn. agric. Exp. Stn 440. pp. 597–679.Google Scholar
Bennett, F. D. 1960. Parasites of Ancylostomia stercorea (Zell.), (Pyralidae, Lepidoptera) a pod borer attacking pigeon pea in Trinidad. Bull. ent. Res. 50(4): 737–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleszynski, S. and Collins, R. J.. 1962. A short catalogue of the world species of the family Crambidae (Lepidoptera). Acta Zool. Cracoviencia Tom VII Nr. 12. 389 pp.Google Scholar
Carl, K. P. 1982. Biological control of native pests by introduced natural enemies. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Control, Biocontrol News and Information 3(3): 191–200.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. (Ed.) 1978. Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handbk 480. Washington, D.C.545 pp.Google Scholar
Cochereau, P. 1965. Contre un ravageur du cocotier aux Nouvelles-Hebrides. Controle biologique d'Aspidiotus destructor Signoret (Homoptera-Diaspinae) par Lindorus lophantae Blaisd. (Coleoptera-Coccinellidae) Ile Vate. Oleagineux 20: 507–512.Google Scholar
Cochereau, P. 1969. Controle biologique d'Aspidiotus destructor Signoret (Homoptera, Diaspinae) dans l'Ile Vate (Nouvelles Hebrides) au moyen de Rhizobius pulchellus Montrouzier (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae). Cah. ORSTOM, ser. Biol. 8: 57–100.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1939. The black scale, Saissetia oleae (Bern.), in South America. Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 7: 75–90.Google Scholar
Coppel, H. C. and Benjamin, D. M.. 1965. Bionomics of the nearctic pine-feeding diprionids. Ann. Rev. Ent. 10: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, P. 1962. Biological control of the California red scale Aonidiella aurantii (Mask.), on Citrus around the world. Int. Kongr. Ent. Verh. (1960) 2: 749–753.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. 1964. Successes, trends, and future possibilities. pp. 673–713 in DeBach, P. (Ed.), Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Reinhold, N.Y.844 pp.Google Scholar
De Saussure, H. 1877. Melanges Orthopterologiques. Gryllides. Tom. II, Fasc. V: 169–504. Geneve.Google Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1961. The dimensions of endemism. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 54: 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, R. A. I., Hooper, G. H. S., and Bateman, M. A.. 1978. Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region. Watson Ferguson, Brisbane, Australia. 137 pp.Google Scholar
Drooz, A. T., Bustillo, A. E., Fedde, F. G., and Fedde, V. H.. 1977. North American egg parasite successfully controls a different host genus in South America. Science 197: 390–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eastop, V. F. 1966. A taxonomic study of Australian Aphidoidea (Homoptera). Aust. J. Zool. 14: 399–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, M. 1971. Index of World Opiinae. Index of Entomophagous Insects. Le Francois, Paris. 189 pp.Google Scholar
Franclemont, J. G. 1982. Personal communication. Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
Franz, J. M. and Krieg, A.. 1982. Biologische Schädlingsbekämpfung. Paul Parey, Berlin und Hamburg. 252 pp.Google Scholar
Godan, D. 1979. Schadeschnecken und ihre Bekämpfung. Ulmer, Stuttgart. 467 pp.Google Scholar
Hall, R. W., Ehler, L. E., and Bisabri-Ershadi, B.. 1980. Rate of success in classical biological control of arthropods. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 26: 111–114.Google Scholar
Hampson, G. F. 1896. The Fauna of British India. Moths, Vol. IV. Taylor and Francis, London. 594 pp.Google Scholar
Heinrich, C. 1956. American moths of the subfamily Phycitinae. U.S. natn. Mus. Bull. 207. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.581 pp.Google Scholar
Hokkanen, H. 1983. The effect of 200 years of coevolution between the green stink bug, Nezara viridula (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae), and the parasite Trichopoda pennipes (Diptera, Tachinidae) on the host-parasite relationship. pp. 85–132 in Hokkanen, H., Interspecific Homeostasis, Pest Problems, and the Principles of Classical Biological Pest Control. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.157 pp.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., Messenger, P. S., and DeBach, P.. 1971. The natural enemy component in natural control and the theory of biological control. pp. 16–67 in Huffaker, C. B. (Ed.), Biological Control. Plenum, N.Y.511 pp.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., Simmonds, F. J., and Laing, J. E.. 1976. The theoretical and empirical basis of biological control. pp. 41–78 in Huffaker, C. B. and Messenger, P. S. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press, N.Y.788 pp.Google Scholar
Kajita, H. and Drake, E. F.. 1969. Biology of Apanteles chilonis and A. flavipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), parasites of Chilo suppressalis. Mushi 42(14): 163–179.Google Scholar
Korschefsky, R. 1932. Coleopterorum catalogus, Vol. XVI, pars 120, Coccirrellidae II: 225–659. Berlin, W. Junk (Ed.).Google Scholar
Laing, J. E. and Hamai, J.. 1976. Biological control of insect pests and weeds by imported parasites, predators, and pathogens. pp. 685–743 in Huffaker, C. B. and Messenger, P. S. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press, N.Y.788 pp.Google Scholar
Lever, R. J. A. W. 1969. Pests of the coconut palm. FAO Agric. Ser. 77. 190 pp.Google Scholar
Moutia, L. A. and Mamet, R.. 1946. A review of 25 years of economic entomology in the Island of Mauritius. Bull. ent. Res. 36: 439–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pemberton, C. E. 1948. History of the Entomology Department Experiment Station, H.S.P.A. 1904–1945. Hawaii. Planters' Rec. 52: 53–90.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1961. Animal population regulation by the genetic feedback mechanism. Am. Nat. 95: 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1963. Introducing parasites and predators to control native pests. Can. Ent. 95: 785–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D., Levin, S. A., and Soans, A. B.. 1975. On the evolution of energy balance in some exploitervictim systems. Ecology 56: 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D., Glenister, C., Fast, S., and Gallahan, D.. 1982. Environmental risks associated with the use of biological and cultural pest controls. Final Report. NSF Grant PRA 80-00803. National Technical Information Service #PB-83-168-716. Springfield, VA. 165 pp.Google Scholar
Pinhey, E. C. G. 1975. Moths of Southern Africa. Tafelberg, Cape Town. 273 pp.Google Scholar
Quayle, H. J. 1938. Insects of Citrus and Other Subtropical Fruits. Comstock, Ithaca, N.Y.583 pp.Google Scholar
Rehn, J. A. G. 1945. Man's uninvited fellow-traveller – the cockroach. Sci. Monthly 61(4): 265–276.Google Scholar
Richards, W. L. 1958. Identities of species of Lecanium Burmeister in Canada (Homoptera: Coccoidae). Can. Ent. 90: 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, L. M. and Willis, E. R.. 1960. The biotic associations of cockroaches. Smithson. misc. Collns, Vol. 141. 470 pp.Google Scholar
Russell, L. M. 1941. A classification of the scale insect genus Asterolecanium. U.S. Dep. Agric. Misc. Publ. 424. 322 pp.Google Scholar
Schenefelt, R. D. 1972. Hymenopterorum catalogus, pars 7, Braconidae 4, Microgasterinae, Apanteles: 429–668. The Hague, Netherlands, J. van der Vecht and R. D. Schenefelt (Eds.).Google Scholar
Schenefelt, R. D. 1973. Hymenopterorum catalogus, pars 10, Braconidae 6, Cheloninae: 813–936. The Hague, Netherlands, J. van der Vecht and R. D. Schenefelt (Eds.).Google Scholar
Silvestri, F. 1914. Report of an expedition to Africa in search of the natural enemies of fruit flies (Trypaneidae). Hawaii Bd Agric. For., Div. Ent., Bull. 3. 176 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. 1944. Bionomics and control of the nigra scale, Saissetia nigra. Hilgardia 16: 225–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. W. 1961. Notes on parasites of the wheat stem sawfly, Cephus pygmaeus (L). (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) from continental Europe. Can. Ent. 93: 714–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetman, H. L. 1958. The Principles of Biological Control. W.M.C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa. 560 pp.Google Scholar
Swezey, O. H. 1931. Records of introduction of beneficial insects into the Hawaiian Islands. pp. 105–106 in Williams, F. X. (Ed.), Handbook of the Insects and Other Invertebrates of Hawaiian Sugar Cane Fields. Hawaii. Sugar Planters' Assoc., Honolulu. 400 pp.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. H. C. 1935. The campaign against Aspidiotus destructor Sign in Fiji. Bull. ent. Res 26: 1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, P. H. 1932. Three new parasitic Hymenoptera from the Indo-Malayan Region. Proc. Hawaii. ent. Soc. 8: 153–162.Google Scholar
van den Bosch, R. 1964. Encapsulation of the eggs of Bathyplectes curculionis (Thomson) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) in larvae of Hypera brunneipennis (Boheman) and Hypera postica (Gyllenhal) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Insect Path. 6: 343–367.Google Scholar
Williams, F. X. 1928. Studies in tropical wasps – their hosts and associates. Hawaii. Sugar Planters' Assoc., Ent. Bull. 19. 179 pp.Google Scholar
Williams, F. X. 1942. Ampulex compressa (Fabr.), a cockroach-hunting wasp introduced from New Caledonia into Hawaii. Proc. Hawaii. ent. Soc. 11: 221–233.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. 1960. A review of the biological control of insects and weeds in Australia and Australian New Guinea. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Control, Tech. Commun. 1. 102 pp.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. 1963. Australia as a source of beneficial insects for biological control. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Control, Tech. Commun. 3.Google Scholar
Wolcott, G. N. 1948. The insects of Puerto Rico. P.R. Univ., J. Agric. 32: 749–975.Google Scholar
Wolcott, G. N. 1960. Efficiency of ladybeetles (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera) in insect control. P.R. Univ., J. Agric. 44: 166–172.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, E. C. 1948. Insects of Hawaii. V. 5. Univ. of Hawaii Press. 464 pp.Google Scholar
Zwölfer, H., Ghani, M. A., and Rao, V. P.. 1976. Foreign exploration and importation of natural enemies. pp. 189–207 in Huffaker, C. B. and Messenger, P. S. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press, N.Y.788 pp.Google Scholar