Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T16:57:48.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Weed Biological Control Agents into a Pest-Management Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Lloyd A. Andres
Lloyd A. Andres*
Affiliation:
Supvry. Res. Entomol., Biol. Control of Weeds Lab., Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., 1050 San Pablo Avenue, Albany, CA 94706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Little effort has been directed toward integrating biological control; that is, the use of living natural enemies to control weeds, with more conventional weed control practices. The usual focus of biological control has been on the introduction of weed insects and pathogens from foreign areas to control naturalized range, pasture, and/or aquatic weeds, principally single species that had become dominant over a plant community. The released natural enemies were allowed to reach their own balance with the target weed without added assistance. As economic and environmental perspectives change along with our knowledge and technological capability, however, it becomes worthwhile to review periodically if and how biological control might be integrated with other farming practices. Because my biological control experience has centered on the use of weed-feeding insects, this discussion will focus on methods of enhancing and integrating insect impact on weeds with other weed-control activities.

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

Literature Cited

1. Altieri, M. A., van Schoonhoven, A., and Doll, J. 1977. The ecological role of weeds in the insect pest management systems: a review illustrated by bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cropping systems. PANS 23:195–205.Google Scholar
2. Andres, L. A. and Davis, C. J. 1971. The biological control of weeds with insects in the United States. Pages 11–28 in Dunn, P. ed., Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Commonw. Inst. of Biol. Control Misc. Publ. 6.Google Scholar
3. Bendixen, L. E., Reynolds, D. A. and Riedel, R. M. 1979. An annotated bibliography of weeds as reservoirs for organisms affecting crops. I. Nematodes. Ohio Agric. Res. and Dev. Center, Res. Bull. 1109:1–64.Google Scholar
4. Bendixen, L. E., Kim, Kil Ung, Kozak, C. M., and Horn, D. J. 1981. An annotated bibliography of weeds as reservoirs for organisms affecting crops. IIa. Arthropods. Ohio Agric. Res. and Dev. Center, Res. Bull. 1125. 117 pp.Google Scholar
5. Blackburn, R. D. and Weldon, L. W. 1964. A correlation of carbohydrate reserves in alligatorweed to time and initial treatment with silvex. Section of Annual Report, Weed Investigations – Aquatic and Noncrop Areas, Plantation Field Lab., Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Crops Res. Div., Crops Protection Res. Branch. 170 p.Google Scholar
6. Bogenschütz, H. and König, E. 1976. Relationship – fertilization and tree resistance to forest insect pests. Proc. Colloq. Int. Potash Inst. 12:281–289.Google Scholar
7. Bottrell, D. G. 1979. Integrated Pest Management. United States Council on Environ. Quality Publ. 120 pp.Google Scholar
8. Durden, W. C. Jr., Blackburn, R. D., and Gangstad, E. O. 1975. Control program for alligatorweed in the Southeastern states. Hyacinth Control 13:27–30.Google Scholar
9. Frick, K. E. and Chandler, J. M. 1978. Augmenting the moth (Bactra verutana) in field plots for early-season suppression of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus . Weed Sci. 26:703–710.Google Scholar
10. Huffaker, C. B. 1957. Fundamentals of biological control of weeds. Hilgardia 27:101–157.Google Scholar
11. Klyueva, M. P. and Pamukchi, G. V. 1978. Broomrape midge – the natural enemy of broomrape in Moldavia. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Moldavskoi SSR, Seriya Biologicheskikh i Khimicheskikh Nauk No. 4. pp 21–25. (Saw abstract only).Google Scholar
12. Kok, L. T. 1979. Establishment of Ceuthorhynchidius horridus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), an imported thistle-feeding weevil in Virginia. Environ. Entomol. 8:221–223.Google Scholar
13. Kok, L. T. and Surles, W. W. 1975. Successful biocontrol of musk thistle by an introduced weevil, Rhinocyllus conicus . Environ. Entomol. 4:1025–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Lekic, M. 1971. The role of the dipteron Phytomyza orobanchia Kalt. (Agromyzidae) in reducing parasitic phanerogram populations of the Orobanche genus in Vojvodina. Contemp. Agric. –Novi Sad. 18:59–68.Google Scholar
15. Mussa, A.E.A. and Russell, P. E. 1977. The influence of pesticides and herbicides on the growth and virulence of Fusarium solani f sp. phaseoli . J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 88:705–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Norris, R. F. and Ayres, D. R. 1981. Reduction of biological control of common purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) by the purslane sawfly (Schizorcerella pilicornia Holmgren) through use of insecticides. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 6.Google Scholar
17. Oka, I. N. and Pimentel, D. 1976. Herbicide (2,4-D) increases insect and pathogen pests on corn. Science 193:239–240.Google Scholar
18. Parrella, M. P. and Kok, L. T. 1978. Oidaematophorus monodactylus : oviposition and development on sweet potato and inundative releases on hedge bindweed. Environ. Entomol. 7:803–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Pimentel, D. 1971. Ecological effects of pesticides on non-target species. Executive Office of the President, Office of Sci. and Technology. 220 pp.Google Scholar
20. Putler, B., Long, S. H., and Peters, E. J. 1978. Establishment in Missouri of Rhinocyllus conicus for the biological control of musk thistle, Carduus nutans L. Weed Sci. 26:188–190.Google Scholar
21. Quimby, P. C. and Frick, K. E. 1980. Control of nutsedge with glyphosate-coated Bactra . Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:195.Google Scholar
22. Rees, N. E. 1977. Impact of Rhinocyllus conicus on thistles in Southwestern Montana. Environ. Entomol. 6:839–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Rodriguez, J. G. 1960. Nutrition of the host and reaction to pests. In Biological and Chemical Control of Plants and Animal Pests. Am. Assoc. Advan. Sci. 61:149–167.Google Scholar
24. Shorthouse, J. D. 1977. Developmental morphology of Urophora affinis galls. Pages 188–195 in Proc. Knapweed Symp., Oct. 6–7, Kamloops, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
25. Shorthouse, J. D. and Watson, A. K. 1976. Plant galls and the biological control of weeds. Insect World Dig. 3:8–11.Google Scholar
26. Trumble, J. T. and Kok, L. T. 1980a. Impact of 2,4-D on Ceuthorhynchidius horridus (Coleoptera : Curculinonidae) and their compatibility for integrated control of Carduus thistles. Weed Res. 20:73–75.Google Scholar
27. Trumble, J. T. and Kok, L. T. 1980b. Integration of a thistlehead weevil and herbicide for Carduus thistle control. Prot. Ecol. 2:57–64.Google Scholar
28. Webb, J. W. and Moran, V. C. 1978. The influence of the host plant on the population dynamics of Acizzia rusellae (Homoptera : Psyllidae.). Ecol. Entomol. 3:313–321.Google Scholar
29. Wilson, F. 1960. A review of the biological control of insects and weeds in Australia and Australian New Guinea. Commonwealth Inst. of Biol. Contr. Techn. Commun. No. 1. 102 pp.Google Scholar
30. Zimmerman, H. G. 1979. Herbicidal control in relation to distribution of Opuntia aurantiaca Lindley and effects on cochineal populations. Weed Res. 19:89–93.Google Scholar