Annotated bibliography

A · B · C · D · E · F · G · H · I · J · K · L · M · N · O · P · Q · R · S · T · U · V · W · X · Y · Z · all

References

Haines M.L., Martin J.-F., Emberson R.M., Syrett P., Withers T.M. and Worner S.P. (2007). Can sibling species explain the broadening of the host range of the broom seed beetle, Bruchidius villosus (F.) (Coleoptera : Chrysomelidae) in New Zealand? New Zealand Entomologist 30: 5-11
Following introduction into New Zealand for biological control of Scotch broom, Cytisus scoparius, the broom seed beetle, Bruchidius villosus, was found utilising tagasaste, Chamaecytisus palmensis, which was not predicted by host range testing. One possible explanation for these inconsistencies is that more than one species is included within the current concept of B. villosus. However, sequence data from the mitochrondrial gene COI showed a low level of sequence polymorphism (0.8%) between individuals of B. villosus suggesting that B. villosus is a single species with a broader host range than was predicted by host range tests.

Haines M.L., Syrett P., Emberson R.M., Withers T.M., Fowler S.V. and Worner S.P. (2004). Ruling out a host-range expansion as the cause of the unpredicted non-target attack on tagasaste (Chamaecytisus proliferus) by Bruchidius villosus. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds: 271-276
This paper describes an investigation of the original host-testing procedures. Despite showing a strong preference for Scotch broom, the beetles tested in this study accepted Chamaecytisus proliferus for oviposition allowing us to rule out the possibility that a host range expansion has occurred.

Halpen S.L. and Underwood N. (2006). Approaches for testing herbivore effects on plant population dynamics. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 922�929

Harley K.L.S. and Forno I.W. (1992). Biological control of weeds. A handbook for practitioners and students. Inkata Press, Melbourne. 74 pp.

Harris P. (1990). Environmental impact of introduced biological control agents. Pp. 289-300 In: Critical issues in biological control, M. Mackauer, L.E. Ehler and J. Roland (Ed.) Intercept, Andover, Hampshire, UK.

Harris P. (1991). Classical biological control of weeds: its definition, selection of effective agents, and administrative-political problems. Canadian Entomologist 123: 827-849.

Harris P. and Zw�lfer H. (1968). Screening of phytophagous insects for biological control of weeds. Canadian Entomologist 100: 295-303.

Harrison L., Moeed A. and Sheppard A. (2005). Regulation of the release of biological control agents of arthopods in New Zealand and Australia. Pp. 715-725 In: Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland, 12-16 September, 2005, M.S. Hoddle (Ed.) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington.
Regulation of biological control agents in New Zealand is legislated by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and administered by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA New Zealand). In Australia the Department of the Environment and Heritage and the Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Australia - Australian Quarantine Inspection Service jointly regulate the import, testing and release of biological control agents under the Quarantine Act 1908, Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 and Biological Control Act 1984. The 2 regulatory systems are compared in this paper highlighting the pivotal role of information from the host specificity testing in the decision making process and the valuable opportunity for researchers to interact with the public.

Harvey C.D., Alameen K.M, and Griffin C.T. (2012). The impact of entomopathogenic nematodes on a non-target, service-providing longhorn beetle is limited by targeted application when controlling forestry pest Hylobius abietis. Biological Control 62: 173-182.

Harwood J.D. and Obrycki J.J. (2005). Quantifying aphid predation rates of generalist predators in the field. European Journal of Entomology 102: 335-350.
Over 100 investigations have utilized gut-content analysis to estimate aphid predation rates by predators including gut dissection, radio-labelling of prey, dissection of faecal samples, electrophoresis, stable isotope analysis and use of polyclonal antisera, monoclonal antibodies. Advances in molecular biology have enabled the detection of species-specific DNA sequences and use of these applications to quantify predation by aphidophagous predators is reviewed.

Hatcher P.E. (1995). Three-way interactions between plant pathogenic fungi, herbivorous insects and their host plants. Biological Reviews 70: 639-694

Hatcher P.E. and Melander B. (2003). Combining physical, cultural and biological methods: prospects for integrated non-chemical weed management strategies. Weed Research 43: 303-322

Hawkins B.A. and Cornell H.V. (1994). Maximum parasitism rates and successful biological control. Science 266: 1886.

Hawkins B.A. and Cornell H.V. (1999). Theoretical approaches to biological control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 412 pp.

Hawkins B.A. and Marino P.C. (1997). The colonization of native phytophagous insects in North America by exotic parasitoids. Oecologia 112: 566.
Classical biological control could have a major environmental cost if introduced natural enemies colonize and disrupt native systems. Impacts were evaluated based on the extent to which exotics have acquired native hosts. The ability of six biological and ecological variables to predict whether or not a parasitoid will move onto natives was evaluated. It was concluded that given the quality of the data available either now or in the foreseeable future, coupled with inherent stochasticity in host shifts by parasitoids, there are no rules of thumb to assist biological control workers in evaluating if an introduced parasitoid will colonize native insect communities.

Haye T., Goulet H., Mason P.G. and Kuhlmann U. (2005). Does fundamental host range match ecological host range? A retrospective case study of a Lygus plant bug parasitoid. Biological Control 35: 55-67.
Using the retrospective case study of Peristenus digoneutis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) introduced in the United States for biological control of native Lygus plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae), laboratory and field studies were conducted in the area of origin to evaluate whether the fundamental host range of P. digoneutis matches its ecological host range. To confirm the validity of the fundamental host range, the ecological host range of P. digoneutis in the area of origin was investigated. Peristenus digoneutis was reared from 10 hosts, including three Lygus species and seven non-target hosts from the subfamily Mirinae. Despite the fact that laboratory tests demonstrated a high parasitism level in non-targets, ecological assessments in both North America and Europe suggest a much lower impact of P. digoneutis on non-target mirids. It was concluded that ecological host range studies in the area of origin provide useful supplementary data for interpreting pre-release laboratory host range testing.

Haye T., Kuhlmann U., Goulet H. and Mason P.G. (2006). Controlling Lygus plant bugs (Heteroptera : Miridae) with European Peristenus relictus (Hymenoptera : Braconidae) in Canada - risky or not ? Bulletin of Entomological Research 96: 187-196
The European Peristenus relictus Loan (syn. P. stygicus) has been considered for biological control of Lygus plant bugs native to Canada. Field and laboratory studies were carried out to compare fundamental with ecological host range.

Haye T., van Achterberg C., Goulet H., Barratt B.I.P. and Kuhlmann U. (2006). Potential for classical biological control of the potato bug Closterotomus norwegicus (Hemiptera: Miridae): description, parasitism and host specificity of Peristenus closterotomae sp. n. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 96: 421�431
The potato bug, Closterotomus norwegicus (Gmelin) (Hemiptera: Miridae) is an introduced pest of lucerne, white clover and lotus seed crops in New Zealand and a key pest of pistachios in California, USA. A total of eight parasitoids, including six from the genus Peristenus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and two hyperparasitoids from the genus Mesochorus (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), were reared from C. norwegicus nymphs collected in northern Germany. With a proportion of more than 85% of all C. norwegicus parasitoids, Peristenus closterotomae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a new species, was the most dominant parasitoid, whereas other parasitoid species only occurred sporadically. Parasitism caused by P. closterotomae was on average 24% (maximum 77%). To assess the host specificity of parasitoids associated with C. norwegicus, the parasitoid complexes of various Miridae occurring simultaneously with C. norwegicus were studied. Peristenus closterotomae was frequently reared from Calocoris affinis (Herrich-Schaeffer), and a few specimens were reared from Calocoris roseomaculatus (De Geer) and the meadow plant bug, Leptopterna dolobrata (Linnaeus) (all Hemiptera: Miridae). The remaining primary parasitoids associated with C. norwegicus were found to be dominant in hosts other than C. norwegicus. Whether nymphal parasitoids may potentially be used in a classical biological control initiative against the potato bug in countries where it is introduced and considered to be a pest is discussed.

Heard T.A. (2000). Concepts in insect host-plant selection behavior and their application to host specificity testing. Pp. 1-10 In: Host-specificity testing of exotic arthropod biological control agents: the biological basis for improvement in safety, R.G. Van Driesche, T. Heard, A.S. McClay and R. Reardon (Ed.) USDA Forest Service Bulletin, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.

Heard T.A. and Van Klinken R.D. (1998). An analysis of test designs for host range determination of insects for biological control of weeds. Pp. 539-546 In: Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Applied Entomological Research Conference, M.P. Zalucki, R.A.I. Drew and G.G. White (Ed.) Brisbane, University of Queensland.

Henneman M.L. and Memmott J. (2001). Infiltration of a Hawaiian community by introduced biological control agents. Science 293: 1314-1316.

Herting B. and Simmonds F.J. (1972). A Catalogue of Parasites and Predators of Terrestrial Arthropods. Section A. Host or prey/enemy. Vol. II. Homoptera. CIBC. 210 pp.

Hill M.G. (1988). Analysis of the biological control of Mythimna separata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) by Apanteles ruficrus (Braconidae: Hymenoptera) in New Zealand. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 197-208

Hill M.P. and Hulley P.E. (1995). Host-range extension by native parasitoids to weed biocontrol agents introduced to South Africa. Biological Control 5: 297-302.
Host range extension by native parasitoids to insect biocontrol agents of weeds in South Africa were examined. All host range extensions were from native herbivores and occurred within 3 years of release. Poorly concealed endophytic agents were most susceptible to attack, whereas exposed feeders were relatively free from attack.

Hill R.L. (1977). Parasite helps control armyworm. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture 134: 21-23

Hill R.L. (1982). Seasonal patterns of phytophage activity on gorse (Ulex europaeus) and host plant quality. Pp. 237-242. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Insect-Plant Relationships, J.H. Visser and A.K. Minks (Ed.) Wageningen, The Netherlands 1-4 March 1982.

Hill R.L. (1999). Minimising uncertainty - in support of no-choice tests. Pp. 1-10 In: Host specificity testing in Australasia: towards improved assays for biological control, W.T.M., L. Barton Browne and J. N. Stanley (Ed.) CRC for Tropical Pest Management, Brisbane, Australia.

Hill R.L. (2008). Application to release from containment a beetle, Lema obscura F. (Chrysomelidae), for the biological control of the weed tradescantia (Tradescantia fluminensis). http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/appfiles/execsumm/pdf/NOR07001-002.pdf

Hill R.L. and Gourlay A.H. (2002). Host-range testing, introduction, and establishment of Cydia succedana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) for biological control of gorse, Ulex europaeus L., in New Zealand. Biological Control 25: 173-186

Hill R.L. and O'Donnell D.J. (1991). Reproductive isolation between Tetranychus lintearius and two related mites, T. urticae and T. turkestani (Acarina: Tetranychidae). Experimental and Applied Acarology 11: 241-251

Hill R.L. and Sandrey R.A. (1986). The costs and benefits of gorse Proceedings of the New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference 39: 70-73

Hill R.L., Cumber R.A. and Allan D.J. (1985). Parasitoids introduced to control larvae of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera) in New Zealand (1968-1978). DSIR Entomology Division, 24 p.

Hill R.L., Gordon A.J. and Neser S. (2000). The potential role of Bruchophagus acaciae (Cameron) (Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae) in the integrated control of Acacia species in South Africa. Pp. 919-929 In: Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, N.R. Spencer (Ed.) Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Hill R.L., Gourlay, A.H. and Wigley P. (1989). The introduction of gorse spider mite Tetranychus lintearius for biological control of gorse. Proceedings of the 42nd New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference: 137�139.

Hill R.L., Gourlay, A.H. and Winks, C.J. (1993). Choosing gorse spider mite strains to improve establishment in different climates. In: Proceedings of the 6th Australasian Grasslands Invertebrate Ecology Conference, R.A Prestidge (Ed.). AgResearch, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Hill R.L., Markin G.P., Gourlay A.H., Fowler S.V. and Yoshioka E. (2001). Host range, release, and establishment of Sericothrips staphylinus Haliday (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) as a biological control agent for gorse, Ulex europaeus L. (Fabaceae), in New Zealand and Hawaii. Biological Control 21: 63-74

Hill R.L., O'Donnell D.J., Gourlay A.H. and Speed C.B. (1995). The suitability of Agonopterix ulicetella (Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae) as a biological control agent for Ulex europaeus Fabaceae: Genisteae) in New Zealand. Biocontrol Science and Technology 5: 3-10.

Hill R.L., Wittenberg R. and Gourlay A.H. (2001). Biology and host range of Phytomyza vitalbae and its establishment for the biological control of Clematis vitalba in New Zealand. Biocontrol Science and Technology 11: 459-473

Hoagland R.E., Weaver M.A. and Boyette C.D. (2007). Myrothecium verrucaria fungus: a bioherbicide and strategies to reduce its non-target risks. Allelopathy Journal 19: 179-192
The herbicidal activity of an M. verrucaria (MV) strain originally isolated from sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) was evaluated against kudzu (Pueraria lobata) and several other weeds. Tests showed high levels of efficacy of MV and a large range of nontarget, young, woody plant species from several plant families ranged from non-susceptible to moderately susceptible. Although MV possesses desirable bioherbicidal traits, this isolate also produces undesirable mycotoxins, i.e. trichothecenes. Future approaches to possibly reduce or eliminate these mycotoxins are discussed.

Hoddle M. (2004). Restoring balance using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conservation Biology 18: 38-49

Hoddle M.S. (2004). Analysis of fauna in the receiving area for the purpose of identifying native species that exotic natural enemies may potentially attack. Pp. 24-39 In: Assessing host ranges for parasitoids and predators used for classical biological control: a guide to best practice, R.G. Van Driesche and R. Reardon (Ed.) USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Hoelmer K.A., Schuster D.J. and Ciomperlik M.A. (2008). Indigenous parasitoids of Bemisia in the USA and potential for non-target impacts of exotic parasitoid introductions. Pp. 307-324 In: Classical biological Control of Bemisia tabaci in the United States - A review of interagency research and implementation, J. Gould, K. A. Hoelmer and J. Goolsby (Ed.) Springer, Dordtrecht
Surveys to document the presence and species composition of native natural enemies were conducted prior to the introduction of non-indigenous agents against sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci biotype B, in the USA. The greatest diversity of native parasitoid species attacking B. tabaci was reported in Florida, where there was most diversity of invasive whitefly species established in Florida. Only two or three parasitoid species were responsible for the majority of parasitism of B. tabaci within any given region of the USA. The predominant species attacking B. tabaci prior to the introduction of new Palearctic parasitoid species were Eretmocerus tejanus (in Texas), Eretmocerus eremicus (Arizona and California), Eretmocerus sp. (undescribed, southeast USA), Encarsia pergandiella/Enc. tabacivora (southeastern USA and Texas), and Encarsia luteola (southwestern USA). Surveys up to 2001 (California) and 2003 (Texas), showed that the exotic species that were introduced have remained limited to their intended target.

Hoffmeister T.S. (2005). From design to analysis: effective statistical approaches for host range testing Pp. 672-682 In: Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland, 12-16 September, 2005, M.S. Hoddle (Ed.) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington.
The major goal of host range testing in biological control is to minimize the probability that released biological control agents have unwanted effects on populations of non-target hosts. This paper discusses common problems with experimental designs, emphasizes the need to decide on the statistical effect size that is biologically meaningful, and to determine the statistical power of the host range test employed. An overview is given of appropriate statistical approaches for analysing experiments on the host range of potential biological control agents.

Hoffmeister T.S., Babendreier D. and Wajnberg E. (2006). Statistical tools to improve the quality of experiments and data analysis for assessing non-target effects. Pp. 222-240 In: Environmental impact of invertebrates for biological control of arthropods: methods and risk assessment, F. Bigler, D. Babendreier and U. Kuhlmann (Ed.) CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxford.

Hokkanen H.M.T. and Lynch J.M. (1995). Biological Control: Benefits and Risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 304pp.

Hokkanen H.M.T. and Pimentel D. (1989). New associations in biological control: Theory and practice. Canadian Entomologist 121: 829-840

Holt R.D. and Hochberg M.E. (1997). When is biological control evolutionarily stable (or is it)? Ecology 78: 1673-1683.

Holt R.D. and Hochberg M.E. (2001). Indirect interactions, community modules and biological control: a theoretical perspective. Pp. 13-37 In: Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control, E. Wajnberg, J. K. Scott and P. C. Quimby (Ed.) CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon., UK

Hoogendorn M. and Heimpel G.E. (2003). PCR-Based gut content analysis of insect predators: A field study. Pp. 91-97 In: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, R. Van Driesche (Ed.) Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Hope K.J. and Olckers T. (2011). 2011. Gargaphia decoris (Hemiptera: Tingidae) from two South American provenances are equally safe for release against the invasive tree, Solanum mauritianum (Solanaceae). African Entomology 19: 106-112.

Hopper K.R. (1995). Potential impacts on threatened and endangered insect species in the United States from introductions of parasitic Hymenoptera for the control of insect pests. Pp. 64-74 In: Biological Control: Benefits and Risks, H.M.T. Hokkanen and J.M. Lynch (Ed.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Hopper K.R. (1998). Assessing and improving the safety of introductions for biological control. Pp. 501-510 In: Pest Management - Future Challenges: Proceedings of the 6th Australasian Applied Entomological Research Conference, M. Zalucki, R. Drew and G. White (Ed.) The Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Pest Management.

Hopper K.R. (2001). Research needs concerning non-target impacts of biological control introductions. Pp. 39-56 In: Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control, E. Wajnberg, J.K. Scott and P.C. Quimby (Ed.) CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon., UK.

Hopper K.R. and Roush R.T. (1993). Mate finding, dispersal, number released, and the success of biological control introductions. Ecological Entomology 18: 321-331.
Published data were analysed and a mathematical model of the population dynamics of introduced parasitoids were used to investigate the reason for failure of biological control introductions. Allee effects result in small populations becoming extinct because low densities lead to failure to mate, a male-biased sex ratio, and sometimes extinction. For many groups of parasitoids the proportion of populations that established increased with the number of parasitoids per release and the total number released. An analysis of past introductions and the reaction-diffusion model both suggested a threshold of about 1000 insects per release to ensure establishment of introduced parasitoids.

Hopper K.R. and Wajnberg E. (2006). The risks of interbreeding and methods for determination. In press In: Environmental Impact of Arthropod Biological Control: Methods and Risk Assessment, U. Kuhlmann, F. Bigler and D. Babendreier (Ed.) CABI Bioscience, Delemont, Switzerland.

Hopper K.R. and Wajnberg E. (2006). Risks of interbreeding between species used in biological control and native species, and methods for evaluating their occurrence and impact. Pp. 78-97 In: Environmental Impact of Arthropod Biological Control: Methods and Risk Assessment, U. Kuhlmann, F. Bigler and D. Babendreier (Ed.) CABI Bioscience, Delemont, Switzerland.

Hopper K.R., Farias A.M.I., Woolley J.B., Heraty J.M. and Britch S.C. (2005). Genetics: relation of local populations to the whole "species" - implications for host range tests Pp. 665-671 In: Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland, 12-16 September, 2005, M.S. Hoddle (Ed.) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington.
The literature on variation in host specificity among populations and sibling species of parasitoids is reviewed and the evolution and genetics of host specificity in Aphelinus varipes and A. albipodus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) discussed. The take-home lessons for biological control are: parasitoids in what appears to be a single species, but collected from widely different geographical regions or from different host species, may differ greatly in host specificity and thus should be tested separately; and allopatric sibling species with different patterns of host use may introgress if placed in sympatry, which could lead to evolutionary changes in host use.

Howarth F.G. (1983). Classical biological control: panacea or Pandora's box. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 24: 239-244.

Howarth F.G. (1991). Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annual Review of Entomology 36: 489-509.

Howarth F.G. (1992). Environmental impact of species purposefully introduced for biological control of pests. Pacific Science 46: 388-389.

Howarth F.G. (2001). Environmental issues concerning the importation of non-indigenous biological control agents. Pp. 70-99 In: Balancing nature: assessing the impact of importing non-native biological control agents (an international perspective), J.A. Lockwood, F.G. Howarth and M. Purcell (Ed.) Entomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland.

Howarth F.G. and Ramsay G.W. (1991). The conservation of island insects and their habitats. Pp. 71-107 In: The Conservation of Insects and their Habitat, N.M. Collins and J.A. Thomas (Ed.) Academic Press, London.

Hufbauer R.A. (2002). Evidence for nonadaptive radiation in parasitoid virulence following a biological control introduction. Ecological Applications 12: 66-78.

Hufbauer R.A. and Roderick G.K. (2005). Microevolution in biological control: Mechanisms, patterns, and processes. Biological Control 35: 227-239.
The four fundamental processes of microevolution are discussed in relation to how they interact in the context of biological control. The types of experiments that can address questions are discussed and ways of using microevolution to define risks, and enhance efficacy and safety of biological control.

Hunt E.J., Kuhlmann U., Sheppard A., Qin T.-K., Barratt B.I.P., Harrison L., Mason P.G., Parker D. and Goolsby J. (2008). Review of invertebrate biological control agent regulation in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA: recommendations for a harmonised European regulatory system. Journal of Applied Entomology 132: 89-123
In this paper the current regulatory processes operating in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA are reviewed with a view to allowing countries of Europe to benefit from the years of experience that these countries have in IBCA regulation. Recommendations are made based on features of the regulatory processes in each of the four countries that work well and that could be adopted to generate a workable regulatory system in Europe.