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

Palmer W.A. (2004). Risk analyses of recent cases of non-target attack by potential biocontrol agents in Queensland. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds: 305-309
Examples are given of three insects considered for biocontrol of weeds in Queensland have potential or realized non-target risks associated with them. These examples are discussed within the general framework of risk analysis for introduced biocontrol agents in Australia.

Palmer W.A., Day M.D., Kunjithapatham D., Snow E.L. and Mackey A.P. (2004). Analysis of the non-target attack by the lantana sap-sucking bug, Aconophora compressa , and its implications for biological control in Australia. Pp. 341-344 In: 14th Australian Weeds Conference. Weed management: balancing people, planet, profit, B. M. Sindel and S. B. Johnson (Eds.) Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia, 6-9 September 2004

Paraiso O., Kairo M.T.K., Hight S.D., Leppla N.C., Cuda J.P., Owens M. and Olexa M.T . (2013). Opportunities for improving risk communication during the permitting process for entomophagous biological control agents: a review of current systems. Biocontrol 58: 1-15.
Concerns about potentially irreversible non-target impacts from the importation and release of entomophagous biological control agents (BCAs) have resulted in increasingly stringent national import requirements by National Plant Protection Organizations worldwide. However, there is a divergence of opinions among regulators, researchers, environmentalists, and the general public on ways to appropriately manage associated risks. Implementation of a comprehensive and effective risk communication process might narrow the opinion gaps. Results from a comprehensive survey cnducted in the United States were used to describe communication habits of stakeholders involved in biological control and identify areas that are fundamental in an efficient process. In addition, this study critically reviews risk communication practices and how phytosanitary decisions are communicated in the permitting systems for entomophagous BCAs of several countries to identify risk communication tools used in an effective risk communication framework. The following barriers to efficient risk communication were identified: absence of a formalized risk communication process, undefined risk communication goals and target audiences, lack of credibility and objectivity of information sources, inefficiency of mode of distribution of messages, insufficient public participation, and lack of transparency of decision making processes. This paper suggests the creation and/or enhancement of modes of distribution of risk messages to increase coverage, understanding, and guidance. For instance, messages should be presented in different formats such as internet, brochures, and newspapers. Surveys, public meetings, and trainings/workshops are tools that can be used to characterize stakeholders� diversity and develop risk messages specific to the targeted audience. Implementation of a participatory decision making process will increase stakeholder involvement and trust in the risk management plan. Development of practical mechanisms, such as public hearings will increase all stakeholders� involvement in the risk assessment process. A clear framework describing how public comments will be incorporated in the decision making process should be implemented. Finally, to ensure a streamlined risk communication process, there must be consistency in the messages disseminated by federal, state, and local agencies.

Parker I.M., Simberloff D., Lonsdale W.M., Goodell K., Wonham M., Kareiva P.M., Williamson M.H., Von Holle B., Moyle P.B., Byers J.E. and Goldwasser L. (1999). Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological Invasions 1: 3-19.

Parry D. (2009). Beyond Pandora's Box: quantitatively evaluating non-target effects of parasitoids in classical biological control. Biological Invasions 11: 47-58
Howarth's paper (Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc 24:239-244, 1983) "Classical biological control: Panacea or Pandora's Box" raised awareness of the relative safety of introductions for classical biological control. Here, the author examines the potential for non-target effects among insect parasitoids. In response to the need for quantitative studies, three different techniques, quantitative food webs, life table analysis, and experimental populations are explored along with three approaches to ascertaining the strength of competitive interactions between native and introduced parasitoids.

Paton (1992). Legislation and its administration in the approval of agents for biological control in Australia. In: Proceedings of the VIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, E.S. Delfosse and R.R. Scott (Ed.)

Paynter Q., Martin N., Berry J., Hona S., Peterson P., Gourlay A.H., Wilson-Davey J., Smith L., Winks C. and Fowler S.V. (2008). Non-target impacts of Phytomyza vitalbae a biological control agent of the European weed Clematis vitalba in New Zealand. Biological Control 44: 248-258
The agromyzid leaf-mining fly Phytomyza vitalbae, which was introduced into New Zealand as a biological control agent of the invasive vine Clematis vitalba L. (old man's beard; Ranunculaceae) has been recorded attacking two native Clematis species in New Zealand, particularly C. foetida but at lower incidence and levels of attack than the target. No-choice starvation tests indicated that non-target attack was a "spillover" effect that is unlikely to have a major detrimental impact on the non-target plants. Our results show that the prevalence of spillover onto non-target species was underestimated in pre-release testing and we discuss how host-range testing might be improved in the light of these findings.

Paynter Q., Waipara N.W., Peterson P.G., Hona S.R., Fowler S.V., Gianotti A.F. and Wilkie P. (2006). The impact of two introduced biocontrol agents, Phytomyza vitalbae and Phoma clematidina, on Clematis vitalba in New Zealand. Biological Control 36: 350-357

Paynter Q.E., Fowler S.V., Gourlay A.H., Haines M.L., Harman H.M., Hona S.R., Peterson P.G., Smith L.A., Wilson-Davey, J.R.A., Winks, C.J. and Withers T.M. (2004). Safety in New Zealand Weed Biocontrol: A nationwide survey for impacts on non-target plants. New Zealand Plant Protection 57: 102-107

Pearson D.E. and Callaway R.M. (2005). Indirect nontarget effects of host-specific biological control agents: Implications for biological control. Biological Control 35: 288-298.
Recent case studies of indirect nontarget effects of biological control agents were evaluated in the context of theoretical work in community ecology. Although difficult to predict, all indirect nontarget effects of host specific biological control agents derived from the nature and strength of the interaction between the biological control agent and the pest. It was concluded that safeguarding against indirect nontarget effects of host-specific biological control agents depends on host specific and efficacious biological control agents.

Pemberton R.W. (2000). Predictable risk to native plants in weed biological control. Oecologia 125: 489-494.

Pemberton R.W. (2004). Biological control safety within temporal and cultural contexts. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds: 245-246
An analysis of non-target plant use resulting from natural enemy introductions in continental USA, Hawaii and the Caribbean between 1902 and 1994 was carried out. Fourteen of the 117 agents introduced have adopted 45 native plants as developmental hosts. All but one of these plants are closely related to the target weeds. The non-target use was predictable, based on known host ranges of the insects in their native areas and host-specificity testing. The single case in which a plant unrelated to the target weed was adopted involves the lantana lacebug (Teleonemia scrupulosa introduced to Hawaii in 1902), which was thought to be a lantana specialist but apparently is not. Almost all insects adopting native plants were introduced between 1902 and 1972 when 20% (13/63) of the agents introduced have adopted native plants compared with only 1.8% (1/54) of the agents introduced between 1973 and 2002. None of the 117 introduced natural enemies have adopted agricultural plants.

Pennacchio F. and Strand M.R. (2006). Evolution of developmental strategies in parasitic Hymenoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 51: 233-258

Perdikis, D., Alomar, O. (2011). Heteropteran predators and their role in biological control in agroecosystems. Biological Control Special Issue: 59: 1-67
This issue contains 7 papers focusing on the importance of Heteropteran predators as biological control agents. The ecology and risks and benefits of using these predators in insect pest and weed control are also discussed.

Phillips C.B. (1996). Intraspecific variation in Microctonus hyperodae and M. aethiopoides (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); significance for their use as biological control agents. PhD Thesis, Department of Entomology, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand. 169 pp.

Phillips C.B., Cane R.P., Mee J., Chapman H.M., Hoelmer K.A. and Coutinot D. (2002). Intraspecific variation in the ability of Microctonus aethiopoides (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to parasitise Sitona lepidus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 45: 295-303.
An experiment was conducted to compare the suitability of French and New Zealand Sitona lepidus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) as hosts for a French biotype of Microctonus aethiopoides (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) Loan . This provided no evidence of S. lepidus intraspecific variation in host suitability for parasitism. However, amplification of inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) regions of M. aethiopoides DNA demonstrated clear genetic differences between French and New Zealand M. aethiopoides. It was concluded that intraspecific variation in the ability of M. aethiopoides to evade the immune response of S. lepidus is the reason for the low levels of parasitism observed in New Zealand compared with Europe.

Phillips C.B., Iline I.L., Vink C.J., Winder L.M. and McNeill M.R. (2006). Methods to distinguish between the Microctonus aethiopoides strains that parasitise Sitona lepidus and Sitona discoideus. New Zealand Plant Protection 59: 1-6.

Phillips C.B., Proffitt J.R. and Goldson S.L. (1998). Potential to enhance the efficacy of Microctonus hyperodae Loan. Proceedings of the New Zealand Plant Protection Conference 51: 16-22.

Phillips C.B., Vink C.J., Blanchet A. and Hoelmer K.A. (2008). Hosts are more important than destinations: what genetic variation in Microctonus aethiopoides (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) means for foreign exploration for natural enemies. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49: 467-476
Nucleotide sequence data were generated from the gene regions COI, 16S, and arginine kinase to assess genetic variation within the parasitoid, Microctonus aethiopoides, reared from Sitona discoideus, S. hispidulus, and Hypera posticafrom locations in France. The results combined with previously published data from 14 countries show that M. aethiopoides genetic variation is more strongly correlated with host taxon than with sampling location. The results suggested that success rates and environmental safety in biological control would be improved by ensuring that parasitoids collected in the native range are reared from the same host species as the one being targeted for control in the region of introduction.

Pimentel D. (1980). Environmental risks associated with biological control. Ecological Bulletin 31: 11-24.
A review of the environmental effects of classical biological control programmes against pests and weeds under the headings: beneficial aspects of biological control; negative impacts of classical biological control; solutions; and future directions. Deals mainly with insects and other arthropods used as biological control agents, but microorganisms, molluscs and vertebrates are also included.

Pimentel D. (1995). Biotechnology: environmental impacts of introducing crops and biocontrol agents in North American agriculture. Pp. 13-29 In: Biological Control: Benefits and Risks, H.M.T. Hokkanen and J.M. Lynch (Ed.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Pimentel D., Glenister C., Fast S. and Gallahan D. (1984). Environmental risks of biological pest controls. Oikos 42: 283-290.

Polis G.A. and Strong D.R. (1996). Food web complexity and community dynamics. The American Naturalist 147: 813-846.

Porter S.D., Valles S.M., Davis T.S., Briano J.A., Calcaterra L.A., Oi D.H. and Jenkins A. (2007). Host specificity of the microsporidian pathogen Vairimorpha invictae at five field sites with infected Solenopsis invicta fire ant colonies in northern Argentina. Florida Entomologist 90: 447-452
The microsporidian pathogen Vairimorpha invictae was evaluated for release in the United States as a biological control agent for imported fire ants. The host range of this pathogen was examined showing that Solenopsis invicta Buren fire ant colonies had high levels of infection (28-83%) at one site, but none were found in ants at other sites. The results of this study indicate that, in its native South American range, V. invictae is specific to Solenopsis fire ants.

Poulton J., Markwick N.P., Ward V.K. and Young V. (2007). Host range testing of a nucleopolyhedrovirus of the lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana. New Zealand Plant Protection 60: 26-32
Epiphyas postvittana nucleopolyhedrovirus (EppoNPV) has potential as a biopesticide for control of lightbrown apple moth and non-target impacts were investigated. Eight non-target insect species from one hymenopteran and five lepidopteran families were inoculated with EppoNPV. Larval survival, growth rates, pupation and pupal weights were measured and larvae examined for virus. Few viral infections were found, growth and survival were compromised in virus-fed individuals in only one species, Tyria jacobaeae, where the majority of larvae had high microsporidal infections. EppoNPV polyhedra were found in only one larva, suggesting a very low likelihood of field infectivity.

Powell J.A. and Logan J.A. (2005). Insect seasonality: circle map analysis of temperature-driven life cycles. Theoretical Population Biology 67: 161-179.

Pratt P.D., Rayamajhi M.B., Center T.D., Tipping P.W. and Wheeler G.S. (2009). The ecological host range of an intentionally introduced herbivore: A comparison of predicted versus actual host use. Biological Control 49: 146-153.

Price P.W. (2000). Host plant resource quality, insect herbivores and biocontrol. Pp. 583-590 In: Proceedings of the Xth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, N.R. Spencer (Ed.) Montana State University, Bozeman Montana, USA

Purcell M.F., Duan J.J. and Messing R.H. (1997). Response of three hymenopteran parasitoids for fruit fly control to a gall-forming tephritid, Procecidochares alani (Diptera: Tephritidae). Biological Control 9: 193-200.