Search BIREA:

View:   long pages · print version

Annotated bibliography

Post-release studies

Predators

References

Faria L. de B., Umbanhowar J. and McCann K.S. (2008). The long-term and transient implications of multiple predators in biocontrol. Theoretical Ecology 1: 45-53
The authors explore the role of multiple predators on the transient and long-term dynamic outcomes of biological control. Theory indicates that specialist predators ought to promote less stable long-term biological control than generalists, while generalists readily drive suppression of nontarget prey species. However, these results showed that the combination of specialists and generalists acted synergistically to promote safe biological control. The results also suggested that endemic generalist predators, not introduced generalist predators, may often be responsible for the suppression and elimination of nontarget species. This final result demands empirical attention.

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.

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.

Jacas J.A., Urbaneja A. and Vi˝uela E. (2006). History and future of introduction of exotic arthropod biological control agents in Spain: A dilemma? BioControl 51: 1-30.
More success for IBCAs has been achieved with seasonal inoculative releases (50.0% of cases) than for classical biological control programs (17.1% of cases). Concerns about potential non-target effects but post-release evaluation has often been insufficient to draw any conclusions about them. Most of the biological control agents introduced in Spain were parasitoids (n = 53), and the remainder predators (n = 12). Only four parasitoids are considered monophagous. Using information from literature and the internet, the mean number of host species parasitized by parasitoids is 15.2, Therefore, polyphagy appears to be quite common among the IBCAs that have been introduced in Spain.

Obrycki J.J., Elliott N.C. and Giles L.G. (1999). Coccinellid introductions: potential for and evaluation of nontarget effects. Pp. 127-145 In: Nontarget effects of biological control introductions, P.A. Follett and J.J. Duan (Ed.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts, USA.

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.

van Lenteren J.C. (2006). The internet book of biological control http://www.unipa.it/iobc/downlaod/IOBC%20InternetBookBiCoVersion4October2006.pdf