Andersen M.C., Ewald M. and Northcott J. (2005).
Risk analysis and management decisions for weed biological control agents: Ecological theory and modelling results.
Biological Control 35: 330-337.
The risks posed by weed biological control agents, and a simple model of herbivorous insect movement and oviposition on two species of host plant, a target invasive plant species and a non-target native species, in simulated landscapes is discussed. The model shows that risks of non-target impacts may be influenced by movement behaviour of biological control agents in heterogeneous landscapes. The authors conclude that such models should be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy of risk assessment for proposed weed biological control agents.
Barratt, B.I.P. (2011).
Assessing safety of biological control introductions.
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 6 1-12
A review summarising the biosafety debate, and characterising the direct and indirect risks of biological control mainly for weeds and insect pests.
Berg G., Grosch R. and Scherwinski K. (2007).
Risk assessment for microbial antagonists: are there effects on non-target organisms?
Gesunde Pflanzen 59: 107-117
Biological control of phytopathogenic fungi using antagonistic microorganisms is potentially environmentally friendly but possible non-target effects on ecologically important soil-microbes need to be considered. Serratia plymuthica HRO-C48 and Streptomyces sp. HRO-71 were applied to control the pathogen Verticillium dahliae on strawberry and potato, and the bacterial strains Pseudomonas trivialis 3Re2-7, P. fluorescens L13-6-12, S. plymuthica 3Re4-18 and the fungal antagonists Trichoderma reesei G1/8 and T. viride G3/2 were introduced to control Rhizoctonia solani on lettuce and potato. After BCA treatment we did not observe any long-term effect on the plant-associated microbes in any tested pathosystem. Therefore, no sustainable risks could be seen for the indigenous micro-organisms.
Bigler F., Babendreier D. and Kuhlmann U. (2006). Environmental impact of arthropod biological control: methods and risk assessment. Pp. 288. CABI Publishing, Delemont, Switzerland.
Bourchier R.S. and McCarty L.S. (1995). Risk assessment of biological control (predators and parasitoids). Bulletin of the Entomological Society of Canada 27: 15.
Coetzee J.A., Byrne M.J., Hill M.P. and Center T.D. (2009).
Should the mirid, Eccritotarsus catarinensis (Heteroptera: Miridae), be considered for release against water hyacinth in the United States of America?
Biocontrol Science & Technology 19: 103-111
Eccritotarsus catarinensis (Carvalho) (Heteroptera: Miridae), damageswater hyacinth on the African continent, and was considered potentially useful in the USA where water hyacinth remains a problem. However, during host specificity trials, it developed on Pontederia cordata L. (pickerelweed), indigenous to the USA, although it did not establish on pickerelweed monocultures during South African field trials. The authors used models developed for South Africa using CLIMEX to predict whether the mirid will establish where water hyacinth and pickerelweed co-occur, but not where pickerelweed occurs in the absence of water hyacinth. The models suggest that the mirid's distribution will be limited by cold winter temperatures and insufficient thermal accumulation to the southern states of the USA, within the main distribution of water hyacinth. Itv was concluded that the benefits outweigh the minimal risk of damage to pickerelweed.
Cory J.S. and Myers J.H. (2000).
Direct and indirect ecological effects of biological control.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 137-139.
The identification of potential impacts by risk and benefit analysis, host specificity testing, the impacts of biopesticides and the evolutionary stability of host range are discussed.
Delfosse E.S. (2005).
Risk and ethics in biological control.
Biological Control 35: 319-329.
Traditional risk analysis techniques are discussed and adapted for biological control. How people perceive risk is the key to understanding their attitude to risk. Criticisms of biological control relating to inadequate post-release monitoring are valid and the ethical responsibilities of scientists in this area are also discussed.
Duan J.J. and Messing R.H. (1996). Risk analysis and decision-making in biological control - A case study with fruit fly parasitoids. Journal of Agriculture and Human Values 13: 1-10.
Duan J.J. and Messing R.H. (1997).
Biological control of fruit flies in Hawaii: factors affecting non-target risk analysis.
Agriculture and Human Values 14: 227-236.
Examples from both classical and augmentative biological control of fruit fly pests (Tephritidae) in Hawaii were used to address non-target risks of fruit fly parasitoids (Braconidae). A lack of host-specificity testing of parasitoids with non-target species has raised concerns about their impact on non-pest fruit flies, including some flies introduced for weed biological control endemic Hawaiian species. For assessing susceptibility of a non-target species to parasitoids, behavioural tests are as important as suitability tests. Experimental factors, such as host-exposure substrate, absence or presence of preferred hosts, and laboratory vs. natural conditions, were shown to affect the results of host-specificity tests and risk analysis.
Fowler, S.V., Paynter, Q., Dodd, S. and Groenteman, R. (2012). How can ecologists help practitioners minimize non-target effects in weed biocontrol? Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 307-310
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.
Hokkanen H.M.T. and Lynch J.M. (1995). Biological Control: Benefits and Risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 304pp.
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.
McCoy E.D. and Frank J.H. (2010).
How should the risk associated with the introduction of biological control agents be estimated?
Agricultural and Forest Entomology 12: (1) 1-8.
Florida has a large burden of invasive species, and pre-release testing for nontarget effects has historically beeen inadequate. The authors suggest some ways in which balancing the risks and associated costs of releasing a biological control agent against the risks and associated costs of not releasing the agent may be improved. The precautionary principle applied to biological control falls short as a guide because it does not provide a prescription for action. Florida case histories illustrate the complexity and urgency related to developing such a prescription.
McFadyen R.E. (2004). Biological control: managing risks or strangling progress? Pp. 78-81 In: 14th Australian Weeds Conference. Weed management: balancing people, planet, profit, B. M. Sindel and S. B. Johnson (Ed.) Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia, 6-9 September 2004
Moeed A., Hickson R. and Barratt B.I.P. (2006). Principles of environmental risk assessment of invertebrates in biological control of arthropods. Pp. 241-253 In: Environmental impact of arthropod biological control: methods and risk assessment., U. Kuhlmann, F. Bigler and D. Babendreier (Ed.) CABI Bioscience, Delemont, Switzerland.
Muller-Scharer, H. and Schaffner, U. (2008).
Classical biological control: exploiting enemy escape to manage plant invasions.
Biological Invasions 10: 859-874
Key issues considered to be important for safe, efficient, and successful classical biological control project are discussed. These include selection of effective control agents, host specificity of the biological control agents, implications of the genetic population structure of the target populations, and potential impact on native food webs. It is recommended that pre-release impact assessment should focus on how to reach high densities of the control agents, and aspects of tolerance to, and compensation of herbivory; more effort should be made to integrate and combine biological control with existing or potential management options.
O'Hanlon P.C., Briese D.T. and Peakall R. (2000).
Know your enemy: the use of molecular ecology in the Onopordum biological control project.
Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds: 281-288
Accurate identification of the target weed(s) for a biological control project is critical to the success of a biological control project, particularly where the weed may comprise different biotypes or be part of a species complex. Molecular ecology provides tools for resolving the identity of weeds. An example is given with a hybrid swarm of Onopordum spp. in Australia. Molecular markers can be used to better understand the phylogeny of plant groups containing the target weed(s).
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.
Sheppard A.W., Hill R.L., DeClerck-Floate R.A., McClay A., Olckers T., Quimby P.C. and Zimmermann H.G. (2003). A global review of risk-benefit-cost analysis for the introduction of classical weed biological control agents against weeds: a crisis in the making? Biocontrol News and Information 24: 91N-108N.
Withers T.M., Carlson C.A. and Gresham B.A. (2013). Statistical tools to interpret risks that arise from rare events in host specificity testing. Biological Control 64: 177-185.
Wright M.G., Hoffmann M.P., Kuhar T.P., Gardner J. and Pitcher S.A. (2005).
Evaluating risks of biological control introductions: A probabilistic risk-assessment approach.
Biological Control 35: 338-347.
Improved quantitative procedures for estimating potential non-target impacts of biological control agents are needed and a probabilistic risk-assessment approach is proposed. The procedure described uses precision trees to estimate risk based on probabilities that biological control agents will demonstrate predictable behaviour under specific conditions, based on their ecological characteristics. Trichogramma ostriniae, an egg parasitoid for Ostrina nubilalis in the US is used as case study to demonstrate the procedure, which potential for widespread use in quantifying non-target risk of biological control introductions prior to introductions being made.
van Lenteren J.C. (1997). Benefits and risks of introducing exotic macro-biological control agents into Europe. Pp. 15-27 In: EPPO/CABI workshop on safety and efficacy of biological control in Europe, I.M. Smith (Ed.) Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.
van Lenteren J.C., Babendreier D., Bigler F. G. B., Hokkanen H.M.T., Kuske S., Loomans A.J.M., Menzler-Hokkanen I., Van Rijn P.C.J., Thomas M.B., Tommasini M.G. and Zeng Q.-Q. (2003).
Environmental risk assessment of exotic natural enemies used in inundative biological control.
BioControl 48: 3-38.
A methodology for risk assessment has been developed within the EU-financed project 'Evaluating Environmental Risks of Biological Control Introductions into Europe [ERBIC]' as a basis for regulation of import and release of exotic natural enemies used in inundative forms of biological control. This paper proposes a general framework of a risk assessment methodology for biological control agents, integrating information on the potential of an agent to establish, its abilities to disperse, its host range, and its direct and indirect effects on non-targets.
van Lenteren J.C., Bale J., Bigler F., Hokkanen H.M.T. and Loomans A.J.M. (2006).
Assessing risks of releasing exotic biological control agents of arthropod pests.
Annual Review of Entomology 51: 609-634.
This review summarizes documented nontarget effects of biological control agents and discusses the development and application of comprehensive and quick-scan environmental risk assessment methods.
Environmental impact modelling
Biological control regulation