BIREA: All references

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

van den Bosch, R., Messenger, P.S. and Gutierrez, A.P. (1982). An introduction to biological control. Intext Educational Publishers, Plenum Press, New York and London. Pp 247

van Driesche R. (2004). Predicting host ranges of parasitoids and predacious insects - what are the issues? Pp. 1-3 In: Assessing host ranges for parasitoids and predators used for classical biological control: a guide to best practice, R. Van Driesche and R. Reardon (Ed.) USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, West Virginia.

van Driesche R. and Reardon R. (2004). Assessing host ranges for parasitoids and predators used for classical biological control: a guide to best practice. Pp. 243. USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, West Virginia.

van Driesche R., Blossey B., Hoddle M., Lyon S. and Reardon R. (2002). Biological control of invasive plants in the Eastern United States. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA Forest Service, Morgantown. CD-ROM
The purpose of this CD-ROM is to provide a reference guide for field workers and land managers concerning the historical and current status of the biological control of invasive plant species in the eastern USA. For each weed: pest status, nature of damage (economic and ecological), geographical distribution, background information (taxonomy, biology, related nativeplants in the eastern USA), history of biological control efforts in the eastern USA, recommendations for future work and references is given. The history of biological control efforts is divided into sections: area of origin of the weed, areas surveyed for natural enemies, natural enemies found, host range tests and results, releases made, and the biology and ecology of natural enemies.

van Driesche R.G. and Bellows T.S. (1996). Biological control. Chapman and Hall, New York. 539 pp.

van Driesche R.G. and Hoddle M. (1997). Should arthropod parasitoids and predators be subject to host range testing when used as biological control agents? Agriculture and Human Values 14: 211-226.
It is questioned whether agents introduced for arthropod biological control should be subjected to host range testing before release, and if so, are methods used for estimating host ranges of herbivorous arthropods appropriate, or are different approaches needed. Current examples in which host range testing has been employed for arthropod biological control are reviewed.

van Driesche R.G. and Hoddle M.S. (2000). Classical arthropod biological control: assessing success, step by step. Pp. 39-75 In: Biological control: Measures of success, G.M. Gurr and S.D. Wratten (Ed.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

van Driesche R.G. and Murray T.J. (2004). Overview of testing schemes and designs used to estimate host ranges. Pp. 68-89 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.

van Driesche R.G. and Murray T.J. (2004). Parameters used in laboratory host range tests. Pp. 56-67 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.

van Driesche R.G., Bellows T.S., Jr., Elkinton J.S., Gould J.R. and Ferro D.N. (1991). The meaning of percentage parasitism revisited: solutions to the problem of accurately estimating total losses from parasitism. Environmental Entomology 20: 1-7.
New analytical methods for obtaining stage-specific estimates of losses from parasitism for life-table, population dynamics, and evaluation studies are needed. Solutions considered include recruitment, stage frequency and death rate analyses. The rationale and methodology are presented and their usefulness for systems of varying types of biologies and sampling constraints is compared.

van Emden H.F. (2003). Conservation biological control: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, R. Van Driesche (Ed.) United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, USA.

van Halteren P. (1997). A code of conduct for the import and release of exotic biological control agents for Europe? Pp. 45-48 In: EPPO/CABI workshop on safety and efficacy of biological control in Europe, I.M. Smith (Ed.) Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.

van Klinken R.D. (2000). Host-specificity testing: why do we do it and how we can do it better. Pp. 54-68 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.

van Klinken R.D. (2006). Biological control of Parkinsonia aculeata: what are we trying to achieve? Australian Journal of Entomology 45: 268-271

van Klinken R.D. and Edwards O.R. (2002). Is host specificity of weed biological control agents likely to evolve rapidly following establishment? Ecology Letters 5: 590-596.

van Klinken R.D. and Raghu S. (2006). A scientific approach to agent selection. Australian Journal of Entomology 45: 253-258

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. (2000). Success in biological control of arthropods by augmentation of natural enemies. Pp. 77-103 In: Measures of Success in Biological Control, G. Gurr and S. D. Wratten (Ed.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

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

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.

van Lenteren J.C., Bigler F., Burgio G., Hokkanen H.M.T. and Thomas M.B. (2002). Risks of importation and release of exotic biological control agents: how to determine host specificity. IOBC/wprs Bulletin 25: 281-284.
Many exotic natural enemies have been imported, mass reared and released as biological control agents for greenhouse pests. Negative effects of these releases for greenhouse biological control have not been reported yet. However, an increasing number of projects will be executed by persons not trained in identification, evaluation and release of biological control agents. A working group of OECD is developing a guidance document for registration requirements of exotic natural enemies. In this paper, the state of affairs concerning these developments is summarized.

van Lenteren J.C., Cock M., Hoffmeister T.S. and Sands D. (2005). Host ranges of natural enemies as an indicator of non-target risk. Pp. 584-592 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 introduction of exotic natural enemies or mass release of biological control agents may lead to unwanted non-target effects, depending upon the host range of the biological control agent and the presence of non-target species in the area of release. Host specificity testing information is probably the most important and the easiest for regulators to use. A framework for stepwise host range testing with levels of increasing complexity that should allow avoidance of over- and underestimation of the host range is presented. The interpretation of data obtained from host range testing is discussed.

van Lenteren J.C., Cock M.J.W., Hoffmeister T.S. and Sands D.P.A. (2006). Host specificity in arthropod biological control, methods for testing and interpreting the data. Pp. 38-63. CAB Publishing, Delemont.

van Lenteren J.C., Loomans A.J.M., Babendreier D. and Bigler F. (2008). Harmonia axyridis: an environmental risk assessment for Northwest Europe. BioControl 53: 37-54
A recently designed, comprehensive risk evaluation method to evaluate the environmental risks of Harmonia axyridis showed that H. axyridis is a potentially risky species for Northwest Europe, because it is able to establish, it has a very wide host range including species from other insect orders and even beyond the class of Insecta. Its activities have resulted in the reduction of populations of native predators in North America, where it may develop as a pest of fruit. Current knowledge would lead to the conclusion that it should not have been released in Northwest Europe. In retrospect, the risks should have been sufficient to reject import and release of this species, but this was ignored. The case of Harmonia releases in Northwest Europe demonstrates an urgent need for harmonized, world-wide regulation of biological control agents, including an information system on risky natural enemy species.

van Veen F.J.F., Morris R.J. and Godfray H.C.J. (2006). Apparent competition, quantitative food webs, and the structure of phytophagous insect communities. Annual Review of Entomology 51: 187-208

Vayssi�res J.F. and Wapshere A.J. (1983). Life-histories and host specificities of Ceutorhynchus geographicus (Goeze) and C. larvatus Schultze (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), potential biological control agents for Echium. Bulletin of Entomological Research 73: 431-440.

Vet L.E.M. and Dicke M. (1992). Ecology of infochemical use by natural enemies in a tritrophic context. Annual Review of Entomology 37: 141-172

Vet L.E.M. and Godfray H.C.J. (2008). Multitrophic interactions and parasitoids behavioural ecology. Pp. 231-253 In: Behavioural ecology of insect parasitoids: from theoretical approaches to field application, E. Wajnberg, C. Bernstein and J.J.M. Van Alphen (Ed.) Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK

Vink C.J. and Phillips C.B. (2007). First record of Sitona discoideus Gyllenhal 1834 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on Norfolk Island. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 34: 283-287.

Vink C.J., Phillips C.B., Mitchell A.D., Winder L.M. and Cane R.P. (2003). Genetic variation in Microctonus aethiopoides (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Biological Control 28: 251-264

Vinson S.B. (1990). How parasitoids deal with the immune system of their host: an overview. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 13: 3-27.

Vinson S.B. (1998). The general host selection behavior of parasitoid Hymenoptera and a comparison of initial strategies utilized by larvaphagous and oophagous species. Biological Control 11: 79-96

Vitou J., Skuhrava M., Skuhravy V., Scott J.K. and Sheppard A.W. (2008). The role of plant phenology in the host specificity of Gephyraulus raphanistri (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) associated with Raphanus spp. (Brassicaceae). European Journal of Entomology 105: 113-119
Recent host records for Gephyraulus raphanistri (Kieffer), a flower-gall midge, indicate that it is restricted to Raphanus raphanistrum throughout Europe. This study tested host specificity of G. raphanistri in the field in Europe by manipulating host plant phenology of actual and potential hosts in the genera Raphanus and Brassica as part of a risk assessment of the insect as a potential biological control agent of R. raphanistrum, one of the most important weeds of crops in Australia. The high field specificity of this gall midge was shown to be driven by the synchrony of oviposition and flower availability, not host physiological incompatibility or behavioural unacceptability. Commercially grown brassicas are not suitable hosts because in the field they differ in flowering phenology from Raphanus raphanistrum. The overlap in the flowering phenology of the crop and weed in Australia makes this insect unsuitable as a biological control agent.

Voegele J.M., Klingauf F. and Engelhardt T. (1989). Studies on the economic returns of biological pest control with a case study from Western Samoa. Gesunde Pflanzen 41: 255-258.