Indirect nontarget effects of host-specific biological control agents: Implications for biological control

被引:87
作者
Pearson, DE
Callaway, RM
机构
[1] USDA, Forest Serv, Missoula, MT 59807 USA
[2] Univ Montana, Div Biol Sci, Missoula, MT 59812 USA
关键词
biological control; nontarget effects; host specificity; indirect effects; efficacy; natural enemies; multiple release approach; lottery approach; Peromyscus maniculatus; Centaurea maculosa; Agapeta zoegana;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.05.011
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Classical biological control of weeds currently operates under the assumption that biological control agents are safe (i.e., low risk) if they do not directly attack nontarget species. However, recent studies indicate that even highly host-specific biological control agents can impact nontarget species through indirect effects. This finding has profound implications for biological control. To better understand the causes of these interactions and their implications, we evaluate recent case studies of indirect nontarget effects of biological control agents in the context of theoretical work in community ecology. We find that although particular indirect nontarget effects are extremely difficult to predict, all indirect nontarget effects of host specific biological control agents derive from the nature and strength of the interaction between the biological control agent and the pest. Additionally, recent theoretical work suggests that the degree of impact of a biological control agent on nontarget species is proportional to the agent's abundance, which will be highest for moderately successful control agents. Therefore, the key to safeguarding against indirect nontarget effects of host-specific biological control agents is to ensure the biological control agents are not only host specific, but also efficacious. Biological control agents that greatly reduce their target species while remaining host-specific will reduce their own populations through density-dependent feedbacks that minimize risks to nontarget species. Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:288 / 298
页数:11
相关论文
共 99 条
[1]  
Allee W.G., 1949, PRINCIPLES ANIMAL EC
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1996, Biological Control
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2001, Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control
[4]  
[Anonymous], [No title captured]
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2000, Biological control: measures of success
[6]  
[Anonymous], BIOL INVASIONS
[7]  
Blossey B., 1996, Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on biological control of weeds, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 19-26 January 1996., P351
[8]   Weed biological control: applying science to solve seemingly intractable problems [J].
Briese, DT .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY, 2004, 43 :304-317
[9]   A strategy for the biological control of onopordum spp. thistles in South-Eastern Australia [J].
Briese, DT ;
Pettit, WJ ;
Swirepik, A ;
Walker, A .
BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2002, 12 (01) :121-136
[10]  
BRIESE DT, 2003, CRC TECHNICAL SERIES, V7, P23