Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Some Perspectives on the Risks and Benefits of Biological Control of Invasive Alien Plants in the Management of Natural Ecosystems

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Globally, invasions by alien plants are rapidly increasing in extent and severity, leading to large-scale ecosystem degradation. Weed biological control offers opportunities to arrest or even reverse these trends and, although it is not always effective or appropriate as a management strategy, this practice has an excellent record of safety and many notable successes over two centuries. In recent years, growing concerns about the potential for unintended, non-target damage by biological control agents, and fears about other unpredictable effects on ecosystems, have created an increasingly demanding risk-averse regulatory environment. This development may be counter-productive because it tends to overemphasize potential problems and ignores or underestimates the benefits of weed biological control; it offers no viable alternatives; and it overlooks the inherent risks of a decision not to use biological control. The restoration of badly degraded ecosystems to a former pristine condition is not a realistic objective, but the protection of un-invaded or partial restoration of invaded ecosystems can be achieved safely, at low cost and sustainably through the informed and responsible application of biological control. This practice should therefore be given due consideration when management of invasive alien plants is being planned. This discussion paper provides a perspective on the risks and benefits of classical weed biological control, and it is aimed at assisting environmental managers in their deliberations on whether or not to use this strategy in preference, or as a supplement to other alien invasive plant control practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdoun H (2012) Albert Koebele (1853–1924). Biographical sketch by Hany Abdoun, Archives Intern, California Academy of Sciences. http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/library/special/bios/Koebele.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2013

  • Andres LA, Davis CJ, Harris P, Wapshere AJ (1976) Biological control of weeds. In: Huffaker CB, Messenger PS (eds) Theory and practice of biological control. Academic Press, New York, pp 481–499

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon (2000) The CRC for weed management systems. An impact assessment. Centre for International Economics, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Baranyovits FLC (1978) Cochineal carmine: an ancient dye with a modern role. Endeavour 2:85–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barton J (2012) Predictability of pathogen host range in classical biological control of weeds: an update. Biol Control 57:289–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett FD, Habeck DH (1995) Cactoblastis cactorum: a successful weed control agent in the Caribbean, now a pest in Florida? In: Delfosse ES, Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the VII international symposium on biological control of weeds. 1992. CSIRO, Melbourne, pp 21–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossey B, Schroeder D, Hight SD, Malecki RA (1994) Host specificity and environmental impact of two leaf beetles (Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla) for biological control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Sci 42:134–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs EM, Radtke H, Isaacson DL, Snyder SP (1996) Economic and regional benefits from the biological control of tansy ragwort, Senecio jacobaea, in Oregon. In: Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (eds) Proceedings of the IX international symposium on biological control of weeds. 1996. University of Cape Town, South Africa, pp 489–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs EM, Clark JK, Piper GL, Cofrancesco A (eds) (2004) Biological control of invasive plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (1989) Insect herbivores and plant population dynamics. Annu Rev Entomol 34:531–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Lange WJ, van Wilgen BW (2010) An economic assessment of the contribution of weed biological control to the management of invasive alien plants and to the protection of ecosystem services in South Africa. Biol Invasions 12:4113–4124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit M, Crookes D, van Wilgen BW (2001) Conflicts of interest in environmental management: estimating the costs and benefits of a tree invasion. Biol Invasions 3:167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBach P, Bartlett BR (1964) Methods of colonization, recovery and evaluation. In: DeBach P, Schlinger EI (eds) Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 402–426

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBach P, Schlinger EI (eds) (1964) Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhileepan K, Treviño M, Raghu S (2006) Temporal patterns in incidence and abundance of Aconophora compressa (Hemiptera: Membracidae), a biological control agent for Lantana camara, on target and nontarget plants. Environ Entomol 35:1001–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd AP (1940) The biological campaign against prickly pear. In: Commonwealth Prickly-pear Board Bulletin. Government Printer, Brisbane, Australia

  • Doutt RL (1964) The historical development of biological control. In: DeBach P, Schlinger EI (eds) Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 21–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehler LE (2000) Critical issues related to nontarget effects in classical biological control of insects. In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer, Boston, pp 3–13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel AM (2011) Solution-focused risk assessment: a proposal for the fusion of environmental analysis and action. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 17:754–787

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finney GL, Fisher TW (1964) Culture of entomophagous insects and their hosts. In: DeBach P, Schlinger EI (eds) Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 328–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) (2000) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler SV, Paynter Q, Dodd S, Groenteman R (2012) How can ecologists help practitioners minimise non-target effects in weed biocontrol? J Appl Ecol 49:307–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann A, Louda SM (2001) Rhinocyllus conicus; initial evaluation and subsequent ecological impacts in North America. In: Wajnberg E, Scott JK, Quimby PC (eds) Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 147–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeden RD, Kok LT (1986) Comments on a proposed “new” approach for selecting agents for the biological control of weeds. Can Entomol 118:51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green EE (1912) On the cultivated and wild forms of cochineal insects. J Econ Biol 7:79–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Vilà M, Zamora R, Zobel M (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoddle MS (2004) Restoring balance: using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conserv Biol 18:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann JH, Moran VC, van Wilgen BW (2011) Prospects for biological control of invasive Pinus species (Pinaceae) in South Africa. Afr Entomol 19:393–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokkanen HMT, Pimentel D (1984) New associations in biological control: theory and practice. Can Entomol 121:829–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway JK (1964) Projects in biological control of weeds. In: DeBach P, Schlinger EI (eds) Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 650–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffaker CB (1959) Biological control of weeds with insects. Annu Rev Entomol 4:251–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffaker CB (1964) Fundamentals of biological weed control. In: DeBach P, Schlinger EI (eds) Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 631–649

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffaker CB (1974) Biological control. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffaker CB, Kennett CE (1959) A ten-year study of vegetational changes associated with biological control of Klamath weed. J Range Manage 12:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Impson FAC, Kleinjan CA, Hoffmann JH, Post JA, Wood AR (2011) Biological control of Australian Acacia species and Paraserianthes lophantha (Willd.) Nielsen (Mimosaceae) in South Africa. Afr Entomol 19:186–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julien MH, Griffiths MW (1998) Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. CAB International, Wallingford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein H (2011) A catalogue of the insects, mites and pathogens that have been used or rejected, or are under consideration, for the biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa. Afr Entomol 19:515–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein H, Hill MP, Zachariades C, Zimmermann HG (2011) Regulation and risk assessments for importations and releases of biological control agents against invasive alien plants in South Africa. Afr Entomol 19:488–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lever C (2001) The cane toad: the history and ecology of a successful colonist. Westbury Academic and Scientific Publishing, Otley

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebherr JK, Polhemus DA (1997) Comparisons to the century before: the legacy of R. C. L. Perkins and Fauna Hawaiiensis as the basis for a long-term ecological monitoring program. Pac Sci 51:490–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdale WM, Briese DT, Cullen JM (2001) Risk analysis and weed biological control. In: Wajnberg E, Scott JK, Quimby PC (eds) Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 185–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM (1998) Population growth of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on two species of native thistles in prairie. Environ Entomol 27:834–841

    Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM (2000) Negative ecological effects of the musk thistle biological control agent, Rhinocyllus conicus. In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer, Boston, pp 215–243

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Stiling P (2003) The double-edged sword of biological control in conservation and restoration. Conserv Biol 18:50–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Kendall D, Connor J, Simberloff D (1997) Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277:1088–1090

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Pemberton RW, Johnson MT, Follett PA (2003) Nontarget effects—the Achilles’ heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Annu Rev Entomol 48:365–396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury CP (1915) Plant killing insects: the Indian cochineal. Agric J S Afr 1:537–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch LD, Hokkanen HMT, Babendreier D, Bigler F, Burgio G, Gao Z-H, Kuske S, Loomans A, Menzler-Hokkanen I, Thomas MB, Tommasini G, Waage JK, van Lenteren JC, Zeng Q-Q (2001) Insect biological control and non-target effects: a European perspective. In: Wajnberg E, Scott JK, Quimby PC (eds) Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 99–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire LA, Albright EA (2005) Can behavioural decision theory explain risk-averse fire management decisions? For Ecol Manage 211:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann J (1969) Cactus-feeding insects and mites. Bulletin 256. United States National Museum, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Marohasy J (1998) The design and interpretation of host-specificity tests for weed biological control with particular reference to insect behaviour. Biocontrol News Inf 19:13N–20N

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnachie AJ, De Wit MP, Hill MP, Byrne MJ (2003) Economic evaluation of the successful biological control of Azolla filiculoides in South Africa. Biol Control 28:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnachie M, Cowling RM, van Wilgen BW, McConnachie DA (2012) Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of invasive alien plant control: a case study from South Africa. Biol Conserv 155:128–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy PB (1996) Host specificity and biological pest control. Biosci 46:401–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy PB, Coombs EM (2000) Why things bite back: unintentional consequences of biological control. In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 167–194

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy PB, Cox C, Coombs EM (1991) Successful biological control of ragwort, Senecio jacobaea, by introduced insects in Oregon. Ecol Appl 1:430–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadyen REC (1998) Biological control of weeds. Annu Rev Entomol 43:363–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memmott J (2000) Food webs as a tool for studying nontarget effects in biological control. In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer, Boston, pp 147–163

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D (1936) Biological control of noxious weeds. N Z J Sci Technol 18:581–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney HA (2005) Invasive alien species: the nature of the problem. In: Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA, Neville LE, Schei PJ, Waage JK (eds) Invasive alien species: a new synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore JL, Runge MC, Webber BL, Wilson JRU (2011) Attempt to contain or eradicate? Optimising the management of Australian Acacia invasions in the face of uncertainty. Divers Distrib 17:1047–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2012) Conservation of the fynbos biome in the Cape Floral Region: the role of biological control in the management of invasive alien trees. Biocontrol 57:139–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran VC, Hoffmann JH, Zimmermann HG (2005) Biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: necessity, circumspection, and success. Front Ecol Environ 3:77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan T, Cameron J (1994) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrycki JJ, Elliott NC, Giles KL (2000) Coccinellid introductions: potential for and evaluation of nontarget effects. In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer, Boston, pp 127–145

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Page AR, Lacey KL (2006) Economic impact assessment of Australian weed biological control. Technical Series Report 10, CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, Australia

  • Peacock D, Abbott I (2010) The mongoose in Australia: failed introduction of a biological control agent. Aust J Zool 58:205–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2003) Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents. Trends Ecol Evol 9:456–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pemberton RW (1995) Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in the United States: an immigrant biological control agent or an introduction of the nursery industry? Am Entomol 41:230–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Pemberton RW (2000) Predictable risk to native plants in weed biological control. Oecologia 125:489–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins RCL, Swezey OH (1924) The introduction into Hawaii of insects that attack lantana. Bulletin 19, Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association Experimental Station, Hawaii

  • Pluess T, Vojtĕch J, Pysĕk P, Cannon R, Pergl J, Breukers A, Bacher S (2012) Which factors affect the success or failure of eradication campaigns against alien species? PLoS ONE 7:e48157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Post JA, Kleinjan CA, Hoffmann JH, Impson FAC (2010) Biological control of Acacia cyclops in South Africa: the fundamental and realized host range of Dasineura dielsi (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Biol Control 53:68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt PD, Center TD (2012) Biocontrol without borders: the unintended spread of introduced weed biological control agents. Biocontrol 57:319–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao VP, Ghani MA, Sankaran T, Mathur KC (1971) A review of biological control of insects and other pests in South-East Asia and the Pacific region. Technical Communication 6, Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Slough, UK

  • Rose KE, Louda SM, Rees M (2005) Demographic and evolutionary impacts of native and invasive insect herbivores: a case study with Platte thistle, Cirsium canescens. Ecology 86:453–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose R, Weeks R, Usnick S (2011) Cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum 2011 survey plan for PPQ and State Cooperators. USDA-APHIS Plant Health, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Washington, DC, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Santha CR, Grant WE, Neill WH, Strawn RK (1991) Biological control of aquatic vegetation using grass carp: simulation of alternative strategies. Ecol Model 59:229–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seastedt TR, Hobbs RJ, Suding KN (2008) Management of novel ecosystems: are novel approaches required? Front Ecol Environ 6:547–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard AW, Hill R, DeClerck-Floate RA, McClay A, Olckers T, Quimby PC, Zimmermann HG (2003) A global review of risk-benefit-cost analysis for the introduction of classical biological control agents against weeds: a crisis in the making? Biocontrol News Inf 24:91N–108N

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard AW, van Klinken R, Heard T (2005) Scientific advances in the analysis of direct risks of weed biological control agents to non-target plants. Biol Control 35:215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard AW, Haines M, Thomann T (2006) Native-range research assists risk analysis for non-targets in weed biological control: the cautionary tale of the broom seed beetle. Aust J Entomol 45:292–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2012) Risks of biological control for conservation purposes. Biocontrol 57:263–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Stiling P (1996) Risks of species introduced for biological control. Biol Conserv 78:185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spafford JH, Briese DT (2003) Improving the selection, testing and evaluation of weed biological control agents. In: Proceedings of the CRC for Australian weed management biological control of weeds symposium and workshop, 13 September 2002, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. Technical Series—CRC Australian Weed Manage 2003, 7:1–98

  • Stiling P, Simberloff D (2000) The frequency and strength of nontarget effects of invertebrate biological control agents of plant pests and weeds. In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer, Boston, pp 31–43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Strong DR, Pemberton RW (2001) Food webs, risks of alien enemies and reform of biological control. In: Wajnberg E, Scott JK, Quimby PC (eds) Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 57–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Syrett P, Briese DT, Hoffmann JH (2000) Success in biological control of terrestrial weeds by arthropods. In: Gurr G, Wratten S (eds) Biological control: measures of success. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 189–230

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tryon H (1910) The “Wild cochineal insects”, with reference to its injurious action on prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in India etc. and to its availability for the subjugation of this plant in Queensland and elsewhere. Qld Agric J 25:188–197

    Google Scholar 

  • van Driesche RG (2012) The role of biological control in wildlands. Biocontrol 57:131–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driesche RG, Carruthers RI, Center T, Hoddle MS et al (2010) Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biol Control 54:s2–s33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Klinken RD (2000) Host specificity testing : Why do we do it and how can we do it better. pp 54–68 In: van Driesche RG, Heard TA, McClay AS, Reardon R. (eds) Proc: Host specificity testing of exotic arthropod biological agents: The biological basis for improvement in safety. X Int Symp Biol Control Weeds, July 4-14, 1999, Bozeman, Montana. USDA. Forest Service Bull, FHTET-99-1, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA

  • van Wilgen BW, de Wit MP, Anderson HJ, Le Maitre DC, Kotze IM, Ndala S, Brown B, Rapholo MB (2004) Costs and benefits of biological control of invasive alien plants: case studies from South Africa. S Afr J Sci 100:113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • van Wilgen BW, Dyer C, Hoffmann JH, Ivey P, Le Maitre DC, Richardson DM, Rouget M, Wannenburgh A, Wilson JRU (2011) National-scale strategic approaches for managing introduced plants: insights from Australian acacias in South Africa. Divers Distrib 17:1060–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wilgen BW, Forsyth GG, Le Maitre DC, Wannenburgh A, Kotzé I, van den Berg L, Henderson L (2012) An assessment of the effectiveness of a large, national-scale invasive alien plant control strategy in South Africa. Biol Conserv 148:28–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wyk E, van Wilgen BW (2002) The control of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): a case study approach to compare the costs of three control options in South Africa. Afr J Aquat Sci 27:141–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wajnberg E, Scott JK, Quimby PC (2001) Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wapshere AJ (1974) A strategy for evaluating the safety of organisms for biological weed control. Ann App Biol 77:201–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner KD (2012) Fighting pathophobia: how to construct constructive public engagement with biocontrol for nature without augmenting public fears. Biocontrol 57:307–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson F (1949) The entomological control of weeds. Int Union Biol Sci Series B 5:53–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise RM, van Wilgen BW, Le Maitre DC (2012) Costs, benefits and management options for an invasive alien tree species: the case of mesquite in the Northern Cape. J of Arid Environ 84:80–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann HG, Pérez-Sandi M (2006) The consequences of introducing the cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum, to the Caribbean and beyond. PRONATURA, FMCN, USAID, Mexico City, pp 1–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann HG, Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2001) The renowned cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum: its natural history and threat to native Opuntia floras in Mexico and the United States of America. Divers Distrib 6:259–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann HG, Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2009) Invasive cactus species (Cactaceae). In: Muniappan R, Reddy GV, Raman AA (eds) Biological control of tropical weeds using arthropods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 108–129

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zwölfer H, Harris P (1984) Biology and host specificity of Rhinocyllus conicus (Froel.) (Col., Curculionidae), a successful agent for biological control of the thistle, Cardiuus nutans L. Z Angew Entomol 97:36–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwölfer H, Zimmermann H (2004) The potential of phytophagous insects in restoring invaded ecosystems: examples from biological weed control. Ecol Stud 173:135–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Working for Water programme of the South African Department of Environmental Affairs for their sustained funding. BvW also thanks the DST/NRF Centre for Invasion Biology for support. VCM and JHH greatly appreciate the support of the University of Cape Town.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIR Natural Resources and the Environment, P.O. Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599, South Africa

    B. W. van Wilgen

  2. Department of Botany and Zoology, Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    B. W. van Wilgen

  3. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa

    V. C. Moran & J. H. Hoffmann

Authors
  1. B. W. van Wilgen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. C. Moran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. H. Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. W. van Wilgen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Wilgen, B.W., Moran, V.C. & Hoffmann, J.H. Some Perspectives on the Risks and Benefits of Biological Control of Invasive Alien Plants in the Management of Natural Ecosystems. Environmental Management 52, 531–540 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0099-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0099-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation