Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current challenges to the implementation of classical biological control

  • Published:
BioControl Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biological control is considered by many applied ecologists and pest management specialists to be among the safest, most environmentally benign, and most cost-effective methods of pest control available. Yet the practical implementation of projects, especially for classical biocontrol, is replete with challenges large and small; some long standing, and others relatively new. Here we review some of the most pressing current challenges, and provide some background about their foundation and derivation. A common thread that runs throughout this summary is that public education and public support for biological control technology is critical for maintaining the economic, regulatory, and logistical feasibility of this most effective tool for pest management.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Reproduced with permission from (Messing and Wright 2006)

Fig. 2

Reproduced with permission from Warner et al. (2011)

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Abrahamson W, Whitham TG, Price PW (1989) Fads in ecology. BioScience 39(5):321–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alper J (2004) Wicked weed of the west. Smithsonian Magazine, December 2004

  • Bigler F, Babendreier D, Kuhlmann U (2006) Environmental impact of invertebrates for biological control of Arthropods: methods and risk assessment. CABI Publishing, Wallingford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brodeur J, Abram PK, Heimpel GE, Messing RH (2018) Trends in biological control: public interest, international networking and research direction. BioControl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9850-8 (this issue)

  • Caltagirone LE, Doutt RL (1989) The history of the vedalia beetle importation to California and its impact on the development of biological control. Ann Rev Entomol 34:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cock MJW, van Lenteren JC, Brodeur J, Barratt BIP, Bigler F, Bolckmans K, Cônsoli FL, Haas F, Mason PG, Parra JRP (2010) Do new access and benefit sharing procedures under the convention on biological diversity threaten the future of biological control? BioControl 55:199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cock MJW, Murphy ST, Kairo MTK, Thompson E, Murphy RJ, Francis AW (2016) Trends in the classical biological control of insect pests by insects: an update of the BIOCAT database. BioControl 61:349–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cole TJ, Beckage NE, Tan FF, Srinivasan A, Ramaswamy SB (2002) Parasitoid-host endocrine relations: self-reliance or co-optation? Insect Biochem Mol Biol 32:1673–1679

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeBach P (1974) Biological control by natural enemies. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Follett PA, Duan JJ, Jones VP, Messing RH (2000) Parasitoid drift after biocontrol introductions: reexamining Pandora's box. Am Entomol 46:82–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funasaki GY, Lai PY, Nakahara LM, Beardsley JW, Ota AK (1988) A review of biological control introductions in Hawaii: 1890 to 1988. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc 28:105–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne WC, Howarth FG (1985) Conservation status of endemic Hawaiian Lepidoptera. In: Proceedings 3rd Congress on European Lepidoptera, Cambridge, 1982, Societas Europaea Lepidopterologica, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp 74–84

  • Haines WP, Giffin J, Foote D (2004) Rediscovery of five species of Omiodes Guenée (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on Hawaii Island. Bishop Museum Occ Pap 79:45–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins BA, Marino PC (1997) The colonization of native polyphagous insects in North America by exotic parasitoids. Oecologia 112:566–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heimpel GE, Cock MJW (2018) Shifting paradigms in the history of importation biological control. BioControl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9841-9 (this issue)

  • Henneman L, Memmot J (2001) Infiltration of a Hawaiian community by introduced biological control agents. Science 293:1314–1316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth FG (1983) Classical biological control: panacea or Pandora’s Box? P Hawaii Entomol Soc 24:239–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth FG (1991) Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Ann Rev Entomol 36:485–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt E, Kuhlmann U, Sheppard A, Qin TK, Barratt BIP, Harrison L, Mason PG, Parker D, Flanders RV, Goolsby J (2008) Review of invertebrate biological control regulation in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA: recommendations for a harmonized European system. J Appl Entomol 132:89–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood JA (2001) The ethics of “classical” biological control and the value of place. In: Lockwood JA, Howarth FG, Purcell MF (eds) Balancing nature: Assessing the impact of importing non-native biological control agents (An international perspective). Thomas Say Publications in Entomology, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, pp 100–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason PG, Cock MJW, Barratt BIP, Klapwijk J, van Lenteren JC, Brodeur J, Hoelmer KA, Heimpel GE (2018) Best practices for the use and exchange of invertebrate biological control genetic resources relevant for food and agriculture. BioControl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9810-3 (this issue)

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Messing RH (2000) The impact of non-target concerns on the practice of biological control. In: Follett P, Duan J (eds) Non-target effects of biological control. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp 45–55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Messing RH (2009) Classical biological control in a new regulatory environment. In: Hoddle M, (eds) Proceedings of the third international symposium on biological control of arthropods, Christchurch, New Zealand, USDA Forest Service

  • Messing RH, Purcell MF (2001) Regulatory constraints to the practice of biological control in Hawaii. In: Lockwood J, Howarth F, Purcell M (eds) Balancing nature: assessing the impact of importing non-native biological control agents. Thomas Say Publications, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, pp 3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Messing RH, Wright MG (2006) Biological control of invasive species: solution or pollution? Front Ecol Environ 4:132–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messing RH, Roitberg B, Brodeur J (2006) Measuring and predicting indirect impacts of biological control: competition, displacement, and secondary interactions. In: Bigler F, Kuhlmann U, Babendreier D (eds) Environmental impact of invertebrates for biological control of arthropods: methods and risk assessment. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 64–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard RB (1988) The biological control of cassava mealybug in Africa. Am J Agric Econ 72:366–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onaga L (2001) ‘Natural’ pest control can sometimes backfire. https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/aaas/2001-08-16-biocontrol.htm

  • Ortega YK, Pearson DE, McKelvey KS (2004) Effects of exotic plant invasion and introduced biological control agents on native deer mouse populations. Ecol Appl 14:241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach J (2001) Study of wasps imported to Hawaii shows risk of “Biocontrol.” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0821_biocontrol.html

  • Sheppard AW, Hill R, DeClerck-Floate RA, McClay AS, Olckers T, Quimby PC, Zimmermann H (2004) 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 Info 24:91N–108N

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi Z-H, Liu S-S, Li Y-X (2002) Cotesia plutellae parasitizing Plutella xylostella: host-age dependent parasitism and its effect on host development and food consumption. BioControl 47:499–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiling P, Simberloff D (2000) The frequency and strength of non-target effects of invertebrate biological control agents of plant pests and weeds. In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer, Norwell, pp 31–44

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart D (2005) Good bugs gone bad. National Wildlife Magazine. August 1, 2005

  • van Lenteren J, Bolckmans K, Köhl J, Ravensberg W, Urbaneja A. (2018) Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: plenty of new opportunities. BioControl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9801-4 (this issue)

  • Wajnberg E, Scott J, Quimby P (2000) Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner KD, Daane KM, Getz CM, Maurano SP, Calderon S, Powers KA (2011) The decline of public interest agricultural science and the dubious future of crop biological control in California. Agric Hum Values 28:483–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch EW, Shin E, Long J (2013) Potential effects of the Nagoya Protocol on the exchange of non-plant genetic resources for scientific research: actors, paths, and consequences. Ecol Econ 86:136–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston RL, Schwarzländer M, Hinz HL, Day MD, Cock MJW, Julien MH (2014) Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. 5th edn. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, FHTET-2014-XX. p 223

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all contributors to this special issue of BioControl, and express appreciation to Eric Wajnberg, Editor-in-Chief, for his patience, encouragement and guidance. A three-day conference in Engelberg, Switzerland organized by IOBC in 2015 to focus on the state of the art and future directions for the science and practice of biological control served as the catalyst for this Special Issue, and would not have been possible without the generous financial contributions of IOBC, the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) and Koppert Biological Systems.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kauai Agricultural Research Center, College of Tropical Agriculture & Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Kapaa, HI, USA

    Russell Messing

  2. Département de sciences biologiques, Institut de recherche en biologie végétale, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Jacques Brodeur

Authors
  1. Russell Messing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacques Brodeur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Russell Messing.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Eric Wajnberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Messing, R., Brodeur, J. Current challenges to the implementation of classical biological control. BioControl 63, 1–9 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9862-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9862-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation