Advertisement

BioControl

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 3–38 | Cite as

Environmental risk assessment of exotic natural enemies used in inundative biological control

  • J.C. van Lenteren
  • D. Babendreier
  • F. Bigler
  • G. Burgio
  • H.M.T. Hokkanen
  • S. Kuske
  • A.J.M. Loomans
  • I. Menzler-Hokkanen
  • P.C.J. van Rijn
  • M.B. Thomas
  • M.G. Tommasini
  • Q.-Q. Zeng
Article

Abstract

In the past 100 years many exotic naturalenemies have been imported, mass reared andreleased as biological control agents. Negativeenvironmental effects of these releases haverarely been reported. The current popularity ofinundative biological control may, however,result in problems, as an increasing number ofactivities will be executed by persons nottrained in identification, evaluation andrelease of biological control agents.Therefore, a methodology for risk assessmenthas been developed within the EU-financedproject `Evaluating Environmental Risks ofBiological Control Introductions into Europe[ERBIC]' as a basis for regulation of importand release of exotic natural enemies used ininundative forms of biological control (i.e.not in `classical biological control' thoughsome of the same principles and approachesapply). This paper proposes a general frameworkof a risk assessment methodology for biologicalcontrol agents, integrating information on thepotential of an agent to establish, itsabilities to disperse, its host range, and itsdirect and indirect effects on non-targets. Ofthese parameters, estimating indirect effectson non-targets will be most difficult, asmyriads of indirect effects may occur whengeneralist natural enemies are introduced. Theparameter `host range' forms a central elementin the whole risk evaluation process, becauselack of host specificity might lead tounacceptable risk if the agent establishes anddisperses widely, whereas, in contrast, amonophagous biological control agent is notexpected to create serious risk even when itestablishes and disperses well. Drawing onpublished information and expert opinion, theproposed risk assessment methodology is appliedto a number of biological control agentscurrently in use. These illustrative casehistories indicate that the risk assessmentmethodology can discriminate between agents,with some species attaining low `risk indices'and others scoring moderate or high. Riskindices should, however, not be seen asabsolute values, but as indicators to which ajudgement can be connected by biologicalcontrol experts for granting permission torelease or not.

direct effects dispersal environmental risk assessment establishment guidelines host specificity indirect effects intraguild predation non-target effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alma, A., C. Arno and C. Vidano, 1987. Particularities on Polynema striaticorne as egg parasite of Stictocephala bisonia (Rhynchota Auchenorryncha). Proceedings 6th Auchenorryncha Meeting, Turin, Italy, –11 September 1987, 59–603.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarado, P., O. Baltà and O. Aloma, 1997. Efficiency of four heteroptera as predators of Aphis gossypii and Macrosiphon euphorbiae (Hom.: Aphididae). Entomophaga 42: 21–226.Google Scholar
  3. Babendreier, D., S. Kuske and F. Bigler, 2002a. Non-target host acceptance and parasitism by Trichogramma brassicae Bezd. (Hym.: Trichogrammatidae) in the laboratory. Biol. Cont. (in press).Google Scholar
  4. Babendreier, D., S. Kuske and F. Bigler, 2002b. Parasitism of non-target butterflies by Trichogramma brassicae Bezd. (Hym.: Trichogrammatidae) under field and cage conditions. Biol. Cont. (in press).Google Scholar
  5. Bale, J.F. and K.F.A. Walters, 2001. Overwintering biology as a guide to the establishment potential of non-native arthropods in the UK. In: D. Atkinson and M. Thorndyke (eds), Animal Developmental Ecology. BIOS Sci. Ltd, Oxford, UK. pp. 34–354.Google Scholar
  6. Barratt, B.I.P., C.M. Ferguson, M.R. McNeil and S.L. Goldson, 1999. Parasitoid host specificity testing to predict field host range. In: T.M. Whithers, L. Barton Browne and J.N. Stanley (eds), Host specificity testing in Australia: Towards Improved Assays for Biological Control. CRC for Tropical Pest Management, Brisbane, Australia, pp 7–83.Google Scholar
  7. Barratt, B.I.P., A.A. Evans, C.M. Ferguson, G.M. Barker, M.R. McNeill and C.B. Phillips, 1997. Laboratory nontarget host range of the introduced parasitoids Microctonus aethiopoides and Microctonus hyperodae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) compared with field parasitism in New Zealand. Environ. Entomol. 26: 69–702.Google Scholar
  8. Bellamy, D.E. and D.N. Byrne, 2001. Effects of gender and mating status on self-directed dispersal by the whitefly parasitoid Eretmocerus eremicus. Ecol. Entomol. 26: 57–577.Google Scholar
  9. Bellows, T.S. and T.W. Fisher (eds), 1999. Handbook of Biological Control. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  10. Bjørnson, S. and C. Schütte, 2003. Pathogens of mass-produced natural enemies and pollinators. In: J.C. van Lenteren (ed), Quality Control and Production Control Agents: Theory and Testing Procedures. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Blossey B., 1995. Host specificity screening of insect biological control agents as part of an environmental risk assessment. In: H.M.T. Hokkanen and J.M. Lynch (eds), Biological Control: Benefits and Risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 8–89.Google Scholar
  12. Briggs, C.J. and T.R. Collier, 2001. Autoparasitism, interference, and parasitoid-pest population dynamics. Theor. Popul. Biol. 60: 3–57.Google Scholar
  13. Brodeur, J. and J.A. Rosenheim, 2000. Intraguild interactions in aphid parasitoids. Ent. Exp. Appl. 97: 9–108.Google Scholar
  14. Brower J.H., 1991. Potential host range and performance of a reportedly monophagous parasitoid, Pteromalus cerealellae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Entomol. News 102: 23–235.Google Scholar
  15. Burgio G., F. Santi and S. Maini, 2002. On intraguild predation and cannibalism in Harmonia axyridis Pallas and Adalia bipunctata L. (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae). Biol. Cont. 24: 11–116.Google Scholar
  16. Cameron, P.J. and G.P. Walker, 1997. Host specificity of Cotesia rubecula and Cotesia plutellae, parasitoids of white butterfly and diamondback moth. Proceedings of the 50th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference, Lincoln University, Canterbury. pp. 23–241.Google Scholar
  17. Canard, M., Y. Semeria and T.R. New, 1984. Biology of Chrysopidae. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, 294 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Charles, J., 2001. Introduction of a parasitoid for mealybug biocontrol: a case study under new environmental legislation. New Zealand Plant Prot. 54: 3–41.Google Scholar
  19. Colfer, R.G. and J.A. Rosenheim,2001. Predation on immature parasitoids and its impact on aphid suppression. Oecologia (Berlin) 126: 29–304.Google Scholar
  20. Coll, M. and M. Guershon, 2002. Omnivory in terrestrial arthropods: mixing plant and prey diets. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47: 26–297.Google Scholar
  21. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2002. Review and consideration of options for the implementation of article 8(h) on alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. Conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Sixth meeting, The Hague, –19 April 2002, Item 22 of the provisional agenda. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/18/Add.1/Rev.1, 26 March 2002.Google Scholar
  22. Croft B.A, L.N. Monetti and P.D. Pratt, 1998. Comparative life histories and predation types: Are Neoseiulus californicus and N. fallacis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) similar type II selective predators of spider mites? Environ. Entomol. 27: 53–538.Google Scholar
  23. Cross, A.E. and J.S. Noyes, 1995. Dossier on Anagyrus kamali Moursi, biological control agent for the pink mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, in Trinidad and Tobago. IIBC, 16 pp. + 1 Annex.Google Scholar
  24. Cross, J.V., M.G. Solomon, D. Babandreier, L. Blommers, M.A. Easterbrook, C.N. Jay, G. Jenser, R.L. Jolly, U. Kuhlmann, R. Lilley, E. Olivella, S. Toepfer and S. Vidal, 1999. Biocontrol of pests of apples and pears in northern and central Europe: 2. Parasitoids. Biocont. Sci. Technol. 9: 27–314.Google Scholar
  25. Cullen, J.M., 1997. Biological control and impacts on non-target species. Proceedings of the 50th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference, Lincoln University, Canterbury, pp. 19–201.Google Scholar
  26. DeClerq, P., 2000. Predaceous Stinkbugs (Pentatomidae: Asopinae). Chapter 32 in: C.W. Schaefer and A.R. Panizzi (eds), Heteroptera of Economic Importance. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida USA. pp. 73–789.Google Scholar
  27. Dijken, M.J. van, M. Kole, J.C. van Lenteren and A.M. Brand, 1986. Host-preference studies with Trichogramma evanescens Westwood (Hym., Trichogrammatidae) for Mamestra brassicae, Pieris brassicae and Pieris rapae. J. Appl. Entomol. 101: 6–85.Google Scholar
  28. Dingle, H., 1996. Migration: The Biology of Life on the Move. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. Ehlers, R.-U. and H.M.T. Hokkanen, 1996. Insect biocontrol with non-endemic entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernema and Heterorhabditis spp.): conclusions and recommendations of a combined OECD and COST workshop on scientific and regulatory policy issues. Biocont. Sci. Technol. 6: 29–302.Google Scholar
  30. Eilenberg, J., A. Hajek and C. Lomer, 2001. Suggestions for unifying the terminology in biological control. BioControl 46: 38–400.Google Scholar
  31. EPPO, 2002. List of biological control agents widely used in the EPPO region: commercially available control agents. EPPO Standard PM 6/3 (in press).Google Scholar
  32. FAO, 1999. Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ISPM Pub. No. 5, Rome, 62 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Follett, P.A., J. Duan, R.H. Messing and V.P. Jones, 2000. Parasitoid drift after biological control introductions: re-examining Pandora's box. Amer. Entomol. 46: 8–94.Google Scholar
  34. Froud, K.J and P.S. Stevens, 1998. Parasitism of Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis and two nontarget thrips by Thripobius semiluteus (Hymenoptera; Eulophidae) in quarantine. In: M.P. Zalucki, R.A.I. Drew and G.G. White (eds), Pest Management - Future Challenges. Volume I. Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Applied Entomological Research Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 29 September-2 October 1998. University of Queensland Printery. pp 52–529.Google Scholar
  35. Funasaki, G.Y., P.Y. Li, L.M. Nakahara, J.W. Beardsley and A.K. Ota, 1988. A review of biological control introductions in Hawaii: 1890 to 1985. Proceedings Hawaiian Entomological Society 28: 29–305.Google Scholar
  36. Gassmann, A. and S.M. Louda, 2001. Rhinocyllus conicus: Initial evaluation and subsequent ecological impacts in North America. In: E. Wajnberg, J.C. Scott and P.C. Quimby (eds), Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. pp. 14–183.Google Scholar
  37. Greathead, D.J., 1976. A Review of Biological Control in Western and Southern Europe. Technical Communication No. 7. CIBC, CAB, Farnham Royal, Slough.Google Scholar
  38. Greathead, D.J., 1995. Benefits and risks of classical biological control. In: H.M.T. Hokkanen and J.M. Lynch (eds), Biological Control: Benefits and Risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 5–63.Google Scholar
  39. Hoddle, M.S., L. Robinson, K. Drescher and J. Jones, 2000. Developmental and reproductive biology of a predatory Franklinothrips n. sp. (Thysanoptera: Aeolothripidae). Biol. Cont. 18: 2–38.Google Scholar
  40. Hoebeke, E.R. and A.G. Wheeler, Jr., 1996. Adventive lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in the Canadian maritime provinces, with new eastern U.S. records of Harmonia quadripunctata. Entomol. News 107: 28–290.Google Scholar
  41. Hokkanen, H.M.T., D. Babendreier, F. Bigler, G. Burgio, S. Kuske, J.C. van Lenteren, A.J.M. Loomans, I. Menzler-Hokkanen, P.C.J. van Rijn, M.B. Thomas, M.G. Tommasini and Q.-Q. Zeng, 2002. Evaluating Environmental Risks of Biological Control Introductions into Europe. Final report of project EU-FAIR5-CT97-3489 ('ERBIC'), Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
  42. Hanski I. and M.C. Singer, 2001. Extinction-colonization dynamics and host-plant choice in butterfly metapopulations. Amer. Nat. 158(4): 34–353.Google Scholar
  43. Heinz, K.M., J.R. Brazzle, M.P. Parrella and C.H. Pickett, 1999. Field evaluations of augmentative releases of Delphastus catalinae (Horn) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) for suppression of Bemisia argentifolii Bellows & Perring (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) infesting cotton. Biol. Cont. 16: 24–251.Google Scholar
  44. Helle, W. and M.W. Sabelis, 1985. Spider Mites: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Vol 1B. World Crop Pest Series, Elsevier Amsterdam. 458 pp.Google Scholar
  45. Hickson, R., A. Moeed and D. Hannah, 2000. HSNO, ERMA and risk management. New Zeal. Sci. Rev. 57: 7–77.Google Scholar
  46. Holt, R.D., 1977. Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theor. Pop. Biol. 12: 19–229.Google Scholar
  47. Holt, R.D. and B.P. Kotler, 1987. Short-term apparent competition. Amer. Nat. 130: 41–430.Google Scholar
  48. Howarth, F.G. 1985. Impacts of alien land arthropods and molluscs on native plants and animals in Hawaii. In: C.P. Stone and J.M. Scott (eds), Hawaii's Terrestrial Ecosystems: Preservation and Management. Honolulu, Univ. Hawaii. pp. 14–178.Google Scholar
  49. Howarth, F.G., 1991. Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36: 48–509.Google Scholar
  50. Howarth, F.G., 2000. Environmental issues concerning the importation of non-indigenous biological control agents. In: J.A. Lockwood, F.G. Howarth and M.F. Purcell (eds) Balancing Nature: Assessing the Impact of Importing Non-Native Biological Control Agents. Thomas Say Publications in Entomology: Proceedings, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland. pp. 7–99.Google Scholar
  51. Husberg, G.-B. and H.M.T. Hokkanen, 2000. Effects of Metathizium anisopliae treatment on the pollen beetle Meligethes aeneus and its parasitoids Phradis morionellus and Diospilus capito. BioControl 46: 26–273.Google Scholar
  52. Kuhlmann, U., P.G. Mason and R.G. Foottit, 2000. Host specificity assessment of European Peristenus Parasitoids for classical biological control of native Lygus species in North America: use of field host surveys to predict natural enemy habitat and host ranges. In: R.G. Van Driesche, T.A. Heard, A.S. McClay and R. Reardon (eds), Proceedings: Host Specificity Resting of Exotic Arthropod Biological Control Agents: The Biological Basis for Improvement in Safety. X International symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, July –14, 1999, Bozeman, Montana. USDA Forest Service Bulletin, FHTET-99-1, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. pp. 8–95.Google Scholar
  53. Lenteren, J.C. van, 1986. Evaluation, mass production, quality control and release of entomophagous insects. In: J.M. Franz (ed), Biological Plant and Health Protection. Series Progress in Zoology 32, Fischer, Stuttgart. pp. 3–56.Google Scholar
  54. Lenteren, J. C. van, 1995. Frequency and consequences of insect invasions. In: H.M.T. Hokkanen and J.M. Lynch (eds), Biological Control: Benefits and Risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
  55. Lenteren, J.C. van, 2000. Measures of Success in Biological Control Of Arthropods By Augmentation Of Natural Enemies. In: S. Wratten and G. Gurr (eds), Measures of Success in Biological Control. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp. 7–103.Google Scholar
  56. Lenteren, J.C. van, 2001. Harvesting safely from biodiversity: natural enemies as sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions for pest control. In: J.A. Lockwood, F.G. Howarth and M.F. Purcell (eds), Balancing Nature: Assessing the Impact of Importing Non-Native Biological Control Agents. Thomas Say Publications in Entomology: Proceedings, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland. pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
  57. Lenteren, J.C. van (ed), 2003. Quality Control and Production Control Agents: Theory and Testing Procedures. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK (in press).Google Scholar
  58. Lenteren, J.C. van and M.G. Tommasini 2003. Mass production, shipment and release of natural enemies. In: J.C. van Lenteren (ed), Quality Control and Production Control Agents: Theory and Testing Procedures. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK (in press).Google Scholar
  59. Lenteren, J.C. van and J. Woets, 1988. Biological and integrated pest control in greenhouses. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 33: 23–269.Google Scholar
  60. Liu, T.X. and P.A. Stansly, 1999. Searching and feeding behavior of Nephaspis oculatus and Delphastus catalinae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), predators of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Environ. Entomol. 28: 90–906.Google Scholar
  61. Lockwood, J.A., F.G. Howarth and M.F. Purcell (eds), 2001. Balancing Nature: Assessing the Impact of Importing Non-Native Biological Control Agents. Thomas Say Publications in Entomology: Proceedings, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
  62. Lomer, C.J., R.P. Bateman, D.L. Johnson, J. Langewald and M. Thomas, 2001. Biological control of locusts and grasshoppers. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46: 66–702.Google Scholar
  63. Lonsdale, W.M., D.T. Briese and J.M. Cullen, 2001. Risk analysis and weed biological control. In: E. Wajnberg, J.K. Scott and P.C. Quimby (eds), Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. pp. 18–210.Google Scholar
  64. Loomans, A.J.M. and G. Vierbergen, 1999. Franklinothrips: perspectives for greenhouse pest control. BulletinIOBC/WPRS 22: 15–160.Google Scholar
  65. Lynch, L.D. and M.B. Thomas, 2000. Nontarget effects in the biocontrol of insects with insects, nematodes and microbial agents: the evidence. Biocont. News Inform. 21: 117N-130N.Google Scholar
  66. Lynch, L.D., H.M.T. Hokkanen, D. Babendreier, F. Bigler, G. Burgio, Z.-H. Gao, S. Kuske, A. Loomans, I. Menzler-Hokkanen, M.B. Thomas, G. Tommasini, J. Waage, J.C. van Lenteren and Q.-Q. Zeng, 2001. Indirect effects in the biological control of arthropods with arthropods. In: E. Wajnberg, J.C. Scott and P.C. Quimby (eds), Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. pp. 9–125.Google Scholar
  67. McCorquodale, D.B., 1998. Adventive lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in the eastern Nova Scotia, Canada. Entomol. News 109: 1–20.Google Scholar
  68. Mols, P.J.M. and J.M. Boers, 2001. Comparison of a Canadian and a Dutch strain of the parasitoid Aphelinus mali (Hald) (Hym., Aphelinidae) for control of woolly apple aphid Eriosoma lanigerum (Haussmann) (Hom, Aphididae) in the Netherlands: a simulation approach. J. Appl. Entomol. 125: 25–262.Google Scholar
  69. Neuenschwander, P. and Markham, 2001. Biological control in Africa and its possible effects on biodiversity. In: E. Wajnberg, J.C. Scott and P.C. Quimby (eds), Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. pp. 12–146.Google Scholar
  70. Nicoli, G. and G. Burgio, 1997. Mediterranean biodiversity as source of new entomophagous species for biological control in protected crop. Bulletin IOBC/WPRS 20: 2–38.Google Scholar
  71. Obrycki, J.J. and T.J. Kring, 1998. Predacious Coccinellidae in biological control. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43: 29–321.Google Scholar
  72. OECD, 2003. Guidance for Registration Requirements for Invertebrates as Biological Control Agents (IBCAs), OECD, Paris (in prep.).Google Scholar
  73. Paton R., 1992. Legislation and its administration in the approval of agents for biological control in Australia, In: E.S. Delfosse and R.R. Scott (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. DSIR/CSIRO, Lincoln, Canterbury. pp. 65–658.Google Scholar
  74. Polis, G.A. and R.D. Holt, 1992. Intraguild predation - the dynamics of complex trophic interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 15–154.Google Scholar
  75. Rabasse, J.M. and M.J. van Steenis, 1999. Biological control of aphids, 1999. In: R. Albajes, M.L. Gullino, J.C. Lenteren van and Y. Elad (eds), Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordecht, The Netherlands. pp. 23–243.Google Scholar
  76. Rijn, P.C.J. van and L.K. Tanigoshi, 1999. The contribution of extrafloral nectar to survival and reproduction of the predatory mite Iphiseius degenerans on Ricinus communis. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 23: 28–296.Google Scholar
  77. Rosen, D. (ed), 1994. Advances in the Study of Aphytis. Intercept, Andover.Google Scholar
  78. Rosenheim, J.A., H.K. Kaya, L.E. Ehler, J.J. Marois and B.A. Jafee, 1995. Intraguild predation among biological control agents: theory and evidence. Biol. Contr. 5: 30–335.Google Scholar
  79. Salerno, G., S. Colazza and F. Bin, 2002. Nezara viridula (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) parasitism by the tachinid fly Trichopoda pennipes ten years after its accidental introduction into Italy from the New World. BioControl 47: 61–624.Google Scholar
  80. Sands, D.P.A., 1988. Guidelines for testing host specificity of agents for biological control of arthropod pests. In: M.P. Zalucki, R.A.I. Drew and G.G. White (eds), Proc. 6th Australian Applied Entomological Conference. Brisbane. pp. 55–560.Google Scholar
  81. Simberloff, D., 1992. Conservation of pristine habitats and unintended effects of biological control. In: W.C. Kaufmann and R.J. Nichols (eds), Selection Criteria and Ecological Consequences of Importing Natural Enemies. Entomological Society of America, Maryland.Google Scholar
  82. Stáry, P., J.P. Lyon and F. Leclant, 1988a. Post-colonisation host range of Lysiphlebus testaceipes in the Mediterranean area (Hymenoptera, Aphidiidae). Acta Ent. Bohem. 85: –11.Google Scholar
  83. Stáry, P., J.P. Lyon and F. Leclant, 1988b. Biocontrol of aphids by the introduced Lysiphlebus testaceipes (Cress.) (Hym., Aphidiidae) in Mediterranean France. J. Appl. Entomol., 105: 7–87.Google Scholar
  84. Sullivan, D.J., 1987. Insect hyperparasitism. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 32: 4–70.Google Scholar
  85. Suverkropp, B.P., 1997. Host-finding behaviour of Trichogramma brassicae in mais. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  86. Tedders, W.L. and P.W. Schaefer, 1994. Release and establishment of Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in the southeastern United States. Entomol. News 105: 22–243.Google Scholar
  87. Tilman, D., 1982. Resources Competition and Community Structure. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Tommasini, M.G., G. Burgio, F. Mazzoni and S. Maini, 2002. Intra-guild predation and cannibalism in Orius insidiosus (Say) and Orius laevigatus (Fieber): laboratory experiments. J. Appl. Entmol. (submitted).Google Scholar
  89. Vänninen, I., J. Tyni-Juslin and H. Hokkanen, 2000. Persistence of augmented Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana in Finnish agricultural soils. BioControl 45: 20–222.Google Scholar
  90. Vestergaard, S., A. Cherry, S. Keller and M. Goettel, 2002. Hyphomycete fungi as microbial control agents. Chapter 4 in: H.M.T. Hokkanen and A.E. Hajek (eds), Environmental Impacts of Microbial Insecticides. Kluwer Academic Publishers (submitted manuscript).Google Scholar
  91. Vet L.E.M. and M. Dicke, 1992. Ecology of infochemical use by natural enemies in a tritrophic context. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 37: 14–172.Google Scholar
  92. Vet, L.E.M., W.J. Lewis and R.T. Cardé, 1995. Parasitoid foraging and learning. In: R.T. Cardé and W.J. Bell (eds), Chemical Ecology of Insects 2. Chapman & Hall, New York. pp. 6–101.Google Scholar
  93. Viggiani, G., 1994. Recent cases of interspecific competition between parasitoids of the family Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Norw. J. Agric. Sci., Supplement 16: 35–359.Google Scholar
  94. Viggiani, G. and D. Gerling, 1994. Host-range increase of indigenous and introduced parasitoids. In: K. Narang, A.C. Bartlett and R.M. Faust (eds), Applications of Genetics to Arthropods. CRC Press, Ft. Lauderdale.Google Scholar
  95. Viggiani, G., U. Bernardo and R. Sasso, 2000. Primi risultati sull'introduzione di Thripobius semiluteus Boucek (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in Italia per il controllo biologico di Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis (Bouché) (Thysanoptera). Atti, Giornate Fitopatologiche, Perugia, 1–20 aprile 2000, 1: 52–526.Google Scholar
  96. Waage, J.K., 1997. Global developments in biological control and the implications for Europe. In: I.M. Smith (ed), EPPO/CABI Workshop on Safety and Efficacy of Biological Control in Europe. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford. pp. –13.Google Scholar
  97. Wapshere, A.J., 1974. A strategy for evaluating the safety of organisms for biological weed control. Ann. Appl. Biol. 77: 20–211.Google Scholar
  98. Wratten, S. and G. Gurr (eds), 2000. Measures of Success in Biological Control. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 448 pp.Google Scholar
  99. Zwölfer H., 1971. The structure and effect of parasite complexes attacking phytophagous host insects. In: P.J. de Boer and G.R. Gradwell (eds), Dynamics of Numbers in Populations. Advanced Study Institute, Oosterbeek, The Netherlands. pp. 40–416.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.C. van Lenteren
    • 1
  • D. Babendreier
    • 2
  • F. Bigler
    • 2
  • G. Burgio
    • 3
  • H.M.T. Hokkanen
    • 4
  • S. Kuske
    • 2
  • A.J.M. Loomans
    • 1
  • I. Menzler-Hokkanen
    • 4
  • P.C.J. van Rijn
    • 5
  • M.B. Thomas
    • 5
  • M.G. Tommasini
    • 6
  • Q.-Q. Zeng
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratory of EntomologyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and AgricultureZürichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Agroenvironmental Sciences and TechnologiesUniversity of BolognaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Applied BiologyUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  5. 5.NERC Centre for Population Biology and CABI BioscienceAscotUK
  6. 6.Centre for Research on Environment and AgricultureCesenaItaly

Personalised recommendations