Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Classical biological control: exploiting enemy escape to manage plant invasions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Practitioners of classical biological control of invasive weeds are confronted with a dual expectation: to achieve successful control of plant invaders and to avoid damage to nontarget plants and adverse indirect effects. In this paper we discuss key issues that we consider to be crucial for a safe, efficient, and successful classical biological control project, and that have also caused some recent controversy. These include selection of effective control agents, host specificity of the biological control agents, implications of the genetic population structure of the target populations, and potential impact on native food webs. With regard to improving the success rate of biological control of plant invaders, we first emphasize the importance of a clear a priori definition of success and a more ecosystem-based approach to better document both negative effects of the invasive plant as well as potential positive and negative effects of introducing biological control agents. Secondly, pre-release impact assessment could be improved by better focusing on how to reach high densities of the control agents and by including tolerance to and compensation of herbivory. Thirdly, we advocate a reinforced effort to integrate and combine biological control in combination with existing or potential management options. Finally, we propose various ecological and evolutionary hypotheses in the framework of our topic to document that biological control programmes against plant invaders also offer a great opportunity to gain new insights into basic processes in ecology and evolution.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal AA (2000) Host–range evolution: adaptation and trade-offs in fitness of mites on alternative hosts. Ecology 81:500–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpert P, Bone E, Holzapfel C (2000) Invasiveness, invasibility and the role of environmental stress in the spread of non-native plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 3:52–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amsellem L, Noyer JL, Le Bourgeois T, Hossaert-McKey M (2000) Comparison of genetic diversity of the invasive weed Rubus alceifolius Poir. (Rosaceae) in its native range and in areas of introduction, using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers. Mol Ecol 9:443–455

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres DR, Strong DR (2001) Origin and genetic diversity of Spartina anglica (Poaceae) using nuclear DNA markers. Am J Bot 88:1863–1867

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett SCH, Husband BC (1990) The genetics of plant migration and colonization. In: Brown AHD, Clegg MT, Kahler AL, Weir BS (eds) Plant population genetics. Breeding, and Genetic Resources, Sinauer, pp 254–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernays EA (2000) Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annu Rev Entomol 46:703–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossey B (1995) Host specificity screening of insect biological weed control agent as part of an environmental risk assessment. In: Hokkanen HMT, Lynch JM (eds) Biological control: benefits and risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 53–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossey B, Nötzold R (1995) Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. J Ecol 83:887–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossdorf O, Schröder S, Prati D, Auge H (2004) Palatability and tolerance to simulated herbivory in native and introduced populations of Alliaria petiolata (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot: 856–862

  • Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite RW, Lonsdale WM, Estbergs JA (1989) Alien vegetation and native biota in tropical Australia: the impact of Mimosa pigra. Biol Conserv 48:189–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briese DT (1996) Phylogeny: can it help us to understand host-choice by biological control agents? In: Moran VC, Hoffman JH (eds) Proceedings of the IX international symposium on biological control of weeds. University of Cape Town, Cape Town, pp 63–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Briese DT (2000) Classical biological control. In: Sindel BM (ed) Australian weed management systems. RG & FJ Richardson, Melbourne, pp 161–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Briese DT (2003) The centrifugal phylogenetic method used to select plants for host-specificity testing of weed biological control agents: can and should it be modernised? In: Jacob HS, Briese DT (eds) Improving the selection, testing and evaluation of weed biological control agents. CRC Technical Series, Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, pp 23–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Briese DT (2004) Weed biological control: applying science to solve seemingly intractable problems. Aust J Entomol 43:304–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briese DT (2005) Translating host-specificity test results into the real world: the need to harmonize the yin and yang of current testing procedures. Biol Control 35:208–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley YM, Rees M, Paynter Q, Lonsdale WM (2004) Modelling integrated weed management of an invasive shrub in tropical Australia. J Appl Ecol 41:547–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley YM, Rees M, Sheppard AW, Smyth MJ (2005) Stable coexistence of an invasive plant and biocontrol agent: a parameterized coupled plant–herbivore model. J Appl Ecol 42:70–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdon JJ, Marshall DR (1981) Biological control and the reproductive mode of weeds. J Appl Ecol 18:649–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway RM, Maron JL (2006) What have exotic plant invasions taught us over the past 20 years? Trends Ecol Evol 21:369–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cappuccino N, Carpenter D (2005) Invasive exotic plants suffer less herbivory than non-invasive exotic plants. Biol Lett 1:435–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chaboudez P, Sheppard AW (1995) Are particular weeds more amenable to biological control? A reanalysis of mode of reproduction and life history. In: Delfosse ES, Scott RR (eds) VIII International symposium on biological control of weeds. DSIR/CSIRO, Melbourne, Lincoln University, Canterbury, pp 95–102

  • Cory JS, Myers JH (2000) Direct and indirect ecological effects of biological control. Trends Ecol Evol 15:137–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courtney SP, Chen GK, Gardner A (1989) A general model for individual host selection. Oikos 55:55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (1997) Plant ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, 717 pp

  • d’Antonio CM, Hobbie SE (2005) Plant species effects on ecosystem processes. In: Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Gaines SD (eds) Species invasions: insights into ecology, evolution and biogeography. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 65–84

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLoach CJ (1995) Progress and problems in introductory biological control of native weeds in the United States In: Delfosse ES and Scott RR (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on biological control of weeds. CSIRO Publishing, pp 111–112

  • Dennill GB, Donnelly D (1991) Biological control of Acacia longifolia and related weed species (Fabaceae) in South Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 37:115–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7043–7050

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Finckh MR, Wolfe MS (1997) The use of biodiversity to restrict plant disease and some consequences for farmers and society. In: Jackson LE (ed) Ecology in agriculture. Academic, New York, pp 203–237

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz RS, Moulia C, Newcombe G (1999) Resistance of hybrid plants and animals to herbivores, pathogens, and parasites. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:565–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry JD (1990) Trade-offs in fitness on different hosts: evidence from a selection experiment with a phytophagous mite. Am Nat 136:569–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma DJ (2000) Potential evolution of host range in herbivorous insects. In: van Driesche R, Heard TA, McClay AS and Reardon R (eds) Host-specificity testing of exotic arthropod biological control agents—the biological basis for improvement in safety. USDA Forestry Service Publication FHTET-99-1, pp 42–53

  • Garrett KA, Mundt CC (1999) Epidemiology in mixed host populations. Phytopathology 89:984–990

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskin JF, Schaal BA (2002) Hybrid Tamarix widespread in U.S. invasion and undetected in native Asian range. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:11256–11259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann A (1996) Classical biological control of weeds with insects: a case for emphasizing agent demography. In: Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (eds) Proceedings of the IX international symposium on biological control of weeds. University of Cape Town, Cape Town, pp 19–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeden RD (1983) Critique and revision of Harris’ scoring system for selection of insect agents in biological control of weeds. Prot Ecol 5:287–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Goolsby J, Palmer B, van Klinken RD (2006) Maximizing the contribution of native-range studies towards the identification and prioritization of weed biocontrol agents. Aust J Entomol 45:276–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grace BS, Müller-Schärer H (2002) Biological control of Senecio vulgaris in carrots (Daucus carota) with the rust fungus Puccinia Lagenophorae. Basic Appl Ecol 4:375–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handley RJ, Steinger T, Treies UA, Müller-Schärer H (2008) Testing the evolution if increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis in a novel framework. Ecology 89:407–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris P (1973) The selection of effective agents for the biological control of weeds. Can Entomol 105:1495–1503

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris P (1985) Biological control of weeds: bureaucrats, botanists, beekeepers, and other bottlenecks. In: Delfosse ES (ed) Proc. VI int. symp biol. contr. weeds. agric. Can, Vancouver, Canada, pp 3–12

  • Harris P, Zwölfer H (1968) Screening of phytophagous insects for biological control of weeds. Can Entomol 100:295–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes CV, Sullivan JJ (2001) The impact of herbivory on plants in different resource conditions: a meta-analysis. Ecology 82:2045–2058

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann JH, Impson FAC, Moran VC, Donnelly D (2002) Biological control of invasive golden wattle trees (Acacia pycnantha) by a gall wasp, Trichilogaster sp. (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), in South Africa. Biol Control 25:64–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes PM, Cowling RM (1997) The effects of invasion by Acacia saligna on the guild structure and regeneration capabilities of South African fynbos shrublands. J Appl Ecol 34:317–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. J Appl Ecol 43:835–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE, Bremner ET (2006) Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal. J Appl Ecol 43:43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huwer RK, Neave MJ, Dowling PM, Lonsdale WM, Sheppard AW, Briese DT, Michalk DL (2002) Integrated weed management (IWM) in perennial pasture and grazing management, herbicide strategies and biological control. In: Spafford Jacob H, Dodd J, Moore JH (eds) Proceedings of the 13th Australian weeds conference. Plant Protection Society of WA, Perth, pp 727–730

    Google Scholar 

  • Impson FAC, Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2004) Biological control of an alien tree, Acacia cyclops, in South Africa: impact and dispersal of a seed-feeding weevil, Melanterius servulus. Biol Control 29:375–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalischuk AR, Bourchier RS, McClay AS (2004) Post hoc assessment of an operational biocontrol program: efficacy of the flea beetle Aphthona lacertosa Rosenhauer (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera), an introduced biocontrol agent for leafy spurge. Biol Control 29:418–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karowe DN (1990) Predicting host range evolution: colonization of Coronilla varia by Colias philodice (Lep., Pieridae). Evolution 44:1637–1647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol Evol 17:386–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, Vila M, d’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:775–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Arnett AE (2000) Predicting non-target ecological effects of biological control agents: evidence from Rhinocyllus conicus. In: Spencer NR (ed) Proceedings of the X international symposium on the biological control of weeds. Agricultural Research Service, Department of Agriculture, Bozeman, pp 551–567

  • 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maron JL, Gardner SN (2000) Consumer pressure, seed versus safe-site limitation, and plant population dynamics. Oecologia 124:260–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClay AS, Balciunas JK (2005) The role of pre-release efficacy assessment in selecting classical biological control agents for weeds-applying the Anna Karenina principle. Biol Control 35:197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy PB, Rudd NT, Cox CS, Huso M (1993) Disturbance, competition, and herbivory effects on ragwort Senecio jacobaea populations. Ecol Monogr 63:55–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadyen REC (1998) Biological control of weeds. Annu Rev Entomol 43:369–393

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Müller H (1988) An experimental and phytocentric approach for selecting effective biological control agents: insects on spotted and diffuse knapweed, Centaurea maculosa and C. diffusa (Compositae). In: Delfosse ES (ed) VII International symposium of biological control of weeds. Ist. Sper. Patol. Veg. (MAF), Rome, pp 181–190

  • Müller H (1991) The impact of root herbivory as a function of plant density and competition: survival, growth and fecundity of Centaurea maculosa (Compositae) in field plots. J Appl Ecol 28:759–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schärer H (2002) Principles of integrated pest management with emphasis on weeds. In: Pimentel D (ed) Encyclopedia of pest management. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schärer H, Frantzen J (1996) An emerging system management approach for biological weed control in crops: Senecio vulgaris as a research model. Weed Res 36:483–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schärer H, Rieger S (1998) Epidemic spread of the rust fungus Puccinia lagenophorae and its impact on the competitive ability of Senecio vulgaris in celeriac during early development. Biocontrol Sci Technol 8:59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schärer H, Steinger T (2004) Predicting evolutionary change in invasive, exotic plants and its consequences for plant-herbivore interactions. In: Ehler LE, Sforza R, Mateille T (eds) Genetics, evolution and biological control. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 137–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schärer H, Scheepens PC, Greaves MP (2000) Biological control of weeds in European crops: recent achievements and future work. Weed Res 40:83–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schärer H, Schaffner U, Steinger T (2004) Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol Evol 19:417–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myers JH (1985) How many insect species are necessary for successful biocontrol of weeds? In: Delfosse ES (ed) Proceedings of the VI international symposium on biological control of weeds. Agriculture Canada, Vancouver, pp 77–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers JH, Bazely DR (2003) Ecology and control of introduced plants. Cambridge University Press

  • Neuffer B, Hurka H (1999) Colonization history and introduction dynamics of Capsella bursa-pastoris (Brassicaceae) in North America: isozymes and quantitative traits. Mol Ecol 8:1667–1681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Novak SJ, Mack RN (1993) Genetic variation in Bromus tectorum (Poaceae)—comparison between native and introduced populations. Heredity 71:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page AR, Lacey KL (2006) Economic impact assessment of Australian weed biological control. CRC Weed Management, Technical Series No 10, p 164

  • Paynter Q (2005) Evaluating the impact of a biological control agent Carmenta mimosa on the woody wetland weed Mimosa pigra in Australia. J Appl Ecol 42:1054–1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2003) Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents. Trends Ecol Evol 18:456–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson DE, McKelvey KS, Ruggiero LF (2000) Non-target effects of an introduced biological control agent on deer mouse ecology. Oecologia 122:121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelser PB, Gravendeel B, van der Meijden R (2002) Tackling speciose genera: species composition and phylogenetic position of Senecio sect. jacobaea (Asteraceae) based on plastid and nrDNA sequences. Am J Bot 89:929–939

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pysek P, Pysek A (1995) Invasion by Heracleum mantegazzianum in different habitats in the Czech Republic. J Veg Sci 6:711–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghu S, Wilson JR, Dhileepan K (2006) Refining the process of agent selection through understanding plant demography and plant response to herbivory. Aust J Entomol 45:308–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed DH, Frankham R (2001) How closely correlated are molecular and quantitative measures of genetic variation? A meta-analysis. Evolution 55:1095–1103

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roitberg BD (2000) Threats, flies and protocol gaps: can evolutionary ecology safe biological control? In: Hochberg ME, Ives AR (eds) Parasitoid population biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 254–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner U (2001) Host-range testing in biological control of weeds: what can it tell us, and how can it be better interpreted? Bioscience 51:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schierenbeck KA, Hamrick JL, Mack RN (1995) Comparison of allozyme variability in a native and an introduced species of Lonicera. Heredity 75:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard AW (2003) Prioritising agents based on predicted efficacy: beyond the lottery approach. In: Spafford HJ, Briese DT (eds) Improving the selection, testing and evaluation of weed biological control agents. Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, pp 11–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard AW, Cullen JM, Aeschlimann J-P (1994) Predispersal seed predation on Carduus nutans (Asteraceae) in southern Europe. Acta Oecol 15:529–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard AW, Hill R, DeClerck-Floate RA, McClay A, Olckers T, Quimby PC Jr, 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 Info 24:91–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard AW, van Klinken RD, Heard TA (2005) Scientic advances in the analysis of direct risks of weed biological control agents to nontarget plants. Biol Control 35:215–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown JW, Charlesworth D (2001) Introduction to plant population ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 347 pp

  • Simberloff D, Stiling P (1996) How risky is biological control. Ecology 77:1965–1974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas MB, Reid AM (2007) Are exotic natural enemies an effective way of controlling invasive plants? Trends Ecol Evol 22:447–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JN (1998) Rapid evolution as an ecological process. Trends Ecol Evol 13:329–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turanli F, Schaffner U (2004) Oviposition specificity of the specialist Tinthia myrmosaeformis under different degree of behavioural restrictions. Biol Control 30:274–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Kleunen M, Schmid B (2003) No evidence for an evolutionary increased competitive ability (EICA) in the invasive plant Solidago canadensis. Ecology 84:2816–2823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Klinken RD (2000) Host specificity testing: why do we do it and how we can do it better. In: Van Driesche RG, Heard TA, McClay AS and Reardon R (eds) Proceedings of the X international symposium on biological control of weeds. USDA Forest Service Bulletin, FHTET-99-1, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, Bozeman, Montana. USDA, pp 54–68

  • van Klinken RD, Edwards OR (2002) Is host-specificity of weed biological control agents likely to evolve rapidly following establishment? Ecol Lett 5:590–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Klinken RD, Raghu S (2006) A scientific approach to agent selection. Aust J Entomol 45:253–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker NF, Hulme PE, Hoelzel AR (2003) Population genetics of an invasive species, Heracleum mantegazzianum: implications for the role of life history, demographics and independent introductions. Mol Ecol 12:1747–1756

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Withers TM, Barton Brown L (1998) Possible causes of apparently indiscriminant oviposition in host specificity tests using phytophagous insects. In: Zalucki MP, Drew RAI, White GG (eds) Proceedings of the 6th Australasian applied entomological research conference, Brisbane, Australia, 29 September–2 October 1998, pp 565–571

  • Withers TM, Barton Brown L, Stanley J (1999) Host specificity testing in Australasia: towards improved assays for biological control. Scientific, Indooroopilly

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe LM (2002) Why alien invaders succeed: support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. Am Nat 160:705–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zalucki MP, van Kinken RD (2006) Predicting population dynamics of weed biological control agents: science or gazing into crystal balls? Aust J Entomol 45:331–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavaleta ES, Hobbs RJ, Mooney HA (2001) Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol Evol 16:454–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Y, Chen H, Fan J, Wang Y, Li Y, Chen J, Fan J, Yang S, Hu L, Leung H, Mew TW, Teng PS, Wang Z, Mundt CC (2000) Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature 406:718–722

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We greatly thank Thomas Steinger for the many stimulating discussions, Andy Sheppard, Rieks van Klinken, Mark van Kleunen, Markus Fischer, and three anonymous reviewers for their critical and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript, and Wade Jenner for improving the English text. The work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; grant number 3100-065356 to HMS) and the National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Plant Survival, research programme of the SNSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de Biologie/Ecologie & Evolution, Université de Fribourg/Pérolles, Chemin du Musée 10, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Heinz Müller-Schärer

  2. CABI Europe-Switzerland, Rue des Grillons 1, 2800, Delemont, Switzerland

    Urs Schaffner

Authors
  1. Heinz Müller-Schärer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Urs Schaffner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heinz Müller-Schärer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Müller-Schärer, H., Schaffner, U. Classical biological control: exploiting enemy escape to manage plant invasions. Biol Invasions 10, 859–874 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9238-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9238-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation