Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exotic biological control agents: A solution or contribution to arthropod invasions?

  • Insect Invasions
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biological control is a valuable and effective strategy for controlling arthropod pests and has been used extensively against invasive arthropods. As one approach for control of invasives, exotic natural enemies  from the native range of a pest are introduced to areas where control is needed. Classical biological control began to be used in the late 1800s and its use increased until, beginning in 1983, scientists began raising significant concerns and questions about nontarget and indirect effects that can be caused by these introductions. In recent years, similar issues have been raised about augmentative use of exotic natural enemies. Subsequently, international guidelines, national regulations and scientific methods being used for exotic natural enemies in biological control have changed to require appropriate specificity testing, risk assessment and regulatory oversight before exotic natural enemies can be released. National and international standards aimed at minimizing risk have increased awareness and promoted more careful consideration of the costs and benefits associated with biological control. The barriers to the implementation of classical and augmentative biological control with exotic natural enemies now are sometimes difficult and, as a consequence, the numbers of classical biological control programs and releases have decreased significantly. Based in part on this new, more careful approach, classical biological control programs more recently undertaken are increasingly aimed at controlling especially damaging invasive arthropod pests that otherwise cannot be controlled. We examine evidence for these revised procedures and regulations aimed at increasing success and minimizing risk. We also discuss limitations linked to the apparent paucity of post-introduction monitoring and inherent unpredictability of indirect effects.

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

  • Arnaud PH Jr (1978) A host-parasite catalog of North American Tachinidae (Diptera). USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1319

  • Aukema JE, McCullough DG, Von Holle B, Liebhold AM, Britton K, Frankel SJ (2010) Historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the continental United States. Bioscience 60:886–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bale J (2011) Harmonization of regulations for invertebrate biocontrol agents in Europe: progress, problems and solutions. J Appl Entomol 135:503–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barratt BIP, Ferguson CM (2000) Predicting the risk from biological control agent introductions: a New Zealand approach. In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 59–75

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barratt BIP, Howarth FG, Withers TM, Kean JM, Ridley GS (2010) Progress in risk assessment for classical biological control. Biol Control 52:245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer LS, Duan JJ, Gould JR (2014) Emerald ash borer. In: Van Driesche R, Reardon R (eds) The use of classical biological control to preserve forests in North America. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV, FHTET-2013-2, pp 189–209

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boettner GH, Elkinton JS, Boettner CJ (2000) Effects of a biological control introduction on three nontarget native species of saturniid moths. Conserv Biol 14:1798–1806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd EA, Hoddle MS (2007) Host specificity testing of Gonatocerus spp. Egg-parasitoids used in a classical biological control program against Homalodisca vitripennis: a retrospective analysis for nontarget impacts in southern California. Biol Control 43:56–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron PJ, Hill RL, Bain J, Thomas WP (1989) A review of biological control of invertebrate pests and weeds in New Zealand 1874 to 1987. Technical Communication No. 10, CAB International Institute of Biological Control, CAB International, Farnham Royal

  • Cameron PJ, Hill RL, Teulon DAJ, Stukens MAW, Connolly PG, Walker GP (2013) A retrospective evaluation of the host range of four Aphidius species introduced to New Zealand for the biological control of pest aphids. Biol Control 67:275–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen CP (1978) Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. Agricultural Handbook No. 480. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, USA

  • Clough Y (2012) A generalized approach to modeling and estimating indirect effects in ecology. Ecology 93:1809–1815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cock MJW (1985) A review of biological control of pests in the Commonwealth Caribbean and Bermuda up to 1982. Technical Communication No. 9, Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK

  • Cock MJW, van Lenteren JD, 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, Biesmeijer JC, Cannon RJC, Gerard PJ, Gillespie D, Jiménez JJ, Lavelle PM, Raina SK (2012) The positive contribution of invertebrates to sustainable agriculture and food security. CAB Rev: Perspec Agric, Vet Sci, Nutr Natl Res 7(43)

  • Collen B, Bohm M, Kemp R, Baillie JEM (2012) Spineless: status and trends of the world’s invertebrates. Zoological Society of London, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutinot D, Briano J, Parra JRP, De Sá LAN, Cônsoli FL (2013) Exchange of natural enemies for biological control: is it a rocky road? The road in the euro-mediterranean region and the South American common market. Neotrop Entomol 42:1–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cowie RH (2001) Can snails ever be effective and safe biocontrol agents? Int J Pest Mgmt 47:23–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clerck-Floate RA, Mason PG, Parker DJ, Gillespie DR, Broadbent AB, Boivin G (2006) Guide for the importation and release of arthropod biological control agents in Canada. Pest Management Centre, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, Minister of Supply and Service Canada, Ottawa

  • Delfosse ES (2005) Risk and ethics in biological control. Biol Control 35:319–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkinton JS, Boettner GH (2012) Benefits and harm caused by the introduced generalist tachinid, Compsilura concinnata, in North America. Biocontrol 57:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans EW (2004) Habitat displacement of North American ladybirds by an introduced species. Ecology 85:637–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans EW, England S (1996) Indirect interactions in biological control of insects: pests and natural enemies in alfalfa. Ecol Appl 6:920–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher TW, Andrés LA (1999) Quarantine: concepts, facilities and procedures. In: Bellows TS, Fisher TW (eds) Handbook of biological control. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 103–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Funasaki GY, Lai PY, Nakahara LM, Beardsley JW, Ota AK (1988) A review of biological control introductions in Hawaii: 1890 to 1985. Proc Hawaiian Entomol Soc 28:105–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnas JR, Hurley BP, Slippers B, Wingfield MJ (2012) Biological control of forest plantation pests in an interconnected world requires greater international focus. Int J Pest Manag 58:211–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greathead DJ, Greathead AH (1992) Biological control of insect pests by insect parasitoids and predators: the BIOCAT database. Biocon News Info 13:61N–68N

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajek AE (2004) Natural enemies: an introduction to biological control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hajek AE, McManus ML, Delalibera Junior I (2007) A review of introductions of pathogens and nematodes for classical biological control of insects and mites. Biol Control 41:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen AK, Jeong G, Paine TD, Stouthamer R (2007) Frequency of secondary symbiont infection in an invasive psyllid relates to parasitism pressure on a geographic scale in California. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:7531–7535

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henne DC, Johnson SJ, Cronin JT (2007) Population spread of the introduced red imported fire ant parasitoid, Pseudacteon tricuspis Borgmeier (Diptera: Phoridae), in Louisiana. Biol Control 42:97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoddle MS (2006) Historical review of control programs for Levuana iridescens (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae) in Fiji and examination of possible extinction of this moth by Bessa remota (Diptera: Tachinidae). Pacif Sci 60:439–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogendoorn K, Keller MA, Baker G (2013) Preparedness for biological control of high-priority arthropod pests. Grape and Wine Research Development Corporation, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, NSW

  • Holt RD, Hochberg M (2001) Indirect interactions, community modules and biological control: a theoretical perspective. In: Wajnberg E, Scott JK, Quimby PC (eds) Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI, Wallingford, pp 13–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper KR (2001) Research needs concerning nontarget impacts of biological control introductions. In: Wajnberg E, Scott JK, Quimby PC (eds) Evaluating indirect ecological effects of biological control. CABI, Wallingford, pp 39–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth FG (1983) Classical biocontrol: panacea or Pandora’s box. Proc Hawaiian Entomol Soc 24:239–244

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang HT, Yang P (1987) The ancient cultured citrus ant. Bioscience 37:665–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) (2006) Guidelines for the export, shipment, import and release of biological control agents and other beneficial organisms (2005) International standards for phytosanitary measures No 3. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome

  • IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2015) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-3. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 19 Sept 2015

  • Karban R, Hougen-Eitzmann D, English-Loeb G (1994) Predator-mediated apparent competition between two herbivores that feed on grapevines. Oecologia 97:508–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg SK, Fink LS, Brower LP (2003) Parasitism of native luna moths, Actias luna (L.) (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) by the introduced Compsilura concinnata (Meigen) (Diptera: Tachinidae) in central Virginia, their hyperparasitism by trigonalid wasps (Hymenoptera: Trigonalidae). Environ Entomol 32:1019–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly J (2012) A review of biological control policy: Northern Ireland and Ireland. Prepared as part of Invasive Species Ireland. The Northern Ireland Environmental Agency and the National Parks and Wildlife Service

  • Kenis M, Auger-Rozenberg MA, Roques A, Timms L, Péré C, Cock MJW, Settele J, Augustin S, Lopez-Vaamonde C (2009) Ecological effects of invasive alien insects. Biol Invasions 11:21–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch RL, Galvan TL (2008) Bad side of a good beetle: the North American experience with Harmonia axyridis. BioControl 53:23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann U, Mason PG (2003) Use of field host range surveys for selecting candidate nontarget species for physiological host specificity testing of entomophagous biological control agents. In: Van Driesche RG (ed) Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on biological control of arthropods, January 14-18, 2002. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV, FHTET-2003-05, pp 370–377

  • Kuris AM (2003) Did biological control cause extinction of the coconut moth, Levuana iridescens, in Fiji? Biol Invasions 5:133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood JA (2000) Nontarget effects of biological control: what are we trying to miss? In: Follett PA, Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget effects of biological control. Kluwer Acad Publ, Dordrecht, pp 15–30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood JA, Howarth FG, Purcell MF (eds) (2001) Balancing nature: assessing the impact of importing non-native biological control agents (an International Perspective). Thomas Say Publications in Entomology, Entomol Soc Amer, Lanham, Maryland, USA

  • Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP (2013) Invasion ecology, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombaert E, Guillemaud T, Thomas CE, Handley LJL, Li J, Wang S, Pang H, Goryacheva I, Zakharov IA, Jousselin E, Poland RL, Migeon A, van Lenteren J, De Clercq P, Berkvens N, Jones W, Estoup A (2011) Inferring the origin of populations introduced from a genetically structured native range by approximate Bayesian computation: case study of the invasive ladybird Harmonia axyridis. Molec Ecol 20:4654–4670

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Loomans AJM (2007) Regulation of invertebrate biological control agents in Europe: review and recommendations in its pursuit of a harmonised regulatory system. Report EU project REBECA (Regulation of Biological Control Agents). The Netherlands

  • 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch LD, Thomas MB (2000) Nontarget effects in the biocontrol of insects with insects, nematodes and microbial agents: the evidence. Biocontr News Info 21:117N–130N

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason PG, Gillespie DR (eds) (2013) Biological Control Programmes in Canada, 2001–2012. CABI, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoy E, Frank J (2010) How should the risk associated with the introduction of biological control agents be estimated? Agric For Entomol 12:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuenschwander P, Borgemeister C, Langewald J (2003) Biological control in IPM systems in Africa. CABI Publishing, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry D (2008) Beyond Pandora’s Box: quantitatively evaluating non-target effects of parasitoids in classical biological control. Biol Invasions 11:47–58

    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, Callaway RM (2005) Indirect nontarget effects of host-specific biological control agents: implications for biological control. Biol Control 35:288–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price P, Bouton C, Gross P, McPheron BA, Thompson JN, Weis AE (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:41–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roques A, Rabitsch W, Rasplus J-Y, Lopez-Vaamonde C, Nentwig W, Kenis M (2009) Alien terrestrial invertebrates of Europe. In: Hulme PE, Nentwig W, Pyšek P, Vilà M (eds) DAISIE: handbook of alien species in Europe. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 63–79

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roy HE, Wajnberg E (eds) (2007) From biological control to invasion: the ladybird Harmonia axyridis as a model species. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy HE, Roy DB, Roques A (2011) Inventory of terrestrial alien arthropod predators and parasites established in Europe. Biocontrol 56:477–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy HE, Adriaens T, Isaac NJB, Kenis M, Onkelinx T, San Martin G, Brown PMJ, Hautier L, Poland R, Roy DB, Comont R, Eschen R, Frost R, Zindel R, Van Vlaenderen J, Nedvěd O, Ravn HP, Grégoire JC, de Biseau JC, Maes D (2012) Invasive alien predator causes rapid declines of native European ladybirds. Divers Distrib 18:717–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (1988) Classical biological control and conservation: are they compatible? Environ Conserv 15:349–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (1997) Classical biological control and biodiversity conservation: What risks are we prepared to accept? Biodivers Conserv 6:1309–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sands D, Van Driesche RG (2003) Host range testing techniques for parasitoids and predators. In: Van Driesche RG (ed) Proceedings of the first international symposium on biological control of arthropods: January 14–18, 2002. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV, FHTET-2003–2005, pp 41–53

  • Shine R (2010) The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Q Rev Biol 85:253–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder WE, Evans EW (2006) Ecological effects of invasive arthropod generalist predators. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:95–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suckling DM, Sforza RFH (2014) What magnitude are observed non-target impacts from weed biocontrol? PLoS ONE 9:e84847

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas MB, Casula P, Wilby A (2004) Biological control and indirect effects. Trends Ecol Evol 19:61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tothill JD, Taylor THC, Paine RW (1930) The Coconut Moth in Fiji—a history of its control by means of its parasites. Imperial Bureaux of Entomology, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Driesche RG, Hoddle M (1997) Should arthropod parasitoids and predators be subject to host range testing when used as biological control agents? Agric Human Val 14:211–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driesche RG, Reardon R (eds) (2014) The use of classical biological control to preserve forests in North America. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV, FHTET-2013-2

  • Van Driesche R, Hoddle M, Center T (2008) Control of pests and weeds by natural enemies. Blackwell Publishing Limited, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Driesche RG, Carruthers RI, Center T, Hoddle MS, Hough-Goldstein J, Morin L, Smith L, Wagner DL, Blossey B, Brancatini V, Casagrande R, Causton CE, Coetzee JA, Cuda J, Ding J, Fowler SV, Frank JH, Fuester R, Goolsby J, Grodowitz M, Heard TA, Hill MP, Hoffmann JH, Huber J, Julien M, Kairo MTK, Kenis M, Mason P, Medal J, Messing R, Miller R, Moore A, Neuenschwander P, Newman R, Norambuena H, Palmer WA, Pemberton R, Perez Panduro A, Pratt PD, Rayamajhi M, Salom S, Sands D, Schooler S, Schwarzländer M, Sheppard A, Shaw R, Tipping PW, van Klinken RD (2010) Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biol Control 54(Suppl)1:S2–S33

  • van Klinken RD (2000) Host specficity testing: why do we do it and how can we do it better. In: Van Driesche RG, Heard TA, McClay A, Reardon R (eds) Proceedings of session: host-specificity testing of exotic arthropod biological control agents—the biological basis for improvement in safety. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV, FHTET-99-1, pp 54–68

  • van Lenteren JC (ed) (2003) Quality control and production of biological control agents: theory and testing procedures. CABI, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lenteren JC (2012) The state of commercial augmentative biological control: plenty of natural enemies, but a frustrating lack of uptake. Biocontrol 57:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Lenteren JC, Bale J, Bigler F, Hokkanen HMT, Loomans AJM (2006a) Assessing risks of releasing exotic biological control agents of arthropod pests. Annu Rev Entomol 51:609–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Lenteren JC, Cock MJW, Hoffmeister TS, Sands DPA (2006b) Host specificity in arthropod biological control, methods for testing and interpretation of the data. In: Bigler F, Babendreier D, Kuhlmann U (eds) Environmental impact of invertebrates for biological control of arthropods: methods and risk assessment. CABI, Wallingford, pp 38–63

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Lenteren JC, Loomans AJM, Babendreier D, Bigler F (2008) Harmonia axyridis: an environmental risk assessment for Northwest Europe. Biocontrol 53:37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Lenteren J, Cock MJW, Brodeur J, Barratt BIP, Bigler F, Bolckmans K, Haas F, Mason PG, Parra JRP (2011) Will the convention on biological diversity put an end to biological control? Rev Bras Entomol 55:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • van Nouhuys S, Hanski I (2000) Apparent competition between parasitoids mediated by a shared hyperparasitoid. Ecol Lett 3:82–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wilgen BW, Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2013) Some perspectives on the risks and benefits of biological control of invasive alien plants in the management of natural ecosystems. Environ Mgmt 52:531–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner K, Kinslow F (2013) Manipulating risk communication: value predispositions shape public understandings of invasive species science in Hawaii. Public Understand Sci 22:203–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterhouse DF, Sands DPA (2001) Classical biological control of arthropods in Australia. ACIAR Monograph No. 77. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia

  • White EM, Wilson JC, Clarke AR (2006) Biotic indirect effects: a neglected concept in invasion biology. Divers Distrib 12:443–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wingfield MJ, Brockerhoff EG, Wingfield BD, Slippers B (2015) Planted forest health: the need for a global strategy. Science 349:832–836

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winston RL, Schwarzländer M, Hinz HL, Day MD, Cock MJW, Julien MH (eds) (2014) Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds, 5th edn. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV, FHTET-2014-04

  • Wright M, Hoffmann M, Kuhar T, Gardner J, Pitcher SA (2005) Evaluating risks of biological control introductions: a probabilistic risk-assessment approach. Biol Control 35:338–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yara K (2006) Identification of Torymus sinensis and T. beneficus (Hymenoptera: Torymidae), introduced and indigenous parasitoids of the chestnut gall wasp Dryocosmus kuriphilus (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae), using the ribosomal ITS2 region. Biol Control 36:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yara K, Sasawaki T, Kunimi Y (2007) Displacement of Torymus beneficus (Hymenoptera: Torymidae) by T. sinensis, an indigenous and introduced parasitoid of the chestnut gall wasp, Dryocosmus uriphilus (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae), in Japanese chestnut fields: possible involvement in hybridization. Biol Control 42:148–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper had its origin at a workshop on “Drivers, impacts, mechanisms and adaptation in insect invasions” hosted by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in November 2014. We thank Drs. M. J. Samways, J. Gould and R. Van Driesche and two anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions on an early version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853-2601, USA

    Ann E. Hajek

  2. Department of Zoology and Entomology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa

    Brett P. Hurley, Jeffrey R. Garnas & Samantha J. Bush

  3. CABI, 1 Rue des Grillons, Delémont, 2800, Switzerland

    Marc Kenis

  4. Department of Microbiology and Pathology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa

    Michael J. Wingfield

  5. Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 16, 6700AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Joop C. van Lenteren

  6. CABI, Bakeham Lane, Egham, TW20 9TY, UK

    Matthew J. W. Cock

Authors
  1. Ann E. Hajek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brett P. Hurley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc Kenis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeffrey R. Garnas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Samantha J. Bush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael J. Wingfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joop C. van Lenteren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Matthew J. W. Cock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann E. Hajek.

Additional information

Guest editors: Matthew P. Hill, Susana Clusella-Trullas, John S. Terblanche & David M. Richardson / Insect Invasions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hajek, A.E., Hurley, B.P., Kenis, M. et al. Exotic biological control agents: A solution or contribution to arthropod invasions?. Biol Invasions 18, 953–969 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1075-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1075-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation