Nontarget Effects—The Achilles’ Heel of Biological Control? Retrospective Analyses to Reduce Risk Associated with Biocontrol Introductions

Authors

Svata M. Louda, University of Nebraska - LincolnFollow
R. W. Pemberton, Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research ServiceFollow
M. T. Johnson, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, USDA Forest ServiceFollow
P. A. Follett, U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, USDA, Agricultural Research ServiceFollow

Date of this Version

2003

Comments

Published in Annual Review of Entomology 48 (2003), pp. 365–96; doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.48.060402.102800

Abstract

Controversy exists over ecological risks in classical biological control. We reviewed 10 projects with quantitative data on nontarget effects. Ten patterns emerged: (a) Relatives of the pest are most likely to be attacked; (b) host-specificity testing defines physiological host range, but not ecological range; (c) prediction of ecological consequences requires population data; (d) level of impact varied, often in relation to environmental conditions; (e) information on magnitude of nontarget impact is sparse; ( f ) attack on rare native species can accelerate their decline; (g) nontarget effects can be indirect; (h) agents disperse from agroecosystems; (i) whole assemblages of species can be perturbed; and ( j ) no evidence on adaptation is available in these cases. The review leads to six recommendations: Avoid using generalists or adventive species; expand host-specificity testing; incorporate more ecological information; consider ecological risk in target selection; prioritize agents; and pursue genetic data on adaptation. We conclude that retrospective analyses suggest clear ways to further increase future safety of biocontrol.