Parasitoid Drift After Biological Control Introductions: Re-examining Pandora's Box

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Howarth (1983) in his influential article “Classical biological control: panacea or Pandora's box” questioned the environmenta safety of biological control introductions. He focused on several important areas of concern including (1) the irreversibility of alien introductions, (2) the possibility of host switching to innocuous native or beneficial species, (3) dispersal of biological control agents to new habitats, and (4) the lack of research on the efficacy and impact of biological control attempts. Heightened concerns over nontarget effects since (Howarth 1991, Simberloff and Stiling 1996, Van Driesche and Hoddle 1997,Follett and Duan 1999) have slowed the pace of biological control introductions through increased regulation and have prompted a moment of reflection on the fate of past releases. The trend in biological control introductions is, perhaps, best exemplified in Hawaii, where more biological control releases have, been made against Insect pests than anywhere else in the world (Debach 1974, Funasaki et al. 1988). Largely in response to concerns over nontarget effects to Hawaii's unique and fragile fauna, introductions of parasitoids and predators against insect pests, which were being made at a rate of 3.8 speciesyr between 1900–1980, slowed to 2.3 speciesyr during 1980–1989 and have slowed further to about one introduction every two years since 1990 (Fig. 1). The lid to “Pandora's box” nearly has been shut tight in Hawaii.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: