Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T23:47:51.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE SELECTION OF EFFECTIVE AGENTS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WEEDS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

P. Harris
P. Harris
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Regina, Saskatchewan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Little attention has been given to the selection of the most effective agents for the biological control of weeds. The consequence has been a needlessly high failure rate and cost. Seven methods for their selection are discussed and a scoring system proposed as a means of incorporating their best features.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 105 , Issue 12 , December 1973 , pp. 1495 - 1503
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcock, M. B. 1964. The physiological significances of defoliation and subsequent regrowth of grass-clover mixtures and cereals, pp. 25–41. In Crisp, D. J. (Ed.), Grazing in terrestrial and marine environments. Brit. Ecol. Soc. Symp. 4.Google Scholar
Andres, L. A. and Goeden, R. D.. 1971. The biological control of weeds by introduced natural enemies, pp. 143–164. In Huffaker, C. B. (Ed.), Biological control. Plenum Press, New York. 511 pp.Google Scholar
Andres, L. A., Davis, C. J., Harris, P., and Wapshere, A. J.. The biological control of weeds. In Huffaker, C. B. (Ed.), Theory and practice of biological control. (In prep.)Google Scholar
Baker, C. R. B., Blackman, R. L., and Claridge, M. F.. 1972. Studies on Haltica carduorum Guerin (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) an alien beetle released in Britain as a contribution to the biological control of creeping thistle Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. J. appl. Ecol. 9: 819–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, H. H. 1967. Plant protection and world crop production. Pflanzenschutz Nachrichten. 20: 1–524. Höfchenbr. Bayer Pfl. Schutz-Nachr.Google Scholar
Dempster, J. P. 1971. The population ecology of the cinnabar moth, Tyria jacobaeae L. (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae). Oecologia (Berl.) 7: 26–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullaway, D. T. 1954. Fifty years progress in the biological control of weeds — a review. Board of Agric. and Forestry, Honolulu, Hawaii. 14 pp. (Mineo. report circa 1954.)Google Scholar
Harris, P. 1967. Suitability of Anaitis plagiata (Geometridae) for biocontrol of Hypericum perforatum in dry grassland of British Columbia. Can. Ent. 99: 1304–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. 1972. Insects in the population dynamics of plants, pp. 201–209. In van Emden, H. F. (Ed.), Insect/plant relationships. Symp. Roy. ent. Soc. Lond. 6. 213 pp.Google Scholar
Harris, P., Peschken, D., and Milroy, J.. 1969. The status of biological control of the weed Hypericum perforatum in British Columbia. Can. Ent. 101: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. and Peschken, D. P.. 1971. Hypericum perforatum L., St. John's-wort (Hypericacaeae), pp. 89–94. In Biological control programs against insects and weeds in Canada. 1959–1968. Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control, No. 4. 266 pp.Google Scholar
Hasan, S. 1972. Specificity and host specialization of Puccinia chondrillana. Ann. appl. Biol. 72: 257–263.Google Scholar
Hasan, S. and Wapshere, A. J.. 1973. The biology of Puccinia chondrillana, a potential biological control agent of skeletonweed. Ann. appl. Biol. 74: 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, J. K. 1964. Projects in biological control of weeds: 650–70. In Debach, P. (Ed.), Biological control of insect pests and weeds. 844 pp. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. 1952. Quantitative studies on the biological control of St. John's wort (Klamath weed) in California. Proc. 7th Pacif. Sci. Congr., Vol. 4, pp. 303–313.Google Scholar
Inman, R. E. 1970. Control of Rumex crispus L. with the rust fungus Uromyces rumicis (Schum.) Wint.: Preliminary investigations. Proc. Int. Symp. on biological control of weeds. Misc. Publ. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control, No. 1, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
Jameson, D. A. 1963. Responses of individual plants to harvesting. Bot. Rev. 29: 532–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingman, D. L. and McCarty, M. K.. 1958. Interrelations of methods of weed control and pasture management at Lincoln, Neb., 1949–55. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1180. 49 pp.Google Scholar
May, L. H. 1960. The utilisation of carbohydrate reserves in pasture plants after defoliation. Herb. Abstr. 30: 239–245.Google Scholar
Meijden, E. van der. 1970. Senecio and Tyria (Callimorpha) in a Dutch dune area. A study on an interaction between a monophagous consumer and its host plant. In den Boer, P. J. and Gradwell, G. R. (Eds.), Dynamics of numbers in populations, pp. 390–404. Proc. Adv. Study Inst. Dynamics Numbers Popl. (Oosterbeek).Google Scholar
Perkins, R. C. L. and Swezey, O. H.. 1924. The introduction into Hawaii of insects that attack Lantana. Ent. Ser. Bull. Hawaiian sugar Planters Assoc. Ent., No. 16. 53 pp.Google Scholar
Peschken, D. P. and Beecher, R. W.. 1973. Ceutorhynchus litura (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): Biology and first releases for biological control of the weed Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in Ontario, Canada. Can. Ent. 105: 1489–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peschken, D. P., Friesen, H. A., Tonks, N. V., and Banham, F. L.. 1970. Releases of Altica carduorum (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera) against the weed Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in Canada. Can. Ent. 102: 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1961. Animal population regulation by the genetic feed-back mechanism. Am. Midl. Nat. 95: 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1963. Introducing parasites and predators to control native pests. Can. Ent. 95: 785–792.Google Scholar
Pool, A. L. and Cairns, D.. 1940. Botanical aspects of ragwort (Senecio jacobaeae L.) control. Bull. N.Z. Dep. scient. ind. Res. 82: 1–61.Google Scholar
Simmonds, F. J. 1951. Further effects of the defoliation of Cordia macrostachys (Jacq.) R. & S. Can. Ent. 83: 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. 1964. Freezing injury of forage plants, pp. 32–56. In Forage plant physiology and soil-range relationships. Spec. Publ. Am. Soc. Agron. 5. 250 pp.Google Scholar
Wapshere, A. J. 1970. The assessment of biological control potential of the organisms attacking Chondrilla juncea L. Proc. Int. Symp. on biological control of weeds. Misc. Publ. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control, No. 1, pp. 81–89.Google Scholar
Wapshere, A. J. 1971. Selection and biological control organisms of weeds. Proc. 2nd. int. Symp. biol. Control of Weeds, Rome, 1971. (in press).Google Scholar
Watt, K. E. F. 1965. Community stability and the strategy of biological control. Can. Ent. 97: 887–895.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. L. 1969. Use of plant pathogens in weed control. A. Rev. Phytopathol. 7: 411–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. 1960. A review of the biological control of insects and weeds in Australia and Australian New Guinea. Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control, No. 1. 102 pp.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. K. 1944. Control of noxious plants. Bot. Rev. 10: 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwölfer, H. and Harris, P.. 1971. Host specificity determination of insects for biological control of weeds. A. Rev. Ent. 16: 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar