Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:56:48.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SOME ASPECTS OF ASSESSING EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL ENEMIES1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

C. B. Huffaker  and
C. E. Kennett
C. B. Huffaker
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Parasitology, Division of Biological Control, University of California, Berkeley
C. E. Kennett
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Parasitology, Division of Biological Control, University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing retrospectively and collectively on results of a single individual and his associates covering some 22 years of field and laboratory studies, the authors present three documented case histories of technically complete biological control. They use these examples to illustrate the potential for greater use of this method of pest control, and they discuss the theory of biological control as related to whether or not introductions of a complex of enemy species will inherently lead to competitive interference and a lesser degree of control than if only the "best" species were introduced. They conclude that the three case histories are a refutation of this thesis, as are certain theoretical considerations, and the net results from all biological control programs on a worldwide basis.The authors also point to weaknesses in the use of currently available methods for quantitatively rating or appraising the control and regulating power of density-dependent factors that act with a lag (entomophagous parasites and predators), and emphasize chat regression and modelling methods should be used in conjunction with "check-methods" or other experimental means.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 101 , Issue 4 , April 1969 , pp. 425 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1969

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

Chant, D. A. 1961. The effect of prey density on prey consumption and oviposition in adults of Typhlodromus (T.) occidentalis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in the laboratory. Can. J. Zool. 39: 311–315.Google Scholar
Clark, L. R. 1953. The ecology of Chrysomella gemellata Rossi and C. hyperici Forst., and their effect on St. Johnswort in the Bright District, Victoria. Aust. J. Zool. 1: 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, N. 1953. The biology of St. John's Wort (Hypericum perforatum L. var. augustifolium D. C.) in the Ovens Valley, Victoria, with particular reference to entomological control. Aust. J. Bot. 1: 95–120.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. (ed.). 1964. Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Reinhold Publ. Corp., New York.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. (ed.). 1966. The competitive displacement and coexistence principles. A. Rev. Ent. 11: 183–212.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. (ed.). In press. The theoretical basis of importation of natural enemies. Proc. XIII Intern. Congr. Ent., Moscow.Google Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1954. An evaluation of some natural enemies of the olive scale. J. econ. Ent. 47: 39–43.Google Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1966. Studies of two parasites of olive scale, Parlatoria oleae (Colvée). I. A taxonomic analysis of parasitic hymenoptera reared from Parlatoria oleae (Colvée). Hilgardia 37: 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. H. 1968. The estimation of density dependence. Ecology 49: 555–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, M., and R. Doutt, L.. 1951. Biological evidence of sibling species in Aphytis muculicornis (Masi) (Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae). Can. Ent. 86: 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, M. P. 1966. Evaluation of parasite or predator responses. J. Anim. Ecol. 35: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, M. P., and Huffaker, C. B.. 1969. The appraisal of delayed and direct density-dependence. Can. Ent. This issue.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1961. Principles of insect predation. Ann. rev. Ent. 6: 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mew. ent. Soc. Can., No. 45.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, J. K., and Huffaker, C. B.. 1952. Insects to control a weed, pp. 135–140. In Insects, Yearbook of Agriculture for 1952. U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. 1951. The return of native perennial bunchgrass following the removal of Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum L.) by imported beetles. Ecology 32: 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. 1953. Quantitative studies on the biological control of St. Johnswort (Klamath weed) in California. Proc. Seventh Pacif. Sci. Congr. R. Soc. New Zealand, Wellington, vol. 4, pp. 303–313.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. 1967. A comparison of the status of biological control of St. Johnswort in California and Australia. Mushi 39: 51–73.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Doutt, R. L.. 1965. Establishnlent of the coccinellid, Chilocorus bipustulatus L. in California olive groves (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Pan-Pacif. Ent. 41: 61–63.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Kennett, C. E.. 1953. Ecological tests on Chrysolina gemellata (Rossi) and C. hyperici Forst. in the biological control of Klamath weed. J. econ. Ent. 45: 1061–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Kennett, C. E. 1953. Developments toward biological control of cyclamen mite on strawberries in California. J. econ. Ent. 46: 802–812.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Kennett, C. E.. 1956. Experimental studies on predation: (1) Predation and cyclamen mite populations on strawberries in California. Hilgardia 26: 191–222.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Kennett, C. E.. 1959. A ten-year study of vegetational changes associated with biological control of Klamath weed. I. Range Mgt 12: 69–82.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Kennett, C. E.. 1966. Studies of two parasites of olive scale Parlatoria oleae (Colvée). IV. Biological control of Parlatoria oleae (Colvée) through the compensatory action of two introduced parasites. Hilgardia 37: 283–335.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., Kennett, C. E., and Finney, G. L.. 1962. Biological control of olive scale, Parlatoria oleae (Colvée), in California by imported Aphytis mnaculicornis (Masi) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Hilgardia 32: 541–636.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., Kennett, C. E., Matsumoto, B., and White, E. G.. 1968. Some parameters in the role of enemies in the natural control of insect abundance. pp. 59–75. In “Insect abundance,” Southwood, T. R. E. (ed.). Symposia R. ent. Soc. Lond., No. 4.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Spitzer, C. H. Jr. 1951. Preliminary data on the biotic control of the cyclamen mite on strawberries. J. econ. Ent. 44: 519–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., van de Vrie, M., and McMurtry, J. A.. 1969. The ecology of tetranychid mites and their natural control. A. Rev. Ent. 14: 125–174.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., van de Vrie, M., and McMurtry, J. A.. In press. The ecology of tetranychid mites and their natural enemies. III. The overall picture of tetranychid abundance, evidence indicating various hypotheses, evaluation of predator action and ways of implementing biological control. HilgardiaGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. D., and Gilbert, N.. 1969. A model of an aphid population. J. Anim. Ecol. 37: 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klomp, H. 1966. The dynamics of a field population of the pine looper, Bupalus piniarus L. (Lep., Geom.). In Advances in ecological research, Cragg, J. B. (ed.). Vol. 3, pp. 207–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchlein, J. H. 1965. A reconsideration of the role of predacious mites in the control of the European red spider mite in orchards. Boll. Zool. agr. Bachic (s.) II(7): 113–118.Google Scholar
Kuchlein, J. H. 1966. Mutual interference among the predacious mites Typhlodromus longipilus Nesbitt (Acari: Phytoseiidae). I. Effects of predator density on oviposition rate and migration tendency. Meded. Rijksfac. Landb. Wetensch. Gent 31: 740–746.Google Scholar
Kuchlein, J. H. 1967. The density-related action of aphidophagous insects. Vestnik Cs. spol. Zool. (Acta Soc. zool. Bohemoslov) 31: 162–169.Google Scholar
Laing, J. E., and Huffaker, C. B.. In press. Comparative studies of predation by Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot and Metaseiulus occidentalis (Nesbitt) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) on populations of Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acarina: Tetranychidae).Google Scholar
Lefkovitch, L. P. 1966. A population growth model incorporating delayed responses. Bull. Math. Biophys. 28: 219–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messenger, P. S. 1968. Bioclimatic studies of the aphid parasite Praon exosoletum. 2. Effects of temperature on the functional response of females to varying host densities. Can. Ent. 100: 728–741.Google Scholar
Mori, H. In press. The influence of prey-density on the predation of Amblyseius longispinosus (Evans) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Proc. 2nd (1967) Int. Congr. Acarology, Sutton-Bonington, England.Google Scholar
Mori, H., and Chant, D. A.. 1966. The influence of prey density, relative humidity, and starvation on the predacious behavior of Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Can. J. Zool. 44: 483–491.Google Scholar
Morris, R. F. 1959. Single-factor analysis in population dynamics. Ecology 40: 580–588.Google Scholar
Morris, R. F. 1963. Predictive population equations based on key factor, pp. 16–21. In “Population dynamics of agricultural and forest insect pests.” Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 32.Google Scholar
Mott, D. G. 1966. The analysis of determination in population systems, pp. 179–194. In Systems analysis in ecology, Watt, K. E. F. (ed.). Academic Press, Inc., New York and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilson, M. M., and Morris, R. F.. 1964. The regulation of European spruce sawfly numbers in the maritime provinces of Canada from 1937 to 1963. Can. Ent. 96: 773–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, A. J. 1933. The balance of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 2: 132–178.Google Scholar
Nicholson, A. J. 1954. An outline of the dynamics of animal populations. Aust. J. Zool. 2: 9–65.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. 1967. The interpretation of population change J. Anim. Ecol. 36: 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, L., and Klomp, H.. 1960. The natural control of insects in pine woods. II. Conditions for damping of Nicholson oscillations in parasite-host systems. Archs néerl. Zool. 13: 344–379.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. 1954. Causation, regression and path analysis. Chapter 3, pp. 35–66. In Statistics and mathematics in biology, Kempthorne, O. et al. (eds.). Iowa State College Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Turnbull, A. L. 1967. Population dynamics of exotic insects. Bull. ent. Soc. Anz. 13: 333–337.Google Scholar
Turnbull, A. L., and Chant, D. A.. 1961. The practice and theory of biological control of insects in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 39: 697–753.Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, R. 1968. Comments on population dynamics of exotic insects. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 14: 112–115.Google Scholar
Varley, G. C., and Gradwell, G. R.. 1963. The interpretation of insect population changes. Proc. Ceylon Assoc. Adv. Sci. 18: 142–156.Google Scholar
Varley, G. C., and Gradwell, G. R.. 1968. Population models for the winter moth, pp. 132–142. In Insect abundance, Southwood, T. R. E. (ed.). Symp. R. ent. Soc. Lond., No. 4.Google Scholar
Watt, K. E. F. 1965. Community stability and the strategy of biological control. Can. Ent. 97: 887–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, K. E. F. 1968. Ecology and resource management. A quantitative approach. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Zwolfer, H. 1963. The structure of the parasite complexes of some Lepidoptera. Z. angew. Ent. 51: 346–357.Google Scholar