Literature concerning interactions between herbicides and insects is reviewed. Herbicides can be toxic to insects or can affect them indirectly, such as by destroying food supplies, but they usually can be used with proper application timing without affecting insects adversely. Herbicides and biocontrol insects can interact either favorably or unfavorably depending on the life cycle stage of weed and insect, effect on predatory insects, changes in food quality, mobility of the biocontrol insect, and impact of herbicides on weed growth. Thus, interactions between a biocontrol insect and herbicide can be antagonistic, additive, complementary, or synergistic. Split-plot techniques to evaluate these interactions at an early stage of insect establishment are proposed to improve weed biocontrol.

A common sunflower isolate of Alternaria helianthi collected near Stoneville, MS, was pathogenic to cultivated sunflower and common cocklebur. Soybean, cotton, rice, grain sorghum, corn, wheat, and 22 other weed and crop species/varieties in nine botanical families showed no response or only minor symptoms. Therefore, further research is warranted to determine the potential of A. helianthi as a biocontrol agent against common cocklebur in geographic areas where sunflower is not a crop.

An isolate of the fungus Dactylaria higginsii obtained from purple nutsedge in Florida was highly pathogenic to Cyperus spp. The potential of this isolate as a bioherbicide was field tested in natural populations of purple nutsedge in Gainesville and Jay, FL. The fungus was applied in 0.5% Metamucil® as a carrier, and the treatments were: carrier only, 105 conidia/ml + carrier, and 106 conidia/ml + carrier. Treatments were applied as single, double, or triple postemergence (POST) sprays at biweekly intervals. The disease and secondary infections developed in about 5 and 15 d after inoculation, respectively, killing most of the infected leaves. All weed growth parameters and disease progress rates were affected by inoculum dosage and inoculation frequencies. Three inoculations, each at 106 conidia/ml, provided effective control of purple nutsedge compared to a single inoculation, as measured by shoot dry weight, tuber numbers, and tuber dry weight. Higher rates of disease progress and disease levels, defined by the area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC), occurred with three inoculations at 106 conidia/ml. Disease progress was slower and the level of weed control was lower at 105 conidia/ml compared to the higher inoculum level. Three applications of 106 conidia/ml provided >90% nutsedge control. Dactylaria higginsii appears to be an effective bioherbicide candidate deserving further development for commercial use.

We review chemical ecology literature as it relates to biological control of weeds and discuss how this means of controlling invasive plants could be enhanced by the consideration of several well-established research approaches. The interface between chemical ecology and biological control of weeds presents a rich opportunity to exploit potentially coevolved relationships between agents and plants where chemical factors mediating interactions are important. Five topics seem relevant, which if implemented could improve the predictability of host range determination, agent establishment, and impact on the target weed. (1) The host secondary plant chemistry and a potential biological control agent's response to that chemistry can be exploited to improve predictability of potential agent host range. (2) Evolutionary changes may occur in secondary plant chemistry of invasive weeds that have been introduced to novel environments and exposed to a new set of biotic and abiotic stressors. Further, such a scenario facilitates rapid evolutionary changes in phenotypic traits, which in turn may help explain one mechanism of invasiveness and affect the outcome of biological control and other management options. (3) Herbivores can induce production of secondary plant compounds. (4) Variability of weed secondary chemistry which, either constitutive or inducible, can be an important factor that potentially influences the performance of some biological control agents and their impact on the target weed. (5) Finally, sequestration of secondary plant chemistry may protect herbivores against generalist predators, which might improve establishment of a biological control agent introduced to a new range and eventually impact on the target weed. Recognition of these patterns and processes can help identify the factors that impart success to a biological control program.

In this paper, we describe five successful classical biological weed control agents released in the United States. For each of the five arthropod species, we compared data from prerelease studies that experimentally predicted the agent's host range with data collected postrelease. In general, experimental host range data accurately predicted or overestimated risks to nontarget plants. We compare the five cases with insects recently denied for introduction in the United States and conclude that none of the discussed agents would likely be approved if they were petitioned today. Three agents would be rejected because they potentially could attack economic plants, and two because of potential attack on threatened or endangered plants. All five biocontrol agents have contributed significantly to the successful management of major weeds with no or minimal environmental risk. We believe that the United States may miss opportunities for sustainable and environmentally benign management of weeds using biological control if the regulatory framework only considers the risks of agents as potential plant pests and treats any host-range data regarding economic or threatened and endangered species as a binary decision (i.e., mandates rejection if there is any chance of feeding or development). As a way forward we propose the following: (1) the addition of risk and benefit analyses at the habitat level with a clear ranking of decision-making criteria as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Technical Advisory Group's evaluation process of biocontrol agents; (2) recognition of the primacy of realized host range data for potential agents that considers the insect's host selection behavior instead of emphasizing fundamental host range data during release evaluations, and (3) development of formalized postrelease monitoring of target and nontarget species as part of the release permit. These recommendations may initially be advanced through reassessment of current policies but may in the longer term require the implementation of dedicated biocontrol legislation.