Host shifts in biological weed control: Real problems, semantic difficulties or poor science?

被引:42
|
作者
Marohasy, J
机构
[1] Alan Fletcher Research Station, Queensland Department of Lands, Q. 4075, PO Box 36, Sherwood
[2] Centre for Tropical Pest Management, University of Queensland, St Lucia
关键词
host shift; host range expansion; biological weed control;
D O I
10.1080/09670879609371974
中图分类号
Q96 [昆虫学];
学科分类号
摘要
Many biologists perceive organisms as constantly evolving and therefore consider the host plant ranges of biological control agents as labile. Host plant ranges are thus likely to undergo adaptive change should environmental conditions change, for example following successful biological control. As a consequence, the introduction of biological control agents against weeds is considered by many to be an inherently unsafe practice with non-target plants at risk of attack. However, despite the introduction of over 600 insect species from one geographic region to another for biological weed control during this century, there are relatively few documented cases of changes in host plant range. Purported instances are discussed in relation to behavioural and genetic concepts. It is concluded that apparent additions to the host range can, in all of the cases examined, be explained in terms of established behavioural concepts of preadaptation, threshold change resulting from host deprivation, and effects of experience (learning). The inappropriateness of the often-used term 'host shift' to describe these cases is demonstrated, and it is concluded that evidence from biological weed control contradicts some aspects of ecological and evolutionary theory.
引用
收藏
页码:71 / 75
页数:5
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] Weed biological control: applying science to solve seemingly intractable problems
    Briese, DT
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY, 2004, 43 : 304 - 317
  • [2] Phylogenomics-driven host test list selection for weed biological control
    Chen, Stephanie H.
    Gooden, Ben
    Rafter, Michelle A.
    Hunter, Gavin C.
    Grealy, Alicia
    Knerr, Nunzio
    Schmidt-Lebuhn, Alexander N.
    BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, 2024, 193
  • [3] Host range testing of insects for biological weed control: How can it be better interpreted?
    Schaffner, U
    BIOSCIENCE, 2001, 51 (11) : 951 - 959
  • [4] The Stability of Host-Pathogen Interactions of Plant Disease in Relation to Biological Weed Control
    Yang, X. B.
    TeBeest, D. O.
    BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, 1992, 2 (04) : 266 - 271
  • [5] Predicting population dynamics of weed biological control agents: science or gazing into crystal balls?
    Zalucki, Myron P.
    van Klinken, Rieks D.
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY, 2006, 45 : 331 - 344
  • [6] Is host-specificity of weed biological control agents likely to evolve rapidly following establishment?
    van Klinken, RD
    Edwards, OR
    ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2002, 5 (04) : 590 - 596
  • [7] Can genomic signatures guide the selection of host-specific agents for weed biological control?
    Kumaran, Nagalingam
    Raghu, S.
    EVOLUTIONARY APPLICATIONS, 2024, 17 (07):
  • [8] Host range of the defoliator Strepsicrates sp is too broad for biological control of the invasive weed Rhodomyrtus tomentosa
    Wheeler, G. S.
    Mattison, E. D.
    Metz, M. A.
    Pratt, P. D.
    Purcell, M. F.
    BIOCONTROL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 26 (06) : 861 - 865
  • [9] Comparison of the physiological and realized host-ranges of a biological control agent from Australia for the control of the aquatic weed, Hydrilla verticillata
    Balciunas, JK
    Burrows, DW
    Purcell, MF
    BIOLOGICAL CONTROL, 1996, 7 (02) : 148 - 158
  • [10] Finalizing host range determination of a weed biological control pathogen with best linear unbiased predictors and damage assessment
    Berner, Dana K.
    Cavin, Craig A.
    BIOCONTROL, 2012, 57 (02) : 235 - 246