Evolution and biological control.
Evolution and biological control.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1752-4571.2012.00281.x
复制
发表时间：
2012-07
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Navajas M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Roderick GK;Hufbauer R;Navajas M
对于生物防治的价值，人们的看法往往是极端的。通俗地说，生物防治最常指的是经典的生物防治，即从另一个地区引进一个物种来控制害虫，如农业系统中的节肢动物食草动物，或管理和自然系统中的杂草。1因此，生物防治有可能成为一种低成本、不含化学物质的控制害虫的手段。许多生物防治方案都取得了毫无保留的成功(Bellows2001)，例如在澳大利亚用仙人掌飞蛾防治仙人掌(Raghu和Walton，2007年)，在加利福尼亚州用棉垫金龟子(Icerya Purchasi)防治野百合瓢虫Rodolia cardinalis(Caltag irone和Doutt，1989)，在法属波利尼西亚用玻璃翅神枪手和卵寄生蜂Gonatocerus ashmeadi(Grangrard等人)防治。2009年)。然而，经典的生物控制，就像任何将一个物种引入一个新领域一样，必然涉及未知，因此带有一些固有的风险(Simberloff和Stiling 1996)--这些生物在一个新的生态系统中到底会做什么？生物防治中最不可预测的因素是已实现的生态位在新环境中被修改的程度。这种效应导致了经典生物防治的一些灾难性后果，其中许多发生在脊椎动物被欧洲人出于各种原因引入世界各地的时代(例如，将莎士比亚的鸟类引入美国，米尔斯基，2008年)，包括生物防治(Howarth 1991)。甘蔗蟾蜍作为生防剂引进澳大利亚(Crossland et al.2008年)和Mongoose到夏威夷(Hays和Conant 2007)是臭名昭著的。多面手的无脊椎动物制剂的引入也产生了可怕的后果，例如将捕食性蜗牛引入法属波利尼西亚(Murray等人。1988年；库特2007年)。回过头来看，生物防治的一些意想不到的后果本可以通过更多的生态学知识(McEway和Coombs 2000)或对本地物种的更多社会欣赏(随着时间的推移而发展，Henneman和Memmott 2001)来避免，但如果有其他介绍，就不可能提前知道会有什么风险(例如，为携带汉坦病毒的小鼠提供补充食物的无花果蝇剂，Pearson和Callaway 2006)。生物防治的许多未知结果纯粹是生态的--被引入以寄生农业害虫的黄蜂也能够以本地昆虫为食，这种风险有多大？其他未知因素包括进化--食草动物是否会随着时间的推移而适应，以便能够以新的非目标宿主为食，或者与密切相关的物种杂交？这本书探索了生物控制的进化方面。尽管经常被忽视，但进化考虑对于经典生物防治的所有阶段都是至关重要的，从试剂选择到检疫、释放、建立，并最终在害虫控制中取得成功(Ehler等人)。2004年)。许多问题都没有得到解决。例如，应该选择与东道主有很长历史的代理商，还是更有可能成功的“新协会”(Hokkanen和Pimentel 1989)？是否可以通过人工选择来提高效率(Hopper等人1993)？病原体的后殖民适应是否会增加成功的可能性，和/或宿主是否同样有可能随着时间的推移而进化出抗药性(Roderick 1992；Holt and Hochberg 1997；Hufbauer 2001)？通才消费者更有可能在新奇的环境中生存，还是专家更有效(默多克等人)。1985年；瓦奇，1990年；布罗迪尔，…
Opinions about the value of biological control are often extreme. Colloquially, biological control most often refers to classical biological control, in which one species is introduced from another region to control pests such as arthropod herbivores in agricultural systems, or weeds in managed and natural systems. 1 As such, biological control has the potential to be a low-cost, chemical free, means to control pests. Numerous biological control programs have been unqualified successes (Bellows 2001), such as the control of cacti in Australia with the moth Cactoblastis cactorum (Raghu and Walton 2007), of cottony-cushion scale (Icerya purchasi) in California with the vedalia lady beetle, Rodolia cardinalis (Caltagirone and Doutt 1989), and of glassy-winged sharpshooters in French Polynesia with the egg parasitoid Gonatocerus ashmeadi (Grandgirard et al. 2009). Yet, classical biological control, as with any introduction of a species into a new area, necessarily involves the unknown and therefore carries some inherent risk (Simberloff and Stiling 1996)–what will these organisms actually do in a novel ecosystem? The most unpredictable element in biological control is the extent to which the realized niche is modified in the new environment. This effect has been responsible for some disastrous outcomes of classical biological control, many of which occurred during an era when vertebrates were being introduced around the world by Europeans for a variety of reasons (eg, introducing the birds of Shakespeare to America, Mirsky 2008), including for biological control (Howarth 1991). The introductions as biological control agents of cane toad to Australia (Crossland et al. 2008) and mongoose to Hawaii (Hays and Conant 2007) are notorious. Introductions of generalist invertebrate agents also have had dire consequences, such as the introduction of predatory snails to French Polynesia (Murray et al. 1988; Coote 2007). In retrospect, some of the unintended consequences of biological control could have been avoided with more ecological knowledge (McEvoy and Coombs 2000) or more societal appreciation for native species (which has developed with time, Henneman and Memmott 2001), but with other introductions, it would have been impossible to know ahead of time what the risks would be (eg, gall fly agents of knapweeds providing supplementary food to mice that harbor hantavirus, Pearson and Callaway 2006). Many of the unknown outcomes of biological control are purely ecological–what is the risk that a wasp, introduced to parasitize an agricultural pest, will also be able to feed on a native insect? Other unknowns involve evolution–will a herbivore adapt over time to be able to feed on a new nontarget host or hybridize with a closely related species? This volume explores the evolutionary aspects of biological control. Although often overlooked, evolutionary considerations are critical to all stages of classical biological control, from agent selection, to quarantine, release, establishment, and ultimately success in pest control (Ehler et al. 2004). Many questions are unresolved. For example, should agents be chosen that have a long history with the host or are ‘new associations’ more likely to succeed (Hokkanen and Pimentel 1989)? Can one improve effectiveness through artificial selection (Hopper et al. 1993)? Will postcolonization adaptation of the agent increase the likelihood of success, and/or are hosts equally likely to evolve resistance over time (Roderick 1992; Holt and Hochberg 1997; Hufbauer 2001)? Are generalist consumers more likely to survive in novel environments or are specialists more effective (Murdoch et al. 1985; Waage 1990; Brodeur …
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
McEvoy PB;Higgs KM;Coombs EM;Karaçetin E;Ann Starcevich L
通讯作者：
Ann Starcevich L
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Jones, CG;Lawton, JH;Shachak, M
通讯作者：
Shachak, M
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Bean DW;Dalin P;Dudley TL
通讯作者：
Dudley TL
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Hufbauer, RA
通讯作者：
Hufbauer, RA
影响因子：
0.9
作者：
HOKKANEN, HMT;PIMENTEL, D
通讯作者：
PIMENTEL, D