Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:43:35.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Present Status of Projects on the Biological Control of Weeds by Insects and Plant Pathogens in the United States and Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. D. Goeden ,
L. A. Andres ,
T. E. Freeman ,
P. Harris ,
R. L. Pienkowski  and
C. R. Walker
R. D. Goeden
Affiliation:
Div. of Biol. Contr., Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92502
L. A. Andres
Affiliation:
Biol. Contr. of Weeds Lab., ARS U.S. Dep. of Agr., Albany, CA 94706
T. E. Freeman
Affiliation:
Dep. of Plant Path., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
P. Harris
Affiliation:
Regina Res. Sta., Canada Dept. Agr., Regina, Saskatchewan, S4O 3A2
R. L. Pienkowski
Affiliation:
Dep. of Entomology, Virginia Polytech. Inst. & State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061
C. R. Walker
Affiliation:
Branch of Pest Contr. Res., Fish & Wildlife Serv., BSD&W–USDI, Washington, DC 20005
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed species or genera previously and currently targeted for biological control with phytophagous insects or phytopathogens in the United States (including Hawaii) and Canada are listed. The current status of and natural enemies involved in national, federal, state, and university biological control projects are reported.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , September 1974 , pp. 490 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. Andres, L.A. 1966. Host specificity studies of Phrydiuchus toparius Phrydiuchus sp. J. Econ. Entomol. 59:69–76.Google Scholar
2. Andres, L.A. and Goeden, R.D. 1971. The biological control of weeds by introduced natural enemies. IN: Biological Control. Huffaker, C.B., ed. Plenum Pub. Corp., New York. p. 143–164.Google Scholar
3. Andres, L.A., Hawkes, R.B., and Rizza, A. 1967. Apion seed weevil introduced for biological control of Scotch broom. Calif. Agr. 21:13.Google Scholar
4. Andres, L.A. and Rizza, A. 1965. Life history of Phrydiuchus toparius (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on Salvia verbenacea (Labiatae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 58:314–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Baloch, G.M. 1968. Possibilities for biological control of some species of Cuscuta . Pest Articles and News Summaries (C) 14:27–33.Google Scholar
6. Baloch, G.M., Khan, A.G., and Ghani, M.A. 1972. Phenology, biology, and host specificity of some stenophagous insects attacking Myriophyllum spp. in Pakistan. Hyacinth Contr. J. 10:13–16.Google Scholar
7. Bess, H.A. and Haramoto, F.H. 1958. Biological control of pamakani, Eupatorium adenophorum, in Hawaii by a tephritid fly, Procecidochares utilis. I. The life history of the fly and its effectiveness in the control of the weed. Proc. 10th Intern. Cong. Entomol. 4:543–548.Google Scholar
8. Brown, J.C. and Spencer, N.R. 1973. Vogtia malloi, a newly introduced Phycitine moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) to control alligatorweed. Environ. Entomol. 2:519–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Coulson, J.R. 1971. Prognosis for control of water hyacinth by arthropods. Hyacinth Contr. J. 9:31–34.Google Scholar
10. Davis, C.J. 1961. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii–VI. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 17(3):389–393.Google Scholar
11. Davis, C.J. 1970. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii–XV. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 20(3):521–525.Google Scholar
12. Davis, C.J. 1972. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii–XVII. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 21(2):187–190.Google Scholar
13. Davis, C.J. and Chong, M. 1969. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii–XIV. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 19(3):375–380.Google Scholar
14. Davis, C.J. and Krauss, N.L.H. 1962. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii–VII. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 18(1):126–129.Google Scholar
15. Davis, C.J. and Krauss, N.L.H. 1964. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 18(3):391–397.Google Scholar
16. Davis, C.J. and Krauss, N.L.H. 1966. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii–XI. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 19(2):201–207.Google Scholar
17. Davis, C.J. and Krauss, N.L.H. 1967. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii–XII. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 19(3):375–380.Google Scholar
18. Frick, K.E. 1964. Leucoptera spartifoliella, an introduced enemy of Scotch broom in the western United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 57:589–591.Google Scholar
19. Goeden, R.D. 1971. Insect ecology of silverleaf nightshade. Weed Sci. 19:45–51.Google Scholar
20. Goeden, R.D. 1973. Phytophagous insects found on Salsola spp. in Turkey during exploration for biological weed control agents for California. Entomophaga 18:439–448.Google Scholar
21. Goeden, R.D. and Ricker, D.W. 1974. Imported seed weevils attacking Italian thistle and milk thistle in southern California. Calif. Agr. 28(1):8–9.Google Scholar
22. Harris, P. 1971. Current approaches to biological control of weeds. IN: Biological Control Programmes Against Insects and Weeds in Canada 1959–1968. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. Tech. Commun. No. 4:79–83.Google Scholar
23. Harris, P. and Alex, J. 1971. Euphorbia esula L., leafy spurge, and E. cyparissias L., cypress spurge (Euphorbiaceae). IN: Biological Control Programmes Against Insects and Weeds in Canada 1959–1968. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. Tech. Commun. No. 4:83–88.Google Scholar
24. Harris, P. and Carder, A.C. 1971. Linaria vulgaris Mill., yellow toadflax and L. dalmatica (L.) Mill., broad-leaved toadflax (Scrophulariaceae). IN: Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in Canada 1959–1968. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. Tech. Commun. No. 4:94–97.Google Scholar
25. Harris, P. and Piper, G.L. 1970. Ragweed (Ambrosia spp.: Compositae): its North American insects and the possibilities for its biological control. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. Tech. Bull. 13:117–140.Google Scholar
26. Harris, P.A., Wilkinson, T.S., Neary, M.E., and Thompson, L.S. 1971. Senecio jacobaea L., tansy ragwort (Compositae). IN: Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in Canada 1959–1968. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. Tech. Commun. No. 4:79–83.Google Scholar
27. Harris, P. and Zwölfer, H. 1971. Carduus acanthoides L., welted thistle and C. nutans L., nodding thistle (Compositae). IN: Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in Canada 1959–1968. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. Tech. Commun. No. 4:76–79.Google Scholar
28. Hawkes, R.B., Andres, L.A., and Dunn, P.H. 1972. Seed weevil released to control milk thistle. Calif. Agr. 26:14.Google Scholar
29. Hawkes, R.B. and Mayfield, A. 1973. Host specificity and biology studies of Coleophora parthenica, an insect for the biological control of Russian thistle. IN: A Commemorative Volume in Entomology. Univ. of Idaho. (In press).Google Scholar
30. Holloway, J.K. 1964. Projects in biological control of weeds. IN: Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. DeBach, P., ed. Reinhold Pub. Co., New York. p. 650–670.Google Scholar
31. Holloway, J.K. and Huffaker, C.B. 1957. Establishment of the seed weevil, Apion ulicis, for the suppression of gorse in California. J. Econ. Entomol. 50:498–499.Google Scholar
32. Lekic, M. and Mihajlovic, L.J. 1970. Entomafauna of Myriophyllum spicatum L. (Halorrhagidaceae) an aquatic weed of Yugoslav territory. J. Sci. Agr. Res. (Belgrade, Yugoslavia) 23:59–74.Google Scholar
33. Maddox, D.M., Andres, L.A., Hennessey, R.D., Blackburn, R.D., and Spencer, N.R. 1971. Insects to control alligatorweed. Bio. Sci. 21:985–991.Google Scholar
34. Peschken, D.P. 1971. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Canada thistle. IN: Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in Canada 1959–1968. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. Tech. Commun. No. 4:79–83.Google Scholar
35. Peschken, D.P. 1972. Chrysolina quadrigemina (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) introduced from California to British Columbia against the weed Hypericum perforatum: Comparison of behavior, physiology and colour associated with post-colonization adaptation. Canadian Entomol. 104:1689–1698.Google Scholar
36. Sankaran, T. and Krishna, T. 1967. The biology of Nanophyes sp. (Col., Curculionidae) infesting Jussiena repens in India. Bull. Entomol. Res. 57:337–342.Google Scholar
37. Sankaran, T. and Rao, V.P. 1966. Insects attacking witchweed (Striga) in India. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. Tech. Bull. No. 7:63–73.Google Scholar
38. Surles, W.W., Kok, L.T., and Pienkowski, R.L. 1974. Rhinocyllus conicus establishment for biocontrol of thistles in Virginia. Weed Sci. 22:1–3.Google Scholar
39. Swezey, O.H. 1926. Recent introductions of beneficial insects in Hawaii. J. Econ. Entomol. 19:714–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Weber, P.W. 1951. Recent liberations of beneficial insects in Hawaii. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 14(2):327–330.Google Scholar
41. Wilson, C.L. 1969. Use of plant pathogens in weed control. Ann. Rev. of Phytopath. 7:411–434.Google Scholar
42. Zettler, F.W. and Freeman, T.E. 1972. Plant pathogens as biocontrols of aquatic weeds. Ann. Rev. of Phytopath. 10:455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Zwölfer, H. and Eichhorn, O. 1966. The host ranges of Cassida spp. (Col. Chrysomelidae) attacking Cynareae Compositae) in Europe. Z. Angew. Entomol. 58(4):384–397.Google Scholar