Colección SciELO Chile

Departamento Gestión de Conocimiento, Monitoreo y Prospección
Consultas o comentarios: productividad@anid.cl
Búsqueda Publicación
Búsqueda por Tema Título, Abstract y Keywords



Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems
Indexado
WoS WOS:000280602400002
Scopus SCOPUS_ID:77955268710
DOI 10.1016/J.BIOCONTROL.2010.03.003
Año 2010
Tipo revisión

Citas Totales

Autores Afiliación Chile

Instituciones Chile

% Participación
Internacional

Autores
Afiliación Extranjera

Instituciones
Extranjeras


Abstract



Of the 70 cases of classical biological control for the protection of nature found in our review, there were fewer projects against insect targets (21) than against invasive plants (49), in part, because many insect biological control projects were carried out against agricultural pests, while nearly all projects against plants targeted invasive plants in natural ecosystems. Of 21 insect projects, 81% (17) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 48% (10) protected products harvested from natural systems, and 5% (1) preserved ecosystem services, with many projects contributing to more than one goal. In contrast, of the 49 projects against invasive plants, 98% (48) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 47% (23) protected products, and 25% (12) preserved ecosystem services, again with many projects contributing to several goals. We classified projects into complete control (pest generally no longer important), partial control (control in some areas but not others), and "in progress," for projects in development for which outcomes do not yet exist. For insects, of the 21 projects discussed, 62% (13) achieved complete control of the target pest, 19% (4) provided partial control, and 43% (9) are still in progress. By comparison, of the 49 invasive plant projects considered, 27% (13) achieved complete control, while 33% (16) provided partial control, and 49% (24) are still in progress. For both categories of pests, some projects' success ratings were scored twice when results varied by region. We found approximately twice as many projects directed against invasive plants than insects and that protection of biodiversity was the most frequent benefit of both insect and plant projects. Ecosystem service protection was provided in the fewest cases by either insect or plant biological control agents, but was more likely to be provided by projects directed against invasive plants, likely because of the strong effects plants exert on landscapes. Rates of complete success appeared to be higher for insect than plant targets (62% vs 27%), perhaps because most often herbivores gradually weaken, rather than outright kill, their hosts, which is not the case for natural enemies directed against pest insects. For both insect and plant biological control, nearly half of all projects reviewed were listed as currently in progress, suggesting that the use of biological control for the protection of wildlands is currently very active. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Revista



Revista ISSN
Biological Control 1049-9644

Métricas Externas



PlumX Altmetric Dimensions

Muestra métricas de impacto externas asociadas a la publicación. Para mayor detalle:

Disciplinas de Investigación



WOS
Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology
Entomology
Scopus
Sin Disciplinas
SciELO
Sin Disciplinas

Muestra la distribución de disciplinas para esta publicación.

Publicaciones WoS (Ediciones: ISSHP, ISTP, AHCI, SSCI, SCI), Scopus, SciELO Chile.

Colaboración Institucional



Muestra la distribución de colaboración, tanto nacional como extranjera, generada en esta publicación.


Autores - Afiliación



Ord. Autor Género Institución - País
1 Van Driesche, R. G. - Univ Massachusetts - Estados Unidos
University of Massachusetts Amherst - Estados Unidos
2 Carruthers, R. I. - USDA ARS - Estados Unidos
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Washington DC - Estados Unidos
USDA Agricultural Research Service - Estados Unidos
3 Center, T. - ARS - Estados Unidos
USDA ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory - Estados Unidos
4 Hoddle, M. S. - Univ Calif Riverside - Estados Unidos
University of California, Riverside - Estados Unidos
5 Hough-Goldstein, J. - Univ Delaware - Estados Unidos
University of Delaware - Estados Unidos
6 Morin, L. - CSIRO Entomol - Australia
CSIRO Entomology - Australia
7 Smith, L. C. Mujer USDA ARS - Estados Unidos
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Washington DC - Estados Unidos
USDA Agricultural Research Service - Estados Unidos
8 Wagner, D. L. - Univ Connecticut - Estados Unidos
University of Connecticut - Estados Unidos
9 Blossey, B. - CORNELL UNIV - Estados Unidos
Cornell University - Estados Unidos
10 Brancatini, V. - CSIRO Entomol - Australia
CSIRO Entomology - Australia
11 Casagrande, R. - UNIV RHODE ISL - Estados Unidos
University of Rhode Island - Estados Unidos
The University of Rhode Island - Estados Unidos
12 Causton, Charlotte E. Mujer Fdn Charles Darwin - Ecuador
Fundación Charles Darwin - Ecuador
13 Coetzee, J. A. - Rhodes Univ - República de Sudáfrica
Rhodes University - República de Sudáfrica
14 Cuda, J. - UNIV FLORIDA - Estados Unidos
University of Florida - Estados Unidos
University of Idaho - Estados Unidos
15 Ding, J. - CASSACA - China
Chinese Academy of Sciences - China
Wuhan Botanical Garden - China
16 Fowler, S. V. - Landcare Res - Nueva Zelanda
Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research - Nueva Zelanda
Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research - Nueva Zelanda
17 Frank, J. H. - UNIV FLORIDA - Estados Unidos
University of Florida - Estados Unidos
University of Idaho - Estados Unidos
18 Fuester, R. - USDA ARS - Estados Unidos
USDA ARS Beneficial Insects Introduction Research Unit - Estados Unidos
19 Goolsby, J. - USDA ARS - Estados Unidos
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Washington DC - Estados Unidos
USDA Agricultural Research Service - Estados Unidos
20 Grodowitz, M. - USA - Estados Unidos
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center - Estados Unidos
21 Heard, T. A. - CSIRO Entomol - Australia
CSIRO Entomology - Australia
22 Hill, M. P. - Rhodes Univ - República de Sudáfrica
Rhodes University - República de Sudáfrica
23 Hoffmann, J. H. - UNIV CAPE TOWN - República de Sudáfrica
University of Cape Town - República de Sudáfrica
24 Huber, J. - Nat Resources Canada - Canadá
Natural Resources Canada - Canadá
25 Julien, M. - CSIRO Entomol - Australia
CSIRO Entomology - Australia
26 Kairo, M. T. K. - Florida A&M Univ - Estados Unidos
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University - Estados Unidos
27 Kenis, Marc Hombre CABI Europe Switzerland - Suiza
CABI, Switzerland - Suiza
28 Jaffe, T. R. Mujer AGR & AGRI FOOD CANADA - Canadá
29 Medal, J. - UNIV FLORIDA - Estados Unidos
University of Florida - Estados Unidos
University of Idaho - Estados Unidos
30 Messing, R. - Univ Hawaii Manoa - Estados Unidos
University of Hawaii at Manoa - Estados Unidos
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources - Estados Unidos
31 Miller, R. - Univ Guam - Estados Unidos
University of Guam - Estados Unidos
Unibetsedȧt Guåhan - Guam
32 Moore, A. - Univ Guam - Estados Unidos
University of Guam - Estados Unidos
Unibetsedȧt Guåhan - Guam
33 Neuenschwander, P. - Int Inst Trop Agr - Benín
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Contonou - Benín
34 Newman, R. - Univ Minnesota - Estados Unidos
University of Minnesota - Estados Unidos
University of Minnesota Twin Cities - Estados Unidos
35 NORAMBUENA-RAMIREZ, HERALDO VICTOR - INIA Carillanca - Chile
Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias - Chile
36 Palmer, W. A. - Alan Fletcher Res Stn - Australia
Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries - Australia
37 Pemberton, R. - ARS - Estados Unidos
USDA ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory - Estados Unidos
38 Perez Panduro, A. - Colegio de Postgraduados - México
Carr Mexico - México
Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Montecillo - México
38 Panduro, A. Perez - Carr Mexico - México
Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Montecillo - México
39 Pratt, P. D. - ARS - Estados Unidos
USDA ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory - Estados Unidos
40 Rayamajhi, M. - ARS - Estados Unidos
USDA ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory - Estados Unidos
41 Salom, S. - Virginia Tech - Estados Unidos
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University - Estados Unidos
42 Sands, D. - CSIRO Entomol - Australia
CSIRO Entomology - Australia
43 Schooler, S. - CSIRO Entomol - Australia
CSIRO Entomology - Australia
44 Schwarzlaender, M. - Univ Idaho - Estados Unidos
University of Idaho - Estados Unidos
45 Sheppard, A. - CSIRO Entomol - Australia
CSIRO Entomology - Australia
46 Shaw, R. - CABI E UK - Reino Unido
CABI, United Kingdom - Reino Unido
47 Tipping, P. W. - ARS - Estados Unidos
USDA ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory - Estados Unidos
48 van Klinken, R. D. - CSIRO Entomol - Australia
CSIRO Entomology - Australia

Muestra la afiliación y género (detectado) para los co-autores de la publicación.

Origen de Citas Identificadas



Muestra la distribución de países cuyos autores citan a la publicación consultada.

Citas identificadas: Las citas provienen de documentos incluidos en la base de datos de DATACIENCIA

Citas Identificadas: 0.49 %
Citas No-identificadas: 99.51 %

Muestra la distribución de instituciones nacionales o extranjeras cuyos autores citan a la publicación consultada.

Citas identificadas: Las citas provienen de documentos incluidos en la base de datos de DATACIENCIA

Citas Identificadas: 0.49 %
Citas No-identificadas: 99.51 %

Financiamiento



Fuente
Sin Información

Muestra la fuente de financiamiento declarada en la publicación.

Agradecimientos



Agradecimiento
Sin Información

Muestra la fuente de financiamiento declarada en la publicación.