Response to Thomas et al.: Biocontrol and indirect effectsAuthor(s): Dean E. Pearson; Ragan M. Callaway
Source: Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 19(2): 62-63.
Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
Station: Rocky Mountain Research Station
Download Publication (0 B)
In a recent TREE article , we identified three categories of unintended indirect effects that can arise from host-specific biological control agents: (i) ecological replacement; (ii) compensatory responses; and (iii) food-web interactions. Although our review focused on the biocontrol of plant pests, we suggested these concepts also apply to the biocontrol of invertebrate pests. Thomas et al.  argue that our treatment of ecological replacement was unjustified and that indirect effects owing to compensatory responses and food-web subsidies do not apply to biocontrol of invertebrate pests.
- You may send email to email@example.com to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
Pearson, Dean E.; Callaway, Ragan M. 2004. Response to Thomas et al.: Biocontrol and indirect effects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 19(2): 62-63.
Keywordsbiological control agents, pests
- Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents
- Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem
- Effects of biological control agents and exotic plant invasion on deer mouse populations
XML: View XML