Digital Commons Network^™

Classical Biological Control For The Protection Of Natural Ecosystems, R.G. Van Driesche, R I. Carruthers, T. Center, M.S. Hoddle, J. Hough-Goldstein, L. Morin, L. Smith, D.L. Wagner, B. Blossey, V. Brancatini, R. Casagrande, C.E. Causton, J.A. Coetzee, J. Cuda, J. Ding, S.V. Fowler, J. H. Frank, R. Fuester, J. A. Goolsby, M. Grodowitz, T.A. Heard, M.P. Hill, J.H. Hoffmann, J. Huber, M. Julien, M.T.K. Kairo, M. Kenis, P. Mason, J. Medal, R. Messing, R. Miller, A. Moore, P. Neuenschwander, R. Newman, H. Norambuena, W.A. Palmer, R. Pemberton, A. Perez-Panduro, P.D. Pratt, M. Rayamajhi, S. Salom, D. Sands, S. Schooler, M. Schwarzländer, A. Sheppard, R. Shaw, P.W. Tipping, R.D. Van Klinken

United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service / University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Faculty Publications

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 …