Exotic ladybirds for biological control of herbivorous insects – a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the late 19th century, exotic ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) have been used extensively for suppressing herbivorous insects of economic importance. In recent decades, the introduction of non‐native biological control (BC) agents has been greatly limited due to the awareness of the potential non‐target effects of introductions. Nonetheless, recent episodes of biological invasions of economically important pests have raised the need to carefully consider whether the expected benefits of pest control go beyond the possible environmental risks of introduction. To better understand the factors that contributed to successful BC programs, here we review the literature behind classical and augmentative BC using exotic ladybirds. Additionally, by means of case studies, we discuss the BC efficacy of selected exotic species, e.g.,Coccinella septempunctataL.,Harmonia axyridis(Pallas), andHippodamia variegata(Goeze), and their position within the communities of predators in the introduced areas of USA, Canada, and Chile. In Europe, much of the research on exotic ladybirds has been conducted on the undesired impact ofH. axyridis. Therefore, we summarize the risk assessment data for this species and review the field research investigating the ecological impact on European aphidophagous predators. According to the BIOCAT database of classical BC programs, 212 ladybird species belonging to 68 genera have been released in about 130 years of BC activity, with 14.6% of introductions having resulted in partial, substantial, or complete control of the target pest. However, because post‐release evaluation of establishment and BC success has not always been conducted, this rate could underestimate the successful cases. Among other factors, ladybird establishment and pest suppression mostly depend on (1) intrinsic factors, i.e., high voracity, synchronized predator‐prey life cycle, and high dispersal ability, and (2) extrinsic factors, i.e., adaptability to the new environment and landscape composition. This review contributes to improved understanding of ladybirds as exotic BC agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".