Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk assessment procedures for biological control agents in New Zealand: two case studies for generalists

  • Published:
BioControl Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 06 October 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

New Zealand’s indigenous and productive ecosystems are highly vulnerable to invasive species: therefore, New Zealand has stringent biosecurity legislation which encompasses the introduction of new biological control agents. To introduce a new agent, an application is made to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The risk assessment carried out by the applicant is reviewed and a decision is made by an independent committee following public submissions and Māori consultation. An application will be declined if it is likely the new agent will cause significant adverse impacts on any indigenous species within its natural habitat, on natural habitats or on New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity. Contrasting case studies are presented on two generalist arthropod biological control agents, one for a predatory mirid Macrolophus pygmaeus (Rambur) (Hemiptera: Miridae) where the application was declined, and the other a predatory mite Neomolgus capillatus (Kramer) (Acarina: Bdellidae) which was considered for an application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 06 October 2020

    The article title was incomplete in the initial online publication. The original article has been corrected.

References

  • Addison PJ, Barker GM (2006) Effect of various pesticides on the non-target species Microctonus hyperodae, a biological control agent of Listronotus bonariensis. Entomol Exp Appl 119:71–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment 2020 Biological control agents. Available at https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/risk-analysis/biological-control-agents. Cited 3 August 2020

  • Bell NL, Willoughby BE (2003) A review of the role of predatory mites in the biological control of lucerne flea, Sminthurus viridis (l.) (Collembola: Sminthuridae) and their potential use in New Zealand. N Z J Agric Res 46:141–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne EE, Brockerhoff EG, Ward D (2018) Establishment patterns of non-native insects in New Zealand. Biol Invasions 20:1657–1669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castañé Cristina C, Arnó J, Gabarra R, Alomar O (2011) Plant damage to vegetable crops by zoophytophagous mirid predators. Biol Control 59:22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers GAC, Caradus JR, Fowler SV (2020) The regulatory process and costs to seek approval for the development and release of new biological control agents in New Zealand. BioControl 65:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2019) Biological control agents. Available at https://www.epa.govt.nz/industry-areas/new-organisms/biological-control-agents/. Cited 13 November 2019

  • FAO 2020 Dairy market review. Available at https://www.fao.org/3/ca8341en/CA8341EN.pdf. Cited 3 August 2020

  • Goldson SL, Barker GM, Chapman HM, Popay AJ, Stewart AV, Caradus JR, Barratt BIP (2020) Severe insect pest impacts on New Zealand pasture: the plight of an ecological outlier. J Insect Sci 20(17):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamdan AJ (2006) Effect of photoperiod on the life-history of the predatory bug, Macrolophus caliginosus Wagner (Hemiptera: Miridae). An-Najah Univ J Res (Sci) 20:135–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Horrocks KJ, Ward D, Suckling DM (2020) Can natural enemies of current insect pests provide biotic resistance to future pests? Agr Forest Entomol 22:20–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HSNO (1996) Hazardous substances and new organisms act. New Zealand legislation parliamentary counsel office, Wellington. Available at https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0030/latest/whole.html Cited 13 Jan 2020

  • Hulme PE (2020) Plant invasions in New Zealand: global lessons in prevention, eradication and control. Biol Invasions 22:1539–1562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt EJ, Kuhlmann U, Sheppard A, Qin TK, Barratt BIP, Harrison L, Mason PG, Parker D, Flanders RV, Goolsby J (2008) Review of invertebrate biological control agent regulation in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA: recommendations for a harmonized European system. J Appl Entomol 132:89–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt EJ, Loomans AJM, Kuhlmann U (2011) An international comparison of invertebrate biological control agent regulation: what can Europe learn? In: Ehlers R (ed) Regulation of biological control agents. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 79–112

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ingegno BL, Pansa MG, Tavella L (2011) Plant preference in the zoophytophagous generalist predator Macrolophus pygmaeus (Heteroptera: Miridae). Biol Control 58:174–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireson JE, Holloway RJ, Chatterton WS (2001) An overview of investigations into the use of predatory mites to control the lucerne flea, Sminthurus viridis (L.) (Collembola: Sminthuridae), in Tasmanian pastures. In: Halliday RB, Walter DE, Proctor HC, Norton RA, Colloff MJ (eds) Proceedings of the 10th international congress of acarology, 2001. CSIRO Publishing, pp 444–452

  • Ireson JE, Holloway RJ, Chatterton WS, McCorkell BE (2002) Further investigations into the efficacy of Neomolgus capillatus (Kramer) (Acarina: Bdellidae) as a predator of Sminthurus viridis (L.) (Collembola: Sminthuridae) in Tasmania. Aust J Entomol 41:88–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireson JE, Webb WR (1995) Effectiveness of Neomolgus capillatus (Kramer) (Acarina: Bdellidae) as a predator of Sminthurus viridis (L.) (Collembola: Sminthuridae) in northwestern Tasmania. Aust J Entomol 34:237–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly D, Sullivan JJ (2010) Life histories, dispersal, invasions, and global change: Progress and prospects in New Zealand ecology, 1989–2029. N Z J Ecol 34:207–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledgard SF, Wei S, Wang X, Falconer S, Zhang N, Zhang X, Ma L (2019) Nitrogen and carbon footprints of dairy farm systems in China and New Zealand, as influenced by productivity, feed sources and mitigations. Agric Water Manage 213:155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin NA (1989) Trialeurodes vaparariorum (Westwood), greenhouse whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). In: Cameron PJ, Hill RL, Bain J, Thomas WP (eds) A review of biological control of invertebrate pests and weeds in New Zealand 1874–1987. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 251–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Cascales JI, Cenis JL, Cassis G, Sanchez JA (2006) Species identity of Macrolophus melanotoma (Costa 1853) and Macrolophus pygmaeus (Rambur 1839) (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae) based on morphological and molecular data and bionomic implications. Insect Syst Evol 37:385–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messelink GJ, Bloemhard CMJ, Hoogerbrugge H, van Schelt J, Ingegno BL, Tavella L (2015) Evaluation of mirid predatory bugs and release strategy for aphid control in sweet pepper. J Appl Entomol 139:333–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paula DP, Andow DA, Barratt BIP, Pfannenstiel RS, Gerard PJ, Todd JH, Zazievo T, Luna MG, Cédola CV, Loomans AJM, Howe AG, Day MD, Ehlers C, Green C, Arpaia S, Yano E, Lövei GL, Hinomoto N, Fontes E, Pires CSS, Togni PHB, Nechols JR, Eubanks MD, van Lenteren JC (2021) Integrating adverse effect analysis into environmental risk assessment for exotic generalist arthropod biological control agents: a three-tiered framework. BioControl (in press)

  • Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P, Hulme PE, Simberloff D, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Carlton JT, Dawson W, Essl F, Foxcroft LC, Genovesi P, Jeschke JM, Kühn I, Liebhold AM, Mandrak NE, Meyerson LA, Pauchard A, Pergl J, Roy HE, Seebens H, van Kleunen M, Vilà M, Wingfield MJ, Richardson DM (2020) Scientists' warning on invasive alien species. Biol Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley GS (2003) "Six months in a leaky boat": the biosecurity of New Zealand forests. NZ J For Sci 33:429–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts JMK, Umina PA, Hoffmann AA, Weeks AR (2011) Population dynamics and diapause response of the springtail pest Sminthurus viridis (Collembola: Sminthuridae) in Southeastern Australia. J Econ Entomol 104:465–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez JA, López-Gallego E, Pérez-Marcos M, Perera-Fernández LG, Ramírez-Soria MJ (2018) How safe is it to rely on Macrolophus pygmaeus (Hemiptera: Miridae) as a biocontrol agent in tomato crops? Front Ecol Evol 6:132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard AW, Hill RL, DeClerck-Floate RA, McClay A, Olckers T, Quimby PC, Zimmermann HG (2003) A global review of risk-benefit-cost analysis for the introduction of classical weed biological control agents against weeds: a crisis in the making? Biocontrol News Inf 24:91–108

    Google Scholar 

  • StatsNZ (2019) Nitrogen and phoshorus in fertilisers. Available at https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/nitrogen-and-phosphorus-in-fertilisers. Cited 28 Jul 2020.

  • Suckling DM (2013) Benefits from biological control of weeds in New Zealand range from negligible to massive: a retrospective analysis. Biol Control 66:27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherst RW, Maywald GF (1991) Climate modelling and pest establishment. Plant Prot Q 6:3–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend RJ, Pottinger RP, Rowe SJ Evaluation of alternative insecticides for lucerne flea on pasture. In: Hartley MJ (ed) Proceedings of the 32nd New Zealand weed and pest control conference, Palmerston North, 1979. New Zealand weed and pest control society inc, pp 68–71

  • van Lenteren JC (2012) The state of commercial augmentative biological control: plenty of natural enemies, but a frustrating lack of uptake. BioControl 57:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Lenteren JC, Bale J, Bigler F, Hokkanen HMT, Loomans AJM (2006) Assessing risks of releasing exotic biological control agents of arthropod pests. Annu Rev Entomol 51:609–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker JTS, Suckling DM, Wearing CH (2017) Past, present, and future of integrated control of apple pests: the New Zealand experience. Annu Rev Entomol 62:231–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace MMH (1974) An attempt to extend the biological control of Sminthurus viridis (Collembola) to new areas in Australia by introducing a predatory mite, Neomolgus capillatus (Bdellidae). Aust J Zool 22:519–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter DE, Azam GN, Waite G, Hargreaves J (1998) Risk assessment of an exotic biocontrol agent: Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) does not establish in rainforest in southeast Queensland. Aust J Ecol 23:587–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterhouse DF, Sands DPA (2001) Classical biological control of arthropods in Australia. CSIRO Entomology, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • White TD, Kean JM, Barratt BIP (2008) The biocontrol information resource for ERMA New Zealand applicants (BIREA): an evaluation. N Z Plant Protect 61:8–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby BE, Cooper B, Panckhurst K, Wilson DJ (2002) Combining chlorpyrifos and diflubenzuron for effective management of clover flea (Sminthurus viridis). N Z Plant Protect 55:258–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang W, Rennie G, Ledgard S, Mercer G, Lucci G (2020) Impact of delivering ‘green’ dairy products on farm in New Zealand. Agric Syst 178:102747

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank EPA and DOC for helpful advice and Joanne Jensen for reviewing the draft manuscript. This study was supported with funding from AgResearch as part of the Better Border Biosecurity (https://www.b3nz.org) research collaboration B3 and facilitated by the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) which funded the ERA – GABCA project. The Neomolgus capillatus project was made possible through the collaboration of John Ireson, University of Tasmania and technical input of Derrick Wilson, AgResearch. It was funded by DairyNZ (Projects RD1425 and FD606) and Ministry for Primary Industries (SFF Project L11/129) with support from the Clover Flea Action Group and T R Ellett Agricultural Research Trust.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AgResearch, Ruakura Research Centre, PB 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Philippa J. Gerard

  2. AgResearch, Invermay Research Centre, PB 50034, Mosgiel, New Zealand

    Barbara I. P. Barratt

  3. Better Border Biosecurity (B3), Lincoln, New Zealand

    Barbara I. P. Barratt

Authors
  1. Philippa J. Gerard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara I. P. Barratt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippa J. Gerard.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Approval has been obtained from EPA to use Macrolophus pygmaeus as a case study.

Additional information

Handling Editor: David Andow.

The original version of this article has been revised: The article title has been corrected.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gerard, P.J., Barratt, B.I.P. Risk assessment procedures for biological control agents in New Zealand: two case studies for generalists. BioControl 66, 143–150 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-020-10049-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-020-10049-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation