4.2 Article

Non-target impacts of forest defoliator management options: Decision for no spraying may have worse impacts on non-target Lepidoptera than Bacillus thuringiensis insecticides

期刊

JOURNAL OF INSECT CONSERVATION
卷 8, 期 2-3, 页码 241-261

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:JICO.0000045822.15349.cf

关键词

Bacillus thuringiensis; Butterflies; Disease; Moths; Parasites; Predators

资金

  1. College of Natural Sciences
  2. Michigan Agricultural and Natural Resources Experiment Station [1644]
  3. Michigan Dept. of Agriculture
  4. USDA Competitive Grants Program
  5. NC Regional Research Program [NC-212]
  6. National Science Foundation [LTER BSR-8702332, Ecology DEB-92201122, Ecosystems DEB-9510044, Population Biology DEB-9981608]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Management programs for major forest defoliators such as gypsy moths or forest tent caterpillars, and crop pests such as the European corn borer have shifted from broad-spectrum insecticides to more environmentally benign microbial pesticides such as Bacillus thuringiensis (foliage sprays and transgenic toxin expression in plant tissues). Phytochemically resistant host plants and natural enemies have been used as alternative pest management strategies (including generalist tachinid flies such as Compsilura, viruses, microsporidians, and fungi), but all of these have some non-target impacts, as described from literature review. A sequence of lab and field studies were conducted to determine non-target impacts on native Lepidoptera in North America. The conclusions reached are that a decision not to spray Bt pesticides (i.e. to allow defoliation and natural pest outbreaks to run their course) could be as bad or worse for non-target Lepidoptera as the microbial insecticides would be. The important concept that must be maintained is that all pest management programs have some risk of negative non-target impacts, but it is the magnitude and relative importance that will remain the most critical issue for environmental impacts and pest management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据