Treesearch
Response to Thomas et al.: Biocontrol and indirect effects
| Authors: | Dean E. Pearson, Ragan M. Callaway |
| Year: | 2004 |
| Type: | Scientific Journal |
| Station: | Rocky Mountain Research Station |
| DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.001 |
| Source: | Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 19(2): 62-63. |
Download (PDF 48 KB): https://research.fs.usda.gov/download/treesearch/49917.pdf
Abstract
In a recent TREE article [1], 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. [2] 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.