English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Generalists rarely are considered for classical biocontrol because their broad feeding habits are expected to make non-target impacts inevitable. This assumes an increase in overall ecological risk with increasing number of feeding connections. With the goal of inspiring fresh consideration of the safety of exotic biocontrol agents for classical biocontrol, we present a selective review of the impacts of nine particularly-well-studied exotic natural enemies ranging from relative specialists to generalists. Surprisingly, non-target effects could be particularly strong for relative specialists that attacked just a few natives, but were often widespread but weak for the broadest generalists. This appeared to reflect relatively strong apparent competition and density-dependence for the narrow feeders, versus broadly diffuse net effects for the broader feeders. Overall, we suggest a sole focus on specialists in classical biocontrol might be an unreliable means to reduce ecological risk. Additional research is needed to fully compare the net direct and indirect effects of generalists and specialists across food webs, following classical biocontrol releases.

Are specialists really safer than generalists for classical biocontrol?