Guidelines for Introducing Foreign Organisms
into the United States for the Biological Control
of Weeds
Dayton L. KlingmanJ and Jack R. Coulson2
R
esearch on biological control of
weeds in the United States began early in this century with the
use of introduced insects to control the
weed lantana, Lantana camara L., in
Hawaii. The highly successful program
for biological control of St. Johnswort
(sometimes called "Klamath weed"), Hypen'cum perforatum L., in California
by the use of introduced insects in the
1940s and I950s caused increased interest
in this approach to weed control. As a result of this increased interest, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) established two overseas laboratories to
study arthropod natural enemies of a
number of weeds that had been introduced into the United States-in Rome, Italy, in 1959, and near Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1962. The recent and successful use of an introduced rush pathogen, Fuccinia chondn'//ina Bubak &
Syd., to control rush skeletonweed,
Chondn'//a juncea L., in Australia, and
the production and utilization of pathogens for control of weeds in the United
States, has spurred further interest in
biological control.
Huffaker (1959) provided an early review of U.S. biological control of weeds
programs. Since then, a number of authors have reviewed the subject and the
procedures used for such importation
programs: e.g., Huffaker (1964), Harris
and Zwolfer (1968), Wilson (1969),
Zwolfer and Harris (1971), Harris
(1973), Frick (1974), Wapshere (1974),
Andres et al. (1976), Goeden (1978),
Freeman (1978), USDA (1978), Templeton et al. (1979), Andres and Kok
(1981), Batra (1981), Andres (1981), and
Charudattan and Walker (1982).
Early in the development of the biological control of weeds programs in the
United States, an advisory group was established at the request of biological conFALL 1983
trol researchers who were seeking (1) advice on potential conflicts of interest (i.e.,
on whether or not plants targeted for
study were universally regarded as
"weeds"), and (2) recommendations regarding plants against which exotic phytophagous arthropods (i.e., plant-feeding
insects and mites) proposed for introduction into the United States should be
tested. This group was established in
December 1957, first as a Subcommittee,
and later as the Working Group on Biological Control of Weeds (WGBCW) under the Weed Committees of the USDA
and U.S. Department of the Interior
(USDI) , that meet jointly.
The Working Group currently consists of 11 members representing a diverse
range of expertise and special interests
(Table I), from which advice and counsel
is sought on questions relating to proposed releases of exotic organisms into
the United States for biological weed control. The current Chairman of the Working Group is Rodney W. Bovey, Grassland Protection Research, ARS, USDA,
Department of Range Services, Texas A
& M University, College Station, Tex.
77841.
Since its establishment, the Working
Group has broadened its responsibilities
to include not only response to questions
concerning conflicts of interest and selection of test plants, but also evaluation of
the adequacy of the data showing the
safety of-and the need for-the release
of exotic organisms for control of weeds.
In this respect, the Working Group has
come to serve as a principal advisor not
only to biological control researchers, but
also to the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) programs of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), the organization with the final
legal authority for issuance of federal permits for introduction, movement, and re-
lease in the United States of organisms
which attack plants.
In recent years, guidelines have evolved which illustrate for researchers the
type of data necessary and the procedures
to be followed in regard to the Working
Group and with PPQ and State regulatory offices. In view of the still increasing
number of workers involved in biological
control of weeds (see Andres and Kok
1981), including entomologists, weed scientists, and an increasing number of
plant pathologists, the publication of the
most recent (1980) revision of the Working Group's guidelines, so as to reach the
largest number of researchers of these disciplines as possible, should be of public
and scientific value.
Descriptions of the procedures for conducting a biological control research program are contained in a number of references cited in this paper. These references should be referred to for scientific
procedural details. The guidelines published herewith are intended to supplement those procedural descriptions, to include a regulatory viewpoint, and to give
the biological control researchers guidance as they proceed with plans leading
to the importation and release of exotic
weed control organisms, including phytophagous arthropods, plant nematodes,
and plant pathogens.
The guidelines have been developed
by members of the Working Group, and
C.]. DeLoach (USDA Grassland, Soil
and Water Laboratory, Temple, Tex.),
and L.A. Andres (USDA Biological
Control of Weeds Laboratory, Albany,
Calif.). The authors of this paper have
IFormerly Chief, Weed Science Laboratory,
Agricultural Environmental Quality Institute, ARS,
USDA, and Working Group Chair now retired
2Benefical Insect Introduction Laboratory, Insect Identification and Beneficial Insect Introduction
Institute, ARS, USDA, Beltsville, Mel. 20705.
55
Table 1. Organizational
representation
on the Working Group on Biological Control of Weeds. 1982
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Science and Education
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) (4 members representing weed science, entomology, plant pathology, and botany)
Cooperative States Research Service (I member representing state research interests)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine (I member representing federal and state regulatory interests)
Forest Service
Timber Management Research (I member)
U.S. Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service (I member)
Bureau of Land Management (I member)
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs, Criteria and Evaluation Division (I member)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Wetland and Terrestrial Habitat Group (1 member)
Table 2. U.S. Quarantine facilities currently (1982) approved as receiving centers for foreign organisms for study as agents for biological control of weeds.
USDA facilities
1. Biological Control of Weeds Laboratory, ARS-WR, 1050 San Pablo Avenue, Albany, CA 94706. Telephone: 415-486-3757; ITS 449-3757
Primary mission" and types of organisms to be contained: exotic weed-feeding arthropods
2. Quarantine Facility, Grassland, Soils and Water Laboratory, ARS-SR, P.O. Box 748, Temple, TX 76501. Telephone: 817-774-1201; ITS 736-1201
Primary mission" and types of organisms to be contained: exotic arthropods for control of brush and range weeds
3. Stoneville Research Quarantine Facility, U.S. Delta States Agricultural Research Center, ARS-SR, P.O. Box 225, Stoneville, MS 38776. Telephone: 601-686-2311;
ITS 497·2282
Primary mission" and types of organisms to be contained: exotic arthropod parasites and predators of arthropod pests, and exotic weed.feeding arthropods. Limited
receipt and diagnosis of exotic entomopathogen materials, and study of endemic plant pathogens for weed control
4. Biological Pest Control Research Unit, ARS·SR, P.O. Box 1269, Gainesville, FL 32602. Telephone: 904·372·3505: FTS 946-7271. This Unit is located with the State·
operated facility listed below (see no. 4)
5. Plant Disease Research Laboratory, ARS-NER, P.O. Box 1209, Frederick, MD 21701. Telephone: 301·663·7344 or 663·2333:
935·7344,935·2333
Primary mission" and types of organisms to be contained: exotic plant pathogens for weed control
}o~rs
State facilities
I. Quarantine Laboratory, Hawaii Department of Agriculture, 1428 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96814. Telephone: 808·548·7172
Primary mission" and types of organisms to be contained: exotic parasites and predators of arthropod and snail pests, and exotic weed.feeding arthropods
2. Quarantine Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Division of Biological Control, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521. Telephone: 714·787·5703
Primary mission" and types of organisms to be contained: exotic arthropod parasites and predators of arthropod and snail pests, and exotic terrestrial weed·feeding ar·
thropods, and aquatic weed.feeding arthropods and vertebrates (fish). Limited receipt and diagnosis of exotic entomopathogen materials
3. Plant Pathology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. Telephone: 904·392·3631
Primary mission" and types of organisms to be contained: exotic plant pathogens for control of weeds
4. Biological Control Laboratory, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, P.O. Box 1269, Gainesville, FL 32602.
Telephone: 904·372-3505
Primary mission" and types of organisms to be contained: exotic arthropod parasites and predators of arthropod pests, and exotic arthropods for control of terrestrial and
aquatic weeds
5. Beneficial Insects Quarantine Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Telephone:
703-961-5832
Primary mission" and types of organisms to be contained: exotic arthropod parasites and predators of arthropod pests and exotic weed·feeding arthropods
"Unless otherwise indicated, the mission of all facilities includes the host specificity study and quarantine clearance of the type organisms listed, and further shipment and field
release of these organisms (when cleared by federal and state officials).
served as editors. The guidelines are
herewith given in essentially the same
form as the unpublished revision that has
been made available to biological control
of weeds research quarantine facilities,
overseas stations, other researchers, and
Working Group members.
An important requirement of biological control importation programs, as
noted in these guidelines, is that all receipt of exotic weed control organisms
and all testing in the United States of exotic organisms before approval for their
field release must be conducted in quarantine facilities approved by APHISPPQ. A directory of the currently ap56
proved U.S. quarantinefacilities, is given
in Table 2.
These guidelines have evolved over
time in response to the experience gained
by interaction between researchers, regulatory officials, and the Working Group.
Further changes or refinement of these
guidelines may be expected in the future.
Comments would be welcomed.
Guidelines on Proposals to Introduce
Foreign Organismsinto the United States
for the Control of Weeds (Working
Group on Biological Control of Weeds)
These guidelines form an outlined procedure to be followed in researching and
developing candidate organisms for the
biological control of weeds. Because these
organisms feed on plants, there is great
concern that the host specificity of each is
clearly delineated before being released
into the North American environment.
There is also concern that any studies
done in domestic facilities be conducted
under quarantine conditions to assure
against unwanted escape. The guidelines
spell out these concerns and the steps
needed to fulfill informational and operational requirements, and they should aid
researchers in their studies.
It is recognized that each study will be
somewhat different from all preceding
BULLETINOFTHEESA
studies and that flexibility will be needed
in assembling the required information in
the most efficient and complete form possible. It is also recognized that, in some
study areas, complete information will
not be available. For example, it is not
important that the candidate organisms
should always have a binomial name, but
it is important that they should be studied
by an expert for recognition as an
unknown or new species. The reporting
format should be adhered to as outlined
in the guidelines. If appropriate information is unavailable, comments to that effect should be made, with an indication
as to what steps are being taken to get the
missing information.
It is also important that the information on each candidate organism be reviewed by the Working Group on Biological Control of Weeds of the USDA
and USDI Weed Committees (hereafter
referred to as the Working Group), and
perhaps other knowledgeable persons,
before release of the organism into the environment is made. The guidelines are
designed to assure that the information
necessary for consideration by the Working Group has been assembled. Any deviation from these guidelines should be
explained. There shall be no deviation in
the permit and handling procedures
without proper clearance from the Plant
Protection and Quarantine Programs
(PPQ), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). These guidelines also contain a general outline of the
duties of the Working Group on Biological control of Weeds.
1. General Summary of Procedures
The Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 and
the Federal Plant Pest Act of 1957 prohibit the importation and movement of
the plant pests, pathogens, vectors, and
articles that might harbor these organisms, unless authorized by the USDA.
These regulations are enforced by the
PPQ of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the USDA. The
Working Group was established to review proposals and provide recommendations to the researcher and PPQ in regard to testing and release of biological
organisms to control unwanted plants.
The Working Group reviews proposals
for the selection of target weeds that may
involve introduction of foreign organisms, recommends test plants on which
host specificity studies should be conFALL 1983
ducted, and reviews the adequacy of results showing safety for release of the organism into the environment.
Membership of the Working Group
represents a broad spectrum of scientific
disciplines concerned with the effects of
introducing foreign organisms. Current
members are shown in Appendix 1,3 and
additional members may be appointed
by the chairman to consider specific proposals. The Working Group members
should also seek advice of specialists on
the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of the
organisms being considered for importation, as needed.
Biological control quarantine facilities
and procedures have been designed to
provide the means to gather information
on the advisability of the release of biological control organisms, and to do so in as
safe a manner as possible. The determination of the adequacy of quarantine facilities for laboratory testing of foreign
organisms, and of the technical competence of investigator(s), are the responsibilities of PPQ and the pertinent State
Department of Agriculture. Determining
the requirements that must be met for introduction of such organisms into quarantine is also their responsibility. The
Working Group shares responsibility by
providing advice that wiII minimize risks
associated with testing and releasing exotic organisms to control weeds. Plants in
North America that have economic, ecological, aesthetic, or other values must be
safeguarded. The Working Group may
suggest a set of requirements that must be
met before they will concur that release
from quarantine can be made. Accordingly, the procedure outlined in sections
II, III, IV, and V below should be followed, although there may be some flexibility in the order of events. Proposals to
the Working Group to introduce beneficial organisms may follow the suggested
outline in Appendix 2.
The more important conditions of testing and release of exotic organisms for the
biological control of weeds in the United
States as reflected in these guidelines are
as follows.
(a) Authoritative identification of both
the organisms and their hosts is required.
(See section III.)
(b) All domestic testing of exotic organisms before approval for their release
must be conducted under quarantine
conditions, in facilities approved by
PPQ. (See section IV.)
(c) Organisms sent to the United
States must be shipped in containers
meeting USDA standards, and must be
shipped under PPQ permit. (See section
IV.)
(d) Colonies in quarantine shall be
destroyed if test results indicate the organism will be a pest of valued plants
(See section IV.)
(e) Voucher specimens of the biological
organisms and target weed are required.
(See sections IV and V.)
(t) No dispersal of the organisms to
other researchers or laboratories shall be
made without PPQ approval. (See section V.)
II. Selection of Target Weeds4
It is important that research proposals
involving the introduction of foreign organisms for control of weeds be reviewed
by the Working Group at the earliest
possible time so that advice can be offered
on potential conflicts of interests, and to
list plant species on which host specificity
test information will be required. Research workers should prepare such proposals and send 13 copies to the Chairman of the Working Group. Advice from
Canadian and Mexican officials will be
sought at this time by the Working
Group.
A. The researcher will notify the Working Group of the intention to study
the biological control of a particular
weed, and provide documentation
that it is a weed, on its geographic
distribution, its growth characteristics, and nature of its damage and extent as a weed, as well as any
beneficial values or uses it may have,
not only in the United States, but
also in Canada, Mexico, and Central
America. Dollar figures concerning
crop or other losses caused by the
weed and costs of its control, versus,
if applicable, dollar figures concerning its beneficial qualities, should be
provided if available.
B. The Working Group will give the
researcher an indication of the importance of the weed and whether a con3 Appendix I of the guidelines is not included
here. See Table I for organizational list of Working
Group members. A list of names of current members
is available from the Working Group Chair, R. D.
Bovey.
4In selecting the target weed, it is suggested that
consideration be given to the 12 points noted by
Cavers and Mulligan (1972), ~~1thparticular emphasis
on their items 3, 4, 6, and 10 through 13.
57
flict of interest over control of the
plant may exist in the United States,
Canada, or Mexico. If a potential
conflict does exist, the Working
Group will advise as to the type of
evidence that might be needed to
resolve this conflict. The Working
Group will also indicate what consideration must be given to other
plant species, especially during the
testing phase of the program to establish specificity and safety of the
biocontrol agent.
III. Introduction into Quarantine
Facilities5 within the Continental United
States
If at all possible, the researcher will
follow the procedures indicated below before requesting State and PPQ authorization to import foreign organisms for
weed control into domestic quarantine facilities. However, it may be occasionally
necessary for the researcher to request
State and PPO permission to conduct
such preliminary studies in domestic quarantine facilities before identification of the
organism or other preliminary overseas
studies, to facilitate the research. This request for early quarantine importation will
generally be considered by PPO on a caseby-case basis.6 Though the Working
Group may occasionally be asked by PPO
for advice, responsibility for issuance of permits for quarantine importation will be
solely with PPO.
A. On the basis of an authoritative identification of the organism, the researcher
will make a thorough literature survey
to ascertain whether the potential
biological control organism has ever
been recorded as a pest, and an indication of its host range.
B. The researcher will assemble pertinent taxonomic and biological information on the biological control organism, including collection and distribution records for the organism and
related species, and their economic
importance. Field observations of the
organism under study will be assembled, especially any notes on its
association with plants other than
the target weed. If the organism occurs in proximity with established
overseas facilities where tests can be
made, preliminary evaluation studies
should be conducted at these facilities. Field observations and open-air
evaluation experiments must be han58
dIed overseas in USDA facilities or in
other foreign laboratories.
C. All information obtained in points A
and B above will be submitted by the
researcher to the Working Group on
Biological Control of Weeds. See Appendix 2 for a suggested format for
reporting this information to the
Working Group. Send 13 copies ofthe
report to the Chairman of the Working Group. This report should also include: (1) names of the persons who
will conduct the quarantine studies,
and of the facility where the studies
will be conducted (along with comments on the technical competence or
experience of the personnel and security of the facility, if not already known
to PPQ or the Working Group); (2)
comments for sole use of PPO indicating why it is necessary to carry out
such studies in the United States
(comments of particular importance if
host specificity screening tests, identification of the organism, or other pertinent information relating to the potential hazard characteristics
of the
organism(sJ to be imported, have not
been gathered on foreign soil); and (3)
an outline of the testing procedures
planned for the organism, including a
list of the proposed test plants.
D. At this time, an application for an import permit, section A of PPO Form
526 (see Appendix 3),7 should be initiated, if not already done, by the researcher who will be receiving the
material; the Federal Plant Pest Act
requires that the applicant be a resident of the United States. The application, together with a copy of the
researcher's report to the Working
Group, should be sent to the state
regulatory official in the state into
which the proposed quarantine importation is to be made. The state official will indicate his or her action in
Section B of the PPO 526, and will
forward the form to PPO. This action
by the researcher notifies the state and
PPO that quarantine importations
are being considered. PPO will notify
the Working Group of this intended
importation, with a copy of the PPO
526 showing state recommendations.
E. Upon receipt of the report and test
plan submitted by the researcher or of
a PPO 526 application via PPO, the
Working Group will advise the researcher or PPO, or both, on the
selection of additional test plant
species, and specifically suggested
safeguards during the domestic quarantine testing phase, and other matters relating to fulfillment of requirements necessary to clear the organism for ultimate release in North
America. If the importation is approved by PPQ, shipping labels and a
copy of the permit will be issued to the
researcher (applicant) by PPO and
PPQ will send copies of the import
permit to the state, PPO regional office, and Working Group. The permit
will indicate the conditions required. If
not approved, the application will be
returned to the researcher by PPO,
with the reasons for denial, and with
copies to the state and the Working
Group. If the requested importation of
the organism into quarantine is not
approved by PPO, the researcher
may attempt to correct the reason for
denial, after which subsequent requests for importation may be made
to PPO, which will be processed in
the same manner as the initial request.
IV. Testing in Domestic Quarantine
Facility
All tests conducted in domestic facilities
must be carried out under strict quarantine conditions in a PPO-approved facility.S Packages that minimize the chances
of escape of organisms enroute to the
SSec Table 2 for list of U.S. quarantine facilities
currently approved for importation of foreign
organisms for study for biological control of wecds.
6ppQ has provided the following explanatory
comments in regard to approval for early quarantine
importations (paraphrased from comments by P. J.
Lima in litt., October, 1981). One reason for importation of living candidate agents before a serious study is
initiated is to determine if the agent will attack or feed
on the target weed growing in the United States. In
this instance, the agent is fairly well known both taxonomically and biologically, but the U.S. species of
plant may have antagonistic varietal differences from
the plant population in the foreign homeland of the
agent proposed for study. Another case in which PPQ
could approve is when permission is requested for importation of a living, exotic potential agent. taxonomically unknown, into quarantine for identification purposes. In both instances, neither breeding nor
host specificity testing is intended before biological and
taxonomic studies have been completed. To protect
against the importation and possible establishment of
plant pests in the United States, these early quarantine
importations should be limited to solving taxonomic
problems of short duration.
7 Appendix 3 of the guidelines is not included
here. A supply of PPQ Form 526, "Application and
Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and Noxious
Weeds," is available from Plant Protection and
Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville,
MD20782.
BULLETlNOFTHEESA
./
quarantine facility are extremely important and must be used,8 and should have
the appropriate shipping permit label
issued by PPQ prominently displayed.
The researcher will determine whether
additional testing phases should be conducted overseas, depending upon the required safety and accuracy for each particular phase of the testing. Field observations and open-air evaluation experiments
must be handled overseas in USDA facilities or in other foreign laboratories (see
section III B). Initial testing, in all cases,
will emphasize plants of recognized
economic, ecological, or aesthetic importance that would appear to be at risk from
the organism. If at any time the organism
no longer shows promise as a candidate for
biological control of weeds, the quarantine
colonies will be destroyed. State, federal,
and Working Group officials will be informed of any change in the status of the
work.
Voucher specimens of the foreign organism will be verified by qualified taxonomists; voucher specimens of test plants
also should be similarly verified. Arthropod voucher specimens will be deposited
in the Insect Identification and Beneficial
Insect Introduction Institute, Beltsville
Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville,
Md. Voucher herbarium specimens, representing target weed plants used in
testing, will be deposited in the U.S. National Arboretum Herbarium, Washington, D.C. Other plant specimens used in
testing will be retained by the researcher at
least until the biological control organism
has been cleared for release or permission
for release has been denied. Voucher specimens of plant pathogens under study will
be deposited with the Plant Disease
Research Laboratory, Frederick, Md.
Voucher specimens of plant nematodes
under study will be deposited with the
Nematology Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Md.
V. Release into the Field within the
Continental United States
A. Once testing has been completed, the
researcher will prepare a summary report, including all information pertaining to the host specificity and potential value or detriment of the organism. Thirteen copies of this report will
be submitted to the Working Group
in support of a request to PPO for the
approval for release of the organism in
the United States. See Appendix 2 for
FALL 1983
suggested format for reporting this information to the Working Group.
B. At this time, applications for permits
for field release, Section A of PPQ
Form 526 (see Appendix
may be
initiated by the researcher. (However,
the researcher may also elect to await
Working Group recommendations
before submitting the application.)
The application(s),
together with
copies of the researcher's report to the
Working Group (and Working Group
comments, if previously received), is to
be sent to the regulatory official(s) of
the state(s) in which release(s) is intended. The state official(s) will indicate his or her action in section B of
the PPQ 526, and will forward the
form to PPQ. This action by the researcher notifies the state(s) and PPQ
that release of the organism is being
considered.
PPO will notify the
Working Group of this intended release, with a copy of the PPO 526 application(s) showing state recommendations, and will withhold action on
the PPO 526 application(s) until
Working Group advice is received for
3f
reVl~W.
C. Upon receipt of the report proposing a
release from the researcher, or a PPQ
526 application via PPO, or both, the
Working Group will (1) seek comments on the proposed release of the
organism in North America from Canadian and Mexican scientists and
from other scientists as pertinent, and
(2) advise the researcher or PPO, or
both, of its own consensus conclusions; i.e., approval, disapproval, or a
recommended need for additional information before a recommendation
concerning the proposed release, PPO
will take into consideration the recommendations of the Working Group
and state and foreign officials, in completing section C of PPO 526. If approved, shipping labels, if required,
and a copy of the permit(s) are issued
to the researcher (applicant) by PPO,
indicating that field releases may be
initiated. Additional copies of the permit(s) will be sent to the state(s) involved and to the Working Group. If
releases are not approved, the application(s) will be returned to the researcher by PPO, with an indication of the
reasons for denial, with copies to the
state(s) and the Working Group. A
subsequent request may be made by
the researcher if the initial denial is
based on a need for additional supporting information, and such information is supplied with a subsequent
application. Subsequent requests will
be processed through the Working
Group and other officials in the same
manner as the initial request.
D. Once PPO has issued the appropriate
release permits, the researchers may
begin field releases in authorized
states. State approvals and PPO permits are required for any subsequent
releases in or movements to any new
states. Voucher specimens documenting the initial release of the biological
control agent in the United States are
required for deposit in the collections
outlined in section IV. When additional importations of species previously approved for release are requested, voucher specimens should be
authoritatively identified and be deposited in the collection of the quarantine facility. Information on the place
and date of release and on the origin of
the specimens should accompany
these voucher specimens.
E. The Working Group will be kept informed of progress in aspects of
biological control of weeds research
regarding its functions, by periodic, at
least annual, summaries of progress,
pertinent reprints describing results of
research or releases, and other types of
reports.
Appendix 29
Suggested Format for Documentation in
Support of Proposal for Release of an
Organism for Weed ControllO (Working
Group on Biological Control of Weeds)
The following outline lists the minimal
information that should appear in reports
submitted to the Working Group on the
Biological Control of Weeds, and other
organizations concerned with the clearance of weed control organisms for field
release in the United States. Submit 13
copies to the Chairman of the Working
Group.
The same format may be used for re8See description of packing and shipping
methods for live arthropods by Boldt and Drea (1980).
9 Appendices 1 and 3 of the guidelines are not included here; see footnotes 3 and 7.
100utline developed from report prepared by H.
Zwolfer, formerly of the Commonwealth Institute of
Biological Control, Delemont, Switzerland, with additions regarding plant pathogens by C. H. Kingsolver and R. G. Emgc, formerly of the USDA Plant
Disease Research Laboratory, Frederick, Md.
S9
quests to PPQ to introduce organisms into
quarantine, but since less information may
be available at this stage of the research,
the report may be less detailed than the request for release. Use of the format can
serve to indicate the types of required information that are missing and that are to
be supplied as a result of future studies. A
separate section is needed in requests for
quarantine importations to contain an
outline of the proposed testing programs
or other proposed studies to be conducted
at the quarantine facility, including a tentative list of proposed test plants. This will
provide the Working Group and other organizations an opportunity to comment
on recommended additional studies and
test plants. Also, if not previously known
by PPQ or the Working Group, comments on the qualifications and background of the researcher(s) who is to conduct the proposed studies, and on the adequacyof the containment-quarantine
facilities where the studies are to be conducted, should be included.
I. Introduction. Describe the weed
problem, including economic importance
(financial loss), current benefits of the
"weed," current status of research on the
weed problem, and justification for and
expected benefits of proposed work.
II. Taxonomic position of biological
control organism. Note common name, if
any, precise scientific name of organism,
and its phylogenetic position, such as subgeneric and familial relationships. Include
brief statement on the number of related
species, world distribution of genus, host
plants of related species, etc., and any
other information that would add to the
organism-host plant stability pattern.
Note taxonomic uncertainties, whenever
they exist, as well as synonymy.
III. Geographic distribution. Give published and specific personal collection records of organism in question, comments
on density, etc. Describe habitat and include remarks regarding incompleteness
of information on distribution for those organisms which have been little studied to .
date.
IV. Host plants. Note common name,
if any, scientific name, and taxonomic
position of host and test plants. Include
any reported, published, and personal
field or laboratory host records of the
biological control organism. Note part of
plant attacked or affected and also comment on other plants examined at collection sites. Give as much information as
possible on host specificity. Be specific.
60
V. Life History. For arthropods:
Describe studies made under laboratory
conditions, and techniques employed.
Note length of various life stages and conditions needed for each. How is the host
plant unique in providing these requirements? Are alternate hosts involved or required for development? Include section
on phenology under field conditions and
how this may vary from one site to the
next, i.e., number of generations to be expected at various sites. The ovipositional
behavior of females in the case of insects
should be noted, how the eggs are laid,
plant structures necessary, etc. Where on
plant are eggs placed, and can natural
conditions be simulated to determine controlling factors? Larval ins tars and
behavior should be noted, as well as
number oflarvae per plant, pupation sites,
etc. Describe adult behavior patterns; i.e.,
nocturnal vs. diurnal, flight, feeding, etc.
See also VII and IX.) For plant pathogens: Describe studies made under laboratory and greenhouse containment conditions and techniques employed. Note
various aspects of the pathogen life cycle
both in conjunction with host (etiology)
and in absence of host (iffacultative). Is an
alternate host (or hosts) required for completion of life cycle, and does it routinely
function? How and under what condition
are spores produced; are they disseminated under dry or wet conditions? Do infective propagules survive limited or extended exposure to environmental conditions? What are infection requirements?
What are the environmental parameters
for disease increase and spread? Does
overwintering occur, or is an annual release required? Are alternate hosts involved or required? Is a vector involved or
required? What is the length of the infection cycle? Is the target weed susceptible
throughout its growth? Is the weed uniformly susceptible, or do resistant segments of the population exist; i.e., is there
physiological specialization? Give brief
symptomology; e.g., does the pathogen
cause a foliar or vascular disease? If foliar,
what part is attacked-leaves,
stems,
flowers, or fruit? (See also VII and IX.)
VI. Mortality factors. Biological factors
influencing the survival of the species (i.e.,
parasites, pathogens, or other antagonists)
and which might affect establishment and
buildup in release areas.
VII. Effects of organism on host plant.
Describe results of insect (adult or larval)
feeding or of plant pathogen parasitism on
target weed. Detail host stage or stages
and part or parts affected with specific
data of resulting damage.
VIII. Potential control value. The report can include here a rating of organism's potential value (i.e., the rating system suggested by Harris (1973) or some
other equally valid method).
IX. Host specificity experiments. For
arthropods: How broad a spectrum of
hosts was tested? Give details of tests (with
adults and larvae); i.e., feeding experiments (starvation,
preference), ovipositional studies, oogenesis studies, hostfinding studies. Indicate the source of the
test material, numbers used, conditions of
tests, etc. Note variability of behavior, and
whether insects responded in "normal"
fashion. Mention investigational omissions that would have enhanced completeness of the tests and indicate reasons
why they could not be carried out.
For plant pathogens: How broad a
spectrum of hosts was tested against thc
specified pathogen? List them. Indicate
the source of the test material, replications
used, conditions of tests and results. Is an
alternate host required in the life cycle of
the pathogen? If so, what is it? Is the alternate host damaged? Was screening
against the alternate host group conducted
with the propcr spore form? How broad a
spectrum from the alternate host group
was tested? Specify. Cite conditions of the
tests and results.
X. Discussion. Include researcher's
comments on reasons for requesting release of the organism. Summarize the potential benefits, potential hazards, and assessment of why the organism should be
released, perhaps despite certain minimal
risks.
XI. Summary. Include a one- to twosentence statement on findings from each
section noted above.
XII. Photographs and illustrations are
always helpful in visualizing the organism,
the plant, and other items.
XIII. Bibliography.
(For quarantine importations, see also
second introductory paragraph above for
suggested additional sections.)
References Cited
Andres. L. A. 1981. Biological control of naturalized
and natroe plants: conflicting interests. pp. 341-349.
In G. C. Papavizas [ed.], Beltsville Symposia in
Agricultural Research. 5. Biological control in crop
production. Allanheld, Osmun & Co .. Montclair,
N.j., and Granada Pub!., Ltd., London. 461 pp.
Andres. L. A.. C. J. Davis. P. Harris and A. J. Wapshere. 1976. Biological control of weeds. pp.
481-499. In C. B. Huffaker and P. S. Messenger
BULLETINOFTHEESA
[eds.], ThooI)' and practice of biological control.
Academic Press. Inc.. New York. 788 pp.
Andres. L A., and L T. Kok. 1981. Status alld pro-
Introducing
spects for biological cOlltrol of weeds ill the U.S.A .•
pp. 27-33. III j. R. Coulson [cd.]. Proceedings of
the Joint American-Soviet Conference on Use of
Beneficial Organisms in the Control of Crop Pests.
Entomological Society of America, College Park,
Md. 62 pp.
Batra, S. W. T.1981. Biological colltrol of weeds: pn'lIciples alld prospects, pp. 45-49. III G. C. Papavizas
[ed.], Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research.
5. Biological control in crop production. Allanheld,
Osmun & Co., Montclair, N.j., and Granada
Pub!., Ltd .. London. 461 pp.
Boldt. P. E.•and J. J. Drea.1980. Packaging alld shippillg beneficial illSects for biological cOlltroJ. FAO
Plant Prot. Bul!' 28: 64-71.
Cavers, P. Booand G. H. Mulligan. 1972. A new series.
The bioIOR\'of Canadian weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci.
52: 651-654.
Charodattan. R. and H. 1. Walker. [eds.] 1982.Biological cOlltrol of weeds with plallt patllOgells. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, (293 pp.)
Freeman. T. Eo, [ed.]. 1978. Proceedillgs of the IV
BIO-SERV'S
COMPARTMENT
REARING TRAYS
Illternatiollal Symposium on Biological COlltrol of
H?eeds. The Center for Environmental Programs,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Horida, Gainesville. 299 pp.
Frick, K. E. 1974. Biological cOlltrol of weeds:
illtroductioll, his to')', theoretical alld practical applicatiollS. pp. 204-223. In F. G. Ma\'Well and F.
A. Harris [eds.], Proceedings of the Summer Institute on Biological Control of Plant Insects and
Diseases. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.
647 pp.
Goeden. R. D. 1978. Biological control of weeds, pp.
357-414. In C. P. Clausen [cd.]. Introduced
parasites and predators of arthropod pests and
weeds: a world review. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handb.
480.545 pp.
Harris, P.1973. The selection of effectiveagents for the
biological l'Ontrol of weeds. Can. Entomo!. lOS:
1495-1503.
Harris. P.• and H. Zwolfer. 1968. Screelling of
phytophagous
Bio-Serv offers another unique rearing system for
smaller insects. The tray has 100 compartments
and holds about 300cc of finished diet. They are
designed to replace "Jelly trays" and "Light Fixture" systems. The cost savings are substantial.
insects for biological cOlltrol of weeds.
Can. Entomo!. 100: 295·303.
Huffaker, C. B. 1959. Biological control of weeds with
illsects. Annu. Rev. Entomo!. 4: 251-276.
1964. FUlldamelltals of biological weed cOlltrol, pp.
631-649. [II P. DeBach and E. I. Schlinger [eds.].
Biological control of insect pests and weeds,
Reinhold Pub!. Corp., New York. 844 pp.
Templeton. G. Eo.D. O. TeBeest, and R. J. Smith, Jr.
________
1979. Biological weed control with mycoherbicides.
o Please
Annu. Rev. Phytopatho!. 17: 301-310.
Department of Agriculture. 1978. Biological
B10 Serv, Inc.,
U.S.
_
Packaging Size
Prices: 1-11 cases
11-20 cases
21 + cases
P.O. Box B.S., Frenchtown,
send me a free sample.
My anticipated
annual usage is __
u.s.
agw/s for pest COlltro/.· slatus and prospects.
ORDER FORM
Compartment Trays
Product #7 J 81
Name
30 Trays per case
S27.00/case
S24.00/case
S22.50/case
N.J. 08825· (201) 996-2155
cases.
Title
_
Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 138 pp.
Wapshere,
A. J. 1974.
phytophagous
orgamsms
centers of plant genera
Host
specificity
of
arid the evolutionary
alld subgellera.
En-
tomophaga 19: 301·309.
Wilson, C. L 1969. Use of plan/ pa/hogells ill weed
con/rol. Annu. Rev. Phytopatho!. 7: 411-434.
Zwolfer. H., and P. Harris. 1971. Host specificity'
Company
_
Address
_
Cily
State
Zip
Telephone
_
_
(area code)
de/ennina/ion
of illsects for biological COIl/rol of
weds. Annu. Rev. Entomo!. 16: 159·178.
Note: Contrary to the normal practice of
ESA. publications, we are publishing
these guidelines so as to make our entire
membership aware of them, even though
they have appeared in essentially the
same form in Weed Science and Plant
DI
PO. Box B5, Frenchtown, New Jersey08825/201·996·2155
Disease.
FALL 1983
61