Skip to main content

Did biological control cause extinction of the coconut moth, Levuana iridescens, in Fiji?

  • Chapter
Book cover Marine Bioinvasions: Patterns, Processes and Perspectives

Abstract

In 1925, J.D. Tothill and two colleagues set out to manage Levuana iridescens, the coconut moth of Fiji, using biological control. By 1930, they had succeeded so completely that this pest of the copra crop had been reduced to almost undetectable levels by the tachinid fly, Bessa remota, introduced from Malaya, and they had summarized their campaign in a thoroughly documented and well-illustrated monograph. The example of the coconut moth is presented in the modern literature as the first and best documented extinction of a species due to scientific biological control. The program has been severely criticized because the moth was unique, beautiful, and considered endemic to Fiji. Thus, this program is also portrayed as an example of the highly controversial practice of neoclassical biological control. However, a careful reexamination of this event discloses that the moth was likely not native to Fiji, appeared to be spreading through the Fijian Archipelago, and might have spread to other island groups in the South Pacific. Also, L. iridescens is probably not extinct. Collateral damage, that is, non-target impacts, did occur as native zygaenid moths have been attacked by the tachinid, and they may be extinct. The reasons for the control campaign of L. iridescens were not primarily economic. Tothill and colleagues were trying to protect copra so that ethnic Fijian culture, so dependent on the coconut palm threatened by L. iridescens, could be sustained. Hence, this control program represents a difficult clash of values: preservation of insect biodiversity versus preservation of indigenous Pacific Islander cultures. A strategy to search for L. iridescens populations is proposed and development of biological control of B. remota, using hyperparasitoids, is possible, but would require careful evaluation since it might release L. iridescens from suppression, have non-target impacts on native tachinids, and lack an economic motivation.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Barratt BS, Goldson SL, Ferguson CM, Phillips CB and Hannah DJ (2000) Predicting the risk from biological control agent introductions: a New Zealand approach. In: Follett PA and Duan JJ (eds) Nontarget Effects of Biological Control Agents, pp 59–75. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beirne BP (1975) Biological control attempts by introductions against pest insects in the field in Canada. Canadian Entomologist 107: 225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowie RH and FG Howarth (1998) Biological control: disputing the indisputable. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeBach P (1974) Biological Control by Natural Enemies. Cambridge University Press, London, 323 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Follett PA and Duan JJ (2000) Nontarget Effects of Biological Control Agents. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 316 pp

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia R, Caltagirone LE and Gutierrez AP (1988) Comments on a redefinition of biological control. BioScience 38: 692–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hager HA and McCoy KD (1998) The implications of accepting untested hypotheses: a review of the effects of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in north America. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1069–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henneman ML and Memmott J (2001) Infiltration of a Hawaiian community by introduced biological control agents. Science 293: 1314–1317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD and Hochberg ME (2001) Indirect interactions, community modules and biological control: a theoretical perspective. In: Wajnberg E, Scott JK and Quimby PC (eds) Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control, pp 13–37. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokkanen H and Pimentel D (1984) New approach for selecting biological control agents. Canadian Entomologist 116: 1109–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokkanen H and Pimentel D (1989) New associations in biological control: theory and practice. Canadian Entomologist 121: 829–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth FG (1991) Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annual Review of Entomology 36: 485–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janzen D (1998) Gardenification of wildland nature and the human footprint. Science 279: 1312–1313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven LGE (1981) Pests of Crops in Indonesia, revised and translated by Van der Laan PA and Rothschild GHL. PT Ichtiar Baru-Van Hoese, Jakarta, Indonesia, 701 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood JA (1993) Environmental issues involved in biological control of rangeland grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) with exotic agents. Environmental Entomology 22: 503–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Louda SM, Kendall D, Connor J and Simberloff D (1997) Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277: 1088–1090

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch LD, Hokkanen HMT, Babendreier D, Bigler F, Burgio G, Gao Z-H, Kuske H, Loomans A, Menzler-Hokkanen I, Thomas MB, Tommasini G, Waage, JK, van Lenteren JC and Zeng Q-Q (2001) Insect biological control and non-target effects: a European perspective. In: Wajnberg E, Scott JK and Quimby PC (eds) Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control, pp 99–124. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine RW (1994) Recollections of a Pacific Entomologist 1925–1966. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 126 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao VP, Ghani MA, Sankaram T and Mathur KC (1971) A Review of the Biological Control of Insects and Other Pests in South-East Asia and the Pacific Regions. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, London, 149 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts LIN (1986) The practice of biological control — implications for conservation, science and the community. Weta Bulletin of the Entomological Society of New Zealand 9: 76–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GS (1975) Macrolepidoptera of Fiji and Rotuma. Classey, Faringdon, UK, 362 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell DA (1986) The role of the entomological society in insect conservation in New Zealand. Weta Bulletin of the Entomological Society of New Zealand 9: 44–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands DPA (1997) The safety of biological control agents: assessing their impact on beneficial and other non-target hosts. Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 56: 611–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D and Stiling P (1996) Risks of species introduced for biological control. Biological Conservation 78: 185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith HS (1948) Biological control of insect pests. In: Reuther W, Calaran EC and Carman GE (eds) Biological Control of Citrus Insects. The Citrus Industry Vol IV, pp 276–320. University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences Publications, Berkeley, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweetman HL (1958) The Principles of Biological Control. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa, 560 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Tothill JD, Taylor THC and Paine RW (1930) The Coconut Moth in Fiji: a History of Its Control by Means of Parasites. Imperial Bureau of Entomology, London, 269 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T (2000) Parasitoid populations in the agricultural landscape. In: Hochberg ME and Ives AR (eds) Parasitoid Population Biology, pp 235–2253. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Wajnberg E, Scott JK and Quimby PC (eds) (2001) Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, 261 pp

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kuris, A.M. (2003). Did biological control cause extinction of the coconut moth, Levuana iridescens, in Fiji?. In: Pederson, J. (eds) Marine Bioinvasions: Patterns, Processes and Perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0169-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0169-4_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3984-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0169-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics