8 Invasive Stink Bugs and Related Species (Pentatomoidea)
1.7 Management Practices
Management tactics are considered in detail in Chapter 16. Beginning with a brief overview of the types
of control, the history of these tactics is discussed. The earliest control practice apparently was the use
of sulfur by the Sumerians in 2500 B.C. to control insects and mites. Following were reports of cultural,
botanical, and biological control, the practices of which moved from the Old World to the New World
and continued to become more sophisticated. The dramatic effect of the introduction of the synthetic
organic insecticides for insect control in the 1940s, the resulting detrimental effects of their widespread
use, the resurgence of research in biological control, and the development of integrated pest management
are discussed in detail. Following is a detailed discussion of control practices in the modern era ending
with a discussion of future management practices.
1.8 Pentatomoid Fauna: Potential Impact of Invasive Insects
on Noninvasive Species1.8.1 Terminology
Invasion biology (ecology, science), the study of organisms that become established in areas outside
their native ranges, assumed prominence in the 1980s. Since the late 1990s, the number of books and
journal articles on nonnative species has exploded. Those who consider themselves invasion biologists
represent numerous disciplines and work with disparate taxa. The controversies that pervade the lit-
erature on nonnative species (e.g., Simberloff 2012, Richardson and Ricciardi 2013, Valéry et al. 2013)
might have been anticipated in a field characterized by practitioners from dissimilar backgrounds and
interests. Some of invasion biology’s critics represent disciplines other than biology or ecology, such as
history, philosophy, and sociology (Simberloff 2003). An unfounded criticism is that invasion biologists
are xenophobes who regard all nonnative species as “bad” when, in fact, the benefits of such species
often are mentioned (e.g., Simberloff 2003, Wheeler and Hoebeke 2009). Helping to fuel controversy is
the emotionalism that infects the language of invasion biology, which shares certain military metaphors
(e.g., invader, invasion) used by L. O. Howard in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to pro-
mote the importance of economic entomology (Russell 1999). Especially contentious among invasion
biologists has been use of the terms “invasion” and “invasive species” (e.g., Colautti and MacIsaac
2004, Colautti and Richardson 2009).
Attempts to standardize terminology involving plant and animal invasions, as noted by Davis (2009),
Blackburn et al. (2011), and Heger et al. (2013), have met with minimal success. The term “invasive spe-
cies” continues to be used inconsistently; it can refer to any nonnative organism (Wheeler and Hoebeke
2009, Simberloff 2011) and be used with or without consideration of impact. Simberloff (2013) prefers a
biologically based definition of organisms that become invasive: “species that arrive with human assis-
tance [intentionally, as well as inadvertently], establish populations, and spread.” Similarly, Pyšek and
Richardson (2006) would restrict invasive species to those that spread rapidly, regardless of any ecologi-
cal harm or economic loss that might accrue. Definitions that incorporate harm or impact are subjective
because they introduce human perception and values, which can vary regionally (Lodge et al. 2006).
Moreover, the addition of impact in defining “invasive” tends to obscure an ecological and evolutionary
appreciation of the invasion process (Colautti and Richardson 2009).
Yet, it is unrealistic for entomologists to avoid using the value-based term “pests” in referring to
insects that adversely affect human well-being. In addition, reference to harm or impacts of invasive
species seems unavoidable when considering the potential risks that nonnative species pose for natural
ecosystems (Ward et al. 2008) or assessing the ecological and economic consequences of alien insects
(e.g., Pimentel et al. 2005, Kenis et al. 2009, Kenis and Branco 2010, Aukema et al. 2011, Vinson 2013,
Herms and McCullough 2014). Davis (2009), even though he preferred other terminology, acknowledged
the absurdity of omitting the word “invasion” from his book on invasion biology. Regulatory agencies
likewise are compelled to introduce human values in defining impacts (Jeschke et al. 2014). Similarly, we