It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
In an increasingly globalized world, invasive species cause major human, financial, and environmental costs. A cosmopolitan pest of great concern is the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), which invaded Asia in 2008. Following its arrival, P. manihoti inflicted measurable yield losses and a 27% drop in aggregate cassava production in Thailand. As Thailand is a vital exporter of cassava-derived commodities to China and supplies 36% of the world’s internationally-traded starch, yield shocks triggered price surges and structural changes in global starch trade. In 2009 a biological control agent was introduced in Asia-the host-specific parasitoid, Anagyrus lopezi (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). This parasitoid had previously controlled the cassava mealybug in Africa, and its introduction in Asia restored yield levels at a continent-wide scale. Trade network and price time-series analyses reveal how both mealybug-induced production loss and subsequent parasitoid-mediated yield recovery coincided with price fluctuations in futures and spot markets, with important cascading effects on globe-spanning trade networks of (cassava) starch and commodity substitutes. While our analyses may not imply causality, especially given the concurrent 2007–2011 food crises, our results do illuminate the important interconnections among subcomponents of the global commodity system. Our work underlines how ecologically-based tactics support resilience and safeguard primary productivity in (tropical) agro-ecosystems, which in turn help stabilize commodity markets in a similar way as pesticide-centered approaches. Yet, more importantly, (judiciously-implemented) biological control can deliver ample ‘hidden’ environmental and human-health benefits that are not captured by the prices of globally-traded commodities.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Institute of Insect Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310000, People’s Republic of China; School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Joint International Research Laboratory of Ecological Pest Control, Ministry of Education, Fuzhou 350002, People’s Republic of China; CGIAR Program on Roots, Tubers and Banana (CRP-RTB), International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIAT, Hanoi, Vietnam
2 Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 1201 Eye Street NW, Washington DC, United States of America
3 International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIAT, Cali, Colombia
4 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America
5 CGIAR Program on Roots, Tubers and Banana (CRP-RTB), International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIAT, Hanoi, Vietnam
6 Crop Systems Analysis, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands