LAUSR

Simple Summary As malacologists long concerned with conservation of molluscs, we present empirical evidence supporting the proposition that biological control of nonmarine mollusc pests has generally not been demonstrated to be safe and effective, which are the basic measures of success. Yet claims of success often accompany contemporary biological control programs, although without rigorous evaluations. Failed molluscan biocontrol programs include well known classical control efforts that continue to devastate native biodiversity, especially on Pacific islands, as well as more contemporary programs that claim to be safer, with minimal non-target impacts. We do not condemn all biological control programs as ineffective, unsafe, and poorly evaluated, but emphasize the need for programs targeting non-marine molluscs to incorporate the lessons learned from past failures, and to do a better job of defining and measuring success both pre- and post-release of biocontrol agents. Most importantly, we call for the biocontrol community not to rely on entomologists with backgrounds in use of host-specific agents, who yet promote generalist parasites/predators for mollusc control, but to engage more actively with those knowledgeable in molluscan biology, particularly conservation. In doing so, maybe some programs targeting molluscan pests can become safe and effective. Abstract Classic biological control of pest non-marine molluscs has a long history of disastrous outcomes, and despite claims to the contrary, few advances have been made to ensure that contemporary biocontrol efforts targeting molluscs are safe and effective. For more than half a century, malacologists have warned of the dangers in applying practices developed in the field of insect biological control, where biocontrol agents are often highly host-specific, to the use of generalist predators and parasites against non-marine mollusc pests. Unfortunately, many of the lessons that should have been learned from these failed biocontrol programs have not been rigorously applied to contemporary efforts. Here, we briefly review the failures of past non-marine mollusc biocontrol efforts in the Pacific islands and their adverse environmental impacts that continue to reverberate across ecosystems. We highlight the fact that none of these past programs has ever been demonstrated to be effective against targeted species, and at least two (the snails Euglandina spp. and the flatworm Platydemus manokwari) are implicated in the extinction of hundreds of snail species endemic to Pacific islands. We also highlight other recent efforts, including the proposed use of sarcophagid flies and nematodes in the genus Phasmarhabditis, that clearly illustrate the false claims that past bad practices are not being repeated. We are not making the claim that biocontrol programs can never be safe and effective. Instead, we hope that in highlighting the need for robust controls, clear and measurable definitions of success, and a broader understanding of ecosystem level interactions within a rigorous scientific framework are all necessary before claims of success can be made by biocontrol advocates. Without such amendments to contemporary biocontrol programs, it will be impossible to avoid repeating the failures of non-marine mollusc biocontrol programs to date.