This database uses the same forms as ROBO for recording, and several entries in BIRLDATA can also be found in the ROBO database. BIRLDATA is not available online; however, copies can be requested through BIRL. The United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management also has numerous biological control release records, which are not standardized and have not been imported into any USDA database. The BLM is in the process of launching their own internal database, the National Invasive Species Information Management System , which will catalog biological control agent releases and other treatment types within the agency . While web-based catalogs certainly would be the most convenient way to access information on origin, numbers released, initial establishment, and recent distributions of biological control agents, the scope of the available databases do not encompass all the existing data. A plethora of printed documentation is available in the form of annual reviews, reports of local or regional agencies, catalogs, books, peer-reviewed or unpublished publications, original release forms, etc. Even though most of the documents are easily accessible through official channels , collating all the available data on a group of organisms can be laborious depending on the details needed. More comprehensive volumes include Clausen’s world review of biological control of arthropod pests and weeds. Julien and Griffiths compiled a world catalog for weed biological control agents, listing all attempts undertaken in biological control of weeds up to 1996. One of the most up-to-date summaries on biological control of weeds contains information on the origin, history, and recent distributions of 94 weed biological control agents and 39 targeted weeds in the USA . An updated database is underway, which will provide information on the status of weed biological control agents for the continental USA . The above-mentioned references, along with the ROBO and BIRLDATA databases,plant pot with drainage can be useful starting points in search of the history of given biological control organisms, but the acquired data should be interpreted carefully.

The catalogs rely mostly on published data, while many biological control agent importations remain unpublished , especially those considered failures or if the program was unfinished . More reliable data acquisition may be ensured by focusing on states that are known to maintain extensive databases and release records and conduct intensive biological control programs . Irregular record keeping is a problem for bio-control records, including files on ROBO. The accuracy and reliability of bio-control records often are determined by the available funding for a given program, especially the extent of monitoring establishment and efficacy after releases . Consequently, as the numbers of institutions and personnel involved in biological control increase, the quality of record keeping decreases.Though the permitting process is uniform across agencies, the permits themselves give little information on the fate of biological control agents. Additionally, the long-term monitoring of biological control agents is most often undertaken by various institutions and agencies that become involved at the third stage of releases. These agencies have independently developed different methods for record keeping; moreover, they are solicited but not required by law to submit their records to a national database . Many agencies simply have not adopted the BCDC forms . Along with the development of ROBO, plans also were proposed to establish the US National Voucher Collection of Introduced Beneficial Arthropods . The need for such a collection has long been recognized, but this program was curtailed due to loss of technical support within the BCDC . As a result, the deposition of voucher specimens has not become centralized or regulated by the USDA or any other federal agency. Annual publications, complementary to the ROBO database, listing all biological control releases within the USA, were discontinued after 1985 due to loss of personnel and the general low priority of biological control documentation within the ARS . The situation has not improved in subsequent years; a staff of only one person is responsible for the maintenance of BCDC .

The need to link data on the release of invertebrates as biological control agents across the nations of Europe is increasing . Several levels of standards and regulations have been given by different authorities, including the International Plant Protection Convention , the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , the European Union , and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization . A main focus in these standards is the assessment of risk of biological control agents to human health and their effects on local biodiversity. In order to obtain permission to study or release biological control organisms, a substantial amount of information is required. For example, EPPO suggests a dossier that includes a list of biological features as well as ‘1) details of the proposed import ; 2) whether the organism was collected from the wild or reared in the laboratory’ . Specific guidelines on release of bio-control organisms also suggested by EPPO include ‘1) the release program should be fully documented as to identity, origin, numbers/quantity released, dates, localities and any other data relevant to assessing the outcome; 2) evaluation of the releases should be planned in advance, to assess the impact of the organism on the target pest and non-target organisms’ . EPPO lists 91 biological control species on their web page , which are currently used commercially in the 50 EPPO countries. It also includes a list of 43 introduced classical bio-control agents in EPPO countries that have successfully established in at least one country. The information includes documentation of both successful and unsuccessful introductions, based on the BIOCAT database from CABI and some EPPO countries. This information can be used to understand differences between successful and unsuccessful introductions. Of the 43 classical bio-control agents, 35 are documented to have been released as a single introduction within each country where they were introduced, 7 are documented to have multiple introductions into at least one of the countries where they were introduced, and one has no information. Four of the 43 species include reference to a failed establishment in at least one country where they were introduced. Currently, there are limitations to biological control data unity and uniformity in Europe, largely due to the many, independent nations involved. First, implementation and execution of bio-control regulation in Europe are at the national level and dependent on the national legislation. That is, international standards are not binding, although often they have been the basis for rules and standards at the national level. Nevertheless, huge differences among European countries both at the legislative and implementation levels exist .

Additionally, the necessary information outlined in the international standards for bio-control research or release does not contain a mandate to include the information in a database. This results in limited available and unified information across Europe .bio-control agents introduced in Australia must go through a government-regulated process that includes importation of the potential agent into containment, host- specificity testing, and eventual release . In New Zealand, host- specificity testing is not currently formally regulated, but the Environmental Risk Management Authority is advising potential applicants of the importance of appropriate testing because approved applications to date typically included extensive host- specificity testing following a centrifugal phylogenetic approach . Another difference between the two countries is that once New Zealand grants full release of a bio-control agent, no monitoring or data collection is required by law,drainage planter pot though post release monitoring is encouraged. A separate approval category called ‘conditional release’ in New Zealand, however, can put additional regulations on approved releases that mandate monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping . In Australia, monitoring of establishment, efficacy, and any non-target effects must be reported to the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service 1 year after release . Finally, in New Zealand, at least a single voucher specimen of any imported potential bio-control species is required to be deposited into the New Zealand Arthropod Collection . This voucher system ensures the correct taxonomic identity for the imported species.Ecologists and evolutionary biologists need to become aware of appropriate available datasets that can be used for understanding the early stages of invasion. Biological control data may provide important insights into these early stages. In order to record and store data that can be useful for future research, possibly by researchers in a different sub-discipline from classical bio-control, data should be reliable and be as complete as possible. Useful information that can be added to these datasets includes: number and sources of original collections that contributed to the founding laboratory population, the breeding colony protocols of the quarantine growth phase , the number of individuals released, the location of each release, and the long-term establishment and recent distribution of biological control releases . These five pieces of information standardized across all biological control laboratories would be basic information that other researchers could use. For example, if these data were available, invasive species biologists could use these data to compare establishment success with the collection area in the native range to investigate questions relating to plasticity versus adaptation. Long-term establishment data collected by the researchers who release and monitor the bio-control agents would allow other investigators to determine adaptation to novel conditions, particularly if the bio-control agent has spread on its own to non-release areas. The documentation of establishment failures also is a priority so that comparisons of failures can be made with species or locations that successfully established. Once establishment is confirmed in the new environment and the bio-control agents begin to spread, the importance and possible constraints of environmental factors could be evaluated. The numbers of individuals released would be useful for relating establishment success or failure to potential genetic bottlenecks or Allee effects. Ideally, all this information would be stored in national , public databases that are globally accessible on the internet.

Recently, there has been a proposal for and description of a new centralized database for arthropod bio-control in the USA that if implemented may help in the accessibility and utility of recorded information. Voucher specimens are not only necessary for positive identification of bio-control agents, but they also would be useful for evolutionary studies if they were preserved at all stages of the biological control process from original collection to recovered samples after release, including periodical sampling from the laboratory colony . Currently, whenever vouchers are required by regulation, they are only required in association with initial import. For example, New Zealand and Nebraska, USA require a deposited voucher of any potential bio-control organism for which release approval is being sought. In addition, a few agencies keep voucher specimens of all biological control organisms that have passed through their laboratories . Voucher collections made throughout the duration of a bio-control program can be housed on-site at the bio-control facility, or they could be donated to nearby museums to be curated in their collections. These specimens would provide morphological and genetic data over the time period for which little is known of the evolutionary processes involved in biological invasion. Finally, published records, either in peer-reviewed literature or on the biological control databases, should include physiological tolerance data and laboratory-rearing conditions . Data that would be informative in modeling establishment success in the field include such factors as optimum egg-laying temperature, temperature required for flight, and population growth rates at three or more temperatures. These data should be easily obtainable from bio-control laboratory protocols, particularly because bio-control laboratories have to determine appropriate temperatures for rapid rearing.Plants introduced via the horticulture trade share several major characteristics with introduced bio-control organisms. Both groups are deliberately introduced, and importation records should exist in some form for both bio-control organisms and horticultural plants. Thus, there is documentation of introduction, unlike most invasive species that arrive undetected. Both horticultural plants and bio-control organisms are generally selected to be preadapted to the local climate of introduction and may be selected for vigorous growth and reproduction among other potentially invasive attributes . Differences, however, also exist. Horticultural plants are most often generalists in their biotic and abiotic requirements because they must be able to grow and thrive in a variety of soil, moisture, and/or light conditions to be commercially viable. Additionally, horticultural species span a wide range of life-history and life-form characteristics, whereas bio-control organisms necessarily tend to be more specialized .