Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods= “biologically” damaging plants
iii) Biological methods= “biologically” damaging plantsBiotic constraints/enemy release hypothesis
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods= “biologically” damaging plantsBiotic constraints/enemy release hypothesis
If plants are invasive because they have escaped natural enemies, introducing the natural enemies should help control the invasive!
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Recall Nevada noxious weed legislation:
• Weed control analyst researches biological control options
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Recall Federal Plant Protection Act :
Biological control is often desirable
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Introduced in 1788 with the First Fleet – dye industry• Additional introductions for forage and hedges though 1800s• Numerous species• Problem acknowledged 1870
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Introduced in 1788 with the First Fleet – dye industry• Additional introductions for forage and hedges though 1800s• Numerous species• Problem acknowledged 1870• 1886: prickly pear destruction act• 1910: ‘Roberts Improved Pear Poison’ created – 80% sulfuric
acid, 20% arsenic – considered best weapon
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Early chemical control: fumes from boiling arsenic
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Early chemical control: boiling arsenic• 1912 problem rampant: begin looking for biological control
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• Early chemical control: boiling arsenic• 1912 problem rampant: begin looking for biological control• 1925, infested twenty-five million hectares in New South Wales
and Queensland. It was spreading at the rate of half a million hectares a year.
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• 1926 introduction of Cactoblastis moth
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )• 1926 introduction of Cactoblastis moth• By 1932, most of the prickly pear stands had been decimated.
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia • Summary: spectacularly successful BUT
• Took 14 years to find biocontrol agent (1912-1926)• Some cool-climate stands remained; insect less effective
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum) in California
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum) in California
• Broad-leaved, perennial herb• Introduced from Europe in 1793; reached California late 1800’s• Extremely invasive; toxic• By early 1940’s: 5 million acres of infested rangeland• Biological control in California: 1945-1950 @ $750,000 total
cost• By early 1960’s insects had reduced acreage to <1% of peak
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Tamarix in western US:
Photos: Bob Conrad, NAES
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Tamarix in western US:
• Source: Swedhin et al. 2006 (Tamarisk Research Conference, Fort Collins CO)
• Large scale dispersal and population expansion of Diorhabda elongata in CO, NV, and UT after initial releases
• Near Moab: two release sites in 2004. In 2005, less than 2 acres of tamarisk defoliated. In 2006, 109 acres defoliated, 4.1 miles upstream from release sites and area was expanding
• Expansion of beetles from UT release sites on Colorado River into CO expected by summer 2007
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• ID promising species in native range• Test for host specificity• USDA has facilities in other countries for this purpose• http://www.ars-ebcl.org/
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• ID promising species in native range• Test for host specificity• USDA has facilities in other countries for this purpose• http://www.ars-ebcl.org/• e.g. Montpelier, France
Photo © USDA ARS-EBCL
Current projects:Canada Thistle, Field Bindweed Giant reed, Knapweeds, Leafy Spurge, Lepidium draba, Rush Skeletonweed, Saltcedar, Swallow-worts, Yellow Starthistle
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• ID promising species in native range• Test for host specificity• USDA has facilities in other countries for this purpose• http://www.ars-ebcl.org/• e.g. Montpelier, France• Also Rome, Italy and Thessaloniki, Greece
Photos © USDA ARS-EBCL
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity: specialists not generalists
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity• Mode of action (plant part affected)
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity• Mode of action (plant part affected)• Type of organism (disease, insect)
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity• Mode of action (plant part affected)• Type of organism (disease, insect)• Climate requirements of organism (climate matching
for source populations and introduction sites)• e.g. some releases of Diorhabda from Texas
populations not successful at higher latitudes – couldn’t overwinter
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity• Mode of action (plant part affected)• Type of organism (disease, insect)• Climate requirements of organism (climate matching for
source populations and introduction sites)• Estimated that about ½ of introduced weed bio-control
insect species establish in new location
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Non-target effects
• Relatedness of flora
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Non-target effects – Pemberton (2000)
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Difficulty locating enemy• Non-target effects – From Pemberton (2000)
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Difficulty locating enemy• Non-target effects – From Pemberton (2000)
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Difficulty locating enemy• Non-target effects
Most likely a problem when the invasive species has closely related plants in the invaded area
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Difficulty locating enemy• Non-target effects
Most likely a problem when the invasive species has closely related plants in the invaded area
Monitor non-targets
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?Van Klinken RD, Raghu S (2006) Aust J Entomol 45:253-258
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds
• Agricultural impact• Impact to natural areas• Toxicity• Beneficial characteristics• Relatedness to native species• Origin• Extent of invasion
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds
• McClay (1989) and Peschken & McClay (1995) use a scoring system to rate weeds for biocontrol priority.
• economic losses (light to very severe) 0-30 pts• Additional points:
• Size of the infested area • expected spread• Toxicity• Available means of control• Economic justification.
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds
• McClay (1989) and Peschken & McClay (1995) use a scoring system to rate weeds for biocontrol priority.
• economic losses• Biological elements
• Geographic origin: more points for non-US weeds
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds
• McClay (1989) and Peschken & McClay (1995) use a scoring system to rate weeds for biocontrol priority.
• economic losses• Biological elements
• Geographic origin: more points for non-N. Am. weeds• Habitat stability: more points for stable habitats
(rangelands VS croplands)
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds
• McClay (1989) and Peschken & McClay (1995) use a scoring system to rate weeds for biocontrol priority.
• economic losses• Biological elements
• Geographic origin: more points for non-N. Am. weeds• Habitat stability: more points for stable habitats
(rangelands VS croplands)• Points added for absence of close native relatives
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005. Project Number: 0211-22000-006-00
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising species
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent:
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent:
• presence and abundance related to climate
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent:
• presence and abundance related to climate• phenology of control agents and hosts
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent:
• presence and abundance related to climate• phenology of control agents and hosts• type and level of damage on targets
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent:
• presence and abundance related to climate• phenology of control agents and hosts• type and level of damage on targets • Oviposition and feeding substrates
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent:
• presence and abundance related to climate• phenology of control agents and hosts• type and level of damage on targets • Oviposition and feeding substrates• overwintering sites
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent:
• presence and abundance related to climate• phenology of control agents and hosts• type and level of damage on targets • Oviposition and feeding substrates• overwintering sites• Host range tests: primary and closely related
hosts, critical hosts
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agentiv) Climate modeling to match sources to target
populations
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agentiv) Climate modeling to match sources to target populations v) Introduction of bio-control agents to quarantine sites
in US for further testing
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological
Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005
• Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius)i) Literature review to identify promising speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agentiv) Climate modeling to match sources to target populations v) Introduction of bio-control agents to quarantine sites in US
for further testingvi) Progress: have ID’d several agents and host species
lists for each invasive plant. Prioritization of agents next priority. Import and testing in US projected for 2007-2008.
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent
• Laboratory rearing:• Easier, more cost effective, less mortality, more
insects?• Not ‘hardened’ to environmental conditions, lower
success in releases
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent
• Laboratory rearing:• Easier, more cost effective, less mortality, more
insects?• Not ‘hardened’ to environmental conditions, lower
success in releases• Field rearing:
• More difficult, more expensive, fewer insects• Site selection is important (high quality stand of target
plant)
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent
• Laboratory rearing:• Easier, more cost effective, less mortality, more
insects?• Not ‘hardened’ to environmental conditions, lower
success in releases• Field rearing:
• More difficult, more expensive, fewer insects• Site selection is important (high quality stand of target
plant)• ‘quality’ probably outweighs ‘quantity’ in bio-control
releases
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent• Release the biocontrol agent
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent• Release the biocontrol agent
• Only about 60% of released agents become established (Crawley 1989).
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent• Release the biocontrol agent
• Only about 60% of released agents become established (Crawley 1989)
• Success affected by climate, size of release, number and timing of releases, predators, weather conditions
• Improve success by releasing field-reared agents, matching climate, selecting release site carefully (high density of target plants, few predators)
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent• Release the biocontrol agent
• Only about 60% of released agents become established (Crawley 1989)
• Success affected by climate, size of release, number and timing of releases, predators, weather conditions
• Improve success by releasing field-reared agents, matching climate, selecting release site carefully (high density of target plants, few predators)
• Caged releases VS open field releases
6) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent• Release the biocontrol agent
• Only about 60% of released agents become established (Crawley 1989)
• Success affected by climate, size of release, number and timing of releases, predators, weather conditions
• Improve success by releasing field-reared agents, matching climate, selecting release site carefully (high density of target plants, few predators)
• Caged releases VS open field releases• e.g. Kirby et al 2000: released 80 beetles in 1989, 1000
beetles in 1990. Open release, colonization was successful.
6) Managementc) Control
Biological control in CA: success rates and references
Biological control in CA: cont’d
iv) Underlying socioeconomic issues• Introductions = $$$
• Many (most) invasive species introduced intentionally
6) Managementc) Control
iv) Underlying socioeconomic issues• Introductions = $$$
• Many (most) invasive species introduced intentionally• Concern about control (including biological control)• Other economic benefits of invasives – e.g. Purple
Loosestrife makes good honey!
6) Managementc) Control
iv) Underlying socioeconomic issues• Introductions = $$$• Public sentiment
Southwest Willow flycatcherEndangered species; Nests in Tamarisk
(nest success lower in Tamariskthan in native vegetation but still a concern)
6) Managementc) Control
