Post on 23-Jan-2016
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods= “biologically” damaging plants
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods= “biologically” damaging plantsBiotic constraints/enemy release hypothesis
5) 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!
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Recall Federal Plant Protection Act :
Biological control is often desirable
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Recall Nevada noxious weed legislation:
• Weed control analyst researches biological control options
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories
Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia
W. Wagner@USDA-NRCS Plants Database
5) 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 )
W. Wagner@USDA-NRCS Plants Database
5) 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 W. Wagner@USDA-NRCS Plants Database
5) 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
5) 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
5) 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
5) 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
5) 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.
5) 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
5) 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.
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
5) 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
Photo: © L. R. Tanner
5) 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
5) 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• Opuntia aurantica becomes more problematic 1930-1950
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum) in California
5) 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
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Tamarix in western US:
Photos: Bob Conrad, NAES
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Tamarix in western US:
• SourceL 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
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy
5) 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/
5) 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
5) 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
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity: specialists not generalists
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Host specificity• Mode of action (plant part affected)
5) 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)
5) 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
5) 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
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Finding an enemy• Non-target effects
• Specificity of biocontrol agent• Relatedness of flora
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Non-target effects – Pemberton (2000)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations:
• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Difficulty locating enemy• Non-target effects – From Pemberton (2000)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Difficulty locating enemy• Non-target effects – From Pemberton (2000)
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
5) Managementc) Control
iii) Biological methods• Least public opposition• Number of success stories• Considerations
• Non-target effects
5) 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