Invasive plants:identities, issues

and theoryNENHC 2014

by Richard Gardner

Contact information

rtgardner3@yahoo.com

https://www.facebook.com/Ailanthusresearch

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Biocontrol/478613962188654

Copies of this and other presentations can be found on Slideshare.net at:

http://www.slideshare.net/rtgardner3http://www.slideshare.net/hacuthbert

Part 1:Introduction to Bioeradication – basic

theory and application of bioeradication with Ailanthus altissima as the example.

Oriental bittersweet Purple loosestrife Japanese knotweed

Winged euonymus

Multiflora rose

Wineberry

Amur honeysuckle

Japanese honeysuckle

Russian olive

Oriental bittersweet

Terminologyand

Basic Concepts

Backyard ecology/backyard research – most of the important research in ecology can literally be done in our back yards. All the relationships and answers to the big questions are there for us to find. Exotic locations and expensive equipment may only confirm what we already observed and synthesized.

Every slide in this presentation was taken within 50 miles of home. Most were taken within 10 miles with some in our backyard. All the basic concepts were developed while walking near home. Total expenses to do this and related research is less than $3000 over 4 years, including consumables and equipment. The most expensive pieces of equipment are the computer and the camera.

Medicating the ecology (gerbil science) - My first fear with biocontrols is that we select target organisms the way we select any other problem that appears to need solving. We look only at the crisis. Then we charge in solving an apparent problem mechanistically without looking in depth to understand the crisis or look for creative less dangerous and minimally disruptive alternatives.

Classical biocontrol – the introduction of non-native organisms in the attempt to reduce the effects of other introduced non-native organisms on ecosystems.

There are unforeseen negative effects from the biocontrols which cannot be predicted in the local and extra-local ecosystems in which they are introduced through genetic and/or behavioral changes in the non-native biocontrol and native organisms.

In other words it is a mechanistic attempt to use non-native organisms to control already

present non-native organisms.

It does not attempt to bring an ecosystem back into balance. Instead it causes a new system

and (im)balance to develop that is alien.

Specialists – a specialist in ecology is an organism that is limited to one organism as an energy source (or any other limiting condition such as type of nesting habitat or roosting location) which makes it a specialist to that condition in a specific time and place. It is usually derived/descended from a generalist which has moved into a “niche” due to varying factors such as competition, environmental change, mate selection or lack of other available food sources.

When the specific limiting factor is removed from a specialist, it will often expand beyond the

boundaries to which it is confined.

Specialist biocontrol – a mythological organism which with enough time will begin to exploit other energy sources and environmental resources in the ecosystem into which it was introduced. In other words, an introduced “specialist biocontrol” will expand in an ecosystem beyond the expected limited boundaries in an ecosystem to have “unexpected” and negative effects on an ecosystem.

Unexpected effects of a specialist biocontrol – Some of the nearly infinite effects an introduced biocontrol may have upon an ecosystem after introduction:

1. begin to eat native relatives of the non-native plant it was introduced to control.

2. act as a food supplement for other native organisms, causing their population to explode with unforeseen consequences. (Ex. – brown marmorated stink bugs and song birds, emerald ash borers and woodpeckers.)

3. act as a primary food source for native predators causing a population explosion of the original native primary food source.

4. compete with and outcompete native organisms for resources such as egg laying sites, hibernation sites, supplemental food sources, … .

5. carry diseases and/or parasites which may infect and otherwise affect native organisms.

It is important to remember that non-native biocontrols have high rates of failure and low rates of success.

There is an average of 2.44 introduced organisms for every species on which control is being attempted. I think this number is underestimated and that the real number is at least 5 introduced organisms for every biocontrol target, probably higher.

Bioeradication – The extinction of a non-native (invasive) species from an ecosystem using native organisms. The goal is the regeneration of the ecosystem by eliminating the non-native problem from the ecosystem using native organisms which minimize the potential problems associated with the addition of non-native organisms as potential controls.

Bioeradicant – Any native organism in any time frame from seconds to centuries that partially or fully inhibits a non-native organism and helps to drive it to extinction.

Bioeradication system – A group of native organisms which through any biological relationship and time frame partially or fully inhibits a non-native organism to the point it is driven to extinction.

Bioeradication systems are what I am observing when I walk. There may be individual organisms doing the same, but I have not seen them.

Hybrid bioeradication system – A group of native and indigenous non-native organisms which through any biological relationship and time frame partially or fully inhibits a non-native organism to the point it is driven to extinction.

Direct bioeradication – The use of a native organism or native organism system as a bioeradicant for a specific organism by increasing its population through introduction of more of the bioeradicant.

Indirect bioeradication – Providing the native natural resources such as food sources, breeding sites or shelter needed for a bioeradicant or bioeradicant system to develop at a specific location for a specific organism. This may be nectar sources, sheltering plants, mutualistic fungi, water source or … for any life stage.

The difference between bioeradication and biocontrol is that bioeradication assumes it is possible to exterminate a non-native species from an ecosystem using native species. While biocontrol is trying to change, modify or minimize the effects of one non-native organism by using another non-native organism.

Bioremediation – the use of native organisms to displace and eradicate non-native organisms while replacing them as they are eliminated from an ecosystem.

This is an expansion of the traditional definition of bioremediation; the use of microorganisms or plants to mitigate chemical or organic pollution. This expands the term to mean use of native organisms to restore an ecosystem during the process of and after the removal of a non-native organism or non-native organism system.

The question most frequently asked with Bioeradication is why has no one noticed it before? The answer is threefold:

1.) no one thought to look2.) many of the non-natives were

eradicated before anyone even noticed they were an issue

3.) systems are much harder to identify, observe and understand than individual organisms.

Popu

latio

n

Non-native biocontrol

Non-native invasive

Native congeners and conspecifics of non-native invasive

time

Simplified expected curves for what happens when a non-native biocontrol is introduced after the establishment of a non-native invasive due to the

biocontrol adapting to new food sources without defenses to that biocontrol.

Popu

latio

nNative bioeradicant

Non-native invasive

Native congeners of non-native invader

time

The expected population curves for native bioeradicant use. The baseline populations for native organisms change as the native bioeradicants adapt to the non-native invasive and eat a

few more of the native while the system comes back into balance as the non-native is destroyed. There is some recoverable risk to the native ecosystem, but not the unrecoverable risk of

introducing non-native biocontrols.

One of the weaknesses we exploit in bioeradication is that the imported non-natives are of limited genetic variability due to the few members of the species and limited number of cultivars imported.

Modern horticultural practices further limit the amount of genetic heterogeneity by using primarily clones and seeds of plants controlled for certain “desirable” traits.

Therefore, they have fewer genetic tools with which to resist native herbivores and

diseases.

Which means that a bioeradication system will often be devastating.

To further this argument, the first plant I investigated, Ailanthus altissima, had a

complete bioeradication system in place.

If my first target proved that bioeradication is happening, imagine how many other invasives

are undergoing the same!

Common name: Tree-of-heavenScientific name: Ailanthus altissimaOrigin: ChinaLocal habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open fields. However, it will grow in wooded areas where light reaches the forest floor.Reproduction: This tree is dioecious with separate male and female trees. A mature female may produce over 350,000 seeds/year. Germination rate may run as high as 90% under controlled conditions. When mechanically (physically) injured, this tree will produce many clones from its roots up to 30 yards away. Seed bank is one year except under controlled conditions.Identifying features: It has odd pinnate compound leaves with opposite blade-like leaflets. Leaflets have one pair to several pairs of notches along the edge of the proximal end. Each notch has a gland on the distal end of the point. The odor is unmistakable at certain times when downwind.Weaknesses: It tends to form monoclonal stands when physically injured and may interconnect roots between individuals in a stand. This means that herbivores and disease have fewer genotypes to deal with and disease can move through root grafts within the stand. It is dioecious with possible sterilization of female trees.Local Controls: A combination of the native moth Atteva aurea, the eriophyoid mite Aculops ailanthii, various as of yet unidentified herbivorous insects and several pathogenic Fusarium and Verticillium fungi. Whitetailed deer browse leaves.Outlook: Excellent. It is apparently slowly going extinct locally and probably throughout its eastern North American range from naturally occurring processes..

Common name: Tree-of-heavenScientific name: Ailanthus altissimaOrigin: ChinaLocal habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open fields. However, it will grow in wooded areas where light reaches the forest floor.Reproduction: This tree is dioecious with separate male and female trees. A

mature female may produce over 350,000 seeds/year. Germination rate may run as high as 90% under controlled conditions. When mechanically (physically) injured, this tree

will produce many clones up to 30 yards away.Identifying features: It has odd pinnate compound leaves with blade-like leaflets

which are opposite. Leaflets have one pair to several pairs of notches along the edge of the proximal end. Each notch has a gland on the distal

end of the point. The odor is unmistakable at certain times when downwind.Weaknesses: tends to form monoclonal stands when physically injured and may interconnect roots between individuals in a stand. This means that herbivores and disease have fewer genotypes to deal with and disease can move

through root grafts when spreading through a stand.Local Controls: A combination of the native moth Atteva aurea, Aculops ailanthii, various as of yet unidentified herbivorous insects and several pathogenic Fusarium

and Verticillium fungi. Whitetailed deer browse leaves.Outlook: Apparently slowly going extinct locally and probably throughout its eastern North American range from naturally occurring processes.

Very early in the life of Ailanthus the main root makes a right angle turn that is parallel with the ground while often putting down a tap root as seen in this photo and the following.

male tree

female tree

Herbivory probably caused by Japanese beetles or grasshoppers.

July 18, 2012the brown areas are the community webs of

Atteva aurea

August 1, 2012

August 8, 2012

a nearby standJuly 17, 2013

September 5, 2013

September 23, 2013

Atteva aurea, a native moth

A female Atteva aurea depositing eggs on a community web.

pupae and larvae entering the pupa stage

pupa

Aculops ailanthii, an eriophyoid mite

Aculops ailanthii, an eriophyoid mite

The little brown dashes are Aculops ailanthii

leaves infested with A. ailanthii

Note the crumpled leaves

Mite experiment at home that ended on Nov. 19, 2013. Note the crumpled leaves.

Mites from mite experiment at home that ended on Nov. 19, 2013

Fusarium micro and macroconidia from diseased tree which cause chlorosis and wilting. Carried by A. aurea and probably A. ailanthii.

necrotic lesions

Cankered trunk

Fusarium lateritium macroconidia, canker/lesion causing fungi

Deer browse

Birds – best for long distances between

landscapes*

Moths – best for medium and short distances within a

landscape**

Wind – best within

landscapes for short distances with high

mite and tree densities

Transport of Aculops ailanthii and disease across landscapes

Deer – short and medium distances within a landscape as they browse on Ailanthus leaves

*I have yet to see a bird’s nest or birds consistently roost on Ailanthus**A. aurea may be the primary transporter of A. ailanthii in all distances

From recent walking it appears that there is a correlation between the density and nearness of the nectar sources adult Atteva aurea feed on

and the amount of disease in a stand of Ailanthus.

Which means that the key to Ailanthus control is to plant native flowers

nearby with compact inflorescences that bloom in succession from late

spring to hard freeze as nectar sources for adult Atteva aurea.

Rudbeckia laciniata

Verbesina alternifolia

Monarda fistulosa

Leucanthemum sp.

Solidago sp.

Ailanthus altissima bioeradication

garden

Ailanthus altissima bioeradication garden

2. Aster laevis 1. Asclepias tuberosa4. Erigeron speciosus 3. Aster novae-angliae6. Eupatorium perfoliatum 5. Eupatorium maculatum8. Monarda fistulosa 7. Heliopsis helianthoides10. Rudbeckia laciniata 9. Rudbeckia hirta12. Solidago canadensis 11. Rudbeckia triloba14. Solidago rigida 13. Solidago nemoralis16. Verbesina alternifolia 15. Solidago speciosa18. sunflowers 17. Asclepias syriaca19. Coreopsis 20. Shasta daisy21. sweet peppers 22. sweet peppers23. sweet peppers 24. Eu. mac./Cor. trip./Ech. pur.

25. Collected wild plants

pasture uphill driveway

Part 2:Bioeradication – invasive non-native plants,

their weaknesses and their eradication

Common name: Multiflora roseScientific name: Rosa multifloraOrigin: AsiaLocal habitat: fields and wooded areasReproduction: seeds and stem clonesIdentifying features: The only local rose I know of where the thorns curve towards the center of plantWeaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can

evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and

herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes. Clonal growth limits genetic heterogeneity and facilitates the movement of disease through a stand.Local Controls: Rose rosette disease, an Emaravirus spread by the eriophyoid mite Phyllocoptes fructiphilus is in a bioeradication system with birds. It probably developed on a native rose in California or another Pacific Coast state.Outlook: Excellent. It is severely affected by rose rosette disease and possibly another disease which yellows the leaves.

Probable scenario for the spread of rose rosette disease across the ecosystems

Birds – carrying mites long distances, between landscapes and within landscapes while feeding and nesting

Pollinators – carrying mites medium distances, within landscapes

Wind – carrying mites short distances, within stands

Common name: Japanese honeysuckleScientific name: Lonicera japonicaOrigin: AsiaLocal habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open woodlands.Reproduction: Cloning and bird distributed seeds.Identifying features: Elliptic shaped leaves opposite on climbing vines. Distinct flowers with a sweet odor when in bloom. Prefers shaded edges with a substrate of brush and small trees to climb on.Weaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can

evolve from to become bioeradicants. Clonal spread limits genetic heterogeneity and is a pathway for disease to move through a stand. Birds eat the abundant

fruit, potentially spreading disease and herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.Local Controls: There appears to be beetle herbivory and several diseases which it shares with the non-native bush honeysuckles.Outlook: Good. This plant is on the decline from my observations due to disease and insect herbivory. It should be an easy research target for bioeradication.

Common name: Morrows honeysuckleScientific name: Lonicera morrowiiOrigin: AsiaLocal habitat: wooded areasReproduction: seeds spread by birdsIdentifying features: Bushy shrub with elliptic shaped leaves similar to Japanese

honeysuckle.Weaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can

evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and

herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.Local Controls: Herbivorous insects with mites and disease working together. I am seeing

possibly three separate diseases as I walk.Outlook: Excellent. It is going extinct throughout its eastern North American range due to

disease and herbivory.

May 15, 2013

June 19, 2013

July 25, 2013

August 7, 2013

August 26, 2013

September 4, 2013

October 3, 2013

Probable scenario for the movement of pathogens and insect herbivores between

Lonicera morrowii plants.

Wind – short distances within landscapes Deer – short and medium

distances between thickets within a landscape

Birds – long distances between landscapes

Insect pollinators and herbivores – short and medium distances within landscapes

Common name: Amur honeysuckleScientific name: Lonicera maackiiOrigin: AsiaLocal habitat: wooded areasReproduction: seeds spread by birdsIdentifying features: Elliptic shaped leaves with a curved narrowing pointWeaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can

evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and

herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.Local Controls: Herbivorous insects with mites and disease working together. I am seeing a

variety of separate diseases as I walk.Outlook: Good. It appears to be going extinct throughout its eastern North American range

due to disease and herbivory.

Common name: Oriental bittersweetScientific name: Celastrus orbiculatusOrigin: AsiaLocal habitat: forests and fieldsReproduction: seedsIdentifying features: Acuminate shaped leaves with serrulate margins towards and on the

ends of new growth becoming orbicular mature leaves with serrated margin, bright yellow/orange seeds in the fall. Vine is not hairy as is poison ivy or shaggylike native grape.

Weaknesses: A close native relative from which disease and herbivores can evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.Local Controls: None now. However, a disease was apparently forming at home on the leaves of several plants.Outlook: Good. In time since it has a close native relative, I expect a native organism or more probably organism system to begin to eradicate it. In our backyard, there

appears to be a necrotic disease developing on the leaves.

Common name: WineberryScientific name: Rubus phoenicolasiusOrigin: AsiaLocal habitat: woodlands, along the edges of road roads and trailsReproduction: seeds and clones from stemsIdentifying features: Hairy red or green stems with a combination of soft fuzzy prickles and

hard thorns. Stems turn red in the fall. Fruit forms in pods which break open about a week before ripening to clusters of bright red drupelets.Weaknesses: Many native and possibly non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can evolve to become bioeradicants. Clonal stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.Local Controls: When I walk there appears to be disease and herbivory similar to native blackberries and the native raspberries for which it was brought in to hybridize with.Outlook: Good. I see chlorosis (disease) and other issues which appear to have moved from

closely related native raspberries.

Native raspberry showing disease which may be in the process of being passed to non-native

wineberry.

Common name: Garlic mustardScientific name: Alliaria petiolataOrigin: EurasiaLocal habitat: the understory along trails and roadsReproduction: seedsIdentifying features: It is one of the earliest forbs to bloom which has white flowers on multiple stems up to mid-thigh high. According to Bernd Blossey of Ithaca College, it needs earthworms to flourish so it will usually not be found where earthworms have not been introduced.Weaknesses: A member of a large family of native and non-native plants from which diseases and herbivores can evolve to become bioeradicants.Local Controls: Since it is in the mustard family, there are potential native bioeradicants developing. Humans can help by picking it for flavoring hopelessly boring English/German style cooking and as a nutrition source.Outlook: Good. There is an apparent bioeradicant already beginning to make an impact and many native plants within the family from which bioeradicants can develop.

Common name: Japanese stiltgrassScientific name: Microstegium vimineumOrigin: AsiaLocal habitat: wooded areas with partial sun. It usually starts along the edge of trails and roads where people accidently carry the hitchhiking seeds and spreads from there. Intermittent/seasonal streams are often a preferred growing location and a corridor by which it spreads into the forest.Reproduction: seedsIdentifying features: Silver vein down middle of leaf, large dense stands which become noticeable in late summerWeaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease can evolve into a bioeradicant. Tends to grow in well-traveled areas which facilitates the spread of disease.Local Controls: Members of the Bipolaris fungi family that may have evolved from native

pathogenic fungi of Zea mays.Outlook: Good. In the Midwest, it is being eradicated by Bipolaris fungi and other organisms. (Our gerbils do not like it as food. So, it will probably not be usable as a harvestable pet food for rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, mice, guinea pigs or rats.)

Part 3: The concepts, terminology, theoretical framework and

application of bioeradication

Walk more.Tinker less.

Mile-a-minute(Polygonum perfoliatum)

vs.Tree-of-heaven

(Ailanthus altissima)

A flawed non-native biocontrol system vs.

a functioning native bioeradicant system

Common name: Mile-a-minuteScientific name: Polygonum perfoliatumOrigin: AsiaLocal habitat: edges of woods and open areas within woodsReproduction: seedIdentifying features: Blue green deltoid (triangular) leaves, thin fuchsia/green prickly stems,

shallow roots, clusters of green, purple and blue berries, blankets an area fast.Weaknesses: Many native relatives from which disease and herbivores can evolve to become bioeradicants. Self pollinating. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes. Not tolerant to cold/frost so dies if there is a late spring frost or an early fall frost. Limited growing season in cooler areas, reducing size of plants and seed production.Local Controls: None, the non-native biocontrol appears to be minimally successful. There

is the possibility that a disease is beginning to infect this plant.Outlook: This plant is in a large family of related plants. Therefore, I expect it to go extinct when native organisms catch up with it. I found it infesting a woodland near the University of Delaware, the place where non-native biocontrols are being studied and released in attempts to control it. This suggests that the non-native biocontrol is not as successful as expected.

Example of plants with similar physiology in close proximity to P. perfoliatum.

My first concern with this plant is that its propagule (seed) spread is an important and uncontainable component of

how it moves across the landscape.

Look at where a new patch appears and you will find that a bird roosted or perched in a nearby tree after eating the

berries someplace else.

Since this plant is in berry from mid-summer through the fall migration, seed spread can be hundreds of miles in

one or two years.

http://www.clker.com/clipart-eastern-u-s-map.html

States with Mile-a-minute and expected short term trajectory

Collection

Present range

Projected short term trajectory

It is obvious that migrating birds are spreading the seeds along species specific eastern United

States migration corridors.

This makes the plant a bad target for biocontrol as it is impossible to control as the plant spreads

too rapidly and too far to be contained by the release of “specialist” herbivorous insects at specific locations without doing a range wide

release at which time there is a strong possibility that it will be more detrimental to the local

ecologies than the plant itself is.

Therefore, unless a bioeradicant system develops and naturally spreads, this plant will

continue to spread without any hope of containing or eradicating it.

My second concern is it appears that the native congeners were not checked thoroughly for

potential controls. There are possibly hundreds of confamiliars and congeners in the plant’s

present and potential range.

My third concern is that testing of biocontrols is necessarily limited to try to control the number of variables, reduce time to release and reduce costs. This unfortunately increases the probability that

the biocontrol will attack native plants and/or otherwise disrupt the ecosystem.

This makes for a very high likelihood that the introduced non-native biocontrol will begin

feeding on native plant relatives given enough generations to adapt to the local ecologies.

My fourth concern is the large number of other plants in close proximity with similar physical

traits. It is not always only the chemicals in the food that matter, but the physical attributes such

as leaf shape, vine shape, nutritional value/density, plant density, leaf area, toughness of stems, leaves, roots, … that affect whether a

plant is used as food.

My concern here is that this biocontrol may jump from the target to a native with similar

physical properties.

Which leads me to fear that due to the limited understanding of the long term ecological relationships and the narrow numbers of organisms tested with the short time frame of testing, biocontrols will jump from their targeted plant to others, especially natives related by genes, physical attributes and proximity.

With the huge number of potential native insects, diseases and systems in contact with

Mile-a-minute and it congeners/confamiliars a native bioeradicant system will develop and may

already have developed.

If we are willing to look for native organisms and organism systems in this plant’s present range of

spread, there is a high probability of finding a safe native answer for this plant.

Common name: Tree-of-heavenScientific name: Ailanthus altissimaOrigin: ChinaLocal habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open fields. However, it will grow in wooded areas where light reaches the forest floor.Reproduction: This tree is dioecious with separate male and female trees. A mature female may produce over 350,000 seeds/year. Germination rate may run as high as 90% under controlled conditions. When mechanically (physically) injured, this tree will produce many clones from its roots up to 30 yards away. Seed bank is one year except under controlled conditions.Identifying features: It has odd pinnate compound leaves with opposite blade-like leaflets. Leaflets have one pair to several pairs of notches along the edge of the proximal end. Each notch has a gland on the distal end of the point. The odor is unmistakable at certain times when downwind.Weaknesses: tends to form monoclonal stands when physically injured and may interconnect roots between individuals in a stand. This means that herbivores and disease have fewer genotypes to deal with and disease can move through root grafts within the stand. It is dioecious with possible sterilization of female trees.Local Controls: A combination of the native moth Atteva aurea, the eriophyoid mite Aculops ailanthii, various as of yet unidentified herbivorous insects and several pathogenic Fusarium and Verticillium fungi. Whitetailed deer browse leaves.Outlook: Excellent. Apparently slowly going extinct locally and probably throughout its

eastern North American range from naturally occurring processes..

Atteva aurea

Aculops ailanthii infestation, note the curled leaves

chlorosis, often caused by A. ailanthii

The little brown dashes are Aculops ailanthii

This planter of seedlings at home 2 summers ago had A. aurea and A. ailanthii on it. I was setting up an experiment at home a few weeks

ago. I had to quit due to the heavy level of A. ailanthii destroying the seedlings almost as fast as they sprouted.

July 11, 2012

July 25, 2012

A. aurea community webs

August 1, 2012

August 1, 2012

September 5, 2012

diseased tree - note the chlorosis and

wilting

Pine Swamp RoadAugust 6, 2012

Pine Swamp RoadJuly 11, 2013

necrotic lesions

Atteva aurea moved north and throughout the range of Ailanthus altissima from native Simaroubaceae as Ailanthus altissima moved south and

throughout the country.

Atteva aurea

Ailanthus altissima

native Simaroubaceaeconfamiliars

From recent walking it appears that there is a correlation between the density and nearness of the nectar sources adult Atteva aurea feed on

and the amount of disease in a stand of Ailanthus.

The key to finding a native biocontrol insect (system) for a plant is to find an

organism which is a generalist herbivore for a family or genus of

plants and a specialist to that family or genus.

This means that the bioeradicant has the genetic ability to switch from one

plant to another and yet will not cause the extinction of coevolved food

sources.

A. aurea larvae eat other Simaroubaceae family members, but

only eats members of this family.

A. aurea larvae will preferentially eat the non-coevolved food source

because this food source does not have the defenses to A. aurea that a

coevolved native Simaroubaceae food source has.

Hence, an easy meal that is a higher quality food source (higher energy return for energy expended) than a

native coevolved one since it spends less energy dealing with chemical and

physical defenses.

At the same time it is embedded in a system of a mite (A. ailanthii) and

several diseases.

Which together interact to cause eradication of A. altissima.

Unique features of this system:1. A. altissima is the only food for A. aurea larvae in most of the A.

altissima range2. A. aurea adults are broadly generalist nectar feeders

3. A. ailanthii is an apparent specialist to A. altissima4. A. aurea larvae have no other local food sources because the adults

have spread themselves beyond their normal range by following nectar sources and A. altissima

5. A. aurea and A. ailanthii are the apparent vectors for several A. altissima diseases

6. A. ailanthii apparently hitchhikes between A. altissima trees on birds and A. aurea and is spread by wind.

7. A. ailanthii appears to have environmental persistence and cold tolerance, staying persistently in stands of A. ailanthus if observations

at home are an indicator.8. A. aurea appears to evolving to colder temperatures as witnessed

by their presence feeding on goldenrod in central Pennsylvania in mid-November 2012 after frost and freeze.

How to develop an Ailanthus bioeradication system:

1. Do not apply pesticides to the surrounding area – herbicides,

insecticides, fungicides, … .

2. Plant a wide variety of native high nectar flowers, such as Asteraceae

family members, nearby so there are high quality food sources from mid-spring to the first hard freeze for the

adults to feed on.

3. Get out the camera and microscope to enjoy the beauty of A. aurea and A.

ailanthii.

So far I have found adult Atteva aurea on daisy-like flowers and at least 2

species of goldenrod from August to mid-November. I am still not sure

what they feed on from early spring when the Ailanthus leaves are just

beginning to bloom to mid-August but expect it to be other flowers with

compact inflorescences.

There are several obvious differences between Ailanthus altissima and Polygonum perfoliatum which changes the number of bioeradicants available and the timing of the system developing.

1. The first and most obvious is the spread of propagules – samaras which stay in a local area vs. seeds in berries which are transported across the landscape.

2. A. altissima is resident all year giving ample time for natives to use it for shelter and adapt to the plant as a food source vs. P. perfoliatum which as a tender annual offers a shorter time for natives to adapt.

3. The number of native confamiliars and congeners for A. altissima is very small. P. perfoliatum has a large number of relatives near it such as Polygonum pensylvanicum (Pennsylvania smartweed).

4. A. altissima has several native confamiliars in the Simaroubaceae family which serve as a reservoir of native bioeradicants. P. perfoliatum has many native confamiliars such as Polygonum pensylvanicum, which is found abundantly locally and may serve as reservoirs for bioeradicants once a system develops.

5. The native confamiliars of A. altissima are Neotropical which means that throughout most its range there are few reservoirs for bioeradicants. However, the primary bioeradicant, A. aurea apparently has wanderlust. It may migrate seasonally hundreds of miles a year. It is multivoltine with no apparent diapause from first appearance to killer freeze.In contrast, P. perfoliatum has many local congeners and confamiliars which are possible local bioeradicant reservoirs.

NEXT YEAR

Attempting rodent and insect control in our garden and yard using native birds and bats -

21 song bird houses, 10 bat houses,

6 song bird nesting platforms, 4 kestrel houses, 2 barn owl houses

1 hawk nesting platform (and counting).

Addendum

Biocontrol vs. Bioeradication

Medicating the ecology vs. understanding and working with it

As an ecologist, I regularly work with an almost infinite set of variables. To even attempt to reduce this huge set of variables into a few easily measured and understood is insanity,

while being morally and ethically wrong because it is not an accurate portrayal of reality and can

lead to disastrous consequences.

Biocontrol target selection concerns involving propagule spread

Propagule spread is an important component of how problems develop. With Mile-a-minute, it is obvious that migrating birds spread the seeds first locally then along the species specific migration corridors. As more species develop a taste for the berries, they will too spread the seeds along their migration corridors, … .

In a similar way, the seeds of the various honeysuckles and Multiflora rose are spread primarily by birds, such as mocking birds in the case of multifora rose. In both of these examples native or native/non-native hybrid systems are forming to eradicate the non-native invasive plants. This is the only way possible to eradicate these plants.

In contrast, the seeds of the various species of grape hyacinth, (Muscari sp.) and periwinkle (Vinca sp.) spread through a slow and localized process which deposits most of the seeds within a short distance of the parent or clone sequentially from a parent plant . If a migratory bird or mammal develops a taste for the seeds or vegetatively reproductive parts, this will become a major problem the same as with the aforementioned species. However, with infestations such as these, minimal intervention will be successful.

In between these examples are plants such as Japanese stilt grass and garlic mustard which depend on animals, including humans, to spread their hitchhiking seeds.

Unfortunately, humans are very efficient at spreading hitchhiking seeds long distances.

Therefore, only a native bioeradicant system will be successful. For both Japanese stilt grass and garlic mustard systems are apparently developing. Most probably the systems will be spread the same way as the plants – inadvertently by humans.

Popu

latio

n

Non-native biocontrol

Non-native invasive

Native congeners and conspecifics of non-native invasive

time

Simplified expected curves for what happens when a non-native biocontrol is introduced after the establishment of a non-native invasive due to the

biocontrol adapting to new food sources without defenses to that biocontrol.

Popu

latio

nNative bioeradicant

Non-native invasive

Native congeners of non-native invader

time

The expected population curves for native bioeradicant use. The baseline populations for native organisms change as the native bioeradicants adapt to the non-native invasive and eat a

few more of the native while the system comes back into balance as the non-native is destroyed. There is some recoverable risk to the native ecosystem, but not the unrecoverable risk of

introducing non-native biocontrols.

Popu

latio

n

Non-native biocontrols

Pioneer non-native invasive

Native congeners of non-native invasive

time

Secondary non-native invasives

A more complex version of what is expected when a (pioneer) non-native plant is introduced followed by its non-native biocontrol. The native system collapses allowing secondary non-

natives to enter.

Native organisms

Popu

latio

n o

r co

ncen

trati

on

Non-native specialist biocontrol

Non-native invasiveChemical defenses of non-native invasive population

time

This diagram demonstrates what is expected when a non-native specialist biocontrol is reintroduced to its non-native host as happened in North America with Pastinaca sativa,

the European parsnip, when its European control, Depressaria pastinacella, was accidently reintroduced. (Zangerl, et al, 2005)

Medicating the ecology (gerbil science) - My first fear with biocontrols is that we select target organisms the way we select any other problem that appears to need solving. We look only at the crisis. Then we charge in solving an apparent problem mechanistically without looking in depth to understand the crisis or look for creative minimally disruptive or less dangerous alternatives.

The same misguided attitudes which we experience in medicine we experience in

ecology, everything needs fixing immediately.

In other words, we are constantly try to fix everything without first understanding what we

are trying to fix.

Classical biocontrol – the introduction of non-native organisms in the attempt to reduce the effects of other introduced non-native organisms on ecosystems.

There are unforeseen negative effects from the biocontrols which cannot be predicted in the local and extra-local ecosystems in which they are introduced through genetic and/or behavioral changes in the non-native biocontrol and native organisms.

In other words it is a mechanistic attempt to use non-native organisms to control already present non-native organisms. It does not attempt to bring an ecosystem back into balance. Instead it causes a new system and (im)balance to develop that is inherently alien.

Specialist biocontrol – mythical magic bullet of Classical biocontrol.

There are many problems with this concept.

1.) A specialist only exists in a limited time and place. A specialist in one location with a limiting resource such as food may be a generalist in another location when that limiting resource is commonly available.

2.) Specialists should go extinct when the target organism goes extinct in a specific location.

If they are persisting after the target is destroyed, they are not specialists.

3.) Specialists are recruited by looking primarily at the effects on the target, not all the potential collateral effects they may have on the rest of the ecology such as becoming a food supplement for a native organism or competing for breeding resources, causing a predator to use them as a primary prey, … . The result is an unbalanced ecosystem with unforeseen ecological effects, including the extinction of native organisms.

4.) Specialists derive from generalists. Therefore, they contain the genes and (relict) behavioral patterns which may cause them to revert back to generalists when the situation at that time and place change such as the addition of another resource or the target plant becomes scarce/extinct.

Non-native biocontrol has high rates of failure and low rates of success, an average of 2.44 introduced organisms for every species on which control is being attempted. I think this number is underestimated and that the real number is at least 5 introduced organisms for every biocontrol target.

Bioeradication – The extinction of a non-native (invasive) species from an ecosystem using native organisms. The goal is the regeneration of the ecosystem by eliminating the non-native problem from the ecosystem using native organisms which minimize the potential problems associated with the addition of non-native organisms as potential controls.

Bioeradication uses a variety of native organisms working together to eradicate a non-native organism from the ecosystem and restore it to its original state.

If the target reappears after local extinction, the bioeradication system naturally reasserts itself if all the resources for it are still present. In other words, the system has reverted to its original resource use state, but has the ability to reassert itself if the non-native invasive reappears.

The difference between bioeradication and biocontrol is that bioeradication assumes it is possible to eradicate a non-native species from an ecosystem using native species. While biocontrol is trying to change, modify or minimize the effects of one non-native organism by using another non-native organism.

Bioeradicant – Any native organism in any time frame from seconds to centuries that partially or fully inhibits a non-native organism and helps to drive it to extinction.

Bioeradication system – A group of native organisms which through any biological relationship and time frame partially or fully inhibits a non-native organism to the point it is driven to extinction.

Hybrid bioeradication system – A group of native and indigenous non-native organisms which through any biological relationship and time frame partially or fully inhibits a non-native organism to the point it is driven to extinction.

Direct bioeradication – This is the (re)introduction and use of a native organism or native organism system as a bioeradicant for a specific organism by increasing its population at a given location.

Indirect bioeradication – Providing the native resources such as food, breeding sites or shelter needed for a native bioeradicant or bioeradicant system to develop at a specific location for a specific organism. This may be nectar sources, sheltering plants, mutualistic fungi, water source or … .

Bioeradication garden – A form of Indirect Bioeradication which is a garden of local native plants that provide a resource for any life stage that a native bioeradicant needs to be effective as a bioeradicant such as food, egg laying sites, overwintering sites, protection from predators, …, .

Presently we have an experimental bioeradication garden in our yard to determine nectar sources used by Atteva aurea.

Bioeradication resource – Any naturally occurring or native environmental resource a native bioeradicant needs to be effective as a bioeradicant in that ecosystem.

Resource use – This is the use by a native bioeradicant of a native or non-native resource. In the case of a non-native resource it takes time to adapt to using it through either learning to use it (behavioral changes) or genetic changes, often both.

Resource familiarity – This is the amount of use of a resource by a native bioeradicant. In the case of non-native (invasive) resources time is required for a native bioeradicant to adapt to a non-native through either behavioral or genetic changes and begin driving the non-native to extinction.

Resource heritage – This is the passing on of a behavioral and/or genetic adaptation to a resource by a native bioeradicant. This can be through learning, by genetic change or more probably a combination of both. It can spread through a species horizontally as one organism learns from another or vertically as it is passed on to/through offspring through learning or genes.

Herbivory, predation and parasitism – Relationships in which one organism or groups of organisms benefit by using other organisms as an energy source. This does not imply that all the benefit accrues to the herbivore, predator or parasite as there are often unseen benefits to both groups of organisms.

Direct competition – When an organism competes directly with another organism for a resource. Examples are two species of bees competing for a nectar source, a gold finch and a junco competing at our thistle feeder or a mourning dove and a rock dove (pigeon) competing for grain in a field. This is good if a native bioeradicant is successfully outcompeting a non-native organism, driving it to extinction. It is bad when a non-native is driving a native to extinction.

Positive indirect competition – Positive when an organism provides a resource needed for a native organism to compete with a non-native organism.

Knowing how to manipulate this is better than introducing a non-native organism into an ecosystem to control another non-native organism. An example is providing plants as egg laying sites for a native butterfly that competes for nectar with a non-native species such as the cabbage butterfly.

Indirect Bioeradication can be a result of this.

Negative indirect competition - Using a native organism to destroy a biological resource that a non-native organism needs which is in competition with that or another native organism. This may be planting tall native wildflowers in a meadow to destroy a grass needed by a non-native moth for food, egg laying sites or shelter.

Resource enhancement/depletion – This is enhancing a resource needed by a native bioeradicant or depleting a resource needed by a non-native to help eradicate a non-native species.

This may be as simple as removing a dam to allow fish to migrate along a river corridor and eat larvae of a non-native, adding sand banks in a creek to facilitate drinking by native birds or changing a dry meadow back to a flooded meadow to remove burrow sites for a non-native bee or mammal.

Bioremediation – the use of native organisms to displace and eradicate non-native organisms or to replace non-native organisms as they are eliminated from an ecosystem. This is an expansion of the traditional definition of bioremediation.

Traditional bioremediation is the use of microorganisms or plants to mitigate chemical or organic pollution. This is the use of the term to mean use of native organisms to restore an ecosystem during the process of and after the removal of a non-native organism or non-native organism system.

Mutualism – Two or more organisms which cooperate to the benefit of each other. Bioeradicant systems reflect this at different levels of relationship by eliminating a non-native from the ecosystem through (unintended) cooperation, such as phoretic transport of smaller organisms on larger ones, different feeding strategies which enhance the success of both species while eradicating a non-native such as the leaf eating larvae of a native moth which carry a disease that weakens a non-native which makes it into a food source for a second organism to further destruction of the non-native*, behavioral adaptations which help partition a resource and other strategies.

* This is apparently happening to Ailanthus altissima. Atteva aurea is carrying a fusarium and/or verticillium disease which weakens A. altissima. At that point the ambrosia beetle Euwallacea validus burrows into the weakened tree, possibly carrying another canker/necrotic lesion causing fusarium disease with it. I have seen this happen even with Drill and Fill. Once the tree is weakened, E. validus burrows appear.

Competition – Relationships where certain organisms benefit through a variety of mechanisms to the detriment of others without necessarily using them as an energy source. This is an essential element in bioeradication.

Enemy Release Hypothesis (ERH) - It is the disease/pest/competitor version of the Founder Effect but exchanges genes for the biological controls. This frees the plant to focus on growth and reproduction. In essence it is a bottleneck which reduces the biological checks a non-native has in its native ecosystem when it moves to a new ecosystem.

The final effect is the elimination of many of the restraints which prevented the non-native organism from taking over its home ecosystem.

Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) – the evolution of a non-native organism to a new ecosystem by ridding itself of genes, genotypes and behaviors which are unsuitable in the introduced ecosystem and developing new genes, genetic synergies and/or behaviors that increase its ability to adapt and survive. It is mostly seen on the front end of the sigmoidal curve of adaption, exponential population growth and plateauing that is found during the introduction of most invasive non-native organisms into a new ecosystem.