Euhrychiopsis Lecontei)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The geographic distribution of the aquatic milfoil weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei) and factors influencing its density in Wisconsin lakes BY LAURAL. JESTER Wisconsin Cooperative Fishery Research Unit A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In Natural Resources College of Natural Resources University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Wisconsin October 1998 APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE OF: . of Fisheries Committee Chair Dr. Robert Freckmann Professor of Biology -~ vJ, ft.df!izc,ytko Professor of Water Resources Mr. Daniel Helsel Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ABSTRACT The exotic aquatic macrophyte, Eurasian ,._,atermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) has invaded waterbodies throughout the United States and Canada and become a nuisance plant. Euhrychiopsis lecontei (Dietz), a native aquatic weevil has been associated with natural declines ofM spicatum and has the potential to be used as a biological control agent. The objectives of this study were I) to determine the geographic distribution of E. lecontei in Wisconsin lakes with M spicatum, and 2) to assess geographical and limnological characteristics associated with E. lecontei presence or absence and abundance. M spicatum beds in 46 lakes were surveyed to determine the presence or absence of E. lecontei. E. lecontei distribution was found to be widespread across the state with 45 new records identified in lakes with M spicatum. Relations between lake and macroph)te characteristics and E. lecontei abundance were assessed in 31 lakes. E. lecontei densities were determined by collecting a total of 120 milfoil stems per lake and counting E. lecontei on each stem. E. lecontei densities varied from 0.0 to 2.5 weevils per stem across the lakes and varied among individual M spicatum beds within the lakes. Most geographical and limnological variables were collected at the lake level while other habitat variables were collected within the M spicatum beds (i.e., at the bed level). Only some bed level variables correlated with E. lecontei density including the distance from shore and depth of the milfoil beds, the number of apical tips per milfoil plant, the percentage of broken apical tips per milfoil stem and the percentage of natural shoreline adjacent to the milfoil bed. The widespread distribution of E. lecontei and its herbivory on M spicatum make it an excellent organism to evaluate as a biological control agent. Factors influencing its density and predator-prey dynamics could provide insight into their potential as biological control agents for M spicatum. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the following lake groups and associations for their funding of this study: Beaver Dam Lake, Big Sand Lake, Eagle Lake, Gilbert Lake, Kangaroo Lake, Kusel Lake, LongTrade Lake, Lorraine Lake, Lower Spring Lake, Nancy Lake, Pearl Lake, Waukesha County Parks System, and Whitewater Lake. Beyond their monetary support, the WDNR and the lake groups donated time, effort, and general support to the study. Their continuous involvement and generosity are greatly appreciated! Scholarships and research grants were also received from the 12 Apostles Musky Club and the Midwest Aquatic Plant Management Society and are also appreciated. I would like to acknowledge the great support of the Wisconsin Cooperative Fishery Research Unit and their donation of staff, resources and equipment. The boat may have some bullet holes and an old motor, but it gratefully got me across the lakes and lasted through two summers! I heartily thank my graduate advisor, Dr. Michael Bozek, for his complete guidance, patience, praise, encouragement and good nature throughout this entire study and the graduate process! I cannot imagine working for a more thoughtful and devoted professional. I hope that I am lucky enough to work with such an ethical person again. Another great thank you goes to Mr. Daniel Helsel for initiating this study and making it happen, suggesting that I apply for the position, and thoroughly encouraging me once I was accepted! Thank you for sitting on my committee even though you had to be forced. Thank you for remaining by my side, making me smile, helping me SCUBA dive, teaching me to fly fish and acting as my mentor. I look forward to many more years of your mentoring and friendship. I also thank Drs. Robert Frcckmann, Stanley Szcz}tko, Ronald Crunkilton, and Michael Hansen in the College of Natural Resources, Dr. Sallie Sheldon at Middlebury College and Mr. Richard Lillie with the WDNR. Their guidance, help and patience on this study and their review of publications is much appreciated! It was a pleasure working with each of you. iv Thank you also to the technicians who helped me over the past two summers including Todd Johnson, Tracy Stephens, Peter Jester, Jennifer Zander and Michael Newbrey. I especially want to thank Todd for his complete devotion to this project and all of his hard work. Thank you for all your long hours through hot days and long truck rides and thank you for keeping a smile on my face through it all! Technicians and friends like you do not come along every day and I feel privileged to have worked with you. Thank you also for putting up with me for two summers in a row - how you did it, I'll never know! I also want to thank the many graduate students in the College of Natural Resources whose comradery and sympathy during the long days and nights of graduate school were essential to my mental health. I can't imagine a better group of people anywhere on earth and ,...-ill miss everyone dearly. And last, but certainly not least, I want to thank my husband, Steve and my family for their support, patience and understanding! I would not have survived the trials and tribulations of my study and studies had it not been for Steve's constant encouragement and praise. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for never doubting our decision to put our lives on hold so that I could complete this degree. I promise this will be the last of our days and weeks apart! V TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ................................................... ABSTRACT. Ill ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 1v TABLE OF CONTENTS. v1 LIST OF TABLES. vm LIST OF FIGURES. 1x LIST OF APPENDICES. x INTRODUCTION. 1 General................................................... 1 M spicatum Invasion and Ecology . 2 Effect ofM spicatum on Aquatic Systems and Man . 4 M spicatum Control Methods . 6 E. lecontei Life History . 10 E. lecontei Distribution and Natural M spicatum Declines . 1 I Study Objectives . I 6 METHODS...................................................... 17 E. lecontei Distribution . 17 E. lecontei Densities and Associated Geographical and Limnological Characteristics . 18 E. lecontei densities . 18 Sample processing . 20 M spicatum density and biomass sampling .................. 20 vi Data Analysis . 23 E. lecontei distribution . 23 E. lecontei densities . 23 Correlations with E. lecontei densities . 23 RESULTS ........................................................ 29 E. lecontei Distribution . 29 E. lecontei Densities and Correlated Variables ...................... 33 DISCUSSION . 42 E. lecontei Distribution ........................................ 42 E. lecontei Life History Observations . 44 Factors Influencing E. lecontei Densities . 45 Bed level variables . 46 Conclusion . 51 Summary.................................................. 52 LITERATURE CITED............................................. 53 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Macrophyte species used to quantify potential effects of E. lecontei on native species in previous studies (3 Sheldon and Creed 1995 and bSolarz and Newman 1996) .................................................. 9 Table 2. Lakes used in M spicatum density and biomass sampling ............ 21 Table 3. Dependent variables collected during E. lecontei density sampling ..... 25 Table 4. Independent variables tested for correlation at the lake level ......... 26 Table 5. Independent variables tested for correlation at the bed level . 27 Table 6. New records of E. lecontei in Wisconsin . 31 Table 7. E. lecontei densities in Wisconsin lakes .......................... 35 Table 8. E. lecontei densities in different M. spicatum beds in 31 Wisconsin lakes ............................................................. 36 Table 9. Spearman rank correlations between percent of E. lecontei lifestages and characteristics measured at the whole lake level ........................ 37 Table 10. Spearman rank correlations between E. lecontei density at the bed level and characterisitics of macrophyte beds measured at the bed level ........ 39 Table 11. Spearman rank correlations between percent of E. lecontei lifestages and characteristics measured at the bed level . 40 Table 12. Spearman rank correlations between percentage of broken apical tips on M spicatum stems collected during E. lecontei density sampling and various bed level and lake level characteristics . ....................... 4 I viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Adult E. lecontei . 13 Figure 2. E. lecontei egg on apical tip ofM spicatum. 13 Figure 3. First instar of E. lecontei larva in apical tip ofM spicatum . 14 Figure 4. Late instar of E. lecontei larva in M spicatum stem . 14 Figure 5. Stem of M spicatum with E. lecontei damage . 15 Figure 6. E. lecontei pupa in M spicatum stem . 15 Figure 7. Diagram depicting E. lecontei density sampling design on a hypothetical lake . 28 Figure 8. Known distribution of E. lecontei