DOCSLIB.ORG

St. John's Wort (Hypericum Perforatum) in Western Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
St. John's Wort (Hypericum Perforatum) in Western Australia Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.12(2) 1997 57 static at around 200–300 ha (Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) in Western 1988). Australia In recent years there has been little spread of the weed. Only one new infesta- A B tion was reported between 1988 and 1992. Jonathan Dodd and John K. Scott The lack of spread may partly be because A Weed Science, Agriculture Western Australia, Baron-Hay Court, South Perth, there is little agricultural activity in in- Western Australia 6151, Australia. fested areas that could lead to dispersal of B CRC Weed Management Systems, CSIRO Division of Entomology, Private Bag, rhizomes by cultivation etc., or the spread PO, Wembley, Western Australia 6014, Australia. of seeds in contaminated hay or via stock movement. Abstract neglected small-holdings located within Early control activities St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) forested country. The first weed control trials were in 1936. is a minor localized weed in south-west The initial extent of St. John’s wort in- Salt was used extensively in the early trials Australia where its distribution and festation in 1935 was 70 acres (28 ha) be- (Hamilton 1946). After a decade of control abundance have been stable in recent tween Margaret River and Augusta (cen- attempts, Hamilton (1946) concluded that years. Factors significantly contributing tred on Karridale, Figure 1), with smaller eradication would be difficult. In 1950 St. to the weed’s status may include: infestations later reported over the range John’s wort was declared a noxious weed i. noxious weed legislation that ensured currently occupied (Figure 1) (Hamilton under the new Agriculture and Related regular inspection and chemical con- 1946). In recent years the average area re- Resources Protection Act. It was noted trol activities, ported each year to be infested by St. that maintaining a dense pasture, espe- ii. the successfully established biological John’s wort in Western Australia is about cially one containing subterranean clover control agent, Chrysolina quadrigemina 44 ha on 11 properties (Table 1). While and kikuyu grass, helped suppress the and these data reflect the resources and effort weed (Meadly 1956). Also, the new, cheap, iii.climate. made in inspecting the weed, they do rep- easily-applied herbicides (such as 2,4-D These factors should form the basis for resent the minimum levels of infestation. ester) appeared in the early 1950s and future research activities in Western Aus- The actual area is estimated to be relatively their application resulted in a substantial tralia before the introduction of further biological control agents is considered. Introduction St. John’s wort was first collected in West- ern Australia by C.A. Gardner in 1934 (Hamilton 1946) and was identified as H. perforatum var. angustifolium (Clusiaceae). The weed is believed to have been intro- duced late last century, or early this cen- tury, with fodder imported for horses and oxen involved with the timber industry. Hamilton (1946) noted that ‘prolific growth’ was not reported until 1935. St. John’s wort has not achieved the prominence in Western Australia that it has attained elsewhere in Mediterranean- type climates of the world, for example in California. Nevertheless, the plant has been subjected to control activities since its discovery in the State. In this note we summarize what is known about St. John’s wort and its control in Western Australia. Distribution St. John’s wort is restricted to high rainfall areas of south-western Western Australia. It occurs mainly as scattered small populations, with the greatest densities being found from Dwellingup, Bodding- ton, Balingup, Greenbushes, Nannup, Manjimup, Karridale to Pemberton (Fig- ure 1). Recorded populations near Perth, Northam and Narrogin (Figure 1) are not thought to be extant. Only a few popula- tions occur in pastures. Most major infes- Figure 1. Distribution of St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) in Western tations are found along roadsides and Australia. Dots indicate localities where plants have been recorded either as on the sites of former timber camps, herbarium specimens or in the records of Agriculture Western Australia. former milling towns (e.g. Holyoake) and Isohytes indicate average annual rainfall in mm. 58 Plant Protection Quarterly Vol.12(2) 1997 reduction in the extent of St. John’s wort agents in eastern Australia (Campbell et al. recent removal of St. John’s wort from (Meadly 1956). 1995), but have not been released in West- noxious weed lists leads to a change in its ern Australia. This is presumably due to abundance and distribution. In South Af- Biological control the minor nature of the weed problem in rica, St. John’s wort occurs in a similar cli- Four colonies of the biological control Western Australia. mate to south-west Australia and is now agents, Chrysolina quadrigemina (Sufrian) regarded as under satisfactory biological and Chrysolina hyperici (Forster) (these Current status and control measures control mainly due to C. quadrigemina. were originally identified as Chrysomela Between 1986 and 1992, the Agricultural Gordon and Kluge (1991) conclude that gemellata (Rossi) and Chrysomela hyperici Protection Board of Western Australia other factors such as climate, unsuitable (Forster)) were sent from Bright, Victoria treated an average of 56 ha of St. John’s habitats and lack of dispersal agents may to Western Australia by the Council for wort infestations by herbicide each year have contributed to containing the weed Scientific and Industrial Research and re- (Table 1). In 1989 the declaration of St. and these factors may also be relevant to leased in November 1948 at Holyoake, John’s wort under the Agriculture and Re- the situation in south-west Australia. Mornington Mills and Karridale in West- lated Resources Act was cancelled in As is unfortunately often the case, the ern Australia (Figure 1). It was estimated south-west areas (Agriculture Protection biological control attempts in Western that about 100 000 beetles (presumably Board of Western Australia 1989). In other Australia have not been subjected to criti- adults) were released (Western Australia areas of the State, where the plant is pres- cal assessment that measures their impact Department of Agriculture 1948). A fur- ently absent, it remains a declared plant in on St. John’s wort. Huffaker’s (1967) infer- ther consignment was received from Vic- the P1 (plants which must not be intro- ence that biological control had been suc- toria in November 1949 and released in duced to the State) and P2 (plants which cessful in Western Australia may be valid the Karridale district (Western Australia must be eradicated) categories. because the ability of the weed to recover Department of Agriculture 1950). Estab- Current recommended chemical con- from C. quadrigemina attack is known to be lishment of the beetles and destruction of trol measures are to use 2,4-D amine or increased by summer rainfall and variabil- one small outbreak of the weed was re- ester for spot applications and boom- ity in winter rainfall in south-eastern Aus- ported the following year. spraying. Diuron can also be used for tralia (Huffaker 1967, Julien 1992), but In 1952 G.R.W. Meadly wrote ‘Some spot-treatment of small infestations and these factors are both negligible in south- encouraging results have been obtained glyphosate is used for non-selective con- west Australia. The chrysomelid–St. John’s [by the chrysomelids], but this method trol (Peirce and Smith 1994). wort interaction may be the best example cannot be regarded as highly reliable’. It is of successful biological control in Western likely that the beneficial aspects of biologi- Discussion Australia, so successful that the weed is cal control were eclipsed by the arrival of Five Clusiaceae species occur in Western now comparatively insignificant and its the modern herbicides that were easy to Australian flora; three native species, biological control agent almost forgotten. apply, cheap and gave readily observable Calophyllum sil Lauterb., Hypericum Clarification of the weed’s identification results. By 1956 the familiar pattern of bee- gramineum G. Forster, H. japonicum Thunb. and an assessment of the potential spread tles controlling plants in pasture, but not in and the introduced H. androsaemum L. and and impact of existing biological control shaded areas, had been observed (Meadly H. perforatum L. (Green 1985, Keighery agents would provide a basis for further 1956). 1995). However, there has been no critical biological control releases. Some of the Huffaker, a leading biological control reassessment of the taxonomy of these available agents (e.g. the aphid Aphis entomologist from California, visited Aus- species. Detailed identification of the Hy- chloris) would be relatively simple to re- tralia in 1963 to examine St. John’s wort. pericum populations in Western Australia lease in Western Australia. However, it He reported that the control of St. John’s may be important to ensure correct appears that the weed is under successful wort in Western Australia was potentially matching of biological control agents (e.g. biological control by the chrysomelids in similar to the situation in California where the mite, Aculus hyperici Liro) to their host open or pasture areas and future control high levels of persistent control occurred plant. attempts should be directed at the plant in (Huffaker 1967). He stated that ‘very ef- Gordon and Kluge (1991) comment on shaded or forested areas. fective, well synchronized attack [by the the lack of invasion by St. John’s wort into chrysomelid] that resulted in a high degree fynbos (native heath) vegetation in south- Conclusions of death of the defoliated plants observed west South Africa. However, St. John’s The availability of additional agents opens was obvious in West Australia’. wort is regarded as a major environmen- the opportunity for further releases in Chrysolina quadrigemina adults were tal weed in eastern Australia (this work- Western Australia.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biological Control of St John's Wort Using Chrysolina Leaf Beetles (DSE
    June 1999 Biological control of St John's wort LC0152 with the chrysolina leaf beetles ISSN 1329-833X Keith Turnbull Research Institute (Frankston) Common and scientific names Pupae - in globular cells in the soil at up to 5 cm depth. St John’s wort leaf beetles Life cycle Chrysolina hyperici (Förster) Females lay eggs on the undersides of leaves or leaf buds Chrysolina quadrigemina (Suffrian) in autumn. C. quadrigemina larvae emerge after about 3 Background weeks and overwinter as larvae. C. hyperici overwinters in the egg stage. Larvae consume the young leaves and buds St John’s wort, Hypericum perforatum, was introduced in of procumbent autumn and winter growth. Larger larvae the Ovens Valley of Victoria as a medicinal plant in the leave the plant during the day and return to feed at night. 1860s. It spread rapidly and was well established by the When mature, they pupate in the soil at a depth of a few early 1900s. It is a serious weed of improved pastures, centimetres. The pupal stage lasts 2 to 3 weeks and adults roadsides and neglected areas in north east Victoria and is emerge in the spring. Adult beetles defoliate the erect an increasing problem in dry forests and woodlands. In spring plants and enter a resting stage (aestivation or natural areas it is a serious environmental weed which can diapause) under the bark of trees during summer. out-compete other ground storey plants. St John’s wort is a Regionally Prohibited Weed in the Corangamite and Port Phillip West Catchment and Land Protection Regions, and a Regionally Controlled Weed in all other areas of Victoria except Mallee CaLP Region.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Plant Management on Anticipated Conservation Benefits: a Scientific Assessment
    CHAPTER 7 Invasive Plant Management on Anticipated Conservation Benefits: A Scientific Assessment Roger L. Sheley,1 Jeremy J. James,2 Mathew J. Rinella,3 Dana Blumenthal,4and Joseph M. DiTomaso5 Authors are 1Ecologist and 2Plant Physiologist, US Department of Agriculture– Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720, USA; 3Rangeland Management Specialist, US Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Miles City, MT 59301, USA; 4Ecologist, US Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA; and 5Weed Specialist, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Correspondence: Roger L. Sheley 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720; [email protected]. Reference to any commercial product or service is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by USDA is implied 291 A major weakness in invasive plant “management is our lack of knowledge about the efficacy of various prevention strategies. ” 292 Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices Invasive Plant Management on Anticipated Conservation Benefits: A Scientific Assessment 7 Roger L. Sheley, Jeremy J. James, Mathew J. Rinella, Dana Blumenthal, and Joseph M. DiTomaso IntroduCtIon at the same time posing minimal risk to people, property, resources, and the environment. Invasive plant species have many negative impacts on rangelands throughout the world. In recent years, invasive plant management Invasive plants can displace desirable species, has evolved to more frequently incorporate an alter ecological processes, reduce wildlife IPM philosophy, as opposed to focusing on a habitat, degrade riparian systems, and decrease single control option with little consideration productivity (DiTomaso 2000; Masters and of the ecosystem or the side effects of particular Sheley 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control
    KLAMATH WEED (= ST. JOHN'S WORT) Hypericum perforatum L. – Hypericaceae Dr. E. Fred Legner, University of California Retrieved from: http://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/biotact/ch-66.htm This weed is of European origin, and was first reported as a pest in northern California near the Klamath River. It increased and spread rapidly and by 1944 had occupied over two million acres of rangeland in thirty counties of California. Not only were food forage plants greatly reduced but cattle and sheep lost weight when eating the weed because of its toxic effect, sensitizing them to sunlight. This resulted in such a great decrease in land values that it became almost impossible for ranchers to borrow money for development (DeBach 1974). Chemical herbicides were available but not practical because of cost and the inaccessibility of most of the infested land. Dr. Harry S. Smith, head of biological control work in California, proposed the importation of insects that attacked the weed as early as 1922, but the thought of deliberately introducing a plant feeding insect was not acceptable at that time. At the same time, in Australia phytophagous insects to control Klamath weed were being introduced from England and Europe beginning in 1929, and Dr. Smith in California followed the progress there with great interest through correspondence with Dr. A. J. Nicholson, Chief Entomologist for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). Authorization was finally obtained in 1944 to import three species of beetles that showed promise against the weed in Australia. It was not possible then to consider importations from Europe because of World War II, but rather simple to bring material from Australia through the cooperation of the United States Army Transport Command.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO
    Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area August 2015 CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 (970) 491-7331 Report Prepared for: United States Air Force Academy Department of Natural Resources Recommended Citation: Smith, P., S. S. Panjabi, and J. Handwerk. 2015. Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan: US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area, El Paso County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Front Cover: Documenting weeds at the US Air Force Academy. Photos courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program © Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan US Air Force Academy and Farish Recreation Area El Paso County, CO Pam Smith, Susan Spackman Panjabi, and Jill Handwerk Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, orders, and policies require land managers to control noxious weeds. The purpose of this plan is to provide a guide to manage, in the most efficient and effective manner, the noxious weeds on the US Air Force Academy (Academy) and Farish Recreation Area (Farish) over the next 10 years (through 2025), in accordance with their respective integrated natural resources management plans. This plan pertains to the “natural” portions of the Academy and excludes highly developed areas, such as around buildings, recreation fields, and lawns.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Classical Biological Control of Invasive Plants in North America
    Evaluating and Regulating Biological Control Agents: A North American Perspective P.G. Mason Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada North American Plant Protection Organization, Ottawa, Ontario EPPO / COST - SMARTER / IOBC / IBMA / CABI WORKSHOP ON EVALUATION AND REGULATION OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS 23-24 November 2015 North American history … Entomophagous biological control agents • United States – first release in 1888: Cryptochetum iceryae against Icerya purchasi (cottony cushion scale) in citrus; Rodalia cardinalis was released in 1889 • Canada – first release in 1885: Trichogramma minutum against Nematus ribesii (imported currantworm); 1910 Mesoleius tenthredinis against Pristiphora erichsonii (larch sawfly) • Mexico – first release in 1922: Lixiphaga diatraeae against Diatraea saccharalis (sugarcane borer) Phytophagous biological control agents • United States – first release in 1945: Chrysolina hyperici against Hypericum perforatum (Klamath weed, St. John’s wort) • Canada – first release in 1951 : C. hyperici against H. perforatum • Mexico – first release in 1977: Neochetina eichhorniae against Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) … North American history … United States • 1957 - Subcommittee on Biological Control of Weeds established [U.S. Department of the Interior’s (USDI) Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service; and from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service]. • 1971 - name changed to Working Group on Biological Control of Weeds. Canadian and Mexican comments were invited because the Working Group knew that an introduced organism recognizes no political boundaries and its introduction needed to be considered on a continental basis. [+ Environmental Protection Agency, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (now the National Institute of Food and Agriculture), and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Japanese Beetle Look-Alikes Sheet
    S. Katovich, Bugwood.org (Popillia japonica) Japanese Beetle NOVEMBER 2020 Look-Alikes INVASIVE SPECIES About Japanese Beetle Actual size: 10 mm The Japanese Beetle (Popillia japonica) is an invasive pest destructive to ornamental plants, turfgrasses and many of BC’s horticulture and agriculture industries. The three main identifying characteristics are: » metallic green head » metallic copper-brown wing coverings » white tufts of hair around the abdomen If a Japanese Beetle is found, please call 604-292-5742 OR email: [email protected]. J. Berger, Bugwood.org Look-Alikes (Photos do not represent actual size; scale bars represent actual size of typical body length) These insects are commonly mistaken as Japanese Beetle. INVASIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES Actual size: 10 mm Actual size: 30 mm Actual size: 20 mm Actual size: 20 mm Actual size: 5 mm M. Dollenkamp, R. Szczygiel, Flickr.com E. Nelson, Bugwood.org D. Ditchburn, BugGuide.net Frog Pond Photography C. Moorehead, Bugwood.org European Brown Chafer Ten-Lined June Beetle Green Rose Chafer Golden Buprestid St. John’s wort beetle (Amphimallon majale) (Polyphylla occidentalis) (Dichelonyx backii) (Buprestis aurulenta) (Chrysolina hyperici) INVASIVE SPECIES INVASIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES NATIVE SPECIES Actual size: 5 mm Actual size: 15 mm Actual size: 15 mm Actual size: 10 mm Actual size: 10 mm D. Henton-Jones, Flickr.com S. Ellis, Bugwood.org Y. Uriel Y. Uriel D. Cappaert, Bugwood.org Viburnum Leaf Beetle Brown Marmorated Stink Green Stink Bug Banasa Stink Bug Green Bottle Fly (Pyrrhalta viburni) Bug (Halyomorpha halys) (Chlorochroa spp.) (Banasa spp.) (Lucilia sericata) BCINVASIVES.CA/JB / [email protected] / 1-888-933-3722 Feeding Damage Life Cycle Your help and vigilance is needed to protect our urban, park, and natural The adult flight period occurs areas from damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Response of Two Chrysolina Species to Different Hypericum Hosts
    Seventeenth Australasian Weeds Conference Response of two Chrysolina species to different Hypericum hosts Ronny Groenteman', Simon V. Fowler' and Jon J. Sullivan2 ' Landcare Research, Gerald Street, PO Box 40, Lincoln, New Zealand 2Bio-Protection Research Centre, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand Corresponding author: [email protected] SummaryChrysolina hyperici and C. quadrigemina introduced in 1963 but, for many years was thought (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) were introduced to to have failed to establish (reviewed by Hancox et al. New Zealand for biological control of St John's wort 1986). Chrysolina quadrigemina was rediscovered in (SJW), Hypericum perforatum, following successful the late 1980s (Fraser and Emberson 1987). It is now biological control in Australia. In other parts of the abundant in mixed populations with C. hyperici (R. invaded range of SJW worldwide C. quadrigemina is Groenteman personal observations). generally accepted as the more significant contributor St John's wort beetles are not strictly restricted to to SJW successful biocontrol. Their ability to feed and H. perforatum, and are known to be able to develop on develop on indigenous Hypericum species was not other Hypericum species (some examples are reviewed tested. Chrysolina hyperici established well while C. by Harris 1988). New Zealand hosts 10 naturalised quadrigemina was initially thought to have failed to es- (Healy 1972) and four indigenous (Heenan 2008) tablish in New Zealand, although it is now widespread. Hypericum species. Little is known about the suit- Thus, identifying differences between Chrysolina spe- ability and impacts of either Chrysolina species on cies in host preference and performance would have these Hypericum species.
    [Show full text]
  • An Alternative Perspective for the Theory of Biological Control
    insects Perspective An Alternative Perspective for the Theory of Biological Control Nicholas J. Mills Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-510-642-1711 Received: 12 September 2018; Accepted: 29 September 2018; Published: 2 October 2018 Abstract: Importation biological control represents the planned introduction of a specialist natural enemy from the region of origin of an invasive pest or weed. For this study, the author considered why attempts to develop a predictive theory for biological control have been misguided and what future directions might be more promising and effective. Despite considerable interest in the theory of consumer–resource population dynamics, such theory has contributed little to improvements in the success of biological control due to a focus on persistence and equilibrium dynamics rather than establishment and impact. A broader consideration of invasion biology in addition to population ecology offers new opportunities for a more inclusive theory of biological control that incorporates the demographic and genetic processes that more specifically address the establishment and impact of introduced natural enemies. The importance of propagule size and genetic variance for successful establishment, and of contributions to host population growth, relative population growth rates, interaction strength, and coevolution for suppression of host abundance are discussed as promising future directions for a theory of biological control. Keywords: pest; weed; importation; establishment; impact; demography; genetics 1. Introduction Biological control is an ecosystem service in which a pest or weed is effectively controlled through interactions with its natural enemies, and in many cases the natural enemies are insects [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath Weed Beetles Biological Control Program Now Is in the Second of Three Phases
    Klamath Weed Beetles biological control program now is in the second of three phases 3. K. Holloway and C. B. Huffaker Beetles selected for release In the Klomath weed biological control rogram thrive on the Approximately 97% of the 122 col- body to become photosensitized-sensi- plant pest and starve in !s absence. onies of Klamath weed beetles released tive to the sunlight. Blisters form on these in 19 counties of the State are considered areas when the animal is exposed to the established. direct rays of the sun with the result The Commonwealth of Australia, like The establishment of colonies of the that the animal becomes scabby, sore- California, has the problem of Klamath beetles-natural enemies of the Klamath mouthed and underweight. weed-or St. Johnswort-and as early as weed-completes the first part of a three- Chemical control of the weed has been 1920 began a search for insect enemies phase program designed to effect control attempted. In most places the cost of of the weed. The preliminary work cen- of the noxious weed by the biological the materials and the inaccessibility of tered in Europe, where the plant origi- method. The program is the first of its the land to be treated have been limiting nated. kind in the United States and was set up factors. The application of borax has Starvation and reproduction tests of as a cooperative undertaking between the been satisfactory in controlling new and a considerable number of insect species United States Department of Agriculture small infestations, but this method is im- were made on representative plants of and the University of California Division practical in large-scale control programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature on the Chrysomelidae from CHRYSOMELA Newsletter, Numbers 1-41 October 1979 Through April 2001 May 18, 2001 (Rev
    Literature on the Chrysomelidae From CHRYSOMELA Newsletter, numbers 1-41 October 1979 through April 2001 May 18, 2001 (rev. 1)—(2,635 citations) Terry N. Seeno, Editor The following citations appeared in the CHRYSOMELA process and rechecked for accuracy, the list undoubtedly newsletter beginning with the first issue published in 1979. contains errors. Revisions and additions are planned and will be numbered sequentially. Because the literature on leaf beetles is so expansive, these citations focus mainly on biosystematic references. They Adobe Acrobat® 4.0 was used to distill the list into a PDF were taken directly from the publication, reprint, or file, which is searchable using standard search procedures. author’s notes and not copied from other bibliographies. If you want to add to the literature in this bibliography, Even though great care was taken during the data entering please contact me. All contributors will be acknowledged. Abdullah, M. and A. Abdullah. 1968. Phyllobrotica decorata de Gratiana spadicea (Klug, 1829) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, DuPortei, a new sub-species of the Galerucinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomel- Cassidinae) em condições de laboratório. Rev. Bras. Entomol. idae) with a review of the species of Phyllobrotica in the Lyman 30(1):105-113, 7 figs., 2 tabs. Museum Collection. Entomol. Mon. Mag. 104(1244-1246):4-9, 32 figs. Alegre, C. and E. Petitpierre. 1982. Chromosomal findings on eight Abdullah, M. and A. Abdullah. 1969. Abnormal elytra, wings and species of European Cryptocephalus. Experientia 38:774-775, 11 figs. other structures in a female Trirhabda virgata (Chrysomelidae) with a summary of similar teratological observations in the Coleoptera.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Pairs for the Biological Control of Weeds: Advantageous Or Unnecessary?
    Species pairs for the biological control of weeds: advantageous or unnecessary? C.A.R. Jackson and J.H. Myers Summary Two or more species of insects in the same genera have been introduced in some weed biological control programs, either by accident or on purpose, to increase the climatic range distribution of the agents. If the species are ecological equivalents, the introduction of both species will be unnecessary and may be detrimental if competition reduces their overall impacts. If however the species vary in the type of attack or their distributions, the introduction of congeners can be advantageous. In this paper, we review the following cases of species pair releases in the biological control of weeds in North America: the beetles Chrysolina quadrigemina (Suffrian) and Chrysolina hyperici (Forster) for St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum L.); the gallflies Urophora affinis Frfld. and Urophora quadrifasciata (Meig.) for knapweed (Centaurea) species; the weevils Neochetina bruchi Hustache and Neochetina eichhorniae Warner for water hyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms] and the beetles Galerucella pusilla Duftschmidt and Galerucella calmariensis L. for purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.). In the cases of Chrysolina and Galerucella, the species pairs appear to be complementary for control of the target weeds, with each species providing good control in slightly different habitats and coexisting at some sites. With the Urophora gallflies, one species is more ef- fective than the other, but overall, seed reduction is greater when both agents are present in combi- nation (although this seed reduction is insufficient for a reduction of the target weed). In the case of the Neochetina beetles, a difference in the ability of the two species to kill plants was apparent, but whether they differed in habitat preferences was less clear.
    [Show full text]
  • CHRYSOMELA Linnaeus, 1758 GONIOCTENA Dejean, 1836 PHRATORA Dejean, 1836
    Subfamily Chrysomelinae Very convex hairless beetles; antennae generally somewhat thickened towards apex. They are usually collected by sweeping in summer, but some may be found in winter in moss, leaf litter etc. Source material Joy (1932) A Practical Handbook of British Beetles. Lompe A. (2013) Käfer Europas: Chrysomelinae published online on pages linked from http://www.coleo-net.de/coleo/texte/chrysomelinae.htm. Translated and published here with permission. Image credits Unless otherwise indicated, all images are reproduced from the Iconographia Coleopterorum Poloniae, with permission kindly granted by Lech Borowiec. Checklist from the Checklist of Beetles of the British Isles, 2012 edition, edited by A. G. Duff, (available to download from www.coleopterist.org.uk/checklist.htm). Subfamily Chrysomelinae TIMARCHA Samouelle, 1819 CHRYSOLINA Motschulsky, 1860 GASTROPHYSA Dejean, 1836 PHAEDON Latreille, 1829 HYDROTHASSA Thomson, C.G., 1859 PRASOCURIS Latreille, 1802 PLAGIODERA Dejean, 1836 CHRYSOMELA Linnaeus, 1758 GONIOCTENA Dejean, 1836 PHRATORA Dejean, 1836 Creative Commons. © Mike Hackston (2015). Adapted and updated from Joy (1932). Some species keys translated from the German, original from Dr Arved Lompe (published here with permission). CHRYSOLINA Motschulsky, 1860 GONIOCTENA Dejean, 1836 americana (Linnaeus, 1758) decemnotata (Marsham, 1802) banksii (Fabricius, 1775) olivacea (Forster, 1771) brunsvicensis (Gravenhorst, 1807) pallida (Linnaeus, 1758) cerealis (Linnaeus, 1767) viminalis (Linnaeus, 1758) coerulans (Scriba, 1791)
    [Show full text]