103

ARTHROPODSASSOCIATEDWITHSHORELINEDEPOSITSOF EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL1IN THE CURRITUCKSOUND,NORTH CAROLINA2

Charles S. Apperson and Richard C. Axtell Department of Entomology North Carolina State University Raleigh,NC 27607 (Received Feb. 22, 1980)

ABSTRACT

A survey of associated with shoreline deposits and floating mats of Myriophyllum spicatum L. in the Currituck Sound, North Carolina, resulted in the collection of organisms from four taxonomic classes, 13 or- ders, and 33 families. Information on the seasonal occurrence of arthropods associated with shoreline accumulations of M. spicatum is presented. Para- poynx badiusa/is (Wlk.) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) larvae were found parasi- tizingM. spicatum. Key Words: Myriophyllum spicatum L., aquatic weeds, biological control,

1Myriophyllum spicatum L. 2This research was supported by the Office of Sea Grant, NOAA, U. S. Department of Commerce, under Grant No. 04-6-158-44054 and the North Carolina Department of Administration. Paper No. 6322 of the Journal Series of the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service,Raleigh, N. C. 54 J. Georgia Entomol. Soc. Vol. 16, No.1 Myriophyllum spicatum L. (Eurasian watermilfoil) is an aquatic plant capable of developing in great abundance in relatively still waters of fresh to brackish characteristics. Since its introduction in the late 1800's, M spicatum has become a species of economic importance in many areas of the eastern and central United States (Coffey and McNabb 1974, Reed -1977).In the Currituck Sound, North Carolina, Eurasian watermilfoil occupies over 30,000 ha. and is having a significant impact on the local economy due to its inter- ference with recreational boating and the appearance and abnoxious odors emitted by piles of decomposing milfoil that are deposited along the sound shoreline by storm tides in the fall of the year (Crowell et al. 1967). Resi- dents adjacent to the sound have also expressed concern over the potential for the piles of Eurasian watermilfoil to enhance production of biting flies which were reported to be abundant in the summer and late fall. The occur- rence of decomposing plant matter suggested the involvement of Stomoxys calcitrans (L.). Along the Gulf Coast of Florida, this biting fly breeds in shoreline piles of marine vegetation that have been deposited by storm tides from mid-August to the end of October (Simmons 1944, Simmons and Dove 1941). Therefore, during August -October 1977, we sampled shoreline accumu- lations of decayingM spicatum to ascertain if biting flies utilize it as breeding habitat and to determine what arthropods occupied the piles of milfoil on shore.

METHODSANDMATERIALS

The majority of our investigation was carried out on Church Island near Hampton Lodge Campground, Currituck Co., from August to the end of October 1977. LiveM spicatum was gathered from the sound and placed in piles (ca. 13 cm deep x 24 cm dia.) on shore. Subsequently, at weekly intervals for 14 weeks, a pile of milfoil was collected and placed in a Tu1gren funnel for.48 h. Collections of arthropods were also made from decomposing shoreline accumulations around the sound and in floating mats of live milfoil. Arthropods extracted from the milfoil were preserved in ethanol and later identified and counted. Estimates were made when the numbers of arthro- pods exceeded 200 per family. Specimens from common groups were sent to taxonomic specialistsfor further identification.

RESULTS

From accumulations of decaying Eurasian watermilfoil on the shoreline, arthropods from four taxonomic classes, 13 orders, and 32 families were collected (Table 1). Insects were the most prevalent in taxonomic richness and numbers of organisms; however, amphipods, isopods and galurnnid mites (Galumna sp.) were numerous and present in most samples. The biting flies, Culicoides sp., Tabanus sp., and S. calcitranswere collected sporadically and in low numbers. During the first two months of sampling, approximately 150 to several thousand arthropods were collected from the mi1foil piles with collembo1anscomprising about 80% of the numbers of organisms collected. As the piles of milfoil dried, collembo1ansbecame less abundant or disap- Table I. - Monthly mean densities of arthropods per sample (n) as associated with shoreline accumulations of Myriophyllum spicatum L. from Currituck Sound, North Carolina, in 1977.

Class/OR DE R/ Family/Species August (n=51 September (n=41 October (n=41 Overall Average > ." ." Chilopoda 4.4 1.5 0 1.8 ~ ::>::J Crustacea rn 0 AMPHIPODA Z Tolitridae 231.0 60.0 13.0 111.3 § c:>. OrchestiagrillusBose. > Gammarussp. ~ ISOPODA ~ t'"" Oniscidae 32.8 12.5 0 23.5 r:' Porcelliascaber La Treille ...> Arachnida ...;. "00 ARANEAE 0 Araneidae 9.2 3.3 0 4.5 !: ACARINA er ~ Galumnidae E; 18.8 0 ., Ga/umna sp. 47.0 23.9 &1' Insecta ::s ~ COLEOPTERA ~ Bostrichidae 0 0.3 0.5 0.2 Carabidae 2.2 0.8 0 1.1 0I Curculionidae 12.2 5.5 6.8 8.5 =: Bagous bituberosus Le Conte Perenthis vestitus Dietz Ty/oderma sp. VI VI Dytiscidae 0.4 0 0 0.2 v. Liodessus fiavicollis (Le Conte) 0'1 Ela teridae 0.4 0.3 0 0.2 Haliplidae 2.2 0.3 0 0.9 Heteroceridae 0 0.3 0 0.1 Neoheterocerus p. Hydraenidae 0 0.3 0 0.1 15.4 6.0 0.8 8.0 Cercyon praetextatus (Say) Paracymus sp. :-0 C') Phaenonotum exstriatum (Say) <> Noteridae 2.6 158.0 362.5 191.9 0 ta.... Notomicrus sp. '" t'r:I Scarabaeidae 2.4 0.8 0.8 1.4 ::s 8 Ataenius abditus (Hald.) 3 A. alternatus (Melsh.) i2- en A. apicalisHinton 0 p A. imbricatus (Melsh.) -<: A. spretutlus (Hald.) i2- 0 0 0.3 0.1 Scydaenidae .0'1- Staphylinidae 17.8 12.5 1.0 10.9 z Acylophorus sp. ? Carpelinus p. Lobrathium sp. Myllaena sp. Philonthus alulacus Horn Scopalus sp. Tenebrionidae 1.8 0.8 4.3 2.2 Tribolium confusum Say COLLEMBOLA 1153.0 500.0 0 597.3 Entomobryidae Lepidocrytus cyaneus Tullberg Isotomobryidae Isotomurus palustris (Muller) Prisotoma constricta Folsom Poduridae Hypogastrura armata Nicolet DIPTERA :> .." Ceratopogoniaae 5.8 1.0 0.3 2.6 Culicoides sp. en Chironomidae 205.6 1.3 10.0 82.5 z0 Ephydridae 0 0 2.5 0.8 ., ::s Muscidae 0.6 0 0 0.2 c:>. :> Stomoxys calcitrans L. >< ..., Syrphidae 0.2 13.0 5.3 5.7 tT1 t"'" Eristalis aeneus (Scopoli) t"'" Tabanidae 0 0.8 0 0.2 :>.. Tabanus sp. ..go 0 HEMIPTERA 8.2 3.3 0 4.2 '1:1 Belostomatidae 0 0.3 0 0.1 0 c:>.'" Mesoveliidae 0.6 9.0 4.5 4.4 5' HOMOPTERA c:tT1 Cicadellidae 0.4 1.0 0 5.0 .. S' HYMENOPTERA ::s Formicidae 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.7 ::<:.: LEPIDOPTERA ..'" Noctuidae 1.6 2.5 0 1.4 a. §f ODONATA 0.2 0.8 5.0 1.9 I::: ORTHOPTERA Gryllotalpidae 0.5 0 0 0.2 <.II TOTAL 1759.0 816.3 417.9 1098.0 -.J 58 J. Georgia Entornol. Soc. Vol. 16, No.1 peared entirely and noterid dominated the association for the remaining 6 weeks of sampling. Other families of Coleoptera frequently collected throughout the investigation included Curculionidae, Hydro- philidae, Staphylinidae, and Tenebrionidae.

DISCUSSION

Although several species of biting flies were found in decomposing piles of M spicatum (Table 1), the low number of immatures collected suggeststhat, in 1977, M spicatUm did not breed biting flies in large enough numbers to increase significantly the nuisance level above'that caused from nearby uni- dentified sources. However, the finding of some biting fly larvae suggesteda potential for breeding of biting flies. Likewise, the recovery of Eristalis aeneus (Scopoli) larvae, although this species is not a pest, again demon- strated the attractiveness and suitability of Eurasian watermilfoil as a sub- strate for fly breeding. The amount of milfoil deposited on the shoreline of Currituck Sound undoubtedly relates to the frequency and intensity of storms during a particular year and the frequency of high tides. Thus, the suitability and stability of milfoil as a breeding habitat and production of biting flies would vary from year to year. Information on the arthropods associated with M spicatum would be useful in assessingpotential nontarget effects in the event shoreline deposits of milfoil were treated for biting flies. This is a common practice along the Gulf Coast of Florida where local control agencies apply insecticidal sprays to shoreline deposits of decomposing marine vegetation that breeds S. calcitrans (Wright 1974). It is likely that chemical treatments of the milfoil piles would result in the demise of some of the organismsthat inhabit the milfoil piles. The importance of the nontarget effects of pesticide applications on the degradation of the shoreline deposits of milfoil remains to be estab- lished. During our investigation, several insect species were found that may be primary consumers of M spicatum. Bagous spp. have been observed (Spencer and Lekic 1974, Lekic and Mihajlovic 1970, Gaevskaya 1969) to feed on Eurasian watermilfoil whIch implicates the B. bituberosus Le Conte we col- lected as a pest of milfoil in the Currituck Sound. Likewise, the Perenthis vestitus Dietz we collected may feed on M spicatum since Gaevskaya(1969) listsP. vestitus as a consumer of M heterophyllum Michx. Although we did not make an extensive search of the floating mats of living milfoil in the Currituck Sound, on several occasions larvae of Para- poynx badiusalis(Wlk.) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) were found inside of milfoil stems and adults of P. badiusalis resting on dead, beached milfoil. Parapoynx spp. appear to offer promise as biological control agents since Spencer and Lekic (1974), Habeck (1974) and Urban (1975) list several species as para- sites of M spicatum. Since our collections were made primarily from decomposing milfoil, it is likely that the majority of arthropods collected, with the exception of P. badiusalis,were detritivores or insectivores. APPERSON and AXTELL: Arthropods in Eurasian Watermilfoil 59 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Dr. Gary Buckingham, USDA, Biological Pest Control Unit, Gainesville, FL, for assistance in preparing the manuscript. The assistanceof the following taxonomic specialists is gratefully acknowledged: Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae (0. 1.. Cartwright, US National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.); Staphylinidae (I. Moore, Univ. of California, Dept of Entomology, Riverside); Tenebrionidae (T. J. Spilman, US National Museum); Heteroceridae (J. M. Kingsolver, US National Mu- seum); Curculionidae (D. R. Whitehead, US National Museum); Hydro- philidae, Dytiscidae (P. J. Spangler, US National Museum); Noteridae (D. Stephan, Dept. of Entomology, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh); Collembola (D. Wray, Raleigh, N.C.); Lepidoptera, Pyralidae (S. Bambara, Dept. of Ento- mology, N.C. State Univ.,); Acarina, Galumnidae (M. Farrier, Dept. of Ento- mology, N.C. State Univ.); Isopoda, Amphipoda (T. E. Bowman,G. Karaman, US National Museum). LITERATURECITED

Coffey, B. T. and C. D. NcNabb. 1974. Eurasian water-milfoil in Michigan. Mic. Botanist. 13: 159-65. Crowell, T. E., C. H. Steenis and J. 1..Sincock. 1967. Recent observations of Eurasian water-mi1foilin Currituck Sound, North Carolina, and other coastal southeastern states. Proc. Southern WeedConf. 20: 348-52. Gaevskaya, N. C. 1969. The role of higher aquatic plants in the nutrition of the of fresh-water basins. Vols. 1-3. National Lending Library for Science and Technology. Yorkshire, England. Habeck, D. H. 1974. Caterpillars of Parapoynx in relation to aquatic plants in Florida. Hyacin. Contr. J. 12:15-18. Lekic, M. and Lj. Mihaj10vic.1970. Entomofauna of Myriophyllum spicatum 1.. (Halorrhagidaceae), and aquatic weed on Yugoslav territory. J. Sci. Agricul. Res. 23:59-74. Reed, C. F. 1977. History and distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil in United States and Canada. Phytologia. 36:417-36. Simmons, S. W. 1944. Observations on the biology of the stable fly in Flor- ida. J. Econ. Entomol. 37:680-6 . Simmons, S. W. and W. E. Dove. 1941. Breedingplaces of the stable fly, or "dog fly," Stomoxys calcitrans(1..) in northwestern Florida. J. Econ. Entomol. 37:85-7. Spencer, N. R. and M. Lekic. 1974. Prospects for biologicalcontrol of Eura- sian watermilfoil. WeedSci. 22:401-4. Urban, E. 1975. The mining fauna in four macrophyte species in Mikolajkie Lake. Ekol. Pol. 23: 417-35. Wright, J. E. 1974. Insect growth regulators: Juvenile hormone analogs for control of the stable fly, Stomoxys calcitrans,in marine plants in Flor- ida. Mosq. News 34: 160-2.

J. Georgia Entomol. Soc. 16(1), January, 1981,53-59