DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of a Plant-Herbivore System In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EVALUATION OF A PLANT-HERBIVORE SYSTEM IN DETERMINING POTENTIAL EFFICACY OF A CANDIDATE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT, CORNOPS AQUATICUM FOR WATER HYACINTH, EICHHORNIA CRASSIPES A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY of RHODES UNIVERSITY by ANGELA BOWNES December 2008 Abstract Water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes Mart. Solms-Laubach (Pontederiaceae), a free- floating aquatic macrophyte of Neotropical origin, was introduced into South Africa as an ornamental aquarium plant in the early 1900’s. By the 1970’s it had reached pest proportions in dams and rivers around the country. Due to the sustainability, cost efficiency and low environmental risk associated with biological control, this has been a widely used method in an attempt to reduce infestations to below the threshold where they cause economic and ecological damage. To date, five arthropod and one pathogen biocontrol agents have been introduced for the control of water hyacinth but their impact has been variable. It is believed that their efficacy is hampered by the presence of highly eutrophic systems in South Africa in which plant growth is prolific and the negative effects of herbivory are therefore mitigated. It is for these reasons that new, potentially more damaging biocontrol agents are being considered for release. The water hyacinth grasshopper, Cornops aquaticum Brüner (Orthoptera: Acrididae), which is native to South America and Mexico, was brought into quarantine in Pretoria, South Africa in 1995. Although the grasshopper was identified as one of the most damaging insects associated with water hyacinth in its native range, it has not been considered as a biocontrol agent for water hyacinth anywhere else in the world. After extensive host-range testing which revealed it to be safe for release, a release permit for this candidate agent was issued in 2007. However, host specificity testing is no longer considered to be the only important component of pre-release screening of candidate biocontrol agents. Investigating biological and ecological aspects of the plant-herbivore system that will assist in determination of potential establishment, efficacy and the ability to build up good populations in the recipient environment are some of the important factors. This thesis is a pre-release evaluation of C. aquaticum to determine whether it is sufficiently damaging to water hyacinth to warrant its release. It investigated interactions between the grasshopper and water hyacinth under a range of nutrient conditions found in South African water bodies as well as the impact of the grasshopper on the competitive performance of water hyacinth. ii Both plant growth rates and the response of water hyacinth to herbivory by the grasshopper were influenced by nutrient availability to the plants. The ability of water hyacinth to compensate for loss of tissue through herbivory was greater under eutrophic nutrient conditions. However, a negative linear relationship was found between grasshopper biomass and water hyacinth performance parameters such as biomass accumulation and leaf production, even under eutrophic conditions. Water hyacinth’s compensatory ability in terms of its potential to mitigate to detrimental effects of insect feeding was dependent on the amount of damage caused by herbivory by the grasshopper. Plant biomass and the competitive ability of water hyacinth in relation to another free- floating aquatic weed species were reduced by C. aquaticum under eutrophic nutrient conditions, in a short space of time. It was also found that grasshopper feeding and characteristics related to their population dynamics such as fecundity and survival were significantly influenced by water nutrient availability and that environmental nutrient availability will influence the control potential of this species should it be released in South Africa. Cornops aquaticum shows promise as a biocontrol agent for water hyacinth but additional factors that were not investigated in this study such as compatibility with the South African climate and the current water hyacinth biocontrol agents need to be combined with these data to make a decision on its release. Possible management options for this species if it is to be introduced into South Africa are discussed. iii Table of contents Title page………………………………………………………………………….……….i Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..……..ii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………....iv List of Figures……………………………………………………………………... …...vii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….…...xiv Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….......xv Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 General Introduction…………………………………………………………..2 1.2 The plant-herbivore system……………………...……………………….........7 1.2.1 Water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes ………………………………….7 1.2.2 The water hyacinth grasshopper, Cornops aquaticum …………………8 1.3 The South African water hyacinth biological control programme………..…10 1.4 Recent developments in biological control…………………………………..13 1.4.1 Pre-release efficacy testing……………………………..……………...13 1.4.2 Ecology of the plant-herbivore system………………………………...15 1.5 Thesis outline………………………………………………………………...16 Chapter 2: Influence of nitrate and phosphate levels occurring in South African water bodies on the potential of Cornops aquaticum to growth and productivity of water hyacinth 2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….19 2.2 Materials and Methods………………………………………………………24 2.2.1 Nutrients …………………………………………………………...24 2.2.2 Experimental design ……………………………………………….26 2.2.3 Statistical analysis …………………………………………………27 2.3 Results………………………………………………………………………..28 2.3.1 Nitrogen and phosphorus levels of water hyacinth leaves 3, 4 and 5 from chemical analysis and evaluation of the relationship between leaf nitrogen content (%) and water nitrate levels (mgL -1)……………………………………………………..28 2.3.2 Effect of water nutrient treatment on the wet weight of water hyacinth leaves of plants grown at high, medium and low nutrient levels ………………………………………………………..29 2.3.3 Effect of nutrients and herbivory on plant biomass ……………......30 2.3.4 Effect of nutrients and herbivory on plant growth parameters ……………………………………………………………….32 iv 2.3.5 Effect of nutrients and herbivory on leaf, ramet and flower production …………………………………..……………….36 2.3.6 Effect of nutrient treatment on feeding damage and leaf preference ………………...…………………………………………40 2.4. Discussion…………………………………………………………………...41 Chapter 3: Performance of Cornops aquaticum in response to variation in water hyacinth plant quality as influenced by environmental nitrogen (N) availability 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..52 3.2 Materials and Methods……………………………………………………….57 3.2.1 Effect of plant nutrient levels on Cornops aquaticum survival, fecundity and body size ………………………………….……..57 3.2.1.1 Trial 1 – Experimental design………………….………...………57 3.2.1.2 Trial 2 – Experimental design……………………………………58 3.2.1.3 Statistical analysis………………………………………………..58 3.2.2 Effect of plant nutrient levels on survival and feeding and development rates of Cornops aquaticum nymphs …………………...….59 3.2.2.1 Experimental design………………………………...…………....59 3.2.2.2 Statistical analysis………………………………………………..60 3.3 Results………………………………………………………………………..61 3.3.1 Effect of nutrient levels on survival, fecundity and body size ………………………………………………………………….61 3.3.2 Effect of nutrient treatment on survival and development rates of C. aquaticum ………………………...…………………………..66 3.3.3 Effect of nutrient treatment on feeding rates of Cornops aquaticum nymphs …………………………………………..……..….... 69 3.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………………72 Chapter 4 Investigating the response of water hyacinth to herbivory by different densities of male and female Cornops aquaticum under eutrophic water nutrient conditions 4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….85 4.2 Materials and Methods………………………………………………………91 4.2.1 Experimental design ……………………………………………….91 4.2.2 Statistical analysis ……………………………………………...….92 4.3 Results………………………………………………………………………..93 4.3.1 Effect of insect treatment on plant biomass ………………………..93 4.3.2 Effect of insect treatment on leaf parameters… …………………...96 4.3.3 Effect of insect treatment on plant growth and productivity parameters ………………………………………………….99 4.3.4 Effect of insect treatment on defoliation ………………….............105 4.3.5 Effect of insect treatment on leaf area damage …………………106 4.4 Discussion…………………………………………………………………..107 v Chapter 5: Inter- and intraspecific competitive interactions between water hyacinth and water lettuce as influenced by Cornops aquaticum herbivory 5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………....121 5.2 Materials and Methods……………………………………………………...126 5.2.1 Experimental design ………………………………………………………126 5.2.2 . Statistical analysis ………………………………………………........….127 5.3 Results………………………………………………………………………128 5.3.1 Impact of herbivory on competition ……………………………... 128 Water hyacinth………………………………………………….128 Water lettuce……………………………………………………132 5.3.2 Impact of herbivory on plant biomass (mean end-weights) ……....134 5.3.3 Impact of herbivory and competition on water hyacinth biomass (total end-weights) …………………………………………….135 5.4 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..137 Chapter 6: General discussion ………………………………………………………..144 References ……………………………………………………………………………...157 vi List of figures Figure 2.1 Relationship between water nitrate levels (mgL -1) and mean nitrogen content of leaves 3, 4 and 5 of water hyacinth plants grown at high, medium and low nutrient levels (n = 15/leaf position/nutrient treatment)…......……………………………………………………………...29 Figure
Recommended publications
  • Assessing Population Sizes, Biological Potential and Mass

    Assessing Population Sizes, Biological Potential and Mass

    1. ASSESSING POPULATION SIZES, BIOCONTROL POTENTIAL AND MASS PRODUCTION OF THE ROOT BORING MOTH AGAPETA ZOEGANA FOR AREWIDE IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF SPOTTED KNAPWEED BIOCONTROL 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: Mark Schwarzländer, PSES Department, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter DR MS 2339, Moscow, ID 83844-2339, (208) 885-9319, FAX (208)885- 7760, [email protected]; Joseph Milan, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, (208) 384-3487, FAX (208) 384-3326, [email protected]; Paul Brusven, Nez Perce Tribe Bio-Control Center, P.O. Box 365, 22776 Beaver Road, Lapwai, ID 83540, (208) 843-9374, FAX (208) 843-9373, [email protected] 3. COOPERATORS: Dr. Hariet Hinz (CABI Switzerland), Dr. Urs Schaffner (CABI Switzerland, Dr. Sanford Eigenbrode (University of Idaho), Dr. Heinz Müller-Schärer (University of Fribourg, Switzerland), Brian Marschmann (USDA APHIS PPQ State Director, Idaho), Dr. Rich Hansen (USDA APHIS CPHST, Ft. Collins, Colorado), John (Lewis) Cook (USDI BIA Rocky Mountain Region, Billings, Montana), Dr. John Gaskin (USDA ARS NPARL, Sidney, Montana), Idaho County Weed Superintendents and Idaho-based USFS land managers. BCIP CONTACT: Carol Randall, USFS Northern and Intermountain Regions, 2502 E Sherman Ave, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814, (208) 769-3051, (208) 769-3062, [email protected] 4. REQUESTED FUNDS: USFS $100,000 (Year 1: $34,000; Year 2: $33,000; and Year 3: $33,000), Project Leveraging: University of Idaho $124,329. 5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1) The current status of ecological research suggests that albeit having some impact on spotted knapweed, both, A. zoegana and C. achates have stronger negative effects on native grasses, thus indirectly benefiting one of most devastating invasive plants in the U.S.
  • Cochylini Del 2

    Cochylini Del 2

    Cochylini del 2 Agapeta, Eupoecilia, Aethes (part.) Agapeta hamana (L.) 4268 15-25 mm. Imago flyver sidst på dagen og kommer fint til lys fra maj til august (september). Ikke alle eksem- plarer er så stærkt tegnet som ovenstående. Agapeta hamana (L.) Larven lever overvintrende i i rødderne af forskellige tidsler (Carduus, Cirsium mv.). Udbredt i Europa op til Mellemsverige og Finland. Almindelig. Agapeta largana (Rebel) 4270 16-23 mm. Imago er på vingerne i solens sidste stråler fra sidst i juni gennem juli. Lokalt ikke sjælden på enge. Præimaginale stadier er ukendte. Kendt fra Grækenland, Rumænien, Ungarn, det vestlige Østrig og jeg har selv fundet den flere steder i det sydøstlige Frankrig. Agapeta zoegana (L.) 4271 15-24 mm. Imago flyver i de sidste lyse timer og kommer fint til lys i juli-august. Agapeta zoegana (L.) Larven lever overvintrende i rødderne af Blåhat (Knautia) og Knopurt (Centaurea). Den forpupper sig i rødderne. Agapeta zoegana (L.) Ind i mellem dukker eksemplarer op som er formørket i den yderste tredjedel. Disse eksemparer er gerne mindre end normalt. Agapeta zoegana (L.) I Danmark er der ikke mange findesteder i Jylland og arten mangler helt vest for israndslinjen. I det øvrige land er den ikke sjælden, men sjældent talrig. Nordgrænsen går gennem det sydligste Norge, mellemste Sverige og sydlige Finland. Arten når til Ural og Lilleasien. Eugnosta lathoniana (Hb.) 4279 21-27 mm. Imago flyver sidst på dagen fra midt i maj til sidst i juni. Præimaginale stadier er ukendte. Udbredt i det meste af Sydeuropa, mod nord til Tyskland, men herfra kendes ingen konkrete fund.
  • 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, 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.
  • Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

    Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

    1 A molecular phylogeny of Cochylina, with confirmation of its relationship to Euliina 2 (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) 3 4 John W. Brown*1, Leif Aarvik2, Maria Heikkilä3, Richard Brown4, and Marko Mutanen5 5 6 1 National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA, e-mail: 7 [email protected] 8 2 Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway, e-mail: [email protected] 9 3 Finnish Museum of Natural History, LUOMUS, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, 10 Finland, e-mail: [email protected] 11 4 Mississippi Entomological Museum, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA, e-mail: 12 [email protected] 13 5 Ecology and Genetics Research Unit, PO Box 3000, 90014, University of Oulu, Finland, e- 14 mail: [email protected] 15 *corresponding author 16 17 This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Brown, J.W., Aarvik, L., Heikkilä, M., 18 Brown, R. and Mutanen, M. (2020), A molecular phylogeny of Cochylina, with confirmation of its 19 relationship to Euliina (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Syst Entomol, 45: 160-174., which has been 20 published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12385. 21 1 22 Abstract. We conducted a multiple-gene phylogenetic analysis of 70 species representing 24 23 genera of Cochylina and eight species representing eight genera of Euliina, and a maximum 24 likelihood analysis based on 293 barcodes representing over 220 species of Cochylina. The 25 results confirm the hypothesis that Cochylina is a monophyletic group embedded within a 26 paraphyletic Euliina. We recognize and define six major monophyletic lineages within 27 Cochylina: a Phtheochroa Group, a Henricus Group, an Aethes Group, a Saphenista Group, a 28 Phalonidia Group, and a Cochylis Group.
  • Dube Nontembeko 2019.Pdf (2.959Mb)

    Dube Nontembeko 2019.Pdf (2.959Mb)

    UNDERSTANDING THE FITNESS, PREFERENCE AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIST HERBIVORES OF THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN BIOTYPE OF CHROMOLAENA ODORATA (ASTERACEAE), AND IMPACTS ON PHYTOCHEMISTRY AND GROWTH RATE OF THE PLANT By NONTEMBEKO DUBE Submitted in fulfillment of the academic requirement of Doctorate of Philosophy In The Discipline of Entomology School of Life Sciences College of Agriculture, Engineering and Science University of KwaZulu-Natal Pietermaritzburg South Africa 2019 PREFACE The research contained in this thesis was completed by the candidate while based in the Discipline of Entomology, School of Life Sciences of the College of Agriculture, Engineering and Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg campus, South Africa, under the supervision of Dr Caswell Munyai, Dr Costas Zachariades, Dr Osariyekemwen Uyi and the guidance of Prof Fanie van Heerden. The research was financially supported by the Natural Resource Management Programmes of the Department of Environmental Affairs, and Plant Health and Protection of the Agricultural Research Council. The contents of this work have not been submitted in any form to another university and, except where the work of others is acknowledged in the text, the results reported are due to investigations by the candidate. _________________________ Signed: N. Dube (Candidate) Date: 08 August 2019 __________________________ Signed: C. Munyai (Supervisor) Date: 08August 8, 2019 ________________________________ Signed: C. Zachariades (Co-supervisor) Date: 08 August 2019 _________________________________
  • A Potential Collection Method for Agapeta Zoegana (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae), a Knapweed·Root·Feeding Moth Sheila M

    A Potential Collection Method for Agapeta Zoegana (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae), a Knapweed·Root·Feeding Moth Sheila M

    J. ENTOMOL Soc. BRIT. COLUMBIA 86 (1989), SEPT. 3D, 1989 55 A POTENTIAL COLLECTION METHOD FOR AGAPETA ZOEGANA (LEPIDOPTERA: COCHYLIDAE), A KNAPWEED·ROOT·FEEDING MOTH SHEILA M. FITZPATRICK AGRICULWRE CANADA REsEARCH STATION 6660 N.W. MARINE DRIVE VANCOUVER, B.C. V6T lX2 ABSTRACT This paper describes a method for collecting living, undamaged Agapeta zoegana (L.) moths, especially recently mated females. The objective was to gather this potential biological control agent for subsequent distribution to land infested with Icnapweeds (CenJaurea spp.) Sweep-netting and baiting techniques were inappropriate collection methods, because the moths were delicate and did not appear to forage. The moths did not move to the plant tops at particular temperatures or times of day and therefore could not easily be collected by aspiration. However, males and virgin and mated females within large field cages were attracted to UV light and, during their daily period of reproductive activity from dusk to midnight, could be collected in a Heliothis trap (Sentry) illuminated by a blacklight. In the open, neither this method nor a mobile­ blacklight technique were successful in 1988, but both warrant further work. Results are discussed in the context of A. zoegana establishment in B.C. INTRODUCTION Diffuse (Centaurea diffusa Lam.) and spotted (c. maculosa Lam.) knapweed, introduced from Europe in the early 1900's, pose a serious threat to range- and pasture-hinds in B.C. (Cranston, 1980). The knapweeds outcompete native forage species on disturbed or over­ grazed sites, and are of low value as forage (Harris and Myers 1984). Chemical control of knapweed in most areas is neither economically practical nor environmentally desirable (Cranston 1980).
  • Scientific Names of Pest Species in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera)

    Scientific Names of Pest Species in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera)

    RESEARCH Scientific Names of Pest Species in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) Frequently Cited Erroneously in the Entomological Literature John W. Brown Abstract. The scientific names of several pest species in the moth meate the literature. For example, the subfamilial designation for family Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) frequently are cited erroneously in Olethreutinae (rather than Olethreutidae) was slow to be accepted contemporary entomological literature. Most misuse stems from the for many years following Obraztsov’s (1959) treatment of the group. fact that many proposed name changes appear in systematic treat- They even appear at both taxonomic levels (i.e., Olethreutinae and ments that are not seen by most members of the general entomologi- Olethreutidae) in different papers in the same issue of the Canadian cal community. Also, there is resistance among some entomologists Entomologist in the 1980s! (Volume 114 (6), 1982) Olethreutinae to conform to recently proposed changes in the scientific names of gradually was absorbed into the North America literature, espe- well-known pest species. Species names discussed in this paper are cially following publication of the Check List of the Lepidoptera Brazilian apple leafroller, Bonagota salubricola (Meyrick); western of America North of Mexico (Hodges 1983), which has served as a black-headed budworm, Acleris gloverana (Walsingham); and green standard for more than 20 years. budworm, Choristoneura retiniana (Walsingham). Generic names During preparation of a world catalog of Tortricidae (Brown discussed include those for false codling moth, Thaumatotibia leu- 2005), it became obvious to me that several taxonomically correct cotreta (Meyrick); grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana (Clemens); combinations of important pest species were not in common use in pitch twig moth, Retinia comstockiana (Fernald); codling moth, the entomological literature.
  • Westenhanger Area and Kiln Wood)

    Westenhanger Area and Kiln Wood)

    Folkestone and Hythe Birds Tetrad Guide: TR13 I (Westenhanger area and Kiln Wood) One of the more interesting habitats in TR13 I is the lake at Folkestone Racecourse, which holds breeding Tufted Duck, Little Grebe, Great Crested Grebe and Coot, with these being joined by Gadwall and Pochard in winter, whilst White-fronted Goose, Barnacle Goose, Wigeon, Pintail and Goldeneye have also occurred on occasion, generally during cold weather, though the lake is prone to freezing over during prolonged frosts. Snipe can sometimes be found in the ditches by the lake and Reed Buntings breed in the surrounding vegetation, whilst Marsh Harrier and Merlin have been noted overhead. The parkland area around Westenhanger Castle used to hold Spotted Flycatchers but this species has since declined considerably. Black Redstart has been recorded singing from the racecourse buildings and may occasionally breed here. The fields in the Hillhurst Farm area may attract Lapwings and occasionally Golden Plover, whilst when left as stubble in the winter of 2013/14 they held a flock of up to 50 Yellowhammers, together with single Jack Snipe and Corn Bunting, and small numbers of Stock Doves, Sky Larks, Meadow Pipits, Linnets and Reed Buntings. Large numbers of Mediterranean Gulls may be attracted, with a peak count of about 100 in November 2013. Kiln Wood has breeding Buzzard and typical woodland species, including Nuthatch, whilst Woodcock, Siskin and sometimes Lesser Redpoll may winter and the small pond in the wood can attract Mandarin. In May 2009 a singing Wood Warbler was present but was presumably just a migrant.
  • Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Biological Control of Invasive

    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Biological Control of Invasive

    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States Roy Van Driesche Bernd Blossey Mark Hoddle Suzanne Lyon Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2002-04 Department of Service August 2002 Agriculture BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES Technical Coordinators Roy Van Driesche and Suzanne Lyon Department of Entomology, University of Massachusets, Amherst, MA Bernd Blossey Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Mark Hoddle Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the authors of the individual chap- We would also like to thank the U.S. Depart- ters for their expertise in reviewing and summariz- ment of Agriculture–Forest Service, Forest Health ing the literature and providing current information Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West on biological control of the major invasive plants in Virginia, for providing funding for the preparation the Eastern United States. and printing of this publication. G. Keith Douce, David Moorhead, and Charles Additional copies of this publication can be or- Bargeron of the Bugwood Network, University of dered from the Bulletin Distribution Center, Uni- Georgia (Tifton, Ga.), managed and digitized the pho- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, (413) tographs and illustrations used in this publication and 545-2717; or Mark Hoddle, Department of Entomol- produced the CD-ROM accompanying this book.
  • Non-Target Effects of Insect Biocontrol Agents and Trends in Host Specificity Since 1985

    Non-Target Effects of Insect Biocontrol Agents and Trends in Host Specificity Since 1985

    CAB Reviews 2016 11, No. 044 Non-target effects of insect biocontrol agents and trends in host specificity since 1985 Roy Van Driesche*1 and Mark Hoddle2 Address: 1 Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-9285, USA. 2 Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA. *Correspondence: Roy Van Driesche, Email: [email protected] Received: 6 October 2016 Accepted: 7 November 2016 doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR201611044 The electronic version of this article is the definitive one. It is located here: http://www.cabi.org/cabreviews © CAB International 2016 (Online ISSN 1749-8848) Abstract Non-target impacts of parasitoids and predaceous arthropods used for classical biological control of invasive insects include five types of impact: (1) direct attacks on native insects; (2) negative foodweb effects, such as competition for prey, apparent competition, or displacement of native species; (3) positive foodweb effects that benefited non-target species; (4) hybridization of native species with introduced natural enemies; and (5) attacks on introduced weed biocontrol agents. Examples are presented and the commonness of effects discussed. For the most recent three decades (1985–2015), analysis of literature on the host range information for 158 species of parasitoids introduced in this period showed a shift in the third decade (2005–2015) towards a preponderance of agents with an index of genus-level (60%) or species-level (8%) specificity (with only 12% being assigned a family-level or above index of specificity) compared with the first and second decades, when 50 and 40% of introductions had family level or above categorizations of specificity and only 21–27 (1985–1994 and 1995–2004, respectively) with genus or 1–11% (1985–1994 and 1995–2004, respectively) with species-level specificity.
  • Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Fire and Nonnative Invasive Plants

    Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Fire and Nonnative Invasive Plants

    Alaska (Producer). Available: http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/ References _____________________ akweeds_ranking_page.htm [2005, January 15]. Abella, S. R.; Covington, W. W. 2004. Monitoring an Arizona Albert, M. 2000. Carpobrotus edulis. In: Bossard, C. C.; Randall, J. ponderosa pine restoration: sampling efficiency and multivari- M.; Hoshovsky, M. C., eds. Invasive plants of California’s wildlands. ate analysis of understory vegetation. Restoration Ecology. 12: Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 90-94. 359-367. Albini F.; Amin, M. R.; Hungerford R. D.; Frandsen W. H.; Ryan, Abella, Scott. R.; MacDonald, Neil. W. 2000. Intense burns may K. C. 1996. Models for fire-driven heat and moisture transport reduce spotted knapweed germination. Ecological Restoration. in soils. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-335. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart- 18(2): 203-205. ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Reasearch Abrahamson, W. G. 1984. Species responses to fire and the Florida Station. 16 p. Lake Wales ridge. American Journal of Botany. 71: 35-43. Alexander, Janice M.; D‘Antonio, Carla M. D. 2003. Seed bank dy- Acker, Steven A. 1992. Wildfire and soil organic carbon in sage- namics of French broom in coastal California grasslands: effects brush-bunchgrass vegetation. The Great Basin Naturalist. 52(3): of stand age and prescribed burning on control and restoration. 284-287. Restoration Ecology. 11(2): 185-197. Adger, Neil; Aggarwal, Pramod; Agrawala, Shardul; [and others]. Alexander, M.; Stefner, C.; Beck, J.; Lanoville, R. 2001. New 2007. Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. insights into the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments on Contribution of Working Group II to the 4th assessment report of crown fire potential at the stand level.
  • FACTS Data Dictionary # Natural UOM 1. Description

    FACTS Data Dictionary # Natural UOM 1. Description

    FACTS Data Dictionary # Natural UOM 1. Description - The number of natural trees found per unit of measure (i.e. acres) for a specific species for a specific stocking exam. 2. Field Length - 5 3. Format - Numeric (with no decimal) 4. Required - No 5. Table Name. Field Name FACT_STCKG_EXAM_SPCS. NBR_NATURAL 6. Forms Stocking Exam (ACTV130) 7. Valid Codes 8. Comments # Planted Trees Staked 1. Description - The number of planted trees staked by species for a survival exam. 2. Field Length - 5 3. Format - Numeric (with no decimal) 4. Required - Yes 5. Table Name. Field Name FACT_SURVIVAL_EXAMS. NBR_PLANTED_TREES_STAKED 6. Forms Survival Exam (ACTV135) file:///C|/A_PROJECTS/facts/FACTS_Data_Dictionary.txt 7. Valid Codes 8. Comments # of Trees 1. Description - The number of trees treated or found. 2. Field Length - 5 3. Format - Numeric (with no decimal) 4. Required - No 5. Table Name. Field Name FACT_VEG_AMT_TREATED. NBR_TREES 6. Forms Vegetation Manipulation - Amount Treated (ACTV127) 7. Valid Codes 8. Comments # Staked Trees Surviving 1. Description - The number of staked trees by species found alive. 2. Field Length - 5 3. Format - Numeric (with no decimal) 4. Required - Yes 5. Table Name. Field Name FACT_SURVIVAL_EXAMS. NBR_STAKED_TREES_SURVIVING 6. Forms Survival Exam (ACTV135) 7. Valid Codes file:///C|/A_PROJECTS/facts/FACTS_Data_Dictionary.txt (2 of 252)8/4/2006 3:31:01 AM file:///C|/A_PROJECTS/facts/FACTS_Data_Dictionary.txt 8. Comments # Surviving Planted/UOM 1. Description - The number of planted trees per unit of measure (i.e. acres) found by species found alive. 2. Field Length - 5 3. Format - Numeric (with no decimal) 4. Required - No 5. Table Name. Field Name FACT_STCKG_EXAM_SPCS.