Weed Research in Tasmania
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TASWEEDS incorporating SPOTTER Edition 16 August 2002 Page 1 TASWEEDS Inside…………. Edition 16 August 2002 • Weed Research in INCORPORATING Tasmania. SP TTER • Biocontrol • European olive • Spanish heath • Progress on the Ground. • ECRWS • Greenlinks • Betsey Island • GAT WONS projects • Rice Grass • Strategies and Planning • Weed management plans • WeedPlan review • Weed Alerts • Robinia pseudoacacia • Miscanthus sinensis • Senecio angulatus • Education and Awareness • Weedbuster Week • Crop weed seminar • A foxy move • A pain in the grass • TWS News • Membership update • New member TASWEEDS incorporating SPOTTER Edition 16 August 2002 Page 2 WEED RESEARCH IN TASMANIA Biological Control of Ragwort and Boneseed Dr John Ireson, Principal Entomologist, TIAR. Ragwort The ragwort flea beetle (see below left) has now spread over at least 90% of Tasmania's ragwort infestations and has had a significant impact on ragwort in many areas. However, unfavourable site conditions (eg. waterlogged sites in winter, which result in the drowning of the root-feeding larvae) or incompatible management strategies have restricted its impact in some areas. For this reason, two additional biological control agents, the ragwort stem and crown boring moth (released in Tasmania in 1995) and the ragwort plume moth (released in 2000) have now been successfully established. As both of these agents attack the crowns and stems of ragwort they will complement the effects of the root feeding larvae of the ragwort flea beetle. In addition, both agents are pre- adapted to survive well in wet or waterlogged pasture where the establishment of the ragwort flea beetle has been restricted. Of the two new agents, the ragwort plume moth (see below right), which is now established at 6 sites has a current dispersal rate that is about 4 times that of the stem and crown boring moth and appears to be far more damaging. Funds are now being sought to enable further releases of plume moth around the state to accelerate its dispersal and to assess the efficacy of this species. Karina Potter has been working with the TIAR biological control group over the last 3 years on a PhD study into factors affecting the efficacy of the ragwort flea beetle. This includes the impact of herbicides and waterlogging on beetle populations as well as the possible effect of genetic variation in ragwort populations on the feeding behaviour of the beetle. The results of Karina's study will be used to improve the use of the beetle in integrated control strategies for ragwort. TASWEEDS incorporating SPOTTER Edition 16 August 2002 Page 3 Boneseed Unfortunately, attempts to establish biological control agents on boneseed have not met with much success, either in Tasmania or on the mainland. Four foliage feeding biological control agents have been released in Tasmania since 1991. Intermittent releases of the black boneseed beetle (Chrysolina sp. 1) were made between 1991 and 1993 and again between 1995 and 1996. The painted boneseed beetle (Chrysolina sp. 2) was released during 1995 and the boneseed tip moth (Comostolopsis germana) between 1993 and 1997. Despite repeated and often large releases, none of these agents established. Predation by indigenous invertebrates has long been suspected as a key factor in preventing their establishment. The fourth agent, the boneseed leaf roller, 'Tortrix' sp. (see below left), was first released in Tasmania in October 2000. Surveys carried out in November 2001 failed to recover 'Tortrix' sp. at 9 sites where releases were made 9 to 12 months previously. One of the early releases involved a comparative experiment, involving the release of protected and unprotected egg batches, to determine the possible impact of natural enemies on agent establishment. About 70% of the unprotected egg batches were damaged compared to only 4% of the protected batches. Of the eggs that hatched, a significantly higher percentage of 'Tortrix' sp. (16%) survived on protected branches compared to unprotected branches (only 1% survival) when the experiment was terminated. Collections of potential invertebrate predators from boneseed plants during the experiment included 3 species of ants, 2 species of predatory mites and 10 species of spiders, 7 of which were hunting species. One of the species of predatory mite (Abrolophus sp.) was observed feeding on the unprotected 'Tortrix' sp. eggs at the study site. The results show that a complex of mainly generalist predators exist on boneseed in Tasmania and provided evidence that they could be a key factor in either restricting or preventing the establishment of 'Tortrix' sp. Funding by the Natural Heritage Trust has enabled further releases of 'Tortrix' sp. These are scheduled for completion by September 2002, by which time it will have been released at over 40 sites in Tasmania. Because of these additional releases, it will be at least another 12-18 months before there is some indication whether the species will become permanently established. However, all of the 4 biological control agents released on boneseed in Tasmania spend large parts of their life cycle exposed on the foliage, which makes them particularly vulnerable to predation. The abundance of generalist predators that are associated with boneseed habitats in Tasmania may have prevented establishment of the first 3 agents released on boneseed and, as results already suggest, could also prevent or restrict the establishment of 'Tortrix' sp. Although other biological control agents for boneseed are being evaluated, including the leaf buckle mite, Aceria neseri, and a rust fungus, Endophyllum osteospermi, failure of 'Tortrix' sp. to establish in Tasmania would further reduce the biological control options for boneseed in this State. Note: • All weed biological control agents being used in Tasmania have been tested to ensure they feed only on the target weed. • Weed biological control agents do not eradicate their host plants but can reduce plant vigour, density and spread of populations. They should be considered as additional tools to be used in conjunction with other methods. TASWEEDS incorporating SPOTTER Edition 16 August 2002 Page 4 Olive Seed Trials – An Update. Cindy Hanson, Weed Section, DPIWE. The trials summarised below are part of a larger research project, the aim of which to assess the potential for the European olive (Olea europaea europaea) to become an environmental weed in Tasmania. What are the seed germination requirements of olive seeds? An ability to germinate under Tasmanian field conditions is a prerequisite if an olive environmental weed problem is to develop here, as it has done in several parts of mainland Australia. An experiment, the first of a series of olive seed germination trials, was conducted at DPIWE’s Mt Pleasant Research Laboratories from October 2001 to January 2002 in order to gain basic information about olive germination requirements. Ripe fruit from feral olive trees were collected from around Adelaide, South Australia in the winter of 2001. The pulp was removed manually and the seeds washed and dried at room temperature. Seeds were divided into 2 groups. The hard seed coat was removed from one group using a small bench-vice, whilst the other group retained the seed coat. Each group was divided into replicates of 50 seeds that were placed on absorbent paper in lidded plastic containers. These seeds were then subject to a number of germination treatments between which temperature, light and moisture were varied. Germination began (see right) in some treatments in less than two weeks and in others, was still occurring some 130 days later when the experiment was wound up. This trial demonstrated the importance of temperature as a determinant of feral olive seed germination, compared with moisture and light. The optimal temperature for seed germination was around 15 degrees C with germination rates exceeding 90%. However, germination also occurred at 7 degrees C and at 20 degrees C, although the former took much longer to occur and the latter resulted in a higher proportion of deformed seedlings. Whilst moisture was certainly a requirement for germination, variations in the amount of water provided (except when no water was provided) did not produce statistically significant differences in this trial. Similarly, germination was not affected significantly by light or dark conditions. Germination differences between the seeds from which the hard seed coat had been removed and those from which it had not, were significant. Most germination occurred in the former group. However, two months into the trial, germination began to take place in a number of seeds whose hard coats had not been removed. This is interesting because it is sometimes suggested that seeds need to pass through the gut of a bird or other animal in order to germinate, the assumption being that digestive processes weaken the hard seed coat. Whilst ingestion by frugivores may well be important to the spread of feral olives, clearly the seeds may also germinate without it. Overall this trial represents a solid first attempt at better defining the germination requirements of olive seeds. None of the conditions applied in the laboratory were out of the realm of what exists in natural Tasmanian environments. Thus it appears that there may be some potential for feral seeds to germinate here at least. This would be a significant advance in the development of a feral olive problem. The results can only be applied to feral seeds but since feral material is reported to have been imported to