Biological Control of Prickly Acacia (Vachellia Nilotica Subsp
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Proceedings of the XIV International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp 21-30. F.A.C. Impson, C.A. Kleinjan and J.H. Hoffmann (eds). 2-7 March 2014, Kruger National Park, South Africa. Biological control of prickly acacia (Vachellia nilotica subsp. indica): Current research and future prospects K. Dhileepan*1, D.B.J. Taylor1, C.J. Lockett1, A. Balu2, M.K. Seier3, S. Murugesan2, R.A. Tanner3, K.M. Pollard3, N. Kumaran1 and S. Neser4 1 Biosecurity Queensland, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Ecosciences Precinct, Boggo Road, Brisbane, Australia 2 Institute of Forest Genetic and Tree Breeding, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India 3 CABI Europe – UK, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9TY, UK 4 ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute, Queenswood, Pretoria, South Africa Keywords: Vachellia nilotica, Acacia nilotica, Biological control, host-specificity. Abstract. Prickly acacia, Vachellia nilotica subsp. indica (syn. Acacia nilotica subsp. indica) (Fabaceae), a major weed in the natural grasslands of western Queensland, has been a target of biological control since the 1980s with limited success to date. Surveys in India, based on genetic and climate matching, identified five insects and two rust pathogens as potential agents. Host-specificity tests were conducted for the insects in India and under quarantine conditions in Australia, and for the rust pathogens under quarantine conditions at CABI in the UK. In no-choice tests, the brown leaf-webber, Phycita sp. A, (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) completed development on 17 non-target plant species. Though the moth showed a clear preference for prickly acacia in oviposition choice trials screening of additional test-plant species was terminated in view of the potential non-target risk. The scale insect Anomalococcus indicus (Hemiptera: Lecanodiaspididae) developed into mature gravid females on 13 out of 58 non-target plant species tested. In the majority of cases very few female scales matured but development was comparable to that on prickly acacia on four of the non-target species. In multiple choice tests, the scale insect showed a significant preference for the target weed over non-target species tested. In a paired-choice trial under field conditions in India, crawler establishment occurred only on prickly acacia and not on the non-target species tested. Further choice trials are to be conducted under natural field conditions in India. A colony of the green leaf-webber Phycita sp. B has been established in quarantine facilities in Australia and host-specificity testing has commenced. The gall-rust Ravenelia acaciae-arabicae and the leaf-rust Ravenelia evansii (Puccineales: Raveneliaceae) both infected and produced viable urediniospores on Vachellia sutherlandii (Fabaceae), a non-target Australian native plant species. Hence, no further testing with the two rust species was pursued. Inoculation trials using the gall mite Aceria liopeltus (Acari: Eriophyidae) from V. nilotica subsp. kraussiana in South Africa resulted in no gall induction on V. nilotica subsp. indica. Future research will focus on the leaf-weevil Dereodus denticollis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and the leaf-beetle Pachnephorus sp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) under quarantine conditions in Australia. Native range surveys for additional potential biological control agents will also be pursued in northern and western Africa. Queensland (Mackey, 1997). Infestations also occur in the Introduction coastal regions of Queensland, in the Northern Territory and Prickly acacia, Vachellia nilotica subsp. indica in Western Australia (Mackey, 1997). In Queensland, cost of (Benth.) Kyal. & Boatwr. (Fabaceae) (previously Acacia the weed to primary producers is approximately Au$ 9 nilotica subsp. indica) is a serious weed of the grazing areas m/year in lost pasture production (Dhileepan, 2009). of western Queensland and has the potential to spread Prickly acacia forms impenetrable thorny thickets, throughout northern Australia (Mackey, 1997; Dhileepan, competes with native pasture species, prevents the growth 2009). Prickly acacia infests over 7 million hectares of of native plants beneath the canopy, restricts stock access to natural grasslands and over 2 000km of bore drains in western watercourses and poses a threat to nearly 25 rare and *Corresponding author: [email protected] 21 Dhileepan et al. threatened animal species and two endangered plant Raveneliaceae) infecting leaves and inducing galls on communities (Spies and March, 2004). rachides and pods, and a leaf-rust Ravenelia evansii Syd. & P. Syd. (Pucciniales: Raveneliaceae) (Dhileepan et al., Mechanical and herbicide treatments are available to 2013; Shivas et al., 2013). This paper reports on progress manage prickly acacia (Spies and March, 2004), especially with the testing of the above prospective agents and also a in areas with low-density infestations, but their use is not leaf gall-mite Aceria liopeltus Meyer (Acari: Eriophyidae) always economical (Mooy et al., 1992). Prickly acacia is from South Africa (Witt, 2004; Stals, 1997). Other not susceptible to fire, but fire has the potential to reduce its prospective agents from India and Africa are identified for seed banks by promoting seed germination (Radford et al., future assessment. 2001a), enabling follow-up chemical control. Though livestock has limited impact on prickly acacia (Radford et 2. Materials and Methods al., 2002), camels (Spies and March, 2004) and goats (Tiver et al., 2001), in conjunction with traditional methods, have 2.1. Prospective biological control agents been shown to reduce the cost of control. Several species Colonies of the brown leaf-webber Phycita sp. A and of native insects feed on prickly acacia in Australia, but the scale A. indicus were established in the insectary, at the none have a major impact (Palmer et al., 2005). Classical biological control is considered the most viable option for Institute of Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding (IFGTB), long-term, sustainable management of prickly acacia in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India, using field collected larvae and pupae (for the leaf-webber) and adults (for the scale Australia. insect). The colonies were maintained on potted prickly Biological control of prickly acacia was initiated in the acacia plants in insect proof cages (60 cm x 60 cm x 100 early 1980s, with native range surveys conducted in Pakistan cm) or on prickly acacia foliage held in glass jars (30 cm x (Mohyuddin, 1986), Kenya (Marohasy, 1992) and South 15 cm) sealed with white muslin cloth. The shoots were Africa (Stals, 1997). Out of the 43 phytophagous arthropods inserted into a glass vial containing tap water to maintain collected on V. nilotica subsp. indica in Pakistan, two were freshness of the foliage. Efforts were also made to establish assessed and introduced into Australia, but only the seed- a colony of the leaf-weevil D. denticollis, using field feeding bruchid Bruchidius sahlbergi Schilsky (Coleoptera: collected adults. In addition, colonies of the brown leaf- Chrysomelidae) established. Six out of 90 phytophagous webber Phycita sp. A, the green leaf-webber Phycita sp. B insects collected on V. nilotica subsp. subalata (Vatke) and the scale A. indicus were established in a QC3 Brenan and V. nilotica subsp. leiocarpa Brenan in Kenya quarantine facility at the Ecosciences Precinct (ESP) in were tested, but only four agents were introduced into Brisbane, Australia, using insects imported from India. Australia. The leaf-feeding moth Chiasmia assimilis Field collected larvae and pupae (for the brown and green (Warren) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) originally introduced leaf-webbers) and gravid females (for the scale insect). The from Kenya, was subsequently collected from another host colonies were maintained on potted prickly acacia plants V. nilotica subsp. kraussiana (Benth.) Kyal. & Boatwr. in (grown from seed collected in Queensland) under controlled South Africa and re-introduced to Australia. Of the four quarantine glasshouse conditions (22-27°C, 14 h light: 10 h African insects introduced, only C. assimilis established dark and 60-70% RH). The gall-rust R. acaciae-arabicae (Dhileepan, 2009), but whether this was due to introduction sourced from Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India, and the leaf- from Kenya or South Africa is unknown. Thus far, the rust R. evansii sourced from Tarapur, Gujarat, India were impact of B. sahlbergi on V. nilotica subsp. indica has been established and maintained as uredinial infections on potted insignificant (Radford et al., 2001b). Chiasmia assimilis prickly acacia plants under controlled temperature and light became well established at coastal sites in northern conditions (temperature 25°C day/20°C night, Queensland, but not widely in the arid inland regions supplementary lighting of 12 h light/day) in a QC2 (Palmer et al., 2007). As a result, more effective biological quarantine facility at CABI Europe in Egham, UK. In South control agents are needed for arid inland Australia, where Africa, the gall-mite A. liopeltus is widespread and often the introduced agents have either not established or are abundant causing leaf distortion and stunting on V. nilotica established but not effective. subsp. kraussiana. A series of inoculation trials were conducted on V. nilotica subsp. indica and V. nilotica subsp. The prickly acacia population in Australia is native to kraussiana in South Africa. the Indian subcontinent (Wardill et al., 2005) with which there is a good climate match to northern Australia 2.2. Host-specificity