Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

P Peterson 1, SV Fowler 2, M Merrett 3 and P Barrett 4 1 LCR, PN, 2 LCR, Chch, 3 The Open Polytechnic of NZ, Lower Hutt, 4 Massey University, PN Heather.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "P Peterson 1, SV Fowler 2, M Merrett 3 and P Barrett 4 1 LCR, PN, 2 LCR, Chch, 3 The Open Polytechnic of NZ, Lower Hutt, 4 Massey University, PN Heather."— Presentation transcript:

1 P Peterson 1, SV Fowler 2, M Merrett 3 and P Barrett 4 1 LCR, PN, 2 LCR, Chch, 3 The Open Polytechnic of NZ, Lower Hutt, 4 Massey University, PN Heather beetle impact assessment

2 Heather (Calluna vulgaris)

3 Spreading - Te Aroha - Rotorua - Tarawera - Pureora - Mt Egmont National Park - Hokitika - Mt Cook - Queenstown - Te Anau · · · · · · · · · ·

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Photo by Shaun Forgie Heather beetle (Lochmaea suturalis)

11 Impact assessment

12 Assessment area

13 Treatments: Herbicide (2,4-D ester) Heather beetle Control Beetle vs herbicide Design: 3 treatments 4 blocks 2 reps per block

14 Vegetation cover Pre-treatment 50 x 50 cm Merilyn Merrett estimating vegetation cover

15 37 vascular species 37 vascular common 25 dicot species 20 native 5 exotic 12 monocot species 8 native 4 exotic 9 vascular uncommon Native and exotic, i.e. sedges, lilies, grasses, etc.

16 Applied treatments

17 No beetle establishment Herbicide impacts were interesting Beetle vs herbicide

18 2002–2011 Herbicide only assessment Before and after photos

19 Control 2011 Herbicide 2002

20 Heather (Calluna vulgaris)

21

22 Monoao (Dracophyllum subulatum)Sprawling coprosma (C.cheesemanii) Mountain heath (Pentachondra pumila)Tauhinu (Ozothamnus leptophylla) Native dicotyledons

23

24 Hawkweed (Pilosella officinarum)

25

26 All monocotyledons Browntop (Agrostis capillaris)Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) Red tussock (Chionochloa rubra)Silver tussock (Poa cita)

27

28 Red tussock (Chionochloa rubra)

29

30 Browntop (Agrostis capillaris)

31

32 Summary (herbicide only assessment) Four herbicide applications kill 80% of heather but signs of recovery 4 years later Heather may recover faster than dicot natives? Monocot cover (both native and exotic) increases following herbicide application Heather cover doubled in 9 years if nothing was done

33 Summary (herbicide only assessment) Four herbicide applications kill 80% of heather but signs of recovery 4 years later Heather may recover faster than dicot natives? Monocot cover (both native and exotic) increases following herbicide application Heather cover doubled in 9 years if nothing was done

34 Summary (herbicide only assessment) Four herbicide applications kill 80% of heather but signs of recovery 4 years later Heather may recover faster than dicot natives? Monocot cover (both native and exotic) increases following herbicide application Heather cover doubled in 9 years if nothing was done

35 Summary (herbicide only assessment) Four herbicide applications kill 80% of heather but signs of recovery 4 years later Heather may recover faster than dicot natives? Monocot cover (both native and exotic) increases following herbicide application Heather cover doubled in 9 years if nothing was done

36 But what about the beetles?

37 Difficult to establish Released (1996–2009) all stages 78 sites Establishment 9 outbreaks (9%) 2 false starts

38 Impact assessment (beetle vs herbicide – 2 nd attempt)

39 Assessment area

40 Beetle vs herbicide Beetle feeding damage visible in 2007

41 2007 Small heather beetle outbreak

42 Plots set up outside beetle-damaged area 2007

43 I H+I H 4 treatments, 6 blocks assigned 2007

44 2007– ? I H+I H Predicted beetle dispersal

45 Vegetation cover Pre-treatment 50 x 50 cm Merilyn Merrett estimating vegetation cover

46 32 vascular species 32 vascular common 25 dicot species 21 native 4 exotic 7 monocot species 5 native 2 exotic 15 vascular uncommon Native and exotic, i.e. sedges, lilies, orchids, grasses, etc.

47 Applied treatments TreatmentCodeEffect Do nothingBeetle impact Spray insecticide (Karate zeon: lambda-cyhalothrin) IHeather protected Spray herbicide (Pature Kleen: 2,4-D ester ) HBeetle + Herbicide impact Spray herbicide + insecticideH+IHerbicide impact

48

49 2008

50 2009

51

52

53

54

55 Unsprayed (heather beetle impact)Herbicide (beetle + herbicide impact) Insecticide (heather protected)Herbicide + insecticide (herbicide impact)

56 Initial observations Almost all heather dead following beetle feeding and/or 3 herbicide applications No non-target damage from beetle feeding Again, significant non-target damage from herbicide application to dicots

57

58 Initial observations Almost all heather dead following beetle feeding and/or 3 herbicide applications No non-target damage from beetle feeding Again, significant non-target damage from herbicide application to dicots

59 Dracophyllum subulatum Chionochloa rubraCoprosma cheesmanii Pentachondra pumila

60 Initial observations Almost all heather dead following beetle feeding and/or 3 herbicide applications No non-target damage from beetle feeding Again, significant non-target damage from herbicide application to dicots

61 Dracophyllum subulatum

62 Vegetation cover post-treatment (2009 & 2010) 50 x 50 cm Merilyn Merrett estimating vegetation cover

63 Heather (Calluna vulgaris)

64

65 Monoao (Dracophyllum subulatum)Sprawling coprosma (C.cheesemanii) Mountain heath (Pentachondra pumila)Tauhinu (Ozothamnus leptophylla) Native dicotyledons

66

67 Mouse-ear hawkweed (Pilosella officinarum) Catsear (Hypochoeris radicata)Lotus major (Lotus pedunculatus) Exotic dicots minus heather

68

69 All monocotyledons Browntop (Agrostis capillaris)Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) Red tussock (Chionochloa rubra)Silver tussock (Poa cita)

70

71 Red tussock (Chionochloa rubra)

72

73 Browntop (Agrostis capillaris)

74

75 Summary (beetle vs herbicide) Beetle feeding kills 99% of heather vs 90% after 3 herbicide applications No non-target damage from beetle feeding but significant damage to dicots from herbicide application Some evidence for dicot response after beetle feeding but too early to be sure All monocots trending upwards following heather removal by either method

76 Summary (beetle vs herbicide) Beetle feeding kills 99% of heather vs 90% after 3 herbicide applications No non-target damage from beetle feeding but significant damage to dicots from herbicide application Some evidence for dicot response after beetle feeding but too early to be sure All monocots trending upwards following heather removal by either method

77 Summary (beetle vs herbicide) Beetle feeding kills 99% of heather vs 90% after 3 herbicide applications No non-target damage from beetle feeding but significant damage to dicots from herbicide application Some evidence for dicot response after beetle feeding but too early to be sure All monocots trending upwards following heather removal by either method

78 Summary (beetle vs herbicide) Beetle feeding kills 99% of heather vs 90% after 3 herbicide applications No non-target damage from beetle feeding but significant damage to dicots from herbicide application Some evidence for dicot response after beetle feeding but too early to be sure All monocots trending upwards following heather removal by either method

79 Conclusions ( both experiments) Both methods are effective for killing heather Herbicide non-target impacts can significantly alter vegetation composition after 9 years More time required to assess full impact of heather removal by beetle feeding but no non-target damage seen Exotic monocot invasion seems inevitable using either method if close to a seed source Doing nothing will result in more heather

80 Conclusions ( both experiments) Both methods are effective for killing heather Herbicide non-target impacts can significantly alter vegetation composition after 9 years More time required to assess full impact of heather removal by beetle feeding but no non-target damage seen Exotic monocot invasion seems inevitable using either method if close to a seed source Doing nothing will result in more heather

81 Conclusions ( both experiments) Both methods are effective for killing heather Herbicide non-target impacts can significantly alter vegetation composition after 9 years More time required to assess full impact of heather removal by beetle feeding but no non-target damage seen Exotic monocot invasion seems inevitable using either method if close to a seed source Doing nothing will result in more heather

82 Conclusions ( both experiments) Both methods are effective for killing heather Herbicide non-target impacts can significantly alter vegetation composition after 9 years More time required to assess full impact of heather removal by beetle feeding but no non-target damage seen Exotic monocot invasion seems inevitable using either method if close to a seed source Doing nothing will result in more heather

83 Conclusions ( both experiments) Both methods are effective for killing heather Herbicide non-target impacts can significantly alter vegetation composition after 9 years More time required to assess full impact of heather removal by beetle feeding but no non-target damage seen Exotic monocot invasion seems inevitable using either method if close to a seed source Doing nothing will result in more heather

84 Acknowledgements We would like to thank John Mangos (New Zealand Army) for continued support, Lawire Cairns for aerial photography, and Lindsay Smith (LCR) and Andrew Blayney (Massey University) for help with field work. This project has been funded by the Ministry for Science and Innovation (formally the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology) Contract No. C09X0210, and the New Zealand Army.

85 Scale of beetle feeding impact

86 1 km

87 2001–2004.

88 1 km (1 m²)

89 1 km (25 m²)

90 1 km 2007 (¼ ha).

91 1 km 2008 (1½ ha).

92 1 km 2009 (4½ ha).

93 1 km 2010 (17 ha).

94 1 km 2011 (80 ha).

95


Download ppt "P Peterson 1, SV Fowler 2, M Merrett 3 and P Barrett 4 1 LCR, PN, 2 LCR, Chch, 3 The Open Polytechnic of NZ, Lower Hutt, 4 Massey University, PN Heather."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google