1. 6)Management c)Control iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants

2. iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants Biotic constraints/enemy release hypothesis 6)Management c)Control

3. iii)Biological methods = “biologically” damaging plants Biotic constraints/enemy release hypothesis If plants are invasive because they have escaped natural enemies, introducing the natural enemies should help control the invasive! 6)Management c)Control

4. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition 6)Management c)Control

5. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Recall Nevada noxious weed legislation: Weed control analyst researches biological control options 6)Management c)Control

6. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Recall Federal Plant Protection Act : Biological control is often desirable 6)Management c)Control

7. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia 6)Management c)Control

8. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au Introduced in 1788 with the First Fleet – dye industry Additional introductions for forage and hedges though 1800s Numerous species Problem acknowledged 1870 6)Management c)Control

9. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au Introduced in 1788 with the First Fleet – dye industry Additional introductions for forage and hedges though 1800s Numerous species Problem acknowledged 1870 1886: prickly pear destruction act 1910: ‘Roberts Improved Pear Poison’ created – 80% sulfuric acid, 20% arsenic – considered best weapon 6)Management c)Control

10. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au Early chemical control: fumes from boiling arsenic Photo: © L. R. Tanner 6)Management c)Control

11. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au Early chemical control: boiling arsenic 1912 problem rampant: begin looking for biological control Photo: © L. R. Tanner 6)Management c)Control

12. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au Early chemical control: boiling arsenic 1912 problem rampant: begin looking for biological control 1925, infested twenty-five million hectares in New South Wales and Queensland. It was spreading at the rate of half a million hectares a year. 6)Management c)Control

13. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au 1926 introduction of Cactoblastis moth Photo: © L. R. Tanner 6)Management c)Control

14. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Chronology (source: http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au )http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au 1926 introduction of Cactoblastis moth By 1932, most of the prickly pear stands had been decimated. 6)Management c)Control

15. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) in Australia Summary: spectacularly successful BUT Took 14 years to find biocontrol agent (1912-1926) Some cool-climate stands remained; insect less effective 6)Management c)Control

16. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum) in California 6)Management c)Control

17. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum) in California Broad-leaved, perennial herb Introduced from Europe in 1793; reached California late 1800’s Extremely invasive; toxic By early 1940’s: 5 million acres of infested rangeland Biological control in California: 1945-1950 @ $750,000 total cost By early 1960’s insects had reduced acreage to <1% of peak 6)Management c)Control

18. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Tamarix in western US: Photos: Bob Conrad, NAES 6)Management c)Control

19. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Tamarix in western US: Source: Swedhin et al. 2006 (Tamarisk Research Conference, Fort Collins CO) Large scale dispersal and population expansion of Diorhabda elongata in CO, NV, and UT after initial releases Near Moab: two release sites in 2004. In 2005, less than 2 acres of tamarisk defoliated. In 2006, 109 acres defoliated, 4.1 miles upstream from release sites and area was expanding Expansion of beetles from UT release sites on Colorado River into CO expected by summer 2007 6)Management c)Control

20. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy ID promising species in native range Test for host specificity USDA has facilities in other countries for this purpose http://www.ars-ebcl.org/ 6)Management c)Control

21. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy ID promising species in native range Test for host specificity USDA has facilities in other countries for this purpose http://www.ars-ebcl.org/ e.g. Montpelier, France Photo © USDA ARS-EBCL Current projects: Canada Thistle, Field Bindweed Giant reed, Knapweeds, Leafy Spurge, Lepidium draba, Rush Skeletonweed, Saltcedar, Swallow- worts, Yellow Starthistle 6)Management c)Control

22. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy ID promising species in native range Test for host specificity USDA has facilities in other countries for this purpose http://www.ars-ebcl.org/ e.g. Montpelier, France Also Rome, Italy and Thessaloniki, Greece Photos © USDA ARS-EBCL 6)Management c)Control

23. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy Host specificity: specialists not generalists 6)Management c)Control

24. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy Host specificity Mode of action (plant part affected) 6)Management c)Control

25. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy Host specificity Mode of action (plant part affected) Type of organism (disease, insect) 6)Management c)Control

26. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy Host specificity Mode of action (plant part affected) Type of organism (disease, insect) Climate requirements of organism (climate matching for source populations and introduction sites) e.g. some releases of Diorhabda from Texas populations not successful at higher latitudes – couldn’t overwinter 6)Management c)Control

27. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy Host specificity Mode of action (plant part affected) Type of organism (disease, insect) Climate requirements of organism (climate matching for source populations and introduction sites) Estimated that about ½ of introduced weed bio-control insect species establish in new location 6)Management c)Control

28. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

29. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Finding an enemy Non-target effects Relatedness of flora 6)Management c)Control

30. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Non-target effects – Pemberton (2000) 6)Management c)Control

31. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations: Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

32. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

33. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

34. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

35. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

36. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

37. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

38. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

39. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Difficulty locating enemy Non-target effects – From Pemberton (2000) 6)Management c)Control

40. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Difficulty locating enemy Non-target effects – From Pemberton (2000) 6)Management c)Control

41. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

42. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Considerations Non-target effects 6)Management c)Control

43. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Difficulty locating enemy Non-target effects Most likely a problem when the invasive species has closely related plants in the invaded area 6)Management c)Control

44. iii)Biological methods Least public opposition Number of success stories Difficulty locating enemy Non-target effects Most likely a problem when the invasive species has closely related plants in the invaded area Monitor non-targets 6)Management c)Control

45. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Van Klinken RD, Raghu S (2006) Aust J Entomol 45:253-258 6)Management c)Control

46. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds 6)Management c)Control

47. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Agricultural impact Impact to natural areas Toxicity Beneficial characteristics Relatedness to native species Origin Extent of invasion 6)Management c)Control

48. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds McClay (1989) and Peschken & McClay (1995) use a scoring system to rate weeds for biocontrol priority. economic losses (light to very severe) 0-30 pts Additional points: Size of the infested area expected spread Toxicity Available means of control Economic justification. 6)Management c)Control

49. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds McClay (1989) and Peschken & McClay (1995) use a scoring system to rate weeds for biocontrol priority. economic losses Biological elements Geographic origin: more points for non-US weeds 6)Management c)Control

50. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds McClay (1989) and Peschken & McClay (1995) use a scoring system to rate weeds for biocontrol priority. economic losses Biological elements Geographic origin: more points for non-N. Am. weeds Habitat stability: more points for stable habitats (rangelands VS croplands) 6)Management c)Control

51. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds McClay (1989) and Peschken & McClay (1995) use a scoring system to rate weeds for biocontrol priority. economic losses Biological elements Geographic origin: more points for non-N. Am. weeds Habitat stability: more points for stable habitats (rangelands VS croplands) Points added for absence of close native relatives 6)Management c)Control

52. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents 6)Management c)Control

53. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005. Project Number: 0211-22000-006-00 6)Management c)Control

54. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) 6)Management c)Control

55. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species 6)Management c)Control

56. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America 6)Management c)Control

57. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent: 6)Management c)Control

58. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent: presence and abundance related to climate 6)Management c)Control

59. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent: presence and abundance related to climate phenology of control agents and hosts 6)Management c)Control

60. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent: presence and abundance related to climate phenology of control agents and hosts type and level of damage on targets 6)Management c)Control

61. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent: presence and abundance related to climate phenology of control agents and hosts type and level of damage on targets Oviposition and feeding substrates 6)Management c)Control

62. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent: presence and abundance related to climate phenology of control agents and hosts type and level of damage on targets Oviposition and feeding substrates overwintering sites 6)Management c)Control

63. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent: presence and abundance related to climate phenology of control agents and hosts type and level of damage on targets Oviposition and feeding substrates overwintering sites Host range tests: primary and closely related hosts, critical hosts 6)Management c)Control

64. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent iv)Climate modeling to match sources to target populations 6)Management c)Control

65. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent iv)Climate modeling to match sources to target populations v)Introduction of bio-control agents to quarantine sites in US for further testing 6)Management c)Control

66. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Example: USDA ARS project: South American Biological Control Agents to Suppress Invasive Pests in the U.S. began Nov 8 2005 Targets include: Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum), Water- hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebenthifolius) i)Literature review to identify promising species ii)Field surveys in South America iii)Safety and effectiveness of control agent iv)Climate modeling to match sources to target populations v)Introduction of bio-control agents to quarantine sites in US for further testing vi)Progress: have ID’d several agents and host species lists for each invasive plant. Prioritization of agents next priority. Import and testing in US projected for 2007-2008. 6)Management c)Control

67. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Rear the bio-control agent 6)Management c)Control

68. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Rear the bio-control agent Laboratory rearing: Easier, more cost effective, less mortality, more insects? Not ‘hardened’ to environmental conditions, lower success in releases 6)Management c)Control

69. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Rear the bio-control agent Laboratory rearing: Easier, more cost effective, less mortality, more insects? Not ‘hardened’ to environmental conditions, lower success in releases Field rearing: More difficult, more expensive, fewer insects Site selection is important (high quality stand of target plant) 6)Management c)Control

70. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Rear the bio-control agent Laboratory rearing: Easier, more cost effective, less mortality, more insects? Not ‘hardened’ to environmental conditions, lower success in releases Field rearing: More difficult, more expensive, fewer insects Site selection is important (high quality stand of target plant) ‘quality’ probably outweighs ‘quantity’ in bio-control releases 6)Management c)Control

71. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Rear the bio-control agent Release the biocontrol agent 6)Management c)Control

72. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Rear the bio-control agent Release the biocontrol agent Only about 60% of released agents become established (Crawley 1989). 6)Management c)Control

73. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Rear the bio-control agent Release the biocontrol agent Only about 60% of released agents become established (Crawley 1989) Success affected by climate, size of release, number and timing of releases, predators, weather conditions Improve success by releasing field-reared agents, matching climate, selecting release site carefully (high density of target plants, few predators) 6)Management c)Control

74. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Rear the bio-control agent Release the biocontrol agent Only about 60% of released agents become established (Crawley 1989) Success affected by climate, size of release, number and timing of releases, predators, weather conditions Improve success by releasing field-reared agents, matching climate, selecting release site carefully (high density of target plants, few predators) Caged releases VS open field releases 6)Management c)Control

75. iii)Biological methods: How to implement? Identify appropriate target weeds Identify possible bio-control agents Rear the bio-control agent Release the biocontrol agent Only about 60% of released agents become established (Crawley 1989) Success affected by climate, size of release, number and timing of releases, predators, weather conditions Improve success by releasing field-reared agents, matching climate, selecting release site carefully (high density of target plants, few predators) Caged releases VS open field releases e.g. Kirby et al 2000: released 80 beetles in 1989, 1000 beetles in 1990. Open release, colonization was successful. 6)Management c)Control

76. Biological control in CA: success rates and references

77. Biological control in CA: cont’d

78. iv)Underlying socioeconomic issues Introductions = $$$ Many (most) invasive species introduced intentionally 6)Management c)Control

79. iv)Underlying socioeconomic issues Introductions = $$$ Many (most) invasive species introduced intentionally Concern about control (including biological control) Other economic benefits of invasives – e.g. Purple Loosestrife makes good honey! 6)Management c)Control

80. iv)Underlying socioeconomic issues Introductions = $$$ Public sentiment Southwest Willow flycatcher Endangered species; Nests in Tamarisk (nest success lower in Tamarisk than in native vegetation but still a concern) 6)Management c)Control