Reading assignments: biological control van Klinken, R. and Raghu, S. 2006. A scientific approach to agent selection. Australian Journal of Entomology.

Reading assignments: biological control

• van Klinken, R. and Raghu, S. 2006. A scientific approach to agent selection. Australian Journal of Entomology 45: 253-258.

• Denslow, J., and D’Antonio, C. 2005. After bio-control: assessing indirect effects of insect releases. Biological Control 35:307-318.

• Kirby et al. 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge with introduced flea beetles (Apthona spp.). Journal of Range Management 53(3): 305-308.

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

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• McClay, A. S. 1989. Selection of suitable target weeds

for classical biological control in Alberta.  AECV89-RI. Alberta Environmental Centre, Vegreville, Alberta, Canada.

5) Managementc) Control

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• McClay, A. S. 1989. Selection of suitable target weeds for

classical biological control in Alberta.  AECV89-RI. Alberta Environmental Centre, Vegreville, Alberta, Canada.

• Peschken, D. P and A. S. McClay. 1995. Picking the target – a revision of McClay’s scoring system to determine the suitability of a weed for classical biological control, pp. 137-143. In Delfosse E. S. and R. R. Scott (eds.). Proceedings of the VIIIth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Canterbury NZ.

5) Managementc) Control

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.

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

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)

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

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 • Other means: decision of scientists, survey of land

managers and weed biologists, political pressures, perceived need, mandate in legislation

5) Managementc) Control

iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

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)

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) Field surveys in South America

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent.

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent.

• presence and abundance related to climate

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agent.

• presence and abundance related to climate• phenology of control agents and hosts

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) 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

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) 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

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) 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

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) 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

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agentiv) Climate modeling to match sources to target

populations

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agentiv) Climate modeling to match sources to target populations v) Introduction of bio-control agents to quarantine sites

in US for further testing

5) Managementc) Control

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 speciesii) Field surveys in South America iii) Safety and effectiveness of control agentiv) Climate modeling to match sources to target populations v) Introduction of bio-control agents to quarantine sites in US

for further testingvi) 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.

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

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)

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

iii) Biological methods: How to implement?• Identify appropriate target weeds• Identify possible bio-control agents• Rear the bio-control agent• Release the biocontrol agent

5) Managementc) Control

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).

5) Managementc) Control

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)

5) Managementc) Control

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

5) Managementc) Control

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.

Biological control in CA: success rates and references

Biological control in CA: cont’d

5) Managementc) Control

iv) Underlying socioeconomic issues• Introductions = $$$

• Many (most) NIS introduced intentionally

5) Managementc) Control

iv) Underlying socioeconomic issues• Introductions = $$$

• Many (most) NIS introduced intentionally• Concern about control (esp biological control)• Other economic benefits of invasives – e.g. Purple

Loosestrife makes good honey!

5) Managementc) Control

iv) Underlying socioeconomic issues• Introductions = $$$• Public sentiment

Southwest Willow flycatcherEndangered species; Nests in Tamarisk

(nest success lower in TamariskThan in native vegetation but Still a concern)

5) Managementc) Control

iv) Underlying socioeconomic issues• Introductions = $$$• Public sentiment• Fear of non-native species

• IUCN prohibits release of NIS (non-indigenous species) in natural areas… this would mean no biological control

• Concern about non-target effects

5) Managementc) Control

iv) Underlying socioeconomic issues• Introductions = $$$• Public sentiment• Fear of non-native species

• IUCN prohibits release of NIS (non-indigenous species) in natural areas… this would mean no biological control

• Concern about non-target effects

5) Managementd) Eradication

Feasibility

5) Managementd) Eradication

Feasibility:• Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal

5) Managementd) Eradication

Feasibility:• Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal• Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore

5) Managementd) Eradication

Feasibility:• Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal• Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore• Widespread support

5) Managementd) Eradication

Feasibility:• Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal• Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore• Widespread support• Prevent re-invasion

5) Managementd) Eradication

Feasibility:• Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal• Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore• Widespread support• Prevent re-invasion• Low populations

5) Managementd) Eradication

Feasibility:• Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal• Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore• Widespread support• Prevent re-invasion• Low populations