Elsevier

Biological Control

Volume 35, Issue 3, December 2005, Pages 307-318
Biological Control

After biocontrol: Assessing indirect effects of insect releases

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.02.008Get rights and content

Abstract

Development of biological control agents for weeds has been motivated by the need to reduce the abundance and distribution of a pest plant where chemical and mechanical control were not cost effective. Primary objectives have been direct reduction in abundance of the target and, secondarily, the increase of desirable species. Recently, wildland weeds have become a focus of biological control projects. Here, desired outcomes include both reduction of the target and indirect effects of increased diversity and abundance of native species and restoration of ecosystem services. However, goals and benefits of biocontrol programs are not always well-articulated and direct and indirect impacts are not easily predicted. We evaluated the extent to which several successful biological control projects for weeds of rangelands and waterways measured indirect impacts on invaded ecosystems. We also examined biocontrol of a wildland pest tree for which the principal objective is restoration of ecosystem services. We found few quantitative assessments of the impacts of pest plant reduction on community composition or ecosystem processes. All examples documented variation in the impacts of agent(s) across the invasive range of the target plant as well as variation in impacts on the invaded ecosystem. However, without appropriate quantitative information, we cannot evaluate site characteristics that may influence vegetation responses. Most successful weed management programs integrated the use of biocontrol agents with other weed management strategies, especially modifications of disturbance and competing vegetation. Discussion and evaluation of responses of nontarget species would improve our understanding of the context-specificity of outcomes.

Introduction

Development of biological control agents for weeds has been motivated by the need to reduce the abundance and distribution of a pest plant where chemical and mechanical controls were not cost-effective (Harris, 1993, Pemberton and Turner, 1990). Widespread weeds of uncultivated lands, including rangeland weeds, such as Hypericum perforatum L. (Harris et al., 1969), Euphorbia esula L. (Harris, 1993), and Opuntia spp. (Moran and Zimmermann, 1984) are good examples. Historically, the primary objective of weed biological control has been the direct reduction in density, cover, and range of a target weed that has suppressed desirable forage species or was toxic or unpalatable to livestock. A secondary objective, therefore, has been to improve pasture or rangeland productivity or to promote the replacement of the target with something more desirable. Target selection has been influenced strongly by client groups, such as cattlemen’s associations, whose sustained interest has been critical to the continued development of such publicly funded projects. Yet increasingly, public, government, and scientific communities in the USA have become skeptical of biocontrol programs because of their potential to cause both direct and indirect nontarget impacts (e.g., Beardsley, 1997, Louda et al., 1997, Louda et al., 2003a, Louda et al., 2003b, Louda et al., 2005, McEvoy and Coombs, 2000, Simberloff and Stiling, 1996). Such skepticism raises the question of how clearly the goals and benefits of biocontrol programs are articulated in advance and the degree to which direct and indirect impacts can be predicted and measured.

With increasing appreciation of the impact of invasive plants on native ecosystems, and heightened value placed on wildlands, weeds of natural areas recently have become an important focus of biological control projects. As is the case for rangeland weeds, the potential effectiveness of biological control over large areas of poorly accessible terrain is attractive economically (Malecki et al., 1993). Moreover, biocontrol agents are usually highly host-specific and thus produce fewer nontarget impacts than does widespread use of chemical and mechanical control methods. Recent projects for control of Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) Blake in the Florida Everglades, Lythrum salicaria L. in the northern wetlands, and Tamarix spp. along western stream courses are driven by perceived threats these species pose to ecosystem services and native species. Desired outcomes of the biological control of such wildland weeds, therefore, include both direct reduction of the target as before as well as indirect effects such as increased abundance of native species, increased species diversity, restoration of vegetation structure, and restoration of ecosystem processes and services, such as water yield, that presumably had been provided by the pre-invasion community (Harris, 1993, Lesica and Hanna, 2004). Expansion of use of biological control to target wildland weeds, therefore, has increased the potential list of benefits of biocontrol while simultaneously increasing the complexity of measuring, monitoring, and modeling responses and potential benefits.

In the current climate of skepticism, it is increasingly important for scientists to quantify ecological responses to control activities and for biocontrol projects to be developed as part of integrated weed management and restoration programs, rather than as stand-alone projects. For meaningful risk/benefit analyses to be conducted, ecologists must be able to assign probabilities to outcomes of insect releases. We should be able to estimate not only the probabilities of the successful establishment of the released agent and subsequent depression of the target, but also the probabilities associated with desired community and ecosystem responses, particularly as they relate to the ultimate management goal that motivated control in the first place (Fig. 1).

Our goal in this paper is to evaluate the extent to which several seemingly successful biological control projects measure the full range of impacts of the biocontrol agents on the invaded communities and ecosystems. We are interested specifically in what was monitored after release of the control agent(s) and the extent to which indirect impacts (e.g., Fig. 1) were measured and ultimate goals achieved. We do not focus on feeding of the agent on nontarget plant species since that has been covered well elsewhere (e.g., Louda et al., 2003a, Louda et al., 2003b, McEvoy and Coombs, 2000, Pemberton, 2000, Simberloff and Stiling, 1996; and others). Rather, we evaluate how fully control projects measured desired or even undesirable outcomes and the extent to which true benefits were realized even with only partial control of the pest. Fig. 1 provides a conceptual presentation of potentially desirable and undesirable outcomes. Such information would be useful to determine whether a release is justified when full control is not expected. We have reviewed only successful projects, defined as those for which authors report noticeable reductions in the cover or distribution of the pest plant. We sought insights into ways in which to better measure community and ecosystem responses to biocontrol releases. Ultimately, such information should improve the utility of risk/benefit analyses as well as the outcomes.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

We consulted the published literature on nine biocontrol projects for which some measure of success in reducing the density, range, or abundance of the target pest has been claimed. Projects were selected from those listed in Julien and Griffiths (1998) for which one or more biological control agents released at least 10 years ago were described as substantially reducing the cover of the target weed. The project list includes target weeds of rangeland as well as wildlands and herbaceous, woody,

Results

Table 1 lists a range of impacts described in the literature with associated codes, which we then use to summarize published findings in Table 2. Where a citation claimed simply “substantial control” or similar phraseology, we assumed this meant reduction of cover or biomass (COV) unless reduction of density was specified. The history of most planned introductions of biological control agents describes highly variable results, including failure to establish; establishment but no effective

Conclusions

The above snapshots of large biocontrol projects reveal several common themes.

(1) Despite the varying quality of data, all of these examples document variation in the impacts of agent(s) across the invasive range of the target plant. Compensation for this variation often is made in the form of multiple agents targeted at specific climatic or habitat conditions. With better tools for predicting potential environmental ranges of agents (e.g., with the climate matching model, CLIMEX, e.g.,

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the US Department of Agriculture CSREES program for support of the conference “Science and Decision Making in Weed Biological Control” held in Denver, Colorado January 27 to 29, 2004. This paper is the product of presentations and discussions at that conference. T. Dudley provided helpful discussion in the development of ideas presented here, P. McEvoy steered us to critical publications, and S. Louda and two external reviewers provided helpful reviews of the manuscript.

References (81)

  • T. Beardsley

    Biological noncontrol: my enemy’s enemy may be no friend

    Sci. Am.

    (1997)
  • Beshir, M.O., Bennett, F.D., 1985. Biological control of water hyacinth on the White Nile, Sudan. In: Delfosse, E.S....
  • B. Blossey et al.

    Impact and management of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America

    Biodivers. Conserv.

    (2001)
  • Briese, D.T., 1985. A survey to evaluate the long-term relationship between Chrysolina quadrigemina and its host-weed,...
  • G.R. Buckingham

    Biological control of Alligatorweed, Alternathera philoxeroides, the world’s first aquatic weed success story

    Castanea

    (1996)
  • R.J. Cabin et al.

    Effects of long-term ungulate exclusion and recent alien species control on the preservation and restoration of a Hawaiian Tropical Dry Forest

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2000)
  • C.L. Campbell et al.

    Population trends, seasonal phenology and impact of Chrysolina quadrigemina, C. hyperici (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Agrilus hyperici (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) associated with Hypericum perforatum in northern Idaho

    Environ. Entomol.

    (1991)
  • T.D. Center et al.

    Variation in waterhyacinth/weevil interactions resulting from temporal differences in weed control efforts

    J. Aquat. Plant Manag.

    (1986)
  • T.D. Center et al.

    Biological control research

  • G.P. Chikwenhere

    Biological control of water lettuce in various impoundments of Zimbabwe

    J. Aquat. Plant Manag.

    (1994)
  • C.J. Cilliers et al.

    Short- and long-term control of water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) on seasonal water bodies and on a river system in the Kruger National Park, South Africa

    Hydrobiologia

    (1996)
  • E.M. Coombs et al.

    Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) importance, distribution and control in Oregon

  • E.M. Coombs et al.

    Economic and regional benefits from the biological control of tansy ragwort, Senecio jacobaea, in Oregon

  • Coulson, J.R., 1977. Biological Control of Alligatorweed, 1959–1972. A Review and Evaluation. USDA Technical Bulletin...
  • M.J. Crawley

    The successes and failures of weed biocontrol using insects

    Biocontrol News Inf.

    (1989)
  • C.N. Dahm et al.

    Seasonal estimates of actual evapotranspiration from Tamarix ramosissima stands using three-dimensional eddy covariance

    J. Arid Environ.

    (2002)
  • C.M. D’Antonio et al.

    The response of native species to removal of invasive exotic grasses in a seasonally dry Hawaiian woodland

    J. Veg. Sci.

    (1998)
  • Diehl, J., McEvoy, P.B., 1990. Impact of the cinnabar moth (Tyria jacobaeae) on Senecio triangularis, a non-target...
  • T.L. Dudley et al.

    Cage tests and field studies indicate leaf-eating beetle may control saltcedar

    Ecol. Restorat.

    (2001)
  • Goeden, R.D., Ricker, D.W., 1981. Santa Cruz Island-revisited. Sequential photography records. The causation, rates of...
  • D.R. Gordon

    Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida

    Ecol. Appl.

    (1998)
  • E. Gruber et al.

    The return of the native? Sidalcea hirtipes in coastal Oregon

  • K.L.S. Harley et al.

    Biological control of water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes (Araceae) by Neohydronomus affinis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

    Entomophaga

    (1990)
  • P. Harris

    Carduus nutans L. nodding thistle and C. acanthoides L., plumeless thistle (Compositae)

  • P. Harris

    Environmental impact of weed-control insects

    BioScience

    (1988)
  • P. Harris et al.

    Hypericum perforatum L., St. John’s wort (Hypericaceae)

  • P. Harris et al.

    The status of biological control of the weed Hypericum perforatum in British Columbia

    Can. Entomol.

    (1969)
  • Harris, P., Thompson, L.S., Wilkinson, A.T.S., Neary, M.E., 1978a. Reproduction biology of tansy ragwort, climate and...
  • Harris, P., Wilkinson, A.T.S., Thompson, L.S., Neary, M., 1978b. Interaction between the cinnabar moth, Tyria jacobaeae...
  • P. Harris et al.

    Senecio jacobaea L., tansy ragwort (Compositae)

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text