Also, vegetative growth of galled branches was reduced by 53 when the vacated galls had.Highlights Evaluated leaf-spot pathogen and stem gall fly as biocontrol agents of crofton weed. Additive effect of using two biocontrol agents. Repeated stem galling by fly provided greatest impact on plant growth.
Mytilus gallprovincialis, and the western Atlantic populations of the.Stem borer, common in some areas, can provide excellent control on static water bodies.Leaf rust fungus, self-introduced, common in areas where susceptible plants occur, can be damaging but many plants are resistant.Foliage feeder, established and quite common at some North Island (NI) sites but no significant damage yet, limited by predation and parasitism.Rust fungus, self-introduced, first noticed in 2005, widespread and providing good control.Gall former, becoming widespread in some regions, beginning to cause extensive damage to broom at many sites, especially in the South Island (SI).Foliage feeder, establishment confirmed at sites in both islands but not yet common, impact unknown.Sap sucker, becoming common, some damaging outbreaks seen, but may be limited by predation, impact unknown.Seed feeder, common in many areas, now destroying up to 84% of seeds at older release sites.Foliage feeder, recently released at limited sites as difficult to rear, appears to be established in low numbers at perhaps 3 sites.Stem miner, self-introduced, common, often causes obvious damage.Foliage feeder, released widely during the early 1990s, failed to establish.Gall former, extremely rare as galls tend to be eaten by sheep, impact unknown.Foliage feeder, only established at one site near Auckland, where it causes obvious damage and from which it is dispersing, also recently reported in the Hawke’s Bay.Systemic rust fungus, self-introduced, common, damage usually not widespread.Stem miner, attacks a range of thistles, released at limited sites as difficult to rear, establishment success unknown.Foliage feeder, attacks a range of thistles, released widely and some damaging outbreaks beginning to occur.Rust fungus, approved for release in 2011 but not released yet as waiting for export permit to be granted, only SI populations likely to be susceptible.Flower bud feeder, approved for release in 2012, releases will be made after the seed weevil is established if still needed.Seed feeder, releases began in 2015, difficult to rear so widespread releases will begin once harvesting from field is possible, establishment looking likely at a Southland site.Foliage and rhizome feeder, field releases began in 2017, establishment is looking likely, further releases planned.Stem galler, field releases began in late 2017, establishment success unknown, further releases planned.Sap sucker, approved for release in 2017, first field releases made early in 2021, establishment success unknown, further releases planned.Foliage feeder, from limited releases widely established only in Canterbury, impact unknown, but obvious damage seen at several sites.Foliage feeder, failed to establish from a small number released at one site, no further releases planned due to rearing difficulties.Seed feeder, common in many areas, can destroy many seeds in spring but not as effective in autumn, not well synchronised with gorse flowering in some areas.Seed feeder, common, destroys many seeds in spring.Foliage feeder, common in parts of the SI with some impressive outbreaks seen, and well established and spreading at a site in Northland, impact unknown.Sap sucker, common, often causes obvious damage, but ability to persist is limited by predation.Stem miner, native, common in the SI, often causes obvious damage, lemon tree borer has similar impact in the NI.Sap sucker, common in many areas, impact unknown.Foliage feeder, has damaged/killed 40,000+ ha heather at Tongariro National Park and Rotorua since 1996, spreading rapidly, uncertain if new strains more suited to high altitude released recently have established.Foliage feeder, self-introduced, common, often causes severe damage.Crown feeder, released at limited sites as difficult to rear, thought unlikely to have established.Gall former, established but spreading slowly in the SI, common near Waiouru, where it has reduced host by 18% over 6 years, very damaging in laboratory trials.Gall former, established and spreading well in the SI but more slowly in the NI, appears to be having minimal impact although it reduced stolon length in laboratory trials.Foliage feeder, only released at one site due to rearing difficulties, did not establish.Root feeder, released at limited sites as difficult to rear, thought unlikely to have established.( Puccinia hieracii var. Piloselloidarum)Leaf rust fungus, self-introduced?, common, causes slight damage to some mouse-ear hawkweed, plants vary in susceptibility.Root feeder, released at limited sites in late 2018, established and spreading slowly at sites in the Mackenzie District and North Canterbury, impact unknown, further releases planned.Foliage feeder, released at limited sites in late 2018, established at sites in North Canterbury and Marlborough, causing obvious damage already, further releases planned.Foliage feeder, field releases began in 2014, already well established and dispersing from site in the Waikato, widespread releases now underway.Stem miner, field releases began in 2017, difficult to rear so widespread releases will begin once harvesting from field is possible, some likely damage seen at one site.Leaf and stem rust fungus, releases began autumn 2015, does not appear to have established to date, and a further attempt will be made in 2021.Leaf rust fungus, releases began autumn 2015, established well and causing severe defoliation already at several sites in Northland.Flower feeder, self-introduced, host range, distribution and impact unknown.Gall former, common, initially high impact but now reduced considerably by Australian parasitic wasp.Leaf fungus, probably accidentally introduced with gall fly in 1958, common and almost certainly having an impact.Leaf smut, common and often causes severe damage.Gall former, common now at many sites, in conjunction with the leaf smut provides excellent control of mist flower.Root and foliage feeder, field releases began in late 2019 and will be on-going, some promising early signs that establishment is likely.Rust fungus, approved for release in 2015 but not released yet as waiting for export permit to be granted.Root and crown feeder, becoming common on several thistles, often provides excellent control in conjunction with other thistle agents.Seed feeder, becoming common, can help to provide control in conjunction with other thistle agents.Seed feeder, common on several thistles, can help to provide control of nodding thistle in conjunction with other thistle agents.Gall former which stunts the new growth, approved for release in 2019, the first field release is planned for 2021.Leaf fungus, initially caused noticeable damage but has become rare or died out.Leaf miner, common, damaging outbreaks occasionally seen, but appears to be limited by parasitism. Two biocontrol agents, a leaf-spot pathogen, Passalora ageratinae, and a stem gall fly, Procecidochares utilis, have been released against Crofton weed, Ageratina adenophora (syn. Eupatorium adenophorum) (Asteraceae), in South Africa.
To be considered for release in the United States, insect biocontrol agents must feed and develop only on the target plant, and in some cases, only on a few closely related plant species. Because biocontrol agents rely on sufficient host plant populations to provide their food and habitat, they will not completely eliminate their host plant populations.Cornerstone #2: Some organisms have a limited host rangeTo reduce dominance of an invasive plant within the plant community, effective biocontrol agents must focus their actions upon the target plant without harming other vegetation. Biocontrol agents released into invasive plant populations must not only survive and multiply in their new environment, but they must also attack and cause enough damage to their host to cause significant population decline.Biocontrol is used to reduce invasive plant populations to levels below damaging thresholds, not to eradicate plant species.
Increase In Gall Fly Biocontrol Agents Full Gamut Of
Likewise, some invasive plants are not suitable candidates for management with biocontrol (Wilson and McCaffrey 1999). The complex of natural enemies associated with the target plant in its native range may fail to provide suitable candidates for biocontrol for a number of reasons, such as failing to meet host-specificity standards. Releasing a single biocontrol agent may not have the same effects on its host plant compared to the full gamut of natural regulators that occur in the plant’s native environment.Even though all invasive plants may have coevolved natural enemies that regulate their populations within their native range, approved biocontrol agents are available for only a few invasive plant species in the United States.
However, for widely established invasive plants, or for established plants with the potential to become widespread, biocontrol may be an appropriate strategy.Purple loosestrife infestations (background) have been dramatically decreased since biocontrol beetles were released at Montezuma NWR in New York. Biocontrol therefore has limited application for situations where rapid or complete invasive plant control is required. As the direct and indirect effects of biocontrol agent attacks reduce the host invasive plant’s ability to compete within the plant community, invasive plant populations gradually decline, but are not eliminated. Impacts of Biocontrol on Invasive Plant PopulationsOnce released, biocontrol insect populations typically require two to three years to successfully establish, and 10 to 20 years before they significantly affect the invasive plant population.
When more desirable perennial vegetation is not available to fill niches opened up by the suppressed target species, another undesirable species for which biocontrols are not available may become established in its place. This phenomenon is referred to as the “biocontrol treadmill” (McCaffrey and Wilson 1994). Although physical and chemical methods were effective for controlling small, localized infestations, these methods were too costly and environmentally degrading for sustained long-term management over large areas.In areas where desirable vegetation is absent, suppression of one invasive plant species can lead to subsequent invasion and community dominance by another invasive plant. Beetles in the mid-1990s to manage widespread stands of purple loosestrife ( Lythrum salicaria) that infested nearly half of the refuge’s 3,200 acres.
A biocontrol agent that is very effective in controlling an invasive plant population under a given set of conditions may fail to establish, fail to reach populations levels to significantly reduce invasive plant populations, or (in rare cases) cause unanticipated negative non-target impacts under a different set of conditions.The factors affecting biocontrol successes and failures are not fully understood and practitioners are continually gathering data to help improve the predictability of biocontrol effects. For proposed release sites in which multiple invasive species occur or are nearby, a plan for controlling these species is an integral part of the management approach.The effects and effectiveness of biocontrol for managing invasive plant populations in general is highly variable and depends on the unique interactions between biocontrol agents and host plants, as well as a number of other biological, environmental, and procedural factors. Johnswort ( Hypericum perforatum) in Idaho, the study sites reverted to the nonnative annual grass community that predated introduction of St.
The impact of host-specific agents is focused on a single plant species, minimizing the likelihood of harm to other nontarget plants. Regulation of the invasive plant population can be long-term with biocontrol the densities of the biocontrol agent populations adjust themselves in response to changes in invasive plant density. Biocontrol agents can establish self-perpetuating populations and expand throughout the target invasive plant’s range, including areas with difficult access. Many National Wildlife Refuges have experienced significant success with biocontrol programs.When effective, biocontrol can have a number of advantages over other invasive plant management methods (Culliney 2005): Johnswort ( Hypericum perforatum), water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes), hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata), and alligator weed ( Alternanthera philoxeroides).
However, these protocols are not designed to thoroughly assess and predict the biocontrol agent’s long-term effectiveness and risks associated with complex ecological interactions. Current protocols and regulations for selecting and importing biocontrol agents into the United States involve rigorous testing to ensure that biocontrols will not attack nontarget plant species. Biocontrol agents are nonpolluting and leave no toxic residues.The two ecological cornerstones discussed above provide the framework for ensuring effectiveness and safety in classical biocontrol.
0 kommentar(er)
