Biocontrol and Bioeradication PPT given Nov. 21, 2013

Invasive plants:
identities, issues and
theory
by Richard Gardner

Contact information
rtgardner3@yahoo.com
https://www.facebook.com/Ailanthusresearch
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Biocontrol/4
78613962188654

Oriental bittersweet

Purple loosestrife

Japanese knotweed

Oriental bittersweet
Amur honeysuckle
Winged euonymus

Multiflora
rose
Wineberry

Russian olive

Japanese honeysuckle

Terminology
and
Basic Concepts

Backyard ecology/backyard research – most of
the important research in ecology can literally
be done in our back yards. All the relationships
and answers to the big questions are there for
us to find. Exotic locations and expensive
equipment may only confirm what we already
observed and synthesized.

Every slide in this presentation was taken within 30 miles
of home. Most were taken within 10 miles with some in
our backyard. All the basic concepts were developed while
walking near home. Total expenses to do this and related
research is less than $3000 over 4 years, including
consumables and equipment. The most expensive pieces
of equipment are the computer and the camera.

Medicating the ecology - My first fear with
biocontrols is that we select target organisms the
way we select any other problem that appears to
need solving. We look only at the crisis. Then we
charge in solving an apparent problem
mechanistically without looking in depth to
understand the crisis or look for creative
minimally disruptive or less dangerous
alternatives.

Non-native invasive

Population or
concentration

Chemical defenses of
non-native invasive
population

Non-native
specialist biocontrol

time
This diagram demonstrates what happens when a non-native specialist biocontrol is
reintroduced to its non-native host such as with wild parsnip, Senecio jacobaea. When Tyria
jacobaeae, one of its specialist biocontrols from Europe was accidently reintroduced after at
least 230 years

Non-native invasive

Population

Native congeners
and conspecifics of
non-native invader

Non-native biocontrol

time
Simplified expected curves for what happens when a non-native biocontrol is
introduced after the establishment of a non-native invasive due to the
biocontrol adapting to new food sources without defenses to that
biocontrol.

Classical biocontrol – the introduction of non-native
organisms in the attempt to reduce the effects of
other introduced non-native organisms on
ecosystems. At the same time there are unforeseen
negative effects which cannot be predicted in the
local and extra-local ecosystems in which they are
introduced through genetic or behavioral changes in
the non-native biocontrol and in native organisms.
In other words it is a mechanistic attempt to use
non-native organisms to control already present
non-native organisms. It does not attempt to bring
an ecosystem back into balance. Instead it causes a
new system and (im)balance to develop that is
inherently alien.

Non-native biocontrol has high rates of failure
and low rates of success, an average of 2.44
introduced organisms for every species on
which control is being attempted. I think this
number is underestimated and that the real
number is at least 5 introduced organisms for
every biocontrol target.

Bioeradication – The extinction of a non-native
(invasive) species from an ecosystem using native
organisms. The goal is the regeneration of the
ecosystem by eliminating the non-native problem
from the ecosystem using native organisms which
minimize the potential problems associated with
the addition of non-native organisms as potential
controls.
Bioeradication uses a variety of native organisms
working together to eradicate a non-native
organism from the ecosystem and restore it to its
original state.

The difference between bioeradication and
biocontrol is that bioeradication assumes it is
possible to eradicate a non-native species from
an ecosystem using native species. While
biocontrol is trying to change, modify or
minimize the effects of one non-native organism
by using another non-native organism.

Bioeradicant – Any native organism in any time
frame from seconds to centuries that partially or
fully inhibits a non-native organism and helps to
drive it to extinction.

Bioeradication system – A group of native
organisms which through any biological
relationship and time frame partially or fully
inhibits a non-native organism to the point it is
driven to extinction.

Hybrid bioeradication system – A group of
native and indigenous non-native organisms
which through any biological relationship and
time frame partially or fully inhibits a non-native
organism to the point it is driven to extinction.

Direct bioeradication – This is the use of a
native organism or native organism system as a
bioeradicant for a specific organism.

Indirect bioeradication – Providing the native
resources such as food, breeding sites or shelter
needed for a native bioeradicant or bioeradicant
system to develop at a specific location for a
specific organism. This may be nectar sources,
sheltering plants, mutualistic fungi, water source
or … .

Bioremediation – the use of native organisms to
displace and eradicate non-native organisms or to
replace non-native organisms as they are
eliminated from an ecosystem. This is an expansion
of the traditional definition of bioremediation.
Whereas, traditional bioremediation is the use of
microorganisms or plants to mitigate chemical or
organic pollution. This is the use of the term to
mean use of native organisms to restore an
ecosystem during the process of and after the
removal of a non-native organism or non-native
organism system.

The question most frequently asked with
Bioeradication is why has no one noticed it
before?
The answer is twofold:
1.) no one thought to look
2.) many of the non-natives were
eradicated before anyone even noticed
they were around or an issue.

To further this argument, the first plant I
investigated, Ailanthus altissima, had a
complete bioeradication system. If my first
target proved that bioeradication is happening,
imagine how many other invasives are
undergoing the same.

Some of the local
invasive non-native
plants

Common name: Tree-of-heaven
Scientific name: Ailanthus altissima
Origin: China
Local habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open fields. However, it will grow in
wooded areas where light reaches the forest floor.
Reproduction: This tree is dioecious with separate male and female trees. A mature female
may produce over 350,000 seeds/year. Germination rate may run as high as 90%
under controlled conditions. When mechanically (physically) injured, this tree will
produce many clones from its roots up to 30 yards away. Seed bank is one year
except under controlled conditions.
Identifying features: It has odd pinnate compound leaves with opposite blade-like leaflets.
Leaflets have one pair to several pairs of notches along the edge of the proximal
end. Each notch has a gland on the distal end of the point. The odor is
unmistakable at certain times when downwind.
Weaknesses: tends to form monoclonal stands when physically injured and may
interconnect roots between individuals in a stand. This means that herbivores and
disease have fewer genotypes to deal with and disease can move through root
grafts within the stand. It is dioecious with possible sterilization of female trees.
Local Controls: A combination of the native moth Atteva aurea, the eriophyoid mite Aculops
ailanthii, various as of yet unidentified herbivorous insects and several pathogenic
Fusarium and Verticillium fungi. Whitetailed deer browse leaves.
Outlook: Apparently slowly going extinct locally and probably throughout its eastern North
American range from naturally occurring processes..

Common name: Tree-of-heaven
Scientific name: Ailanthus altissima
Origin: China
Local habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open fields. However, it will
grow in wooded areas where light reaches the forest floor.
Reproduction: This tree is dioecious with separate male and female trees. A
mature female may produce over 350,000 seeds/year. Germination rate may run
as high as 90% under controlled conditions. When mechanically (physically)
injured, this tree will produce many clones up to 30 yards away.
Identifying features: It has odd pinnate compound leaves with blade-like leaflets
which are opposite. Leaflets have one pair to several pairs of notches
along the edge of the proximal end. Each notch has a gland on the distal
end of the point. The odor is unmistakable at certain times when downwind.
Weaknesses: tends to form monoclonal stands when physically injured and may
interconnect roots between individuals in a stand. This means that herbivores and
disease have fewer genotypes to deal with and disease can move
through root grafts when spreading through a stand.
Local Controls: A combination of the native moth Atteva aurea, Aculops ailanthii, various as
of yet unidentified herbivorous insects and several pathogenic Fusarium
and Verticillium fungi. Whitetailed deer browse leaves.
Outlook: Apparently slowly going extinct locally and probably throughout its eastern North
American range from naturally occurring processes.

Very early in the life of
Ailanthus the main root
makes a right angle turn
that is parallel with the
ground as seen in this
photo and the following.

male flowers due to prominent stamens and
minimized pistils

A female Atteva aurea depositing eggs on a
community web.

Aculops ailanthii, an eriophyoid mite

Mite experiment at home that ended
on Nov. 19, 2013

Mites from mite experiment at home that ended
on Nov. 19, 2013

Fusarium micro and macroconidia from diseased tree.

Fusarium lateritium macroconidia

Transport of Aculops ailanthii and disease across
landscapes
Wind – best
within
landscapes
for short
distances
with high
mite and tree
densities

Birds – best for long
distances between
landscapes

Moths – best
for medium
and short
distances
within a
landscape

From recent walking it appears that
there is a correlation between the
density and nearness of the nectar
sources adult Atteva aurea feed on
and the amount of disease in a stand
of Ailanthus.

Which means that the key to Ailanthus
control is to plant native flowers
nearby with compact inflorescences
that bloom in succession from late
spring to freeze as nectar sources for
adult Atteva aurea.

Ailanthus altissima
bioeradication garden

Ailanthus altissima bioeradication garden
pasture

uphill

driveway

2. Aster laevis

1. Asclepias tuberosa

4. Erigeron speciosus

3. Aster novae-angliae

6. Eupatorium perfoliatum

5. Eupatorium maculatum

8. Monarda fistulosa

7. Heliopsis helianthoides

10. Rudbeckia laciniata

9. Rudbeckia hirta

12. Solidago canadensis

11. Rudbeckia triloba

14. Solidago rigida

13. Solidago nemoralis

16. Verbesina alternifolia

15. Solidago speciosa

18. sunflowers

17. Asclepias syriaca

19. Coreopsis

20. Shasta daisy

21. sweet peppers

22. sweet peppers

23. sweet peppers

24. Eu. mac./Cor. trip./Ech. pur.

25. Collected plants

Common name: Multiflora rose
Scientific name: Rosa multiflora
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: fields and wooded areas
Reproduction: seeds and stem clones
Identifying features: the only local rose I know of where the thorns curve towards the
center of plant
Weaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can
evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores
and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and
herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes. Clonal growth limits
genetic heterogeneity and facilitates the movement of disease through a stand.
Local Controls: Rose rosette disease, an Emaravirus spread by the eriophyoid mite
Phyllocoptes fructiphilus is in a bioeradication system with birds. It probably
developed on a native rose in California or another Pacific Coast state.
Outlook: Fantastic. It is severely affected by rose rosette disease and possibly another
disease which yellows the leaves.

Probable scenario for the spread of rose rosette
disease across the ecosystems

Pollinators – carrying mites
medium distances, within
landscapes
Wind – carrying mites
short distances, within
stands

Birds – carrying mites long
distances, between landscapes

Common name: Japanese honeysuckle
Scientific name: Lonicera japonica
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: It prefers the edge of wooded areas and open woodlands.
Reproduction: Cloning and bird distributed seeds.
Identifying features: Lancelet shaped leaves opposite on climbing vines. Distinct
flowers with a sweet odor when in bloom. Prefers shaded edges with a
substrate of brush and small trees to climb on.
evolve from to become bioeradicants. Clonal spread limits genetic heterogeneity
and is a pathway for disease to move through a stand. Birds eat the abundant
fruit, potentially spreading disease and herbivores between plants locally and
across landscapes.
Local Controls: There appears to be beetle herbivory and several diseases which it
shares with other non-native bush honeysuckles.
Outlook: This plant is on the decline from my observations due to disease and insect
herbivory. It should be an easy research target for bioeradication.

Common name: Morrows honeysuckle
Scientific name: Lonicera morrowii
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: wooded areas
Reproduction: seeds spread by birds
herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.
Identifying features: Bushy shrub with lancelet leaves similar to Japanese honeysuckle.
Local Controls: Herbivorous insects with mites and disease working together. I am seeing
possibly three separate diseases as I walk.
Outlook: Going extinct throughout its eastern North American range due to disease and
herbivory.

Probable scenario for the movement of
pathogens and insect herbivores between
Lonicera morrowii plants.
Birds – long distances between
landscapes
Insect pollinators and herbivores –
short and medium distances within a
landscapes
Wind – short distances
Deer – short and medium
within landscapes
distances between thickets
within a landscape

Common name: Amur honeysuckle
Scientific name: Lonicera maackii
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: wooded areas
Reproduction: seeds spread by birds
Identifying features: blade shaped leaves with a curved narrowing point
Local Controls: Herbivorous insects with mites and disease working together. I am seeing a
variety of separate diseases as I walk.
Outlook: Going extinct throughout its eastern North American range due to disease and
herbivory.

Common name: Grape hyacinth
Scientific name: Muscari sp.
Origin: Europe
Local habitat: wooded areas primarily near old homesteads
Reproduction: seed and bulb
Identifying features: clusters of blue to purple flowers on a single stem
Weaknesses: flowers and fruits are not used by many if any animals or birds. Flowers are
self-pollinating and much of the reproduction is done asexually so the amount of
genetic heterogeneity in a patch is limited. Dense patches encourage disease and
herbivory.
Local Controls: none
Outlook: This is worth watching as I saw it spread down a trail due to hitchhiking seeds. It
could become a problem starting around homesteads, but spreading across a
landscape.

Part of the mile of trail where an
infestation has spread from an abandoned
home.

Common name: Periwinkle
Scientific name: Vinca minor
Origin: Europe, Asia
Local habitat: wooded and partially wooded old homesteads
Reproduction: seeds and vines
Identifying features: low growth along the ground on woody vines, shiny evergreen ovate
leaves, blue 5 petal flowers.
Weaknesses: Tends to move slowly across landscapes. Dense patches facilitate the spread
of herbivores and disease.
Local Controls: none obvious
Outlook: It is mostly invasive near where it was planted, seldom travels far. This will
hopefully prevent if from becoming more than a local problem wherever it is
found.

start of infestation

end of infestation, @
200 yards from start

Common name: Japanese stiltgrass
Scientific name: Microstegium vimineum
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: wooded areas with partial sun. It usually starts along the edge of trails
and roads where people accidently carry the hitchhiking seeds and spreads from
there. Intermittent/seasonal streams are often a preferred growing location and a
corridor by which it spreads into the forest.
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: silver vein down middle of leaf, large dense stands which become
noticeable in late summer
Weaknesses: Many native and non-native relatives from which disease can evolve into a
bioeradicant. Tends to grow in well-traveled areas which facilitates the spread of
disease.
Local Controls: members of the Bipolaris fungi family that may have evolved from native
pathogenic fungi of Zea mays.
Outlook: The short term is bad by the rate at which this weed spread. However, in the long
term as is happening in the Midwest, it should be eradicated by Bipolaris fungi.

Common name: Canada thistle
Scientific name: Cirsium arvense
Origin: Eurasia
Local habitat: open fields
Reproduction: seeds and clones
Identifying features: Purple flower sits on top of a vase shaped flower head. Low growing
spiky blue green leaves in a floret when early in a growth cycle.
evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense patches facilitate the spread of herbivores
and disease. Clonal growth allows disease to spread through a patch without
genetic heterogeneity .
Local Controls: There are no effective controls at this time. However, it is the “poster child”
for what not to do with a non-native biocontrol.* Goats may be the best way of
controlling this plant in a pasture or open field.
Outlook: No local control is in sight even though this is part of a large family with the
potential to develop bioeradicants.
NOTE: *Rhinocyllus conicus was introduced to control this weed. Instead it went rogue and
started eating native thistles.

Common name: Mile-a-minute
Scientific name: Polygonum perfoliatum
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: edges of woods and open areas within woods
Reproduction: seed
Identifying features: blue green triangular leaves, fuchsia/green prickly stems, blankets an
area fast
Weaknesses: Many native relatives from which disease and herbivores can evolve to
become bioeradicants. Self pollinating. Dense stands facilitate the spread of
herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading
disease and herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes. Not
tolerant to cold/frost so dies if there is a late spring frost or an early fall frost.
Limited growing season in cooler areas, reducing size of plants and seed
production.
Local Controls: none, the non-native biocontrol appears to be failing. There is the possibility
that a disease is beginning to infect this plant.
Outlook: This plant is in a large family of related plants. Therefore, I expect it to go
extinct when native organisms catch up with it. I found it infesting a woodland
near the University of Delaware, the place where non-native biocontrols are being
studied and released in attempts to control it. This suggests that the non-native
biocontrol is failing.

After frost with Ailanthus altissima

Example of plants with similar physiology in close
proximity to P. perfoliatum.

States with Mile-a-minute and
expected short term trajectory
Collection

http://www.clker.com/clipart-eastern-u-s-map.html

My first concern with this plant is that
propagule spread is an important component of
how problems develop. With Mile-a-minute, it
is obvious that migrating birds are already
spreading the seeds along the species specific
eastern United States migration corridors. This
makes the plant a bad target for biocontrol as
the plant spreads too rapidly and too far. Unless
a bioeradicant system develops, this plant will
continue to spread without any hope of
containing or eradicating it.

My second concern with Mile-a-minute
biocontrols is the same as with most, a non-native
biocontrol brought in that goes rogue and starts
eating natives.
Testing of biocontrols is necessarily limited
to try to control the number of variables, reduce
time to release and reduce costs. This
unfortunately increases the probability that the
biocontrol will attack native plants and/or
otherwise disrupt the ecosystem.

The basis of this concern is threefold:
1.) too few native conspecifics, congeners,
confamilials are tested.
2.) too few generations of native plant/biocontrol
interactions are tested, which do not
represent ecological reality.
3.) plants with similar physical shape and other
attributes are not tested, especially those in
close proximity to the target plant in the field.

Which leads me to fear that due to the
limited understanding of the long term
ecological relationships and the narrow numbers
of organisms tested with the short time frame of
testing, biocontrols will jump from their targeted
plant to others, especially natives related by
genes, physical attributes and proximity.

My prediction is that the biocontrol,
Rhinoncomimus latipes, introduced for this plant
will begin going rogue within the next few years if
it has not already.

Common name: Oriental bittersweet
Scientific name: Celastrus orbiculatus
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: forests and fields
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: acuminate leaves towards and on the ends of new growth becoming
orbicular mature leaves, bright yellow/orange seeds in the fall. Vine is not hairy as
is poison ivy or shaggy like native grape.
Weaknesses: A close native relative from which disease and herbivores can evolve to
become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and
disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading disease and
Local Controls: None now. However, a disease was apparently forming at home on the
leaves of several plants.
Outlook: In time since it has a close native relative, I expect a native organism or more
probably organism system to begin to eradicate it.

Common name: Wineberry
Scientific name: Rubus phoenicolasius
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: woodlands, along the edges of road roads and trails
Reproduction: seeds and clones from stems
Identifying features: hairy red or green stems with a combination of soft fuzzy prickles and
hard thorns. Stems turn red in the fall. Fruit forms in pods which break open
about a week before ripening to clusters of bright red drupelets.
Weaknesses: Many native and possibly non-native relatives from which disease and
herbivores can evolve to become bioeradicants. Clonal stands facilitate the spread
of herbivores and disease. Birds eat the abundant fruit, potentially spreading
disease and herbivores between plants locally and across landscapes.
Local Controls: When I walk there appears to be disease and herbivory similar to native
blackberries and the native raspberries for which it was brought in to
hybridize with.
Outlook: Positive as I see disease and herbivory which appears to have moved from closely
related native raspberries.

Native raspberry showing disease which may
be in the process of being passed to non-native
wineberry.

Common name: Garlic mustard
Scientific name: Alliaria petiolata
Origin: Eurasia
Local habitat: the understory along trails and roads
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: it is one of the earliest forbs to bloom which has white flowers on
multiple stems up to mid-thigh high. According to Bernd Blossey of Ithaca College,
it needs earthworms to flourish so it will usually not be found where earthworms
have not been introduced.
Weaknesses: A member of a large family of native and non-native plants from which
diseases and herbivores can evolve to become bioeradicants.
Local Controls: Since it is in the mustard family, there are potential native bioeradicants
developing. Humans can help by picking it for flavoring hopelessly boring
English/German style cooking and as a nutrition source.
Outlook: Positive as there is an apparent bioeradicant already beginning to make an impact
and many native plants within the family.

Common name: Japanese barberry
Scientific name: Berberis thunbergii
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: the understory and along the margins of wooded areas
Reproduction: Seeds eaten by birds
Identifying features: thorns on woody stems, with red leaves and red berries in the fall on a
generally low growing shrub in the understory of a forest or along its edges.
Weaknesses: Dense patches facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease. Birds
consume the seeds potentially spreading herbivores and disease across small
and large landscapes.
Local Controls: none at this time except allowing the native understory deprive it of
light by control of Whitetailed deer.
Outlook: At best pessimistic for now unless deer are controlled. I continue to look at this
plant with hope. Our best action is to have the Pennsylvania Game Commission
stop trying to manage the deer herd for hunting and start managing it for
conservation. This includes stopping hunting of predators such as coyotes, which
will naturally reduce the size of the deer herd.

Common name: Winged burning bush
Scientific name: Euonymus alatus
Origin: temperate Asia
Local habitat: wooded areas as an understory plant
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: understory shrub with leaves which turn a bright red in the fall, green
irregularly shaped stems with brows “wings” on them
Weaknesses: dense patches facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease.
Local Controls: none I see so far, but I am looking
Outlook: The one dense patch I know of, Skinners Loops in Blue Marsh, appears to show no
signs of disappearing anytime soon. At the same time, I was shocked now that the
foliage has turned red to see just how many of these plants are around. The best
action is to remove these plants from nurseries and yards to stop the introduction
of these plants to places where they are not yet.

Common name: Purple loosestrife
Scientific name: Lythrum salicaria
Origin: Eurasia
Local habitat: wetlands, the borders of streams and lakes
Reproduction: seed
Identifying features: wetland plant with long spikes of purple flowers
Local Controls: none I am aware of
Weaknesses: Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease. Pollinators visit
often, potentially spreading disease and herbivores between plants locally and
across landscapes.
Outlook: One of the non-native biocontrols apparently may have taken a liking to a native
plant and gone rogue. Otherwise in time, I expect this plant to have herbivorous
insects and diseases use it as an energy source as there are native relatives.

Common name: Common teasel
Scientific name: Dipsacus fullonum
Origin: Europe
Local habitat: Open fields
Reproduction: seed
Identifying features: tall spiky stems with lavender inflorescences at the end during the
summer
Weaknesses: Dense stands facilitate the spread of herbivores and disease. Pollinators can
spread disease and herbivores throughout local dense stands and across
landscapes.
Local Controls: none I know of
Outlook: I have not extensively studied this plant yet, but expect a bioeradication system to
eventually develop.

Common name: Crown vetch
Scientific name: Coronilla varia
Origin: Penn State Department of Agriculture, Mediterranean basin
Local habitat: open fields and spaces
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: low lying ground cover with compound like leaves and
red/lavender/pink flowers
Weaknesses: Close native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can
and disease.
Local Controls: none I am aware of
Outlook: Since Penn State introduced it, there may be a considerable time before a native
system overwhelms it. However, because it is a legume, there should be ample
bioeradicants available which may adapt to it as an energy source. I am especially
expecting a fungus/beetle or a fungus/nematode system to develop from the
Fabaceae family.

Common name: Spotted knapweed
Scientific name: Centaurea stoebe
Origin: Eastern Europe, probably through contaminated seed
Local habitat: open fields and trails
Reproduction: seed
Identifying features: proliferate small purple to lavender loosely thistle-like flowers on
multiple branches, blue-green pinnatisect ground level foliage resembles lanceleafed Coreopsis
Weaknesses: Dense stands facilitate the development and spread of herbivores and disease.
Pollinators can spread disease and herbivores throughout local dense stands and
across landscapes.
Outlook: This is another plant I have not really studied although I have seen thousands of
them.

Common name: Lesser Celandine
Scientific name: Ranunculus ficaria
Origin: Europe
Local habitat: wooded flood plains
Reproduction: seeds and roots/bulbs
Identifying features: bright low to the ground yellow flowers in thick green broad-leafed
clumps in the spring.
Weaknesses: Many close native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores
can evolve to become bioeradicants. Dense stands facilitate the spread of
herbivores and disease.
Outlook: Since it is a ranunculus with many relatives, there is hope.

Common name: Privet
Scientific name: Ligustrum sp.
Origin: Europe
Local habitat: understory and edges of wooded area
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: a shrub with leaves which are even opposite and superficially similar to
Burning Bush, but stems are roundish and foliage does not turn bright red in the
fall.
Local Controls: none that I see at this time.
Outlook: As with many other plants, in time I expect a system will develop which will use
this plant as an energy source.

Common name: Dames rocket
Scientific name: Hesperis matronalis
Origin: Europe
Local habitat: open woodland
Reproduction: seed
Identifying features: light purple, deep purple and white flowers on a daisy-like
stem which blooms in mid-spring
Weaknesses: Close native and non-native relatives from which disease and herbivores can
and disease.
Outlook: I am uncertain with this plant as it was established early in the period of European
settlement and is now naturalized ornamental flower.

Common name: Russian olive
Scientific name: Elaeagnus angustifolia
Origin: Europe
Local habitat: the edges of fields and open fields, often forming hedgerows
Reproduction: seed
Identifying features: It is a large dense shrub with silvery leaves. In the spring the flowers
have a cloying scent. It has fewer thorns than its relative Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus
umbellata).
Weaknesses: Probably clones from only a couple individuals originally introduced resulting
in limited genetic heterogeneity. When a disease or herbivore begins to use this
as a food source this shrub has limited genetic tools from which to defend
itself.
Local Controls: none yet
Outlook: My hope is that this shrub will go down in the future due to a native insect/disease
combination. At the same time I hope that whitetail deer begin to heavily browse
the foliage.

Common name: Chinese lespedeza
Scientific name: Lespedeza cuneata
Origin: Asia and eastern Australia
Local habitat: dry areas with full sun
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: It resembles many plants common to dry areas. The long stems are
covered with small dense light green leaves coming from the central bottom part
of the plant.
Weaknesses: A member of a large family of plants including many native ones, both
ornamental and food crop, from which diseases and herbivores can develop.
Stands tend to be dense which facilitates the spread of disease and herbivores.
Local Controls: none yet
Outlook: This plant may have local relatives. If so, my expectations are that given enough
time and no human interference we should see this plant decline in the near
future.

Common name: Japanese hops
Scientific name: Humulus japonica
Origin: China
Local habitat: open fields and woodland borders with sufficient light
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: prickly cucumber-like vines with cone shaped flowers and seed heads
Weaknesses: This plant needs full sun to grow best and generally moist soils. Shade may kill
it. There are several native and non-native relatives which may serve as a source
of disease and herbivores. Dense patches of nearly identical plants will encourage
herbivory and disease to develop into bioeradicants.
Local Controls: none I know of
Outlook: It is not a species I have yet paid much attention to because it is not common.
However, reviewing photographs from last year, there appears to be insects and
fungi using it. At home, beer hops have been hammered by powdery mildew
which may make the jump to this plant.

Common name: Stinging nettle
Scientific name: Urtica dioica
Origin: Eurasia, some similar species may be native
Local habitat: wet areas
Reproduction: seeds and clones from roots
Identifying features: hairy stem which stings for hours or days when touched and distinct
hanging flowers
Weaknesses: Dense monocultural stands in wet areas with partial sun limit its range in a
landscape and encourage herbivores and diseases to develop. Native relatives
also encourage the development of bioeradicants.
Local Controls: apparently at least one moth species uses this as a larval food
Outlook: I have not studied it enough to know If anything uses it enough for food. Humans
can boil and eat it as a nutritious food.

Common name: Asian or Orange daylily
Scientific name: Hemerocallis fulva
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: mostly damp areas locally
Reproduction: seeds and root clones
Identifying features: the most common roadside daylily, medium orange flowers
Weaknesses: reproduction by clones in dense clumps limiting genetic heterogeneity.
Local Controls: none obvious
Outlook: This plant has been around locally a long time, but has a few issues which may
cause it problems in the future such as most of the reproduction is by roots which
tend to not spread far at any one time.

Common name: Perilla
Scientific name: Perilla frutescens
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: moist but not wet woodlands as part of the understory
Reproduction: seeds
Identifying features: square stem like in all mints, purple flowers, broad toothed leaves
Weaknesses: it is a member of the mint family which has issues with herbivores and fungal
infections.
Local Controls: I am looking at the same powdery mildews that affect other mint family
members
Outlook: Hopeful since it is in a family that contains many local native and
non-native
relatives.

A bioeradicant may come from this plant,
Monarda fistulosa.

Common name: Common reed
Scientific name: Phragmites australis
Origin: Eurasia
Local habitat: fresh and brackish wet areas, pollution tolerant
Reproduction: seeds and clones
Identifying features: tall reed with a flag on top. It is supposed to be taller than the “native”
species.
Weaknesses: Several controls have been slowly moving here from the rest of its huge range.
Large dense stands of clones limit genetic heterogeneity and make it a target for
herbivorous insects and diseases.
Local Controls: a few insects use the plant for food
Outlook: My expectation is that within 50 years, this plant will be heavily beaten back due
to accidental importation of herbivores and diseases from Eurasia and native
organisms developing a taste for it. It has potential for commercial use in
products requiring easily harvestable fiber.

Common name: Japanese knotweed
Scientific name: Fallopia japonica
Origin: Asia
Local habitat: wetlands, along streams and rivers
Reproduction: mostly asexual from pieces of rhizomes and stems, some possibly by
seed
Identifying features: huge beds of canes with broad spear-head shaped leaves,
inflorescences of white flowers at the end of stems when in bloom
Weaknesses: Dense stands of clones limit the genetic heterogeneity making it an easy
target for herbivorous insects and disease.
Local Controls: none now
Outlook: There appears to be a start to disease and herbivory. Since this grows in
dense clonal stands, I expect it to begin to have visible problems in the near
future.

As an ecologist, I regularly work with an almost
infinite set of variables. To even attempt to
reduce this huge set of variables into a few
easily measured and understood is insanity,
while being morally and ethically wrong because
it is not an accurate portrayal of reality and can
lead to disastrous consequences.

Biocontrol vs. Bioeradication
Medicating the ecology vs. understanding and
working with it

The same misguided attitudes which we
experience in medicine we experience in
ecology, everything needs fixing immediately.
We are constantly try to fix everything without
first understanding what we are trying to fix.

Bioeradication garden – A form of Indirect
Bioeradication which is a garden of local native
plants that provide a resource at any life stage that
a native bioeradicant needs to be effective as a
bioeradicant such as food, egg laying sites,
overwintering sites, protection from predators, …, .
Presently we have an experimental bioeradication
garden in our yard to determine nectar sources
used by Atteva aurea.

Bioeradication resource – Any naturally
occurring environmental resource a native
bioeradicant needs to be effective as a
bioeradicant.

Resource use – This is the use by a native
bioeradicant of a native or non-native resource.
In the case of a non-native resource it takes time
to adapt to using it through either learning to
use it (behavioral changes) or genetic changes,
often both.

Resource familiarity – This is the amount of use
of a resource by a native bioeradicant. In the
case of non-native (invasive) resources time is
required for a native bioeradicant to adapt to a
non-native through either behavioral or genetic
changes and begin driving the non-native to
extinction.

Resource heritage – This is the passing on of a
behavioral and/or genetic adaptation to a
resource by a native bioeradicant. This can be
through learning, by genetic change or more
probably a combination of both. It can spread
through a species horizontally as one organism
learns from another or vertically as it is passed
on to/through offspring through learning or
genes.

Herbivory, predation and parasitism –
Relationships in which one organism or groups
of organisms benefit by using other organisms
as an energy source. This does not imply that all
the benefit accrues to the herbivore, predator or
parasite as there are often unseen benefits to
both groups of organisms.

Direct competition – When an organism
competes directly with another organism for a
resource. Examples are two species of bees
competing for a nectar source or a vulture and a
crow competing for an animal carcass. This is
good if a native bioeradicant is successfully
outcompeting a non-native organism, driving it
to extinction. It is bad when a non-native is
driving a native to extinction.

Positive indirect competition –Positive when an
organism provides a resource needed for a
native organism to compete with a non-native
organism. Knowing how to manipulate this is
better than introducing a non-native organism
into an ecosystem to control another non-native
organism. An example is providing plants as egg
laying sites for a native butterfly that competes
for nectar with a non-native species such as the
cabbage butterfly.
Indirect Bioeradication can be a result of this.

Negative indirect competition - Using a native
organism to destroy a biological resource that a
non-native organism needs which is in
competition with that or another native
organism. This may be planting tall native
wildflowers in a meadow to destroy a grass
needed by a non-native moth for food, egg
laying sites or shelter.

Resource enhancement/depletion – This is
enhancing a resource needed by a native
bioeradicant or depleting a resource needed by a
non-native to help eradicate a non-native
species.
This may be as simple as removing a dam to
allow fish to migrate along a river corridor,
adding stepping stones in a creek to facilitate
drinking by native animals or changing a dry
meadow back to a flooded meadow to remove
burrow sites for a non-native bee or mammal.

Mutualism – Two or more organisms which
cooperate to the benefit of each other.
Bioeradicant systems reflect this at different
levels of relationship by eliminating a non-native
from the ecosystem through (unintended)
cooperation, different feeding strategies which
enhance the success of both species, behavioral
adaptations or other strategies.

Competition – Relationships where certain
organisms benefit through a variety of
mechanisms to the detriment of others without
necessarily using them as an energy source.
This is an essential element in bioeradication.

Enemy Release Hypothesis (ERH) - It is the
disease/pest/competitor version of the Founder
Effect but exchanges genes for the biological
controls. This frees the plant to focus on growth
and reproduction. In essence it is a pest
bottleneck effect for reducing the hindrances
which a non-native has in its native ecosystem.
The final effect is the elimination of many of the
restraints which prevented the non-native
organism from taking over its home ecosystem.

Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA)
– the evolution of a non-native organism to a new
ecosystem by ridding itself of genes and genotypes
which are unsuitable in the introduced ecosystem
and developing new genes or genetic synergies
that increase its ability to adapt and survive. It is
mostly seen on the front end of the sigmoidal
curve of adaption, exponential population growth
and plateauing that is found during the
introduction of most invasive non-native
organisms into a new ecosystem.

Biocontrol target selection concerns
involving propagule spread

Propagule spread is an important
component of how problems develop. With
Mile-a-minute, it is obvious that migrating birds
spread the seeds first locally then along the
species specific migration corridors. As more
species develop a taste for the berries, they will
too spread the seeds along their migration
corridors, … .

In a similar way, the seeds of the various
honeysuckles and Multiflora rose are spread
primarily by birds, such as mocking birds in the
case of multifora rose. In both of these
examples native or native/non-native hybrid
systems are forming to eradicate the non-native
invasive plants. This is the only way possible to
eradicate these plants.

In contrast, the seeds of the various
species of grapehyacinth, (Muscari sp.) and
periwinkle (Vinca sp.) spread through a slow and
localized process which deposits most of the
seeds within a foot or clone sequentially from a
parent plant . If a migratory bird or mammal
develops a taste for the seeds or vegetatively
reproductive parts, this will become a major
problem the same as with the aforementioned
species. However, with infestations such as
these, minimal intervention will be successful.

In between these examples are plants such
as Japanese stilt grass and garlic mustard which
depend on animals, including humans, to spread
their hitchhiking seeds.
Unfortunately, humans are very efficient at
spreading hitchhiking seeds long distances.

Concepts demonstrated graphically

Non-native invasive

Population

Native bioeradicant

Native congeners of
non-native invader

time
The expected population curves for native bioeradicant use. The baseline population for native
organisms changes as the native bioeradicants adapt to the non-native invasive and eat a few
more of the native while the system comes back into balance as the non-native is destroyed.
There is some recoverable risk to the native ecosystem, but not the unrecoverable risk of
introducing non-native biocontrols.

Pioneer non-native invasive
Native organisms
Secondary non-native invasives

Population

Native congeners of
non-native invasive

Non-native
biocontrols

time
A more complex version of what happens when a (pioneer) non-native plant is introduced
followed by its non-native biocontrol. The native system collapses allowing secondary nonnatives to enter.

Population or
concentration

Non-native invasive

Chemical defenses of
non-native invasive
population

Non-native
specialist biocontrol

time
This diagram demonstrates what happens when a non-native specialist biocontrol is
reintroduced to its non-native host.

The key to finding a native biocontrol
(system) for a plant is to find an
organism which is a generalist
herbivore for a family or genus and a
specialist to that family or genus.

This means that the bioeradicant has
the genetic ability to switch from one
plant to another and yet will not cause
the extinction of coevolved food
sources.

A. aurea larvae eat other Simbouracae
family members, but only eats
members of this family.

A. aurea larvae will preferentially eat a
non-coevolved food source because
the food source does not have the
defenses to A. aurea that a coevolved
food source has.

Hence, an easy meal that is a higher
quality food source (higher energy
return for energy expended) than a
native coevolved one since it spends
less energy dealing with chemical and
physical defenses.

At the same time it is embedded in a
system of a mite (A. ailanthii) and
several diseases.

Which together interact to cause
eradication of A. altissima.

Unique features of this system:
1. A. altissima is the only food for A. aurea larvae in most of the A.
altissima range
2. A. aurea adults are broadly generalist nectar feeders
3. A. ailanthii is an apparent specialist to A. altissima
4. A. aurea larvae have no other local food sources. The adults have
spread themselves beyond their normal range by following nectar
sources and egg laying sites.
5. A. aurea and A. ailanthii are the vectors for several A. altissima
diseases
6. A. ailanthii apparently hitchhikes between A. altissima trees on
birds and A. aurea.
7. A. aurea appears to evolving to colder temperatures as witnessed
by their presence feeding on goldenrod in central Pennsylvania in
mid-November after frost and freeze.

How to develop an Ailanthus
biocontrol system:

1.) Do not apply pesticides to the
surrounding area – herbicides,
insecticides, fungicides, … .

2. Plant a wide variety of native high
nectar flowers nearby so there are
high quality food sources from midspring to first heavy freeze for the
adults to feed on.

So far I have found adult Atteva aurea
on daisy-like flowers and at least 2
species of goldenrod from August to
mid-November. I am still not sure
what they feed on from early spring
when the Ailanthus leaves are just
beginning to bloom to mid-August but
expect it to be other flowers with
compact inflorescences.

Biocontrol and Bioeradication PPT given Nov. 21, 2013

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Biocontrol and Bioeradication PPT given Nov. 21, 2013

Similar to Biocontrol and Bioeradication PPT given Nov. 21, 2013 (20)

More from Richard Gardner

More from Richard Gardner (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Biocontrol and Bioeradication PPT given Nov. 21, 2013