This is a short paper on Bioeradication containing definitions and theory. It is a work in progress which is being further developed throughout the field season of 2015 and ... .

1. Bioeradication
This is an extension of a pair of presentations I gave at the NENHC 2013 in April of this year on the
control of non-native invasive species. The first paper was on Bioeradication, with examples. The second was
a presentation of Ailanthus altissima chemical control and bioeradication.
As in all things biological and especially ecological, it is not complete due to the complexity of biological
systems and even greater complexity of ecological systems. The ideas and examples are still a work in
progress. However, as is self-evident, what is presented here describes and explains the much safer use of
Native Bioeradicants as an alternative to the dangerous practice of Classical Biocontrol.
Classical biocontrol – the introduction of non-native organisms in the attempt to reduce the effects of other
introduced non-native organisms on ecosystems. This is a losing proposition as the goal is not to remove the
problems, just reduce their effects. 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 native organisms in the ecosystem and in the non-native biocontrol such as the non-native
biocontrol changing food sources to native organisms, acting as a food subsidy for native organisms which
unbalances the native food web with multiple possible consequences, competition for nesting sites, breeding
resources or any other resource with which it is in competition with native organisms, introduction of disease(s)
to native organisms which may cause their extinction, … . Introducing the non-native invasive induced genetic
and behavioral changes in native organisms. Therefore introducing another non-native to try to correct the
prior problem will also induce genetic and behavioral changes in the native organisms.
Another way to look at it is that Classical Biocontrol is a mechanistic attempt to control an ecosystem
with one or more non-native organisms. It does not attempt to bring an ecosystem back into the original
balance. Instead it causes a new system to develop that is inherently alien to that ecosystem.
Bioeradication – The extinction of a non-native (invasive) species from an ecosystem using native organisms.
This is a winning proposition as the goal is the regeneration of the ecosystem by eliminating the non-native
problem from the ecosystem using native organisms which minimizes 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. The goal of biocontrol is to use non-
native species to reduce the effects of an invasive non-native organism on an ecosystem. One eliminates
without the chance of resurgence a non-native species. The other leaves the non-native intact and in place
with the chance of evolving into an overwhelming problem while introducing other non-natives with the same
the potential to evolve into overwhelming problems.
The biggest issue with bioeradication is the definition of a native species. Rose rosette disease
probably started along the Pacific Coast in a native rose species. That it is now local without deliberate
introductions qualifies it as a native species. Atteva aurea is native to the American neo-tropics. That it found
a non-native food source, followed it around North America and into new ecosystems on its own makes it a
native species. The same is true with the fungi destroying Japanese Stilt Grass. It probably evolved on native
grasses such as Zea mays. It is spreading on its own without deliberate human introduction. Therefore, it is a
native species. However, taking a species from one ecosystem and introducing into another where it has not
historically been resident by accident or deliberately, even if it is only a matter of meters, means that it is not a
native species.
Enemy Release Hypothesis (ERH) – Immediately when removed from its home ecosystem an organism
takes only a small fraction of its biocontrols (and competitors) with it. During transport and when introduced
into a new ecosystem other biocontrols (and competitors) drop out, further reducing the number of control
organisms. It is the disease/pest/competitor version of the Founder Effect in which a small segment of a

2. population immigrates to a new location, taking only a small subset of the original population’s genes with it.
As in the Founder Effect, individuals (control organisms and competitors) may continue to drop out due to
random chance or environmental unsuitability, while others adapt to the new conditions with unpredictable
consequences. The final effect is the elimination of many of the restraints which prevented the non-native
organism from taking over its home ecosystem.
This frees the non-native from many of its health and competition issues and allows it to focus on growth and
reproduction in the new ecosystem. This is one of the major reasons that an invader can out-compete natives.
Natives are kept in balance with the rest of the ecosystem due to direct and indirect native competitors and
native organisms that use the native as an energy source.
Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) – This starts on at the beginning of the introduction to a
new ecosystem. It is most strongly seen on the front end or beginning of the Gaussian curve of an invasion. It
is the genetic shakeout where genes and genotypes that are unfit for the new ecosystem go extinct. At the
same time, genes and genotypes that increase the fitness/invasiveness of an invader increase or develop and
proliferate. This is parallel to the Founder Effect in populations. The beginning is at removal from the original
ecosystem and transport to the new ecosystem as even this requires special adaptations. However, it most
strongly develops from the moment of introduction to the new ecosystem and through the early stages of
logarithmic expansion. The process continues throughout its residency in the new ecosystem until it becomes
extinct by a native (system) which evolves to drive it extinct through competition, herbivory, disease or any of
numerous other processes alone or more likely as part of or in cooperation with other processes.
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. Unfortunately this is not the goal of using non-native
biocontrols on non-native invasives. They are looking for control, not extinction of both of the introduced
species (control and invasive) and groups of species.
Bioeradicant 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.
Direct bioeradication – This is the use of a native organism or native organism system as a bioeradicant for a
specific organism. In the case of Ailanthus altissima it may be introducing a native wilt pathogen such as
Fusarium oxysporum or Verticillium dahliae to work with Aculops ailanthii and Atteva aurea.
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 … .
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, …, . Bioremediation can be a direct
result of using a bioeradication garden by providing native organisms to replace the extinct non-native
organisms.
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 it requires time for a native bioeradicant to adapt to it through either behavioral or
genetic changes and begin driving the non-native to extinction.

3. 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.
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.
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 organisms.
Direct competition – When an organism competes directly with another organism for a resource. Examples
are two species of bees competing for a pollen source or a vulture and a crow competing for an animal
carcass. This is good if a native bioeradicant is successfully competing with a non-native organism and driving
it to extinction. It is bad when a non-native is driving a native to extinction.
Indirect competition – Positive is 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 with a non-native species such as the cabbage moth. Indirect
Bioeradication can be a result of this.
Negative is using a native organism to destroy a biological resource that a non-native organism needs
which is in competition with a native organism. This may be planting native wildflowers in a meadow to remove
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 to help it
eradicate a non-native species. By changing the conditions in an ecosystem, the competitors’ dominance and
status in the ecosystem changes. This may be a change in the humidity which changes the fungi associated
with a competitor, either increasing or reducing its ability to compete and function in an ecosystem. Or
changing the conditions needed by a native competitor on that competitor. It is similar to a domino effect
except that it is about changes on one component of an ecosystem causing changes on another organism
which affects that organism’s ability to survive and/or compete in that ecosystem. This is a strategy which
should be used carefully and with much forethought due to the very strong possibility that by changing the
abiotic environment, more damage than good can be done. The same is true with the biological components
of an ecosystem. One change can cascade uncontrollably in an unforeseen direction which causes more harm
than the original problem did.
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 meadow back to a flooded
meadow to remove burrow sites.
Bioremediation – the use of native organisms to displace or replace non-native organisms as they are
eliminated from an ecosystem. This is an expansion of the traditional definition of bioremediation into an
ecological usage beyond the microbial level. Whereas, traditional bioremediation is the use of microorganisms
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.

4. The use of Indirect Bioeradication is one inherent way of doing this as it places native species which
already have a place in the ecosystem back into the natural succession process. This fills the ecosystem’s
temporal and spatial gaps left by the eradication of the non-native species. This in turn prevents reinvasion by
non-native species.
In Bioeradication we are trying to understand all the relationships within an ecosystem to find native
organisms to hinder and eradicate non-native organisms. We are looking more for systems composed of
many organisms than single organisms or “magic bullets” as systems are more stable due to their complexity
and composed of multiple strategies for destroying non-native invasives. Therefore, bioeradication systems
are more able to adapt to changing environmental conditions, the changing gene structure and the changing
strategies used by an invasive non-native.
Adaptation of Novel Weapons or their development is a major component of EICA in the ongoing and
continual changes of adaptation to changing ecosystem conditions by non-native species. Bioeradicants are
able to neutralize the Novel Weapons by being immune to their effects due to experience with natives using
the same or similar “weapons”, adapting present defenses or by developing new defenses. The more native
congeners or confamiliars of the invasive the native bioeradicant uses, the more apt it is to have the genetic
and/or behavioral tools to pace with and out pace the changes in the non-native. Therefore, also the larger
the number of congeners and confamiliars in an ecosystem, the greater the chance a bioeradicant/bioeradicant
system will develop. This is due to potential bioeradicants being adapted to the defenses of native congeners
or confamiliars and having been potentially exposed to similar “weapons” or the genes responsible for them.
Thus the defenses, the ability to adapt already in place defenses or the ability to develop new defenses to
Novel Weapons is already in place in bioeradicants. The result is either the non-native is outcompeted by the
bioeradicant or the non-native is used as an energy source by the bioeradicant. Most probably it is a
combination of both that will be most effective.
ERH and EICA are continuing processes throughout the residency on non-natives in the new
ecosystem, including failed introductions. The evolution of bioeradicants begins at the moment of introduction
of the non-native. After the non-native is eradicated, the native bioeradicants remain in the system with genes
and physical/chemical structures already in place should the non-native or a relative try to reenter the
ecosystem. This allows the native bioeradicants to swiftly deal with new attempts of invasion by the non-native
or its close relatives.
Bioeradication starts being effective when native bioeradicants evolve beyond the effects of ERH and
faster than EICA can keep pace with the evolving new defenses and adaptations of native organisms and the
changing conditions which cause them to either use the non-native as an energy source or out-compete it for
an essential resource.
The EICA/Bioeradicant process is a continuing process until the non-native goes extinct in the invaded
ecosystem.
Combined, EICA and ERH explain the first parts of an invasion, up into the logarithmic growth. What
they do not explain is the evolution of native organisms into bioeradicants and bioeradicant systems when
population densities begin to level and crash at similar rate as their increase in the ecosystem. When plotted,
this will be similar to a bell curve or Gaussian distribution as natives adapt to the non-natives and drive them to
extinction by outcompeting with them for resources or by the non-native becoming an energy source for the
bioeradicant.
The highest probability is that a bioeradicant system develops which contains multiple organisms using
multiple strategies which outcompete the non-native for a critical resource(s) and/or use it as an energy
source. That this will be a system means that it will be slower to form and become obvious due to the
increased complexity as compared to a biocontrol or a bioeradicant, even though individual components will
develop at different rates and become apparent at different times, seasonal and temporal.

5. There is a critical point in time or critical population density of the non-native needed for a
bioeradicant/a bioeradicant system to develop and target the non-native. Once this point is reached there will
be decreases in the population size and density of the non-native in line with a Gaussian curve, i.e. a
temporary continuation of the increase in population size of the non-native followed by a plateau or peak and
then a decrease as the effects of the bioeradicant (system) begins to take effect. The more native congeners
and confamiliars of the non-native and its biocontrols, the potentially lower the critical point will be on the curve
both in time and the population density of the non-native. There is also a spatial component in that the closer
spaced members of the non-native are, the easier it is to spread genes, behavioral patterns and members of
the bioeradicant (system) to other individuals in the non-native population. In other words, critical densities
may be the overall population size of a non-native organism in an ecosystem along with the population density
of organisms in a set area and the density of the potential bioeradicants. This is seen with Lonicera morrowii,
Rosa multiflora and Ailanthus altissima. All three invasives not only have a high density of individuals in an
ecosystem, but have dense stands of individuals. Thus the spread of the bioeradicants, their genes and
behaviors are doubly enhanced due to stand density and the overall density of the invasive in an ecosystem.
The biggest question asked about bioeradication is why it has not been seen and recorded? The
answer is threefold. The first reason is that we are not looking for it. Second, bioeradication may happen
before we are aware of a problem it took to extinction. Third, is that this may take many years to hundreds of
years to happen. In essence, the process of bioeradication may happen too fast to be noticed. Or, it may
happen too slowly to be noticed by a researcher or school of researchers.
The most important part of what is being presented is that it is not complicated. Humans have the
horrid ability to complicate the simple and obvious. They also have the destructive desire and ability to tinker.
After they are done tinkering, bad data is gathered and called good because the numbers meet certain flawed
parameters. Whereas, if the tinkering was not done in the first place, there is no need to tinker again and the
data gathered is actually good. A prime example of the tinkering mindset is seen in my health issues –
diabetes and bipolar II. For diabetes, instead of eating healthy, avoiding toxic chemical rich foods and
exercising, medications are prescribed, artificial sweeteners are suggested and a whole industry is developed
that would not be necessary if we did not tinker with the foods in the first place and went out for a walk every
day. The same is true with bipolar II. Instead of dealing holistically with the condition, we are fed medications
until we are insensate and celebrate because we have “controlled” it. We do the same with ecological
systems, tinker until it breaks and then tinker again to try to fix it. Then celebrate our apparent successes.
Finally, biology and ecology are tremendously complex. Reducing phenomena down to one or two
rules or variables is unrealistic. As scientists, we search for absolute and straightforward answers in the
simplest terms. Unfortunately, for every apparent absolute rule in biology and ecology, there are many shades
and variations. What is written here is an outline in the broadest sense of what happens in an ecosystem, not
finitely detailed descriptions with all the variables. For instance, with Ailanthus altissima, the herbivorous
insects which feed on it and the pathogenic fungi which infect it require different conditions to flourish. What is
true in a field is not necessarily true on the edge of a wetland where there is more available water. Low
moisture favors the herbivorous insects. Higher moisture favors the pathogenic fungi. Both sets of organism
are present in both situations. However, the effects of each organism differ in the different conditions, even
though the combination is often fatal in both situations to Ailanthus altissima.
Constructive input is asked for so this concept can be strengthened and safer practices developed than
are presently used.
Now it is time for me to take a walk in the woods.
Richard Gardner
rtgardner3@yahoo.com
July 10, 2013
An example of using native organisms directly and event better, indirectly, to eradicate invasive non-
native plants is found with Ailanthus altissima. Recent research suggests planting compound flowers such as
members of the Asteraceae and Menthus families and other nectar sources such as Clethra nearby. This

6. attracts Atteva aurea, a direct bioeradicant for Ailanthus altissima and other insects which may carry Aculops
ailanthii, an eriophyoid mite that is an Ailanthus altissima specialist, from tree to tree. This requires research to
know the local insects which land on Ailanthus altissima and the plants which are potential food sources for the
local native insects and Atteva aurea. The local native insects and nectar sources will be broadly similar
across landscapes, but differ in each landscape. So what is native to one landscape is not necessarily native
to another. However, due to the broad range of nectar sources used by Atteva aurea and the large number of
insects that land on Ailanthus altissima, there are a lot of options for plants to use.