Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 1145–1158 | Cite as

Population Dynamics and Potential for Biological Control of an Exotic Invasive Shrub in Hawaiian Rainforests

  • Saara J. DeWaltEmail author
Article

Abstract

Introduction of biological control agents to reduce the abundance of exotic invasive plant species is often considered necessary but risky. I used matrix projection models to investigate the current population dynamics of Clidemia  hirta (Melastomataceae), an invasive shrub, in two rainforest stands on the island of Hawaii and to predict the efficacy of hypothetical biological control agents in reducing population growth rates. Stage-structured matrix models were parameterized with field data collected over 3 years from 2906 C. hirta plants in a recently invaded forest with an open overstory (Laupahoehoe) and 600 plants in a less recently invaded forest with a closed canopy (Waiakea). Asymptotic population growth rates (λ) for both populations in all years were greater than one, demonstrating that both populations were growing. Composite elasticities were high for the seedling life-history stage and fecundity, and near-term demographic elasticities suggested that changes in seedling survival would have the largest effect on population size in the short term. However, simulations showed that almost 100% of seedlings or new recruits produced per reproductive adult would have to be destroyed to cause populations to go locally extinct under current environmental conditions. Herbivores or pathogens that decrease survival across all vegetative stages by 12% at Waiakea and 64% at Laupahoehoe were projected to cause the populations to decline. Thus, biocontrol agents that reduce survival of multiple life-history stages rather than seed production should be pursued to control C. hirta in Hawaiian rainforests.

Keywords

biological control Clidemia  hirta demography elasticity analysis invasive species matrix models near-term dynamics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvarez-Buylla ER (1994). Density dependence and patch dynamics in tropical rain forests: matrix models and applications to a tree species. American Naturalist 143: 155–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernal R (1998). Demography of the vegetable ivory palm Phytelephas  seemannii in Colombia and the impact of seed harvesting. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierzychudek P (1999). Looking backwards: assessing the projections of a transition matrix model. Ecological Applications 9: 1278–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruna EM (2003). Are plant populations in fragmented habitats recruitment limited? Tests with an Amazonian herb. Ecology 84: 923–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caswell H (2001). Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis and Interpretation. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawley MJ (1989). Insect herbivores and plant population dynamics. Annual Review of Entomology 34: 531–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crews TE, Kitayama K, Fownes JH, Riley RH, Herbert DA, Mueller-Dombois D and Vitousek PM (1995). Changes in soil phosphorus fractions and ecosystem dynamics across a long chronosequence in Hawaii. Ecology 76: 1407–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Plaisier A and Caswell H (1986). Elasticity: the relative contributions of demographic parameters to population growth rate. Ecology 67: 1427–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrlen J (2000). Elasticities: a review of methods and model limitations. Ecology 81: 607–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Loach CJ (1981). Prognosis for biological control of weeds in southwestern U.S. rangelands. In: Delfosse, ES (eds) Proceedings of the V International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp 175–199. CSIRO, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  11. Debach P and Rosen D (1991). Biological Control by Natural Enemies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. DeWalt SJ (2005). Effects of natural enemies on tropical woody-plant invasions. In: Burslem, DFRP, Pinard, M and Hartley, SE (eds) Biotic Interactions in the Tropics, pp 459–483. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. DeWalt SJ, Denslow JS and Ickes K (2004). Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion of the invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Ecology 85: 471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fingleton B (1984). Models of Category Counts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox GA and Gurevitch J (2000). Population numbers count: tools for near-term demographic analysis. American Naturalist 156: 242–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerlach J (1993). Invasive Melastomataceae in Seychelles. Oryx 27: 22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giambelluca TW, Nullet MA and Schroeder TA (1986). Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffmann JH and Moran VC (1991). Biocontrol of a perennial legume, Sesbania punicea, using a florivorous weevil, Trichapion lativentre: weed population dynamics with a scarcity of seeds. Oecologia 88: 574–576Google Scholar
  19. Hoffmann JH and Moran VC (1998). The population dynamics of an introduced tree, Sesbania punicea, in South Africa, in response to long-term damage caused by different combinations of three species of biological control agents. Oecologia 114: 343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horvitz CC and Schemske DW (1995). Spatiotemporal variation in demographic transitions of a tropical understory herb: projection matrix analysis. Ecological Monographs 65: 155–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howarth FG (1991). Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annual Review of Entomology 36: 485–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huffaker CB and Kennett CE (1959). A ten-year study of vegetational changes associated with biological control of Klamath weed. Journal of Range Management 12: 69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lefkovitch LP (1965). The study of population growth in organisms grouped by stages. Biometrics 21: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Louda SM, Kendall D, Connor J and Simberloff D (1997). Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277: 1088–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. (2001). MATLAB 6.0 (Release 12). Natick, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. McEvoy PB and Coombs EM (1999). Biological control of plant invaders: regional patterns, field experiments and structured population models. Ecological Applications 9: 387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McEvoy PB, Cox C and Coombs E (1991). Successful biological control of ragwort, Senecio jacobaea, by introduced insects in Oregon. Ecological Applications 1: 430–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McFadyen REC (1998). Biological control of weeds. Annual Review of Entomology 43: 369–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Moran VC, Hoffmann JH and Olckers T (2004). Politics and ecology in the management of alien invasive woody trees: the pivotal role of biological control agents that diminish seed production. In: Cullen, J (eds) Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp 434–439. CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakahara LM, Burkhart RM and Funasaki GY (1992). Review and status of biological control of Clidemia in Hawaii. In: Stone, CP, Tunison, JT, and Smith, CW (eds) Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and Research, pp 452–465. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Parker IM (2000). Invasion dynamics of Cytisus  scoparius: a matrix model approach. Ecological Applications 10: 726–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Kareiva PM, Williamson MH, Von Holle B, Moyle PB, Byers JE and Goldwasser L (1999). Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological Invasions 1: 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R and Morrison D (2000). Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50: 53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinard M (1993). Impacts of stem harvesting on populations of Iriartea deltoidea (Palmae) in an extractive reserve in Acre, Brazil. Biotropica 25: 2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Radford IJ, Nicholas DM and Brown JR (2001). Assessment of the biological control impact of seed predators on the invasive shrub Acacia nilotica (Prickly acacia) in Australia. Biological Control 20: 262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Renner SS, Clausing G, Cellinese N and Meyer K (2001). Melastomataceae. In: Larsen, K and Nielsen, I (eds) Flora of Thailand, pp 412–496. The Forest Herbarium, Royal Forest Department, Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  37. SAS Institute (2000) SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 8, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Shea K and Kelly D (1998). Estimating biocontrol agent impact with matrix models: Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Ecological Applications 8: 824–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sheil D (1994). Naturalized and invasive species in the evergreen forests of the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 32: 66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheppard AW, Hodge P, Paynter Q and Rees M (2002). Factors affecting invasion and persistence of broom Cytisus  scoparius in Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simberloff D and Stiling P (1996a). How risky is biological control?. Ecology 77: 1965–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simberloff D and Stiling P (1996b). Risks of species introduced for biological control. Biological Conservation 78: 185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith CW (1992). Distribution, status, phenology, rate of spread and management of Clidemia in Hawaii. In: Stone, CP, Tunison, JT, and Smith, CW (eds) Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and Research, pp 241–253. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Honolulu, Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomas MB and Willis AJ (1998). Biocontrol – risky but necessary?. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Valverde T and Silvertown J (1998). Variation in the demography of a woodland understorey herb (Primula vulgaris) along the forest regeneration cycle: projection matrix analysis. Journal of Ecology 86: 545–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wester LL and Wood HB (1977). Koster’s curse (Clidemia  hirta), a weed pest in Hawaiian forests. Environmental Conservation 4: 35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolfe E and Morris J (1996). Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. US Geological Survey Map I-2524-A. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. Zimmermann HG and Moran VC (1982). Ecology and management of cactus weeds in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 78: 314–320Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations