Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, 13:2077 | Cite as

Anthropogenic drivers of gypsy moth spread

  • Kevin M. Bigsby
  • Patrick C. Tobin
  • Erin O. Sills
Original Paper

Abstract

The gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), is a polyphagous defoliator introduced to Medford, Massachusetts in 1869. It has spread to over 860,000 km2 in North America, but this still only represents ¼ of its susceptible host range in the United States. To delay defoliation in the remaining susceptible host range, the government maintains a barrier zone and a quarantine, reflecting a presumption that anthropogenic factors are important in the spread of gypsy moth. We develop a model framework that relates these factors along with biophysical characteristics to a county’s susceptibility to gypsy moth invasion. We then compile a dataset for counties within 200 km of the infested area and use trap catch data from 1999 to 2007 to estimate the probability of gypsy moth presence. As expected, gypsy moth is more likely to be found close to the population front and to traps that recorded moths in the previous year. However, when controlling for these factors, our most robust finding is that the use of wood for home heating and energy is consistently positively correlated with the presence of gypsy moth. In contrast, the movement of wood products by industry, which is actively regulated by state and federal governments, is rarely correlated with the presence of gypsy moth. This is consistent with effective regulation of the movement of goods by industry, but not by the public. Our findings provide empirical support for the importance and challenge of firewood as a vector for non-native forest insects.

Keywords

Anthropogenic dispersal Lymantria dispar Firewood Non-native species Spread 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Fred P. Hain and Heather M. Cheshire (North Carolina State University), and Andrew M. Liebhold (USDA Forest Service) for their help with developing the framework for this analysis. We also thank the Slow-the-Spread program for providing gypsy moth trap catch data. In addition, we thank the reviewers and editor for their thoughtful and constructive comments.

References

  1. Andow D, Kareiva P, Levin SA, Okubo A (1990) Spread of invading organisms. Landsc Ecol 4:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BenDor TK, Metcalf SS, Fontenot LE, Sangunett B, Hannon B (2006) Modeling the spread of the emerald ash borer. Ecol Model 197:221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossenbroek JM, Kraft CE, Nekola JC (2001) Prediction of long-distance dispersal using gravity models: zebra mussel invasion of inland lakes. Ecol Appl 11:1778–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brockerhoff EG, Bain J, Kimberley M, Knizek M (2006) Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Can J For Res-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 36:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell RW, Sloan RJ (1977) Forest stand responses to defoliation by gypsy moth. For Sci M19Google Scholar
  6. Cavey JF, Hoebeke ER, Passoa S, Lingafelter SW (1998) A new exotic threat to North American hardwood forests: an Asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis (motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). I. Larval description and diagnosis. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 100:373–381Google Scholar
  7. Clifford P, Richardson S, Hemon D (1989) Assessing the significance of the correlation between 2 spatial processes. Biometrics 45:123–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson CB, Gottschalk KW, Johnson JE (1999) Tree mortality following defoliation by the European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) in the United States: a review. For Sci 45:74–84Google Scholar
  9. di Castri F (1989) History of biological invasions with emphasis on the Old World. In: Drake J, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FS, Rejmanek M, Williamson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, New York, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  10. Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Global hot spots of biological invasions: evaluating options for ballast-water management. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 271:575–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drake DAR, Mandrak NE (2010) Least-cost transportation networks predict spatial interaction of invasions vectors. Ecol Appl 20:2286–2299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elkinton JS, Liebhold AM (1990) Population-dynamics of gypsy-moth in North-America. Annu Rev Entomol 35:571–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert M, Gregoire JC, Freise JF, Heitland W (2004) Long-distance dispersal and human population density allow the prediction of invasive patterns in the horse chestnut leafminer Cameraria ohridella. J Anim Ecol 73:459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haack RA, Petrice TR, Wiedenhoeft AC (2010) Incidence of bark and wood boring insects in firewood: a survey at Michigan’s Mackinac Bridge. For Entomol 103:5Google Scholar
  15. Hajek AE, Tobin PC (2009) North American eradications of Asian and European gypsy moth. In: Hajek AE, Glare TR, O’Callaghan M (eds) Use of microbes for control and eradication of invasive arthropods. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hengeveld B (1989) Dynamics of biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hodkinson DJ, Thompson K (1997) Plant dispersal: the role of man. J Appl Ecol 34:1484–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoebeke ER, Haugen DA, Haack RA (2005) Sirex noctilio: discovery of a Palearctic Siricid woodwasp in New York. Newsl Mich Entomol Soc 50:24–25Google Scholar
  19. Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M, Klotz S, Kühn I, Minchin D, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Panov V, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Roques A, Sol D, Solarz W, Vilà M (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J Appl Ecol 45:403–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jakus PM (1994) Averting behavior in the presence of public spillovers—household control of nuisance pests. Land Econ 70:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiritani K, Yamamura K (2003) Exotic insects and their pathways for invasion. In: Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (eds) Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 44–67Google Scholar
  22. Koch FH, Cheshire HM, Devine HA (2006) Landscape-scale prediction of hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae (Homoptera: Adelgidae), infestation in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Environ Entomol 35:1313–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leung B, Bossenbroek JM, Lodge DM (2006) Boats, pathways, and aquatic biological invasions: estimating dispersal potential with gravity models. Biol Invasions 8:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leuschner WA, Young JA, Ravlin WF (1996) Potential benefits of slowing the gypsy moth’s spread. Soc Am For 20:65–73Google Scholar
  25. Liebhold AM, Tobin PC (2006) Growth of newly established alien populations: comparison of North American gypsy moth colonies with invasion theory. Popul Ecol 48:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liebhold AM, Tobin PC (2008) Population ecology of insect invasions and their management. Annu Rev Entomol 53:387–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liebhold AM, Mastro V, Schaefer PW (1989) Learning from the legacy of Leopold Trouvelot. Bull Entomol Soc Am 35:20–21Google Scholar
  28. Liebhold AM, Halverson JA, Elmes GA (1992) Gypsy-moth invasion in North-America—a quantitative analysis. J Biogeogr 19:513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liebhold AM, Work TT, McCullough DG, Cavey JF (2006) Airline baggage as a pathway for alien insect species invading the United States. Am Entomol 52:48–54Google Scholar
  30. Lippitt CD, Rogan J, Toledano J, Sangermano F, Eastman RJ, Mastro V, Sawyer A (2008) Incorporating anthropogenic variables into a species distribution model to map gypsy moth risk. Ecol Model 210:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lockwood JL, Hoopes M, Marchetti M (2007) Invasion ecology. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  32. MacFarlane DW, Meyer SP (2005) Characteristics and distribution of potential ash tree hosts for emerald ash borer. For Ecol Manag 213:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mack RN (1985) Invading plants: their potential contribution to population biology. In: White J (ed) Studies in plant demography. Academic Press, London, pp 127–142Google Scholar
  34. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mason CJ, McManus ML (1981) Larval dispersal of the gypsy moth. The gypsy moth: research toward an integrated pest management. In: Doane CC, McManus ML (eds) US Forest Service General Technical Bulletin 1584, pp 161–202Google Scholar
  36. Mayo JH, Straka TJ, Leonard DS (2003) The cost of slowing the spread of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). J Econ Entomol 96:1448–1454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCullough DG, Work TT, Cavey JF, Liebhold AM, Marshall D (2006) Interceptions of nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossings over a 17-year period. Biol Invasions 8:611–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mooney HA, Cleland EE (2001) The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5446–5451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muirhead JR, Leung B, van Overdijk C, Kelly DW, Nandakumar K, Marchant KR, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Modelling local and long-distance dispersal of invasive emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera) in North America. Divers Distrib 12:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council (2002) Predicting invasions of nonindigenous plants and pests. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Nature Conservancy (2007) Trees, insects, diseases and firewood: what the public has to tell us. Presentation by David Metz, Fairbanks Maslin, Maullin and Associates to the Continental Dialogue on non-native forest insects and diseases. Washington, DC. 54 slidesGoogle Scholar
  42. Okubo A, Maini PK, Williamson MH, Murray JD (1989) On the spatial spread of the grey squirrel in Britain. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 238:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Redman AM, Scriber JM (2000) Competition between the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, and the northern tiger swallowtail, Papilio canadensis: interactions mediated by host plant chemistry, pathogens, and parasitoids. Oecologia 125:218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richter DD, Jenkins DH, Karakash JT, Knight JT, Knight J, McCreery LR, Nemestothy KP (2009) Wood energy in America. Science 323:1432–1433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruiz GM, Rawlings TK, Dobbs FC, Knight J, McCreery LR, Nemestothy KP (2000) Global spread of microorganisms by ships—ballast water discharged from vessels harbors a cocktail of potential pathogens. Nature 408:49–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. SAS Institute (2010) Version 9.1 of the SAS system for windows. Copyright 2010 SAS Institute Inc. SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. products or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. Sharov AA, Liebhold AM (1998) Model of slowing the spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) with a barrier zone. Ecol Appl 8:1170–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharov AA, Liebhold AM, Roberts EA (1996) Spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) in the central Appalachians: comparison of population boundaries obtained from male moth capture, egg mass counts, and defoliation records. Environ Entomol 25:783–792Google Scholar
  50. Sharov AA, Liebhold AM, Roberts EA (1997) Methods for monitoring the spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) populations in the Appalachian Mountains. J Econ Entomol 90:1259–1266Google Scholar
  51. Shigesada N, Kawasaki K, Takeda Y (1995) Modeling stratified diffusion in biological invasions. Am Nat 146:229–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Skellam JG (1951) Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Biometrika 38:196–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Suarez AV, Holway DA, Case TJ (2001) Patterns of spread in biological invasions dominated by long-distance jump dispersal: insights from Argentine ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1095–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thurber DK, McClain WR, Whitmore RC (1994) Indirect effects of gypsy-moth defoliation on nest predation. J Wildl Manag 58:493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tobin PC, Blackburn LM (2007) Slow the spread: a national program to manage the gypsy moth. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report NRS-6Google Scholar
  56. Tobin PC, Blackburn LM (2008) Long-distance dispersal of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) facilitated its initial invasion of Wisconsin. Environ Entomol 37:87–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tobin PC, Robinet C, Johnson DM, Whitmire SL, Bjornstad ON, Liebhold AM (2009) The role of Allee effects in gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), invasions. Popul Ecol 51:373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tuthill RW, Canada AT, Wilcock K, Etkind PH, O’Dell TM, Shama SK (1984) An epidemiologic-study of gypsy-moth rash. Am J Public Health 74:799–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. US Code of Federal Regulations (2008) Title 7, agriculture, part 301—domestic quarantine notices. 73 FR 32432, 9 June 2008Google Scholar
  60. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (2006) Gypsy moth program manual. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. Watts RD, Compton RW, McCammon JH, Rich CL, Wright SM, Owens T, Ouren DS (2007) Roadless space of the conterminous United States. Sci 316:736–738Google Scholar
  62. Work TT, McCullough DG, Cavey JF, Komsa R (2005) Arrival rate of nonindigenous insect species into the United States through foreign trade. Biol Invasions 7:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin M. Bigsby
    • 1
  • Patrick C. Tobin
    • 2
  • Erin O. Sills
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Natural ResourcesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.United States Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations