Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 445–453 | Cite as

Inadvertent biological control: an Australian thrips killing an invasive New Zealand tree in California

Original Paper

Abstract

Transport hubs of international trade and tourism are sites of unprecedented long-distance dispersal of species and novel ecological interactions. In cases of invasive plants released from their specialist natural enemies, novel interactions with both resident enemies and new arrivals can accumulate and potentially reduce weed competitiveness. I present here one dramatic example of this, where an invasive woody weed in southern California is being rapidly controlled by an accidentally introduced genus-specialist herbivorous insect. The New Zealand native shrub/small tree, Myoporum laetum, is a long-time popular ornamental plant in California and has become an invasive woody weed. In 2005, a Myoporum-specific thrips, Klambothrips myopori, was discovered (and described) in California feeding on M. laetum leaves. Several searches have failed to find K. myopori in New Zealand and a population has recently been discovered in Tasmania, Australia, feeding on Myoporum insulare. In 5 years, K. myopori has killed off about half of southern Californian M. laetum with almost all surviving individuals being gradually defoliated. Inadequate border biosecurity has resulted in inadvertent biological control, in a rapid timeframe, caused by a novel enemy. Unfortunately, K. myopori has subsequently been accidentally transported from California to Hawaii where it is now killing off Hawaiian native Myoporum sandwicense. Transport hubs can both connect weeds with natural enemies and disperse those enemies more widely.

Keywords

Enemy release hypothesis Invasion biology Myoporaceae Plant–insect interactions Phlaeothripidae 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Ross Beever, Jenny Dimock, Laura Fagan, Richard Hill, Nicholas Martin, and Walter Stahel provided useful information about the absence (so far) of K. myopori records from New Zealand. Laurence Mound, Mark Hoddle, and Richard Hill made useful comments on earlier drafts and were generous in sharing their observations of K. myopori. Cythia King shared useful information about the ongoing invasion of K. myopori in Hawaii. Thanks to Stan and Helen Molles for hosting my family and me when in Orange County.

References

  1. Ascunce MS, Yang CC, Oakey J, Calcaterra L, Wu WJ, Shih CJ, Goudet J, Ross KG, Shoemaker D (2011) Global invasion history of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. Science 331(6020):1066–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bossard CC, Randall JM, Hoshovsky MC (2000) Invasive plants of California’s wildlands. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenzel KN (1995) Sunset western garden book, 40th edn. Sunset Publishing Corporation, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  4. California Horticultural Invasives Prevention (2005) Plant right, keep invasive plants in check. California Horticultural Invasives Prevention, California. http://www.plantright.org/plants/invasive.php?invPlantID=25&region=south\s\do5(c)oast. Viewed 19 Feb 2009Google Scholar
  5. California Invasive Plant Council (2006) Plant profiles: Myoporum laetum. California Invasive Plant Council, California. http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/plant\s\do5(p)rofiles/Myoporum\s\do5(l)aetum.php#proc. Viewed 20 Feb 2009Google Scholar
  6. Carruthers RI, Center T, Hoddle MS, Hough-Goldstein J, Morin L, Smith L, Wagner DL (2011) Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biol Control 54(Suppl 1):S2–S33Google Scholar
  7. Carvalheiro LG, Buckley YM, Ventim R, Fowler SV, Memmott J (2008) Apparent competition can compromise the safety of highly specific biocontrol agents. Ecol Lett 11(7):690–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chittka L, Schürkens S (2001) Successful invasion of a floral market. Nature 411:653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Street Services (2009) Urban forestry division street tree selection guide. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Street Services, California. http://www.lacity.org/BOSS/UrbanForestryDivision/StreetTreeSelectionGuide.htm. Viewed 20 Feb 2009
  10. Cockayne L (1914) New Zealand plants suitable for North American gardens, with hints as to their cultivation. John Mackay, Government Printer, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Conant P, Hirayama CK, Lee MI, Young CL, Heu RA (2009) Naio thrips, Klambothrips myopori Mound & Morris (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae). New Pest Advisory No. 09-02, Plant Pest Control Branch, Division of Plant Industry, State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Didham R, Pawson S (2011) BUGZ bibliography of New Zealand terrestrial invertebrates online, New Zealand. http://www.bugz.org.nz. Viewed 4 Oct 2011
  13. Diez JM, Dickie I, Edwards G, Hulme PE, Sullivan JJ, Duncan RP (2010) Negative soil feedbacks accumulate over time for non-native plant species. Ecol Lett 13(7):803–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Downer J (2006) New thrips pest attacks Myoporum. Landsc Notes (University of California/Ventura County) 19(3):1Google Scholar
  15. Elkinton JS, Liebhold AM (1990) Population dynamics of gypsy moth in North America. Annu Rev Entomol 35:571–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris G (1998) Invasive New Zealand weeds: our native plant invaders. CalEPPC News (California Exotic Pest Plant Council) 6(4):8–9Google Scholar
  17. Hawkes CV (2007) Are invaders moving targets? The generality and persistence of advantages in size, reproduction, and enemy release in invasive plant species with time since introduction. Am Nat 170(6):832–843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hokkanen HMT, Pimentel D (1989) New associations in biological control: theory and practice. Can Entomol 121(10):829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitz J (2006) Myoporum laetum. In: Bossard CC, Randall JM, Hoshovsky MC (eds) Invasive plants of California’s wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 246–248Google Scholar
  20. Maco SE, McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Xiao Q (2003) City of San Francisco, California street tree resource analysis. Center for Urban Forest Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin N (2009) Plant-SyNZ®. Plant and Food Research, Auckland, New Zealand. http://www.crop.cri.nz/home/plant-synz/index.php. Viewed 4 Oct 2011
  22. McClintock E, Turner RG (2001) The trees of golden gate park and San Francisco. Heyday Books, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  23. McConnachie AJ, Hill MP, Byrne MJ (2004) Field assessment of a frond-feeding weevil, a successful biological control agent of red waterfern, Azolla filiculoides, in southern Africa. Biol Control 29(3):326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McFadyen REC (1998) Biological control of weeds. Annu Rev Entomol 43:369–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mound LA (2008) Identification and host associations of some Thysanoptera Phlaeothripinae described from Australia pre-1930. Zootaxa 1741:41–60Google Scholar
  26. Mound LA, Morris DC (2007) A new thrips pest of Myoporum cultivars in California, in a new genus of leaf-galling Australian Phlaeothripidae (Thysanoptera). Zootaxa 1495:35–45Google Scholar
  27. Parker JD, Hay ME (2005) Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8(9):959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pool B (2002) Some object to Caltrans’ re-greening of freeways. Los Angeles Times 6 June: B1Google Scholar
  29. Power AG, Mitchell CE (2004) Pathogen spillover in disease epidemics. Am Nat 164:S79–S89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. ISBN 3-900051-07-0
  31. Stadler B, Müller T, Orwig D (2006) The ecology of energy and nutrient fluxes in hemlock forests invaded by hemlock woolly adelgid. Ecology 87(7):1792–1804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sullivan M (2004) The trees of San Francisco. Pomegranate, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  33. van Epenhuijsen CW, Henderson RC, Carpenter A, Burge GK (2000) The rise and fall of manuka blight scale: a review of the distribution of Eriococcus orariensis (Hemiptera: eriococcidae) in New Zealand. N Z Entomol 23(1):67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Klinken RD, Fichera G, Cordo H (2003) Targeting biological control across diverse landscapes: the release, establishment, and early success of two insects on mesquite (Prosopis spp.) insects in Australian rangelands. Biol Control 26(1):8–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Waage JK, Greathead DJ, Brown R, Paterson RRM, Haskell PT, Cook RJ, Krishnaiah K (1988) Biological control: challenges and opportunities [and discussion]. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 318(1189):111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Webb CJ, Sykes WR, Garnock-Jones PJ (1988) Flora of New Zealand volume IV. Naturalised pteridophytes, gymnosperms, dicotyledons. Botany Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams JM (2000) New Zealand under siege: a review of the management of biosecurity risks to the environment. Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Zimmermann HG, Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2001) The renowned cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): its natural history and threat to native Opuntia floras in Mexico and the United States of America. Fla Entomol 84(4):543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EcologyLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations